Within 72 hours of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, a White House lawyer had crafted the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

That law, approved by Congress, gave President George W. Bush the power to start the Iraq War, and ostensibly, the entire War on Terror.

The bulk of the law's reach boils down to one of the most powerful sentences ever written, only 60 words of the full law:

“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future act of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons."

In collaboration with Buzzfeed's Gregory Johnsen, a new Radiolab podcast explores exactly how the White House created these words and what they came to mean — and still mean today.

Juxtaposed alongside chilling audio of real-time, 9/11 news reports, the podcast begins with Timothy Flanigan, a White House lawyer tasked with giving Bush the power to wage a war.

Now, technically, Bush didn't need permission to defend the country. But the Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to declare war, even though it hasn't officially used the Declaration of War since World War II.

“The Declaration of War is kind of a dead instrument of national law .... But the modern incarnation of the Declaration of War is the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)," Ben Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, told Radiolab.

Congress voted to give the president this broad power to authorize force on Sept. 13, 2001, just two days after the attacks. California Rep. Barbara Lee, a Democrat, was the only person — out of both the House and Senate — to vote against it, despite its potentially broad implications.

“I said, 'This is too broad. It’s not definitive.' It was open-ended,” Lee told Radiolab. She wanted to show unity with the President but worried about the ambiguity of the AUMF.

Lee's fears, regardless of political ideology, proved to be well-founded. The single sentence from the AUMF, quoted earlier, has given the U.S. government more powers than just retribution for 9/11.

“This is the legal foundation for everything the U.S. has done from Guantanamo Bay to drone strikes to secret renditions to Navy Seal raids. It’s all been hung off these words. One lawyer, who was in the Bush administration, said 'Look, this sentence is like a Christmas tree. All sorts of things have been hung off of this,'" said Gregory Johnsen, Buzzfeed's inaugural Michael Hastings Fellow and the author of "60 Words And A War Without End: The Untold Story Of The Most Dangerous Sentence In U.S. History," which inspired the podcast.

But the law never mentions detention, so how could Guantanamo relate? “This is one of the one of the enduring mysteries,” Johnsen told Radiolab.

Eight words into the sentence, the phrase "all necessary and appropriate force" appears. Since force usually implies killing, the law's language, by default, covers any lesser actions, according to former State Department lawyer John Bellinger. "The courts have upheld that," he told Radiolab.

To expand the sentence's power even more, some claim it has a 61st and 62nd word: "associated forces." The first evidence Radiolab could find of that phrase appeared in a 2004 memo, related to the AUMF, from Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Aside from the "enemies" outlined in the actual text, the President could use force against any individual or group associated with them, as well.

“There is a concept in the laws of war called co-belligerency. If you’re at war with person A, and person B is on person A’s side, then you’re also at war with person B,” Wittes told Radiolab.

Technically, somebody born in 2030, who joins an organization affiliated in any way with Al-Qaeda, could be targeted under the AUMF. “It’s not limiting in time. It’s not limited in geography. It’s really troubling," Daniel Klaidman, a national security reporter, told Radiolab.

Since its creation, Congressional hearings have revisited the AUMF's language. But government officials maintain its validity and usefulness.

Radiolab's podcast includes a much lengthier, fascinating discussion of the modern implications of the law and how exactly it continues to affect the president's power in relation to terrorism.

We highly recommend listening to the full version below or visiting Radiolab's website. You can also read Johnsen's original reporting, which inspired the podcast, on Buzzfeed.