Rand Paul Slams Obama's 'Absurd' Legal Argument For ISIS Fight - Business Insider:
November 28, 2014 - "Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) thinks the White House is pushing increasingly ridiculous legal arguments in the fight against the Islamic State group (also known as ISIS).
"In order to justify its airstrikes against the Islamic State jihadists, President Barack Obama's administration has cited authorizations for military force that date back to 2001 and 2002.
""Both of those I'd say would be absurd contentions. Basically, in 2001 we voted for an authorization that said the people who attacked us on 9/11, that we would go after them. Well, this [ISIS] group wasn't in existence then, and this group isn't even allied with Al Qaeda. This group is at odds with Al Qaeda. So I think it's absurd,' Paul told [Fox News] host Greta Van Susteren. 'It's absurd to try and say a linkage to a war started 15 years ago.'
"Earlier in the week, Paul unveiled what he views as a solution to the White House's legal problem: a formal declaration of war in Congress. His office said he plans to introduce it in December when the Senate returns to session.
'In his Fox News interview, Paul further said when he confronted Secretary of State John Kerry over the US' legal argument for its military strikes against the Islamic State, Kerry gave him another questionable justification: the inherent powers of the presidency defined by Article 2 of the Constitution....
"'He — which I think is absurd — he said, Well if [the 2001 authorization] doesn't do it, then the president has Article 2 authority to do whatever he wants. I disagree with that. And I think most constitutional scholars do. And I think most of the people in the American public do not think the president has unlimited power to go to war,' Paul recalled on Fox."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-slams-obamas-absurd-legal-argument-for-isis-fight-2014-11
'via Blog this'
November 28, 2014 - "Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) thinks the White House is pushing increasingly ridiculous legal arguments in the fight against the Islamic State group (also known as ISIS).
"In order to justify its airstrikes against the Islamic State jihadists, President Barack Obama's administration has cited authorizations for military force that date back to 2001 and 2002.
""Both of those I'd say would be absurd contentions. Basically, in 2001 we voted for an authorization that said the people who attacked us on 9/11, that we would go after them. Well, this [ISIS] group wasn't in existence then, and this group isn't even allied with Al Qaeda. This group is at odds with Al Qaeda. So I think it's absurd,' Paul told [Fox News] host Greta Van Susteren. 'It's absurd to try and say a linkage to a war started 15 years ago.'
"Earlier in the week, Paul unveiled what he views as a solution to the White House's legal problem: a formal declaration of war in Congress. His office said he plans to introduce it in December when the Senate returns to session.
'In his Fox News interview, Paul further said when he confronted Secretary of State John Kerry over the US' legal argument for its military strikes against the Islamic State, Kerry gave him another questionable justification: the inherent powers of the presidency defined by Article 2 of the Constitution....
"'He — which I think is absurd — he said, Well if [the 2001 authorization] doesn't do it, then the president has Article 2 authority to do whatever he wants. I disagree with that. And I think most constitutional scholars do. And I think most of the people in the American public do not think the president has unlimited power to go to war,' Paul recalled on Fox."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-slams-obamas-absurd-legal-argument-for-isis-fight-2014-11
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment