"The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force is a joint resolution passed by Congress following the 9/11 terror attacks and was the legal authority behind the War on Terror and several military actions since, all with the aim of preventing Islamic terror in the U.S. It applies specifically to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. It does not apply to Venezuelan drug runners who through some game of tenuous connections lead us all the way back to 9/11, continued Amash, adding:"
"This logic would greenlight strikes on anyone with a six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon link to 9/11. It doesn't matter that they're designated terrorists. The 2001 AUMF doesn't care about any executive branch designation; it's just for the perpetrators of 9/11. It also doesn't matter legally that other presidents abused authority. They were wrong too, and I rightly called them out at the time. Their actions don't become lawful by virtue of having broken the law. That's nonsensical."
Justin Amash criticized claims that the 2001 AUMF authorizes the recent boat-strike campaign. He stated the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force was enacted after the 9/11 terror attacks and served as the legal authority for the War on Terror and several subsequent military actions aimed at preventing Islamic terror in the U.S. He emphasized the statute applies specifically to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and does not extend to Venezuelan drug runners or tenuously connected actors. He argued executive-branch designations do not expand the AUMF's scope and that prior presidential abuses do not make unlawful actions lawful.
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]