ISIS used to be an al-Qaeda affiliate, and the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) covers al-Qaeda. This was the initial legal justification for US deployments in Iraq and Syria. But now that ISIS is defeated, and the Pentagon says troops are staying, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) has asked the administration what the legal pretext is for permanent post-ISIS war.
New letters from the State and Defense Departments lay out the case, such as it is. The arguments in both letters are very similar. The 2002 AUMF for Iraq doesn’t have any caveats. It just says Iraq is a threat, and that means the US can do whatever they want to, with, or in Iraq. Syria, where the US is not only not invited, but troops are said to be there to advance regime change, is a lot trickier.
The argument is that because ISIS still sort of exists, the US can keep troops in Syria just in case ISIS becomes a serious threat, and while there, any time Syria forces get kind of close, the US can attack them “in self-defense.”
You can read the rest @
https://news.antiwar.com/2018/02/22/trump-administration-lays-out-legal-pretext-for-iraq-syria-presence/
I do not agree at all. Since the US created al-Qaeda, this line of reasoning is Kafkaesque at best ... and a complete fabrication at its worst.
Congress should cut off ALL funding not related to the defense of our immediate borders. Period.
Bring the troops home, and use them to clean out the drug cartels and human trafficking rings infesting our nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment