Ex-House Republican Blasts ‘Nonsensical’ Legal Argument Supporting Trump Boat Strikes

Ex-Republican Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI) tore into some of his former colleagues on Friday and argued that no matter how much they try to claim that President Donald Trump has been given legal carte blanche to bomb terrorists, that is not the case.

“It’s almost hard to believe the absurd lengths people will go to pretend the 2001 AUMF authorizes the boat-strike military campaign,” Amash wrote on social media while debating on the topic.

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.

Amash then shared a section of the law to back up his argument.

Earlier in the day on CNN, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) sparred with anchor John Berman on this very point.

Berman pressed Cotton, who is the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, “You know, the latest explanation from the administration is they are non-state actors in this case. That is important for them to designate they are non-state actors here. They are not, for purposes of attacking them off the coast of Venezuela, connected to the Maduro regime. They’re non-state actors there. And Andrew McCarthy and other conservative writers will say that they don’t qualify by the statutory definition of what a terrorist is in U.S. Code.”

Cotton replied, “Well, John, I disagree that all of these cartels in Latin America do qualify as foreign terrorists. And frankly, their activities have killed many more Americans than Al-Qaeda or ISIS has killed. And it’s a threat that we should take seriously in our own backyard, just as seriously as we take the threat of Al-Qaeda and ISIS around the world. I think most Americans, especially those Arkansans who have lost loved ones to drugs, would agree that we need to take this threat seriously.”

“Then when will you vote on an authorized use of military force if it’s as big of a threat as foreign terrorists?” Berman insisted.

Cotton replied, “John, I think the president has every legal authority he needs as the commander-in-chief. If my Democratic colleagues disagree, then they’re perfectly entitled to offer an amendment when we start debating the defense spending bill to prohibit him from doing so. Congress has done that throughout our history. But until they get the votes for that, the president has the authority that he needs to protect our country from these drug traffickers.”