WASHINGTON (AP) \u2014 The Trump administration has adequate legal authority to combat terrorist groups and doesn\u2019t support a push in Congress for a new law permitting military action against the Islamic State and other militants, a senior White House official said Tuesday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The comments Tuesday by White House legislative director Marc Short came as Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky ramped up pressure on his colleagues to reassert their power to decide whether to send American troops into harm\u2019s way. Paul, a leader of the GOP\u2019s non-interventionist wing, wants a vote on his amendment to the annual defense policy bill that would let the authorizations after the Sept. 11 attacks lapse after six months. He says Congress would use the time to pass a new war authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Many congressional Republicans and Democrats have been clamoring for Congress to approve a new authorization for the use of military force. But they\u2019re moving too slowly for Paul, who\u2019s demanding the deadline to ensure faster action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Paul said on Monday evening he would use his senatorial power to block amendments from other lawmakers to the $700 billion defense policy bill unless his measure was considered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhere is the anti-war left demanding the wars end? Where is the constitutional conservative right demanding Congress reclaim its war powers?\u201d Paul declared on his Twitter account. He later said unidentified Senate leaders had \u201cagreed to four hours of debate under my control to debate these wars.\u201d It was unclear, however, if that would culminate with a vote on his amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To fight the Islamic State group, the Trump administration, as did the Obama administration, relies on an authorization for the use of military force that was approved by Congress in 2001, shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But the White House\u2019s use of an authorization from a decade and half ago is a legal stretch at best, according to critics who\u2019ve argued for years that Congress needs to pass a new one to account for how the dynamics of the battlefield have changed. For example, American troops are battling an enemy \u2014 Islamic State militants \u2014 that didn\u2019t exist 16 years ago in a country \u2014 Syria \u2014 that the U.S. didn\u2019t expect to be fighting in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A separate authorization for the war in Iraq approved in 2002 also remains in force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973, requires the president to tell Congress he is sending U.S. troops into combat and prohibits those forces from remaining for more than 90 days unless Congress has approved an authorization for military force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis informed lawmakers last month that the 2001 authorization provides sufficient authority to wage war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. But Tillerson and Mattis also said they\u2019re open to an updated authorization provided the measure doesn\u2019t impose tactically unwise restrictions or infringe on the president\u2019s constitutional powers as commander in chief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But Short, who spoke at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, said the administration isn\u2019t looking for changes and stood by the 2001 authorization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Many congressional Republicans and Democrats have been clamoring for Congress to approve a new authorization for the use of military force. But they\u2019re moving too slowly for Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who\u2019s demanding the deadline to ensure faster action.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":85448,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_yoast_wpseo_meta-robots-noindex":"","_yoast_wpseo_meta-robots-nofollow":"","_yoast_wpseo_canonical":"","_acf":"","_yoast_wpseo_primary_category":68,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_smg_distribution_targets":{"2":{"categories":["pentagon-congress","news"],"primary_category":"pentagon-congress"},"4":{"categories":["pentagon-congress","news","daily-news-roundup","newsletters"],"primary_category":"pentagon-congress"},"6":{"categories":["pentagon-congress","news","daily-news-roundup","newsletters"],"primary_category":"pentagon-congress"},"7":{"categories":["pentagon-congress","news"],"primary_category":"pentagon-congress"},"10":{"categories":["congress","pentagon","daily-news-roundup","newsletters"],"primary_category":"congress"}}},"categories":[100,12,25,68],"tags":[],"coauthors":[5268],"class_list":["post-46869","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-daily-news-roundup","category-news","category-newsletters","category-pentagon-congress"],"acf":{"subheadline":"","legacy_arc_id":"HIZJ5RC2DBBHRJOWLWCAUZZFHU","arc_canonical_url":"\/news\/pentagon-congress\/2017\/09\/12\/white-house-new-aumf-law-not-needed-for-islamic-state-fight\/","remove_feature_photo":false,"is_sponsored":false,"subtype":"","redirect_url":"","disable_inline_ads":false,"native_logo_pretext":"Presented By:"},"yoast_head":"\n