interventionist as opposed to marco rubio who has become one of the more hawkish. representatives. no noise, no c,

just real reporting. the new al jazeera america mobile app, available for your apple and android mobile device. download it now

>> welcome back to al jazeera america. if you care about the strategy that has been put forth by this president to take on isil in iraq, one of our 58 lies now it must be said, and if you're interested and curious what the core interests here the united states would be defending in and working with a coalition of partners to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. it has been articulated by the president that it is one of this nation's allies. maybe you disagree with that and the action, but what you should do is pay close attention to what is going on in washington, d.c. right now. this hear something terrific.

maybe you can tell us the senators who have net to speak. >> and the idea that the administration will rely on airstrikes to help local forces on the ground defeat islamic state. so with the questioning from senator barasl from wyoming, this sounds con te con ten contentious. >> during the same amount of time tens of billions of dollars have been withheld. more than 100 something billion that iran believes it has a right to and wants that is being held in a freeze account. until this gets resolved. so i would have to say to you, senator, this has been an enormous success thus far. our hope is in exchange for whatever schedule might be worked out, all of which will have to be subject to public scrutiny and final agreement any

pathway to a bomb will be eliminated with a sufficient breakout time that we have the ability to come to you and say, the world is safer, our allies in the region is safer and this is a deal that many believe can be upheld. that's the goal. we're not there yet. i don't know if we can get there. i hope we can get there because the alternatives are more complicated. >> i don't want to get to a point where sanctions have been removed and they're still on a path-- >> that will not happen. >> switch to follow up senator mccain. do we have any intelligence how the assad regime is going to react should the coalition launch airstrikes in syria, acitizeisis does not have the capability to shoot down our bombers, but syria does. are there precautions against

that? >> we will take precautions but what i need to do is take that on with you in a classified session. >> do you know how many american hostages are being held by isis or isil militant groups. >> somewhere near three or four. we have to be careful. >> the concern is after the barbaric murder of james foley the operational details and rescue attempts were leaked to the press. i want to make sure that the administration is committed to stop leaking information that undermines our military operations. >> i honestly can't tell you where it came from. i can't tell you that. we have a problem with leaks in this city in every department of government, and we try, believe me, to stop that. >> senator murphy. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. the world today is more complicated and more dangerous than at any time during our lifetimes, and i wake up every

day grateful that we have leaders like you, though president obama, thoughtful about the situation that we have. a frustrating leak in familiar context. the new problem isil becoming the first autonomous terrorist state if successful. i have no doubt that they will turn their focus on the united states and our allies. but the familiar new problem is the middle east. if we learned anything over the last 12 years of war is that the middle east seems largely immune from u.s. efforts to bend it to our will. i think you and the president

have got it largely right. i'm broadly supportive of the strategy you have laid out with one exception. i want to just bring us back to the question of arming and training of syrian rebels. when we talk about this in open session a year ago we raise concerns about the potential for the free syrian army to coordinate with al nusra, al-qaeda, and there was confidence that that would not end up being the case. but we have a variety of reports that that has, indeed, been the practice most recently in a joint effort from the free syrian army and al nusra front to take border posts from syria. the ways we can keen arms from flowing to free islamic groups.

how can you give us confidence that we're not going to train a fighting force that is going to enter a battle with a known affiliate of al-qaeda, and how confident are we that ultimately when we get on the field of battle that they're not going to look to isis, who is going to fight the same enemy against assad in common cause? >> well, senator, there is no fail safe, obviously. as i said earlier to an earlier question our guys have gotten much, much better at the vetting, now that we're doing the training to some degree, and hopefully do it openly we're going to be in a much better position to do command and control, and to do much better in-depth accountability, if you will. in the end there probably will be strange bedfellow moments in

the course of this kind of battle. i would be crazy to sit here and tell you it will never happen. are there circumstances that we don't always control. by and large we zoo shift. i think that's going to be between our benefit to exercise a greater amount of control. fail safe, i can't sit here and promise you that. i'll do the best that we can. >> okay, he stole our thunder a little bit, and it's partly my fault because i wanted to stay longer on the back and forth

between the senator and secretary kerry, but i want to bring in mike viqueira, our white house correspondent, who has been following that vote in the house of representatives. we got scooped a little. my apologies. >> i think secretary kerry needed good news to break at that hearing. there have been skepticism from both sides even democrats, as we've been seeing. it passed by a comfortable margin. a program to arm and train the free syrian army, the syrian rebel. this is required under so-called title ten of the law of the administration that has been providing covert aid over the course of the last year or so, they want to do it overtly as we've heard in that hearing, wants to do it on saudi certificate tore. and largely with republican support. yes, a majority of democrats

voted for it, and an overwhel overwhelming number of republicans authorized the president to go with it. with all the controversy and vitriol and back and forth that we're hearing, it appears it is on the path to do the same thing in the senate as early as tomorrow, tony. there are a lot of conditions, a lot of reservations that members of congress have had and continue to have about the president's plan, but thus far it's going forward as far as the legislative end of it, the house passing that title 10 authorization just moments ago. >> you've been with me the last couple of days as i ask the same question, if funding has been approved in the house, but funding the free syrian army to do what as we've been talking about, mike, the free syrian army for the last three years of

its existence has had one mission, and one mission only, and that is to take out assad, to take on damascus. so what is this administration funding the free syrian army to do? to take on isil? in syria, isis in syria, or to continue on its mission, which is damascus. >> it's not just funding but arming and training. and a lot of people have problems with that as well. you heard secretary kerry ask the very same question that you're asking of me. the answers have not been entirely clear particularly that exchange with john mccain. the number one enemy of the free syrian army is bashar al-assad. how can we protect them if assad drops his barrel bombs repeatedly where innocent men, women and children to say nothing of the armed rebels, the

opposition fighting him in this ongoing war in syria. a lot of members in congress have problems with what they regard very tenuous assumptions on which this policy rests. we talk about this aspect of arming the free siren army. a lot of people have problems with understanding how in the world all of a sudden they're a viable fighting force will stand up and when the administration themselves have been down playing their abilities and trustworthiness over the last months and years. a lot of this is predicated on stability in iraq. by no means a certain thing and finally the coalition secretary kerry loathed to get into the details of who is contributing what in terms of the arab states that the administration keeps talking about as being very eagle for join this, and yet wanting to stay in the background, not wanting to be public, secretary kerry

definitively ruling out that there would be arab states with boots on the ground to take that fight into syria. >> am i understanding the president's strategy here correctly, to build the coalition, it is an iraq-first strategy. to the degrade and ultimately destroyed isil in iraq. and to do that the president is building a coalition. it will be led by the u.s. it will be led principally in terms of air power the idea being to degrade isil there, and also at the same time that you're doing that, get help from the iraqi security forces and the peshmerga to do the real fighting on the ground while the military--while the government support hopefully bring the sunnies on board. that's another prong operation. >> i know you're talking about mr. shuster on this issue. >> i can't give you an opportunity to any right now

because of rand paul. >> go for it. it will be interesting. >> not providing adequate security for bengahzi and for the consolidate. i think there is an american interest in defending our consolidate, and i want there to be some message going forward that there is obviously bipartisan support for defending american interests in iraq. however, i'm very disappointed in the president for not obeying the constitution. the constitution is very clear. it gives the power of war to congress. hey, we'll go to war for three or four months and we'll do what we please. that's not what the constitution intended. the interesting thing about the creative logic that is used to say that a vote in 2001 has anything to do with today is that it seems to be acknowledged that, well, that allows us to do anything with forces associated with terrorism or al-qaeda.

one of the interesting things is if you look at ambassador ford's testimony he'll say that moderate forces and have will tactically connect with al-qaeda. if we use your logic to justify this, the 2001 aumf could justify going after the moderate syrian rebels who are associated with al-qaeda. anyone who is intellectually honest will say anyone who voted in 2001 to go to wore against the people who attacked us on 9/11 has absolutely nothing to do with this, and this committee, congress, senate, and are all an di abdicating their responsibility, and what you're doing now is illegal and unconstitutional. i think from a practice poin practicpractical point of view

the president should have gone to congress, before he went to tv, he should have come to congress and asked for a vote. that would have been true leadership and there would have been less camping on both sides. the president also used to believe this. one of the large reasons the public went to the president is because he no president should unilaterally go to war without the vote of congress. i like the candidate for president more than the president. ryan crocker said the administrations knowledge about the non-isis opposition in syria is that we need to do everything we can to figure out--this is

crocker--we need to do everything we can to find out who the non-isis opposition is, because frankly we don't have an clue. most of the rebels, that is a stopping place. some of these the syrian national revolutionary front have signed a cease-fire. maybe not all of the vetted rebels are, but the revolutionary front has signed a cease-fire. i would like to hear your comment. i think we have allowed more of a safe haven for isil for giving weapons to the moderate rebels. i think it has kept assad at bay, and had we bombed assad last year isil would be in damascus. i think we're lucky that we didn't bomb assad last year, and we should be very careful about arming any islamic rebels in syria because the weapons may

not stay where intended and they may have the unintended actions of aiding isil. >> we have not intended to arm the islamic folks in syria. the united states does not do that. we opposed it, and robert ford will tell that you, and robert ford worked very hard to make sure we're not doing that. i'm glad you're going to hear from robert ford so he can give an analysis of who the non-isis opposition is, and we'll break it down point for point, and he did that for me on many occasions and articulated who they were, and he was a passionate supporter that the moderate opposition get support and he fought for more support than they did get, absolutely. i think he should do that for you. let me make it clear that th

the--i'm glad that you can guarantee that there would be a vote if the president sent something up here. i got 60 nominees, some of which have been waiting more than a year to get a vote up here. the chair, the ranking member have been terrific in helping to break them out. but they can't get a vote. so if you can tell the president you can absolutely guarantee a vote i would be really amazed. >> i find it unbelievable that if the president came before a joint session of congress and asked for use of force he would get a vote. i find it unthinkable there is no way that you can imagine that he would not get a vote if he asked for it. let's be honest. politics are engaged here. people don't want to have a vote for the election. people are pet treefied not of the enemy but petrified of the electorate. >> let me answer the first part of your question so we make it

crystal clear why the president is doing what he's doing. because you are not insinuating, you're stating quite declaratively that the president has violated the constitution. the president absolutely clearly by almost any legal standard that i can imagine is not violating the constitution. he's upholding it. article 2 gives the president the power to do what he's doing. he has lived by the war powers act and sent countless notices up to the congress, and i think every legal analysis suggests that while you may not like it, if article 2 gives unlimite unlimited power. >> if it gives unlimited power why come at all. >> because the president has the right as the president under article 2 to defend this nation. and to take the steps necessary to do so. the war powers act declares the

terms under which you do have, senator, you know that. he has lived absolutely within that constitutional prerogative. secondly, like it or not, and i can agree, i think you can find reasons to be unof thible. that doesn't mean it's not legal. it doesn'the chairman of this committee will try to recalibrate the aumf which we support entirely. we welcome the opportunity to have it recalibrated. it should be. but for the moment the president believes we need to move now, and that is all and appropriate exercise of constitutional power. >> for the record that will be after the election. >> senator cane, thank you for your testimony. it's been illuminating back and forth. i you for the written testimony. >> that's one of the moments we waited for and i don't think it

disappointed. we had admiral fallon the last hour, and one of the things he told us, look, i've testified before these hearings on a number of occasions and a lot of times what you see is a lot of political theater. i think we saw a little bit of that here. >> yes, senator rand paul, look, he's putting together a presidential run in 2016. he represents the libertarian style of the republican party. he's coming out against those who said they should have bombed syria a year ago because they said that isil would be in damascus, but he was appealing his base by going after secretary kerry saying that the president does not feel bound to get authorization of military force in this instance. what he didn't say here he would support the administration in that vote but he was in a process that they should have gone to congress to seek this authorization, and that plays right into the libertarian

skepticism of president obama, who believe he's operating outside of the constitution. and secretary kerry said absolutely not. he has the authority to do that without the authority of congress. >> isn't there enough on the record from senator rand paul where he is staunchly against this kind of military action by this president or any president? he's modifying that position. >> yes, in recent weeks he has been modifying it as he prepares to reach out to more republicans in the 16 primaries. what he said is that th he would support the support of rebels and he's taking this on a case by case basis. one of the people who is not up for re-election, senator bob corker. simply using airstrikes to defeat islamic state without promising, without committing the use of ground troops is a mistake. and secretary kerry has been trying to say no, wait a second,

the ground forces, the local ground forces, they're making progress. here is senator corker picking up on that theme right now. watch. >> we have three senators, president, vice president, secretary of state, that are exercising terrible judgment right now. and to say that you're going to do this regardless of what we say, you're not going to ask for a buy-in by the u.s. senator house of representatives on behalf of the american people in a conflict that you say is going to be multi year, some people say a decade, taking us into another country with a different enemy is exercising the worst judgment possible. >> worst judgment possible. there is another part about corker's interaction with kerry that was feisty, but he's getting to the same ploy that senator paul was getting at. they want the administration to come to congress and get authority to use military force.

there are some republicans and some democrats who are up for re-election, they don't want to be in on that. and they are the one whs who the president is responding to. >> let's get to white house correspondent mike viqueira, and give us some of your summations about what you saw today, what you heard today, the politics and the tactical of this moving forward and how difficult this will be. >> first of all there is winking and nodding oh this vote of the military action the president wants to undertake here. there are many who know that they are members are not going to take a vote. why take a stand on the tough issues. hard enough to believe when you say it out loud, when you can do this after the election. the election is 80% of the sitting members are going to be coming back to the next

congress. in other words, it's a lame duck in congress. so you're seeing a lot of posturing, no question about it. when it comes to this question of arming the free syrian army. i'll wrap this up quick. 31,000 is the number of isil fighters there are. two-thirds of them are in syria! it's been stated time and time again by officials to defeat isil you have to route them out of syria? how are they going to do it with 5,000 free syrian army troops. that's far from adequate. some other shoe will have to drop here if that's the goal and it's going to be achieved. >> mike viqueira, appreciate that so much. let's set the stage. we're going to take a break and get to you techno in a moment here, but we'll be back at 6:00 with a full news hour. mike viqueira will be with us.

david shuster will be with us as well. we'll have a full run down of the rest of the day's news. there has been plenty to report on on this particular day. if you want to latest on anything we've been covering here in this extended coverage, you can head over to our website at www.aljazeera.com. i'm tony harris with david shuster in new york. "techknow" is next on al jazeera america. to talk to people, about their stories. we are not meant to be your first choice for entertainment. we are ment to be your first choice for the news.

caltech this is "techknow", a show about innovations that saves lives. we explore hardware and humanity in a unique way. this is a show about scientists by scientists. let's check out the team of so-called nerves. lindsay moran, an analyst - new technology can make guns safer. does it work. we put it to the "techknow" test.