national cemetery. sunday night at 9:00 on afterwords, attorney roberta kathlyn talks about the defense of marriage act. >> a certain amount of time to respond. i got a call from the trial attorney basically saying -- and are thinking about what to do with your case. i will be honest with you. i did not believe it. i thought it all time. to be a plaintiff all that much. edie had a lot of serious health issues. i wanted to make sure when the case was over not only would she still be alive, but you will be healthy enough to enjoy it. had a lot of serious health issues. i said forget it. no exception. announcer: she is interviewed by zoey tillman. watch book tv every weekend on

c-span2. >> turning our attention to the fight against isis. isis, joining this is ilya somin , a professor at george mason university law school. i want to start with turkey shooting down this russian jet. emergencynvening an meeting. guest: it's hard to say for sure. if aato treaty says that nato ally is attacked, the other allies are required to attack. it seems quite possible this was not an attack by russia, but an accidental shoot down. perhaps it violated turkish airspace by accident. not an assume it's actual attack.

we have far from complete information about this. host: we have more permission coming up. what does it all mean? accident, turkey is saying we warned them 10 times. they continued to violate heirs is. -- airspace. guest: if it's not an attack, i'm not sure it means much. diplomatically, it increases tensions in the region. it could lead to further incidents. host: let's back up to the coalition. you believe it's not legal. not legal under the u.s. constitution. this is a conflict large enough to be considered a war by any regional measure. the president can't initiate war on his own.

he needs congressional authorization. he did not get it, even though he could have. violationn, he is in of the war powers act of 1973 that requires congressional authorization each time troops enter armed hostilities abroad and are therefore 60 days or more. his supporters say he has legal authorization. why do you disagree? guest: he has different rationales. the problem with using the 2001 authorization is that one is aimed at 9/11. isis is a different group. they have been at odds with al qaeda and fought them on the battlefield isis is a terrible

group. it's not the same group as al qaeda. 2001 agreement does not apply to it. host: what does this mean now that the french president is coming to washington today. what does that mean, france once a new coalition. guest: it may not change the legal situation. we could potentially change it in the attack on france that happened a few days ago. this may trigger article five of the north atlantic treaty. when one natoays outline is attacked in europe or north america, the others are required to consider that an attack against themselves.

that could be an alternative legal justification for a war against isis going forward. it would not legitimize everything in the past year. invokef france were to article five, the present would not need authorization from congress western mark --? legalized --ee treaty legalized. the president does not need additional crew national authorization for war if it was started by the enemy. the attack against france is one we are legally required to treat an attack against ourselves. it would create the same presidential powers. host: france is not invoke this yet. guest: that's a good question. i'm not sure i know the answer.

there is a dilemma for the obama it might be in that admitting they did not have authorization before. this mean that france once note -- russia and they are not a nato member. guest: there is nothing to prevent nato from working with other powers. because of what happened in paris, members of congress are again pushing for renewal of the new authorization for military force. they are saying now more than ever, this is needed because of what happened in paris. the administration sent up language in february. does that say?

it met a very cold reception from both immigrants and republicans for various reasons. there were many objections. sayis it does not actually that's the exclusive authorization for the is of force against isis. the second problem is the language stated that there is a ban on enduring offensive ground operations and no one can tell how we distinguish an enduring offensive from some other operations. host: that's what this is called right now western mark --? thet: it's something administration's language with and for britain. -- forbidden. nobody really knows what it

means. our viewers to have look at the debate that took place last tuesday between senators. fortwo of them are pushing a new authorization of ella terry force. take a look at the arguments they made. the am not debating arguments. not what is it issue right here. what is at issue is the ease with which congress defers to old statutes and advocates its authority. ons conflict is been going for more than a year with very mixed results. the consequences will change the geopolitical landscape in that region for decades.

10 service members have died. one was recently killed in action. five others have been wounded. attacks are happening all over the world. the notion that a 14-year-old statute aimed at another enemy is any kind of substitute for congressional authorization is insufficient. >> it's not enough for this body who has the constitutional authority. we have set on the sidelines and criticize. we have not been willing to authorize what's been going on, vote to stop what's going on, or to revise what's going on. it's easy to be a critic. it's easy to sit in the stands and say why didn't the coach call a different play? we are the article one ranch.

we are not supposed to be a war without a vote from congress. it's rare that politicians say things that i agree with. what they said is absolutely right. the president was wrong to start towards without congressional authorization and congress was wrong not to assert its powers more fully. host: let's get calls. we are talking about the legality of u.s. military action against isis. caller: there is something that is very relevant to this. it's about a little girl. lebanon, they in wanted to let muslims come into work. they did. wives, they had outnumbered. then they out voted them.

hello, america. they came to their christian neighborhood and blew up their home. she said i am 10 years old. i am in the hospital. i said, why did they do this? she said, because you are christian. in, it is not the number you are hearing. i have talked to people high up in washington. they say it is a half a million. a lot of people know this but more don't. in, you cannot reverses. rape is rampant. can't go to school.

they don't think their arm is going to cause you to be raped. about refugees -- syrian refugees specifically coming to the united states? caller: yes, because they are not always who they say they are and if you notice the pictures, many are strong young man -- young men, and many are bringing women and children to hide who they were. host: we are talking about strong military action, do you have any thoughts about syrians being displaced, the president wanted to bring in more refugees? guest: there are many factual errors in what the caller said. since 1981, when current legislation was adopted, we have brought in hundreds of -- hundreds of thousands of refugees, and not one of them has carried out a terrorist attack. isis has repeated they

are against refugees flooding to the west. they oppose that for two reasons -- one is it reduces the amount of people under isis control and they fear that if they will come to the west, they will be imbued with western values. if we keep him out, we not only harm innocent people, but also aid the enemy in this conflict. from oscar lopez reporting macedonia --

security concerns spread throughout europe -- then there is also this in the paper this morning about afghans wanting to leave the country, trying to make that same passage to europe. this is from the international section of "the new york times." host: back to calls. landon. richmond, virginia, a republican. the morning.

we're talking about the legality of the fight against isis. what do you think? caller: well, it is legal. there is no question about that. if the professor will remember the manhattan project, that was way back in the 1940's. the president was given at that time all of the power that he -- to do whatever he wanted to do. if you remember, world war ii ended. the next thing, we are in korea, then vietnam. in other words, the united states has been in a perpetual war. as long war on drugs -- as it is called a war, and isis is a bunch of criminals running from one country to another country. what they did, they based in iraq. once they based in iraq and made themselves what you would call a

then theyr whatever, are eligible for the world to go against them. may have terrorist groups all over the world but once you base yourself and say i am a real group of people fighting for people and we have our , you have to take what you are going to get. you're going to get a war. the islamic world would rather fight the russians and then when we do something crazy, whether it is right or wrong going into iraq -- history will tell us whether it is right or wrong. history will tell us. once we did that, it set a precedent. we started a war. a was legal because it was go althoughi said, enact the manhattan project. you have a war.

-- go all the way back to the manhattan project. you have a war. the russians would rather fight isis. host: i have to get some other calls in. professor somin, what did you hear from the caller? guest: i will not try to unpack the rights and wrongs of the iraq war, but i will say bush did get authorization for that, a resolution in 2002. it is true, i agree, that isis entity,ted a state-like but that does not in and of itself mean there would be a state of war between them and the u.s.. the fact is this conflict was initiated by obama's decision last year to begin bombing upper operations, and that was the beginning of the war, and for that he would need congressional authorization.

guest: -- host: vladimir putin in the associated press saying the downing of the russian plane is a blow in the back from turkey. mark mckenna and tweeting this out -- he is the senior international correspondent for "the globe and mail" based in london. today's event will have serious consequences for russian-turkish relations. what you make of that? guest: serious consequences can mean almost anything, but at the least it does not seem vladimir putin wants to go to war with turkey over this, so and this case the consequences seem to be limited to rhetoric. turkeye told you shooting down a russian jet -- they say they gave them 10 warnings, brought down the plane. there is a nato emergency

meeting happening today. turkey, being an ally of nato. as recent before, france could invoke article 5 of nato. turkey could, if they say this was an act of war by russia. how do you go about invoking article five? guest: that is intriguing question. some people argue the way you have to do it is use article four of the nato treaty which requires the parties to consult together when they pick one of them has been attacked or its security was threatened. i think it would apply even without an article-four-based meeting. regardless of those sorts of legalities, however, as a practical matter, it is unlikely article five would be invoked unless at least one of the parties try to do so. so far i am not aware turkey try to do so with respect to this russian incident, nor, even, has france tried to do this with

respect to the attack in paris, which clearly was an attack of the sort the treaty apply to. host: the united nations approved a resolution urging action against the islamic state. what does that mean in the context of our conversation? guest: i do not think i itself it invokes -- by itself it invokes article five. it does not trigger nato obligations in article five or provide domestic, legal authorization for the u.s. action just because the u.n. says something is legal or desirable. it does not mean it is legal in the u.s.. host: john in lincoln, nebraska. what are your thoughts on this? caller: i am trying to figure out -- it kind of went -- i am a little confused. maybe because the callers do not make any sense. are you saying you want a congressional authorization for military action against isis?

guest: yes. that is exactly what i have been saying. when the president began the action last year, it was clearly of a large enough scale to a amount to a war and the constitution requires congressional authorization for a war. been donen, what has so far violence the war powers act of 1973, which requires congressional authorization any time american forces are involved in armed hostilities abroad and are therefore more than 60 days. host: joe is in fayetteville, north carolina. republican. you are on the air. case -- think the isil, whatever they want to call themselves, is not truly a state , and [indiscernible] it is the fault of the legal system. there is not much in the history

of the united states that compares to this. [indiscernible] if congress wants to bail the president out, they can, or use this as a political football. host: professor? guest: from a constitutional standpoint it does not necessarily matter that much whether isis is a true state or not. we have always taken a position that the u.s. can be involved even with nonstate groups. the war against al qaeda in afghanistan is a good example of this. certainly, both the bush administration and the obama administration have taken that -- the view that that is a war. areisis, even though they not a legitimate or recognized government, they do control a large territory and have established a state-like entity.

so, i think it is reasonable to argue this is a war against them, even if you contend wars can only happen against states or groups that controlled territories in the same way that states do. host: what is considered with -- an act of war? let's start with the fundamentals -- flying into in the airspace of another country, is that an attack? guest: generally, it would not be. if you fly into the airspace by accident, which may be what happened here, i do not know, it would not be a war in and of itself. in general, there is some fuzzy, gray area where bad behavior and isn't a war ends behavior that is a war begins. with something like paris where people are killed in a large attack, i do not think there is a lot of ambiguity there. in turkey, it is more arguable.

host: will the administration used the word war, and if not what does that mean legally? guest: i have not used the word war in parts so they can avoid having to get authorization or avoid admitting they needed it. whether they use the word or not, i think it is pretty clear that it is a war. the fact that you do not use the word does not change the nature of what is actually going on. both from a reasonable point of view, rather -- either legal or intuitive, there is a war going on. host: east hampton, massachusetts. darren, you're next. you, greta, and thank you, professor daesh. --professor somin. i was wondering what his thoughts were on hillary that was assertion

something on the order that she did think the 2001 aumf should revised, but it did not cover what we are doing at present. legalcond, what is the authorization for u.s. forces attacking targets in syria? as far as i understand, that seems to be contrary to u.n. charter. you know, i know that russia is there at the invitation of the a ssad government. what is the legal authorization for u.s. strikes in syria? good questions. on the first one, i agree with hillary clinton that there may be reason to revise the 2001 aumf, but i disagree with her statement that it covers the action against isis for the

reason i stated earlier -- the 2001 resolution was aimed at a different group than isis. on the second question regarding the issue of the legal authorization of attacking targets in syria, i think if the war is otherwise legal, then the simple fact that enemy forces are operating from syrian territory, in this case, isis, in and of itself provides authorization. in world war ii, if german or japanese countries were operating from a neutral country, we would have had the right to bomb them or attack them there. the same applies here. the fact is large parts of syria are controlled by isis. so long as we are in a conflict with isis, we can attack their forces wherever they may be located. host: we will go to houston, texas, independent caller. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. host: good morning.

you are on the air, go ahead. caller: yes, ma'am. we authorize the patriot act, which i do nothing was authorized correctly, and we went into iraq and killed over one million people. in my opinion, that is murder. we never held anyone accountable for that. we should be going against the high court for these war crimes. dr. king said america was the biggest of their of violence in the world. --e is the problem here these guys were from belgium. why are we attacking belgium? in the 9/11 we did attacks. those guys were from saudi arabia, but we went and attacked afghanistan. held accountability for the people we killed and those displaced, isis would not be there. we killed more people than isis would have killed, and we are looked at as a terrorist.

if we do not want to be terrorized, stop acting like terrorists. call bush, and hold obama and made -- and his administration accountable. the same thing we're doing in yemen -- we are about divide and conquer. this young men -- young man should be holding america accountable along with the rest of the american people so we can hold ourselves for crimes against humanity and repent against that so people would look at america in a different way. host: professor somin? guest: obviously, the figures given from iraq are highly despicable and what he gave are higher than the estimates given. there were cases where u.s. troops committed war crimes in iraq. however, there is an obvious difference with isis, which is those war crimes committed when at the liberally sanctioned by higher authority. in many cases, u.s. troops were

punished and tried when they did things like this. with isis, by contrast, it is their official policy to commit terrible crimes on a large scale. what kind of military intervention policy to deal with that is a different question. there are important distinctions to be made between the war and -- in iraq and what isis is doing, even though you could raise reasonable arguments at the war in iraq was badly conceived and badly conducted in many ways. if a country or group -- i should say a group -- is considered a terrorist organization, does that not then fall under the 2001 aumf? guest: the 2001 aumf does not cover terrorist organizations all over the world. thosen 9/11, and who

harbored of them. host: i want to get your thoughts on the front page of "the new york times" with thoughts on this emergency edict out of paris. host: what do you think about the way paris, the way france moves after this, the way the government works, versus our constitution in the united states? guest: is troubling what is happening in france, and add to allow themncy laws

to engage in considerable censorship of the press and shutting down websites. i think anytime there are terrorist attacks in europe or here, there is some sense to undermine civil liberties. in france, the situation is worse because the legal constraints on that are weaker in that country and there is less of a cultural tradition for strong support of civil liberties. while i think the attack in paris was horrible, does deserve a strong response, i think there is a real danger of overreach, and undermining civil liberties, which, as in the article you mention, it seems like it may already be happening. pass could the u.s. ever some sort of emergency law like we are seeing in paris? no, butegally speaking, sadly we have a history of violating our own constitutional constraints in time of war one public panic and anger is strength -- strong enough, for

example, world war ii, when we announcer: tonight, president obama and president hollande had a briefing in the white house. and chris christie discusses foreign policy and national security. announcer: french president hollande was in washington 10 today for a meeting -- washington today for a meeting with president obama at the white house. an hour.