proceed on the authorization for use of military force. and during one of those meetings we had the opportunity to secretary mattis and secretary tillerson before us, and we had a candid discussion about whaton type of authorization would make sense. and it was done in a close study so we could have a candid discussion, and i'm not going tg reveal the specifics because i thought that's what we should be doing. what i can tell you i left with the impression that there was room for congress to work with the administration on authorization on force. and i was hopeful that we're going to have an open hearing the senate foreign relations committee, the committee of jurisdiction, on the aumf. now, we had similar discussions under the obama administration. as a result of those discussions president obama submitted to congress what would be an use of military force.ed for that authorization was never taken up, but he asked for it. well, just recently we received notice from secretary tillerson and secretary mattis that the president does not want c

congress had time and was part of the congress that passed the 2001 authorization for the use of military force. p that was targeted toward afghanistan, and i was part of the congress that willie took up the 2002 authorization for use of military force against iraq, i voted against that authorization. it's now been 14 years after the u.s. invasion and the end of the saddam hussein regime and we still have the authority of military force against iraq and it still being used. it's time for that authorization to end. i take this time to support senator paul's efforts andon put it termination date on the 2001 authorization. that was the first that we passed. it was gonn virtually an illness because we wanted our country to hold those responsible and afghanistan for the attack against america. that is now 16 years old. a the terrorist attacks that occurred on september the 11th o 2191 that's the authorization. pretty specific. our military took action as a result of the attack against our country and that was authorized by congress. it's hard to understand how you can get from the reading of this au

congress at that time and was part of the congress that passed the 2001 authorization for the use of military force. that was targeted towards afghanistan. and i was part of the congress that when we took up the 2002 authorization for use of military force against iraq, and i voted against that authorization. mr. president, it's now been 14 years after the u.s. invasion and -- of iraq and the end of the saddam hussein regime, and yet, mr. president, we still have on the -- we still have the authority for the use of military force against iraq and it's still being used. it's time for that authorization to end. so i take this time to support senator paul's efforts to put a termination date on the 2002 awth radification and put -- authorization and a termination date on 2001. we wanted our country to hold those responsible in afghanistan for the attack against america. that authorization is now 16 years old. let me read for my colleagues exactly what authorization said -- what we passed 16 years ago. that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, org

and issues for that purpose in the military took action and that was authorized by congress saudia get from the reading of this authorization and use of military force today with isis and of the least to wear anywhere in the world with the interpretation i think that interpretation cannot be defended. new we have a responsibility to authorize the new threats against our country this is a different threat it is our responsibility to give congressional authorization to use military force. if it can be done the rigo agree -- agree an authorization of force so little over three years ago we came together in our committee to work on a proposal that is more focused toward the current circumstances. but that is the debate we should be having. not with the 2001 authorization.esident we should pass that authorization to effectively go after row direct threat to the united states. we owe it to the american people and those who served in the military to give clear authority from congress from the military operations. there clearly needs to be direction given by congress from 2001 and we need to be clear. i have heard over and over from the general there is no

confident that an overwhelming bipartisan majority of my colleagues would agree to approve the use of military force against the vicious, brutal enemy we face in isis and its associated forces. the amendment before us now falls far, far short of that process. repealing the 2001 and 2002 aumf's without simultaneously passing a new authorization would be premature. it would be irresponsible, and it would threaten u.s. national security and it would inhibit our democrats building efforts abroad. as we speak we have troops employed overseas in the fight against isis, al qaeda, the taliban and other violent extremist organizations. repealing the existing aumf's without a replacement would jeopardize the legal authority for ongoing military operations. i cannot stand by silently as this body considers taking any action that would put our currently deployed service members at risk. it's also important to recognize that adopting this amendment would embolden our enemies. it would send a signal to the members of the u.s. armed forces serving in afghanistan and iraq and elsewhere that congress and the america

the 2001 authorization of a use of military force against the perpetrators of 9/11 and the 2002 authorizationfor the use of military force against the regime of saddam hussein in iraq. i support my colleague's amendment because the world has changed and our adversaries have changed since those authorizations were passed into law by congress. bin osama bin laden is dead. saddam hussein is dead. in fact his statute came down almost a decade and a half ago, yet thousands of troops are still serving in the middle east based on the authorizations congress granted more than a decade and a half ago. instead of changing these authorizations to reflect a chenging world, politicians have used the old authorizations to start new wars, wars in countries other than iraq and afghanistan, against adversaries that had nothing to do with 9/11. the 2001 aumf has been used to just a war across the middle east without a debate or a vote in congress. it's been used to justify air wars in libya and yemen without a debate or a vote in congress. and it's been used to justify military action against the islamic state

for the use of military force this essentially allowed the united states to carry out military force in the fight against terrorism now u.s. senator rand paul from kentucky who is a noted opponent and critic of intervention by the u.s. military around the world he's been described as an isolationist libertarian the paleo conservative he put forward an amendment to the national defense authorization act that would remove this section would move the authorization of military force which has been present for the last sixteen years as part of the m.t.a. he would have removed it and essentially his removal would have required the u.s. to start bogging down and restricting its foreign involvement around the world it would have restricted the war on terror and essentially not allowed the united states of the commander in chief the president to continue authorizing and carrying out these military interventions now not surprisingly it was voted down even though there was quite a bit of anticipation in the lead up to the vote as the votes in the u.s. senate went down it was sixty one against th

thing here is that under international law the responsibility to protect civilians from the use of us military force belongs to the us military and the us government and no one else it's not the responsibility of the taliban to protect civilians from us use of military force it's the responsibility united states so i think a chamber full that the u.s. military is trying to deflect responsibility to some other party for the u.s. military's own actions and sadly this is a pattern for the u.s. and its allies is the same thing we're seeing with saudi arabia and yemen and saudi arabia blames everybody else for civilian casualties caused by saudi arabia. in the u.s. media spotlight rushing trolls have been accused of infiltrating facebook to sow chaos in america. and reports. well some stories never seem to die now you remember how c.n.n. was talking about a supposed army of russian trolls that were supporting or allegedly supporting donald trump during the two thousand and sixteen presidential elections well according to a new report this troll army seems to have returned to ads that was bought by this r

use of u.s. military force belongs to the u.s. military and the u.s. government and no one else it's not the responsibility of the taliban to protect civilians from the u.s. use of military force that's the responsibility united states so i think it changed then the u.s. military is trying to deflect responsibility for some of the quality for the u.s. military action and sadly this is a pattern for the u.s. and its allies at the same thing we're seeing with saudi arabia and yemen and saudi arabia blames everybody else for civilian casualties caused by saudi arabia. in a surprise move the japanese prime minister's dissolved parliament paving the way for a snap election next month she wants to capitalize on his high approval ratings to get a mandate for tougher defense policies towards north korea don't know holkins next looks at the power play and whether gamble will pay off. a rise in popularity and opposition in disarray and a sinister forward threat looming on the horizon a perfect recipe for calling an early election which is exactly what prime minis

use of u.s. military force belongs to the u.s. military and the u.s. government and no one else it's not the responsibility of the taliban to protect civilians from us use of military force it's the responsibility united states so i think it shameful that the u.s. military is trying to deflect responsibility to some other party for the u.s. military action and sadly this is a pattern for the u.s. and its allies at the same thing we're seeing with saudi arabia and yemen saudi arabia blames everybody else for civilian casualties caused by saudi arabia. the european commission's proposing to take in another fifty thousand asylum seekers from north africa and the middle east is going to be part of a new relocation scheme after the previous plan failed to meet its goals. has the story. you know the european commission has outlined that it set aside five hundred million euros for this new resettlement plan for asylum seekers and it comes as the current to your plan comes to a close on wednesday now this new plan will be regimented in take place over the next

--ler: operation authorization for use of military force. this has been an issue to combat isis. all of these wars are still operating under the same military force authorization. paul, senatorrand from kentucky talking about this. [video clip] >> the authorization to go to war after 9/11 expires, do you think any of the wars will end? no. the neoliberal and neoconservative believe the president has unlimited authority to go to war. the president has enormous authority to execute the war, but not initiate the war. the sole duty to initiate the war was given to congress. if these authorities were to expire, the president already set i have all the authority i want under the constitution to do whatever i want. madison if he were here were to disagree. he bested that power in the legislature. it was supposed to be difficult to go to war. some say the senate can never agree on authorization to go to war. do you know how long it took us after pearl harbor? 24 hours. how long it took us after 9/11? 3 days. we can come together as a body when we are attacked. after 16 years, it is diffic

the effort to scrap the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force was killed. politics fascinating. you had senator rand paul of kentucky arguing against the authorizations. the republican majority leader also from kentucky, arguing against the effort. paul said congress should take back its power to authorize war. >> let's debate whether we should be in syria, iraq, iran, afghanistan. let's have a debate about all these different wars. but let's not just model on and save the president can do what he wants. >> to rescind the authorization of action and leave nothing but uncertainty by our deployed forces and allies is irresponsible. >> a democrat argued against the effort, saying you cannot replace the old authorizations with nothing. >> this would be a different debate and a different vote if we have before us an actual au mf which would supersede the existing authorities. without such, we are going to cause confusion. we are going to cause disruption. >> fox news says secretary of state rex tillerson and james mattis sent a letter to key lawmakers expressing

. >> the president believes the authorized use of military force will position our needs right now. we are not looking to change it in the administration has a letter to congress stating that for both secretary tell us and secretary tillerson last week. we would be happy to get you a picture of that. we came out of the 2001 and a euro not simply that provides us the flexibility we need to execute our foreign policy. >> opposition with his own criticism of extended deployments abroad and how does he, in his mind, justify a post-9/11 authorization against al qaeda for battles against isis on the ground in syria, even at times regime backed forces. how does he rectify that with his past positions? >> is a very fair question but the president laid that out specifically when he talked about what changed when he walked into the oval office and how his position on this in particular and make sure that there was not continued unrest in ways that created a threat to the american people. his policy is one to try to protect american citizens from attack. so i think he laid out his viewpoints i

the authorization for use of military force was approved by congress in two thousand and two and egypt ministration has just kept using it as if we don't like jack for being. like like them paris hilton or something all right and yes she is still alive and she's tweeting things like my dogs live in this two story doggie mansion and they love it. oh do they do that in paris a. way to win back the nation's hearts and minds. but of course no one in this country winds and liz war well no one except congress. after rand paul's speech congress voted to throw out his amendment because a limited war is just fine with them in their defense the weapons contractors have paid to ball a lot of money. for example democrat mark warner voted for endless war this week and here's a shot of the hot tub he was able to buy with the fourteen thousand dollars he got from northrop grumman. when that thing every night. was it was it democrat g.g. he also voted to continue donald trump on limited war powers and here is her beautiful marble countertops she got with the twelve thousand dollars for rain. she's dee

. >> authorization for use of military force. this has been an issue to combat isis. all of these wars are still operating under the same military force authorization. that were passed in host: here 2001-2002. is rand paul, senator from kentucky talking about this. [video clip] >> let's say we were to vote for my resolution, the authorization to go to war after 9/11 expires, do you think any of the wars will end? no. the neoliberal and neoconservative believe the president has unlimited authority to go to war. there is some authority given to the president, enormous authority to execute the war, but not initiate the war. the sole duty to initiate the -- initiation of war was given to congress. if these authorities were to expire, the president already said i have all the authority i want under the constitution do do whatever i want. that is not what our founders wanted. madison if he were here were vehemently to disagree. wrote that the executive branch is a branch most prone for war, therefore the constitution, with such care that power in the legislature. it was supp

authorization act had been passed the amendment would have repealed the authorization for the use of military force from two thousand and one and two thousand additionally congress would have been required to review each of the united states foreign military interventions the act was brought in surely after the attacks on september eleventh and had been able the country to launch a numerous wars in the global fight against terrorism alternately paving the way for more than sixteen years of conflict we spoke with former u.s. congressman ron paul and father graham paul take a listen people make money off. oh we'll have a little war we'll have a little cold war and this will help our profits and they don't intend it to go much further of us so often it gets out of control and actually the policy is totally out of control because here it is sixteen years in this ongoing wars over there and there's no no end in sight except we need to continue our efforts to wake up the american people so that thirty six votes turns into sixty six votes and then we put pressure on the media the person to represent us an

. >> i voted for the afghanistan invasion after we were able to narrow the use of military force provision there so it wasn't abused as much as it might have been, although some abused it. they tried to jam through this bill and named it the usa patriot act. i was chairman of the constitution subcommittee, i thought maybe i better read it. so i read it. i found out it was real lnly an attempt to do a lot of things depriving americans of freedom, had to do with drug cases than terrorism. bob novak, late conservative commentator, tavis, said it was an old wish list of the fbi. i tried to sound the alarm this thing was basically taking advantage of a terrorist attack to get other agendas taken care of. i decided to protest by voting no. i wasn't able to stop it but it did help galvanize a national opposition to this that was, frankly, even stronger sometimes than some of the most conservative states in the union like montana or idaho or alaska as well as the more liberal areas because people sometimes get unified on not wanting the government intruding onto completely innocent behavior. >> a

>> the president believes the current use of military force is sufficient for our needs right now. we're not looking to change it. and the administration submitted a letter to congress stating that from both secretary tillis and secretary tillerson just last week. would be happy to get you a copy of that. but we stand by the 2001 aumf. it provides us with the flexibility we need. >> how does the president rectify that position with his own criticism of extend eed deployments abroad? and how does he in his mind justify a post-9/11 authorization against al qaeda for battles against isis on the ground in syria, even at times regime-backed forces. how does he rectify that with his past positions? >> jim, i think it's a very fair question, but i think the president laid that out pretty specifically in his speech at ft. myer when he talked about what changed when he walked into the oval office. how his position on this in particular was one he wanted to make sure that there was not continued unrest in ways that created threats to the american people. and it was -- his policy is one to tr

or will we follow some other course -- negotiation on one hand, use of military force on the other? weying on deterrence is what have done to deal with the chinese, the soviets, the russians, with weapons that could reach the united states, much larger weapons and a greater number of weapons, and we have depended upon our ability to retaliate to deter attack. the question is are we prepared to do the same thing with north korea and kim jong-un, or do we find him in some way not open to deterrence, the psychology of deterrence in the same way? host: here's how north korea's state tv announcing what it calls its successful testing, this through a translator courtesy of the bbc. >> the test of a hydrogen bomb meant to be mounted on an international -- intercontinental ballistic missile was a success. it was a very meaningful step in completing the national nuclear weapons program. host: robert gallucci, that from state tv. let's go back to the options. military options. what potentially can we be looking at if that were on the table? guest: it's very hard to say outside looking in. ,bu

development of the economy and the nuclear force of national nuclear force is to all intents and purposes a war deterrent for putting an end to nuclear threat of the us and for preventing its military invasion and our ultimate goal is to establish the balance of power with the us. distinguished delegates of all countries attending this session of aware of the fact that the d.p. r. k. unlike other a nuclear weapon states made public every time to the world to test process and its result in all stages of the development and advancement of its nuclear force since the war deterrent for safeguarding peace and security of the korean peninsula and the region is strengths in the enough united states and its followers must now think twice before launching military provocation against the d.p. r. k. although they talk about the fire and fury told told destruction and whatever every time they have to add a variety conditions such as hopefully this will not be necessary that is not our first option and so on. accordingly we are convinced that peace and security of the north east asia and the region as a whole have been as much consolidated. we do not need anyone's recognition of all status as

defense of the national guard forces, not just texas national guard, also new york, south carolina, utah, among others. those were some of the lessons we had. people talking about the use of militaryin civilian missions, but these are all part of the authorities that are required for joint command and control. >> sandra: i mean, a storm like this, and the disaster that we have seen from this, captain wells, is unprecedented. we have never seen something like this in the history of this country, as far as the flooding levels and impact harvey has had on those down in texas, and the louisiana area. the president will be traveling with the first lady back to that region. how does the military prepare for something we've never seen before? >> well, it's part of the mission set for quite a different group of forces. u.s. army, u.s. air force, the coast guard as well, national guard units, u.s. navy, marine corps in particular, u.s. coast guard. we have a humanitarian disaster tasks they have to qualify for. the particular units coming down from norfolk have that type of qualification standard. also helicopters are always important in these particular disasters. they got additional heli

sent to key lawmakers has expressed serious concerns that a proposed authorization for the use of military force would tie the commander in chief's hands. virginia democrat tim kaine and arizona democrat jeff flake authoring an amendment. if it is approved, it will elect congress to set parameters on geography and military action. tim kaine says he is surprised by the pushback. >> very unwise to continue to let war happen on autopilot. that's what we are doing now. i don't think that letter will be a significant factor. >> congress approved it after the 9/11 attacks to sign off on the military response. ryan talked about a new authorization that would address the nature of the current fight against terrorism in hot spots around the globe. >> it's in our interest. i want to make sure we have one that works for our war fighters. >> nancy pelosi has favored congress giving consent on current u.s. military action. pelosi maintains its possible for a new authorization to be good for the commander in chief. >> they would probably give president trump even more authority than what's in the original. i

. >> juan: the trump administration is keeping all options on the table, including the use of military force>> there is not a lot the security council can do from here when you cut 90% of the trade and 30% of the oil. having said that, i have no problem kicking it to general mattis. he has plenty of options. >> for those who said and commenting about the look of the military option, there is a military option. >> juan: in fact, gillian, what he said right after that was but it's not what we would prefer to do. gillian? >> gillian: of course not. the military option when it comes to north korea is the worst case catastrophic option. nobody wants to go there. our allies and adversaries across the globe don't agree to anything when it comes to the threat of north korea but everyone wants to avoid a potential nuclear holocaust. right? i think what is happening now is we are at an inflection point and the u.s. has a more crucial role than ever before to play when it comes to getting the u.n. security coupcil members that voted this monday for the most robust, harshest set of sanctions ever implem

we will just reinterpret that post 9/11 authorization for the use of military force to apply to groups that did not exist at the time that authorization was passed. you have an office of legal counsel lawyers crafting interpretations of presidential war power based on old authorization or based on the president's commander-in-chief power. this lack of engagement by congress is simply adding more to that seemingly impenetrable quantity of presidential power to act unilaterally. we are enabling this through our apathy. world war ii falls in the middle of this trajectory. and world war ii everyone was in it. why am i talking about world war ii, right? is in the middle of this trajectory from the civil war of suffering to contemporary profound political apathy. it is important to think about what happens when war is far away, when americans who care about it have loved ones deployed, but they don't have this up close and personal relationship with death and suffering. did that matter? social life is constructed into categories, those exposed to the violence and those protected from it. at

these are three men who understand all too well the use of military force and do not make idle threatsasily. they make threats when they're absolutely determined that if and when force is necessary, they are prepared to use it. make no mistake are fell, i've never heard such language out of general mattis. i have rarely heard such words out of the secretary of defense. i think it indicates the true nature and the true crisis nature of the situation in which we'll now find ourselves. i was struck by his winning and i hope that kim jong-un also takes general mattis seriously and present trump seriously as well. >> arthel: we will leave it there. thank you judy. >> mike: are fell, the music world mourning the loss of another great. a cofounder of the band that brought us decades of distinctive hits from reeling in the years to deacon blues. plus, some people displaced by harvey are returning home for the first time. a congressman his district includes parts of houston and what survivors are finding when they return home and what they face moving forward. keeping me from the things i love

he served notice that we've about run out of time, we're prepared to use military force. liz: critics in the media saying he is bellicose and bombastic. the issue, are they acknowledging this is danger of a knife's edge, if one of the missiles goes awry or off in the wrong direction, that is the danger, right? >> the president's job is to protect innocent american civilians. we've tried to diplomatic approach for 25 years and it failed. for him to continue something we know has failed is the definition of insanity. he is not going to do that. it is not bellicose of 25 years trying to say we'll not try this anymore because we know what the result will be. it will be more failure. liz: kim jong-un fired off more missiles than his father and grandfather combined according to one estimate. the president calling out nations that continue to trade with north korea. roll tape. >> north korea's reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles threatens the entire world with unthinkable loss of human life. it is an outrage that some nations would not only trade with such

president himself is still talking tough saying all options are on the table including the use of military forcewe do use it on north korea, it will be a very sad day for north korea. >> reporter: that stabs has divided lawmakers on capitol hill with many backing the president's hard-line. and others calling for a greater emphasis and sanctions and negotiations as a way to decrease tension with the north. >> we need to have a credible military option. diplomacy doesn't work without a credible military option backing it up. >> what we really need to do is to ramp up the sanctions, increase the pressure, and get to the negotiating table. >> reporter: when the uss reagan deploys it will be without the uss fitzgerald and the u.s.s. john mccain, both capable of shooting down missiles from north korea. they were involved in recent deadly collisions and are still undergoing repairs. at the pentagon, jennifer griffin, fox news. >> >>> hurricane irma is getting stronger right now a cat-4 but it is expected to strengthen back to a cat-5 hurricane. the storm's track has shifted slightly but will hi florida