If you have to waive provisions in a federal law that forbid the arming of terrorists groups, in order to arm Syrian rebels, aren’t you essentially admitting to arming a terrorist group windows store apps do not?
Via the Washington Examiner:
President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way for the U.S roblox spiel herunterladen. to provide military assistance to “vetted” opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
Some elements of the Syrian opposition are associated with radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, which was responsible for the Sept 5 friends listening games for free. 11 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., in 2001. Assad’s regime is backed by Iran and Hezbollah.
The president, citing his authority under the Arms Export Control Act, announced today that he would “waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40A of the AECA related to such a transaction.”
Those two sections prohibit sending weaponry to countries described in section 40(d): “The prohibitions contained in this section apply with respect to a country if the Secretary of State determines that the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism,” Congress stated in the Arms Control Export Act filmeen deutschland.
I can’t fathom what could possibly go wrong here. After all, the administration has a strong track record when it comes to running arms across our borders wo kann ich musik kostenlosen. See Fast and Furious. Or the Benghazi terrorists. Or terrorists in Qatar ungarische volksmusik kostenlosen.
Come to think of it, why bother waiving the provision when we’ve been arming terrorists all along?