[ad_1]
More than 50 old top national security officials released Monday an open letter arguing that there is "No factual basis" for to support President Trump's appeal to a national emergency to reallocate public funds for the construction of a wall at the US-Mexico border.
The letter comes as the House plans to vote on Feb. 15 on a resolution to block Trump 's emergency declaration, which he published. after Congress did not allocate the $ 5.7 billion that he had claimed for the construction of the wall.
In the 11 – page statement, former officials ask the White House to provide evidence of a crisis in which the use of emergency powers is appropriate. The administration of Barack Obama, including former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, UN Ambassador Samantha Power, and the CIA Director, John Brennan, have been behind many of the best known names. But the 58 signatories include officials who served under George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton as well.
"No plausible evidence of the evidence exists, there is today a national emergency that allows the president to tap into funds earmarked for other purposes to build a wall on the southern border" , wrote the officials.
The letter asks Trump to provide this evidence using "official data, documents and statements from its agencies", and includes Department of Homeland Security statistics that refute Trump's assertion that a crisis is occurring in Canada. the southern border. The authors argue that more terrorists enter the United States by air than on the other side of the border and claim that only six terrorists were detected on the southern border between October 2017 and March 2018.
A national emergency will have international repercussions, argue the authors. Reassigning funds to a wall "would undermine the interests of national security and US foreign policy," the statement said, depriving funds of military hospitals, roads and housing. According to them, "a wall is not necessary to support the use of armed forces", while the number of border police officers is at its highest level and that the financing other projects are almost at their lowest.
The emergency movement has also "eroded more [Trump’s] credibility with foreign leaders, friends and foes ", reads the letter signed by many diplomats of the State Department; He cites the importance of a friendship with Mexico in regional efforts, such as the current unrest in Venezuela.
The long-term effects of a national emergency declaration are hard to say for the moment – national emergencies were reported in the jurisdictions where the signatories of the letter were served, but the conditions were different. It is now clear to these former leaders that President Trump is willing to risk security efforts and the priorities of the United States to achieve his own goals. Dara Lind, of Vox, writes:
What really distinguishes this declaration of urgency from others is not necessarily the factual question of what counts as a national emergency. It's the fact that Trump telegraphed what he was going to do for weeks – while Congress was negotiating with him and with himself about government funding. Trump was absent from the negotiations that led to this funding bill. He had already made it clear that if he did not get what he wanted from Congress, he would have done otherwise.
Lawsuits against the declaration of national emergency have already been filed in the District of Columbia, California and Texas, according to the Post Office. The letter from the officials will be used in these cases to support the plaintiffs' arguments against the Trump administration.
Trump vowed to veto any measure of the House against the urgency and planned to win all trials in the Supreme Court.
Read the full letter below.
[ad_2]
Source link