The eccentric Texas libertarian is up to his usual antics, this time speaking out against the US operation that killed Osama bin Laden. According to Politico, the congressman - a contender for the Republican presidential nomination - said the operation "absolutely was not necessary," and that "respect for the rule of law and world law and international law" should apparently preclude any such operation. Check out more from Politico below the break.
"I think things could have been done somewhat differently," Paul said this week. "I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison. Why can't we work with the government?"
Asked by WHO Radio's Simon Conway whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it "absolutely was not necessary."
"I don't think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary," Paul said during his Tuesday comments. "I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he'd been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?"
Putting aside political questions, is there any validity at all to what Paul is claiming? Was the operation illegal under either US or international law? Do you think killing OBL was, in fact, necessary?
