Texas Congressman and prospective 2012 presidential candidate Ron Paul revealed in a radio interview that he would not have ordered the mission that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden almost two weeks ago.
Talking to WHO’s Simon Conway on Tuesday, Paul – who has formed an exploratory committee for president – explained that a better approach would have been to cooperate with Pakistan to arrest bin Laden like the U.S. did with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and try him in civilian court.
“Why can’t we work with the government?” asked Paul.
When the host pressed Paul on whether he would have ordered the kill had he been president, the congressman responded with “I don’t think it was necessary, no.”
“It was absolutely not necessary and I think respect for the rule of law and world law, international law,” he continued. “What if he had been in a hotel in London? So would we have sent the helicopters into London? No, you don’t want to do that.”
The host, sounding a little shocked, sought to clarify even more, ”I think you’re being very clear…I definitely do not want to put words in your mouth, but you’re telling me a President Ron Paul would not have ordered the bin Laden kill to take place as it took place in Pakistan.”
“Not the way it took place, no,” replied Paul.
Paul, who garnered a massive following during his 2008 presidential bid, is well known for his foreign policy views and opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
When contacted by The Daily Caller, Rachel Mills, a spokesperson for Ron Paul, explained the comment by saying that “technically, we didn’t have Pakistan’s permission to go into their territory this way, which was a violation of their sovereignty.”
“But now that it is done,” Mills added, “let’s declare victory, withdraw our troops and put an end to these quagmires.”