Rand Paul wants war

[eddie]

Rand Paul wants to introduce a resolution when congress is back in session, that says we should declare war against IS. Seems what we are doing over there right now is illegal,lol All this from a Senator who wants to cut taxes and reduce military spending. Going to war will sure help with taxes and cut back military spending!!:haha::haha:

Got to love this part of his resolution-

(2) LIMITATION ON USE OF GROUND COMBAT FORCES.-Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the use of ground combat forces except-

(A) as necessary for the protection or rescue of members of the United States Armed Forces or United States citizens from imminent danger posed by the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS);

(B) for limited operations against high value targets; or

(C) as necessary for advisory and intelligence gathering operations.


Why does he want war if we don't send in the troops? I guess he thinks hitting IS from the air is a good way to go!?! Aren't we doing that now?:doh:Who is his adviser on this resolution, Michelle Bachmann!!


http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1249

[vienna]

What, did you expect logic and common sense from the wing nuts?...


<O>

[Platapus]

I do like the end of the Iraq and AF authorizations, and I do believe that President Obama has violated the War Powers Act*

But does Rand Paul really understand what a declaration of war entails? I suspect that he doesn't.

Here is just a taste http://www.oup.com/us/static/companion.websites/9780195387452/How%20War%20Affects%20the%20Formal%20Federal%20Bud get%20Process%204-10.pdf And that only applies to the federal budget process.

Do these politicians even understand their own laws? Of course this has no chance of passing and is just a political grandstand ploy so that Rand can get some undeserved publicity.

*every president since 1974 has made statements that the War Powers Act of 1974 is unconstitutional. It is one of the political games of Chicken. Congress really does not want to press it to the SCotUS.

[Catfish]

The US are at war since 9/11
And martial law is still in effect, when you look at jurisdiction, and the surveillance of own people.

[Cybermat47]

Why should the US bother to declare war on ISIS? It would be redundant, seeing as ISIS has already declared war on the US.

[Jimbuna]

I was under the impression that the US, UK and more than a few other countries were already at war with the buggas, all but in name only.

[Platapus]

The problem, and perhaps some of the confusion, is that the term war has different meanings and the meanings should not be considered interchangeable.

Each meaning is correct, but different.

1. Legal state of war. Only congress can declare war or accept a declaration of war from another country. No, ISIS can't declare a legal state of war as ISIS is not recognized as a sovereign country. This is why UNSC Resolution 1373 defines terrorism as a crime. In a legal state of war, many federal and state laws change. In most cases a legal state of war removes power from the legislative branches and transfers them to the executive branches. There are not trivial changes. These changes in the law are one of the reasons we have not declared war since 5 June 42. Another reason is UNGA resolution 3314 which defines the crime of aggression.

2. Practical state of war. Even though Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, AF, et al were not declared wars, to the people who served in those theaters, getting shot and shot at, they were most assuredly in a war. When military forces of a hostile country are trying to kill you, you is in a war. :yep:

3. Emotional state of war. The term war can also be used to represent a national commitment (or give the impression of a national commitment). Examples include War on Drugs, War on Poverty and such. Clearly not war in any legal or practical viewpoint.

So is the US at "war" with ISIS? The answer is no, yes, yes.

No we are not in a legal state of war, yes we are in a practical state of war, and yes, our leadership wishes to establish a national commitment against ISIS.

[vienna]

2. Practical state of war. Even though Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, AF, et al were not declared wars, to the people who served in those theaters, getting shot and shot at, they were most assuredly in a war. When military forces of a hostile country are trying to kill you, you is in a war. :yep:

I do believe the governmentally approved term is "Police Action"... :)


<O>

[CaptainHaplo]

Its a political stunt meant to draw attention to the fact that we have been committing acts of war in various parts of the world, but have been unwilling to call it what it is and act like we are at war.

I understand the purpose of it - but the entire effort is undercut by language in the bill itself. You don't limit your options in war - you go all out and use everything you can to win. Defining limits does nothing more than insure you will lose a real war.

Has Obama over-reached using the military. Yes.
To be entirely fair - so did BOTH presidents named Bush.

[Jeff-Groves]

A proper Bill to introduce would be..
Let's kill them all and let God sort it out!

(Standing by for the eventual spiral into normal GTA name calling and finger pointing. :haha:)

[Platapus]

I do believe the governmentally approved term is "Police Action"... :)


<O>

We like to use the term OOTW - Operations Other Than War. It sounds oh so much nicer.

I am sure that the people who end up shot/killed/maimed appreciate the difference. :doh:

[Platapus]

If anyone is interested in what happens to our laws if we ever do declare a legal state of war, I can highly recommend the Congressional Research Service report.

http://fpc.state.gov/c41253.htm

Look for the 3/17/11 report.

You will be surprised at how much our laws change during war and not surprised why the congress is reluctant to declare war.

I use the CRS all the time in my job. It is a valuable service and their reports are clearly written and include the necessary background information. They are politically neutral and their research is top notch.

For reasons only known to the government, the Congressional Research Service, which is a division of the Library of Congress, uses the US Department of State website for publishing their reports.

http://fpc.state.gov/c18185.htm

This is a link well worth bookmarking. Pretty much any major issue has a CRS report written about it. It is one of my better sources. :up:

I would love to work for CRS but they can't afford me. :nope:

[Wolferz]

If Rand wants war, then he can carry his arse over there and prosecute it.
ISIS/ISIL is not a recognized sovereign entity, It's a terrorist organization.
Send INTERPOL or The UN.

[Oberon]

Could be worse, could be the other Paul...

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/232/757/199.jpg