Rand Paul wants war

Platapus · 12-03-14, 07:24 PM

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.

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.

12-03-14, 07:24 PM	#7
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,384 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	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. 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. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.