Rand Paul on ISIS response: 'This war is now illegal'

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/10/politics/rand-paul-isis/index.html

This will make him popular with the large number of peace-loving Republican voters.

[Lief 🗽]

Well then he can feel free to impeach President Obama. Put up or shut up, Randy.

[Cory]

Isn't he technically wrong anyways? I mean wouldn't our mutual defense agreement with Iraq automatically justify military action in their defense? We don't need Congressional authorization because we're upholding our treaty obligations, right?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Didn't he say we needed to do more to go after ISIS? Rand's ideology seems to be Obama bashing rather than anything coherent.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Didn't he say we needed to do more to go after ISIS? Rand's ideology seems to be Obama bashing rather than anything coherent.

Democrats' defense of Obama's foreign policy (which I also support, but I supported Bush's, too) seems to be Obama defending rather than anything coherent...

[Rockefeller GOP]

"This will make him popular with the large number of peace-loving Republican voters."

Not a lot of evidence historically or recently to suggest Democrats are any more "peace-loving" than Republicans are...

[Deus Naturae]

Isn't he technically wrong anyways? I mean wouldn't our mutual defense agreement with Iraq automatically justify military action in their defense? We don't need Congressional authorization because we're upholding our treaty obligations, right?

Foreign treaties override domestic legislation?

[Deus Naturae]

Didn't he say we needed to do more to go after ISIS? Rand's ideology seems to be Obama bashing rather than anything coherent.

He always maintained that Obama should request Congressional authorization, but now he's more adamant since Obama has now violated the War Powers Resolution.

[Lief 🗽]

The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional nonsense. Obama is right to ignore it.

If Rand Paul wants Obama to remove troops from Syria, then he is free to pass a bill through Congress cutting off funding for the troops there.

[Cory]

Isn't he technically wrong anyways? I mean wouldn't our mutual defense agreement with Iraq automatically justify military action in their defense? We don't need Congressional authorization because we're upholding our treaty obligations, right?

Foreign treaties override domestic legislation?

When it comes to military defense treaty's I think the answer if roughly "yes". For example if Russia invades Estonia Obama doesn't need Congressional approval to immediately go to full blown war with Russia. Don't get me wrong Congress can play games with funding but still.

[Mr. Morden]

Is the mutual defense agreement with Iraq actually a treaty?

[New_Conservative]

Didn't he say we needed to do more to go after ISIS? Rand's ideology seems to be Obama bashing rather than anything coherent.

Democrats' defense of Obama's foreign policy (which I also support, but I supported Bush's, too) seems to be Obama defending rather than anything coherent...

[Knives]

Uh, the President doesn't need authority to commit troops.

[Deus Naturae]

Uh, the President doesn't need authority to commit troops.

So..what military action do you think WOULD require the consent of Congress?

[Knives]

Uh, the President doesn't need authority to commit troops.

So..what military action do you think WOULD require the consent of Congress?

A declaration of war. What the US is carrying out against ISIS isn't war, it's protecting an ally from terrorism.

[Deus Naturae]

Uh, the President doesn't need authority to commit troops.

So..what military action do you think WOULD require the consent of Congress?

A declaration of war. What the US is carrying out against ISIS isn't war, it's protecting an ally from terrorism.

So military conflicts don't count as wars if they're being fought against terrorists? Where are you getting that definition and why do you think it applies to the US Constitution?

Also, do you share Lief's view that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional? Do you believe the executive has the right to ignore legislation he considers unconstitutional? If your answer to either of those is no, then Obama's actions are clearly unjustified and illegal.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am surprise that after Bush so many are willing to confer such broad executive authority on the President. I am a Republican, and somewhat  Conservative at that, and I had many issues with the Bush administration's actions.

I would have suspected that our "peace loving Democrats" would be just as uncomfortable as a "somewhat Conserative" Republican if not more so.

[politicus]

Uh, the President doesn't need authority to commit troops.

So..what military action do you think WOULD require the consent of Congress?

A declaration of war. What the US is carrying out against ISIS isn't war, it's protecting an ally from terrorism.

ISIS is a rebel/insurgent army. No matter how much cruelty the insurgents use an insurgency isn't an act of terrorism. Fighting a mass insurgency is war.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Didn't he say we needed to do more to go after ISIS? Rand's ideology seems to be Obama bashing rather than anything coherent.

What verus How

[Knives]

Uh, the President doesn't need authority to commit troops.

So..what military action do you think WOULD require the consent of Congress?

A declaration of war. What the US is carrying out against ISIS isn't war, it's protecting an ally from terrorism.

ISIS is a rebel/insurgent army. No matter how much cruelty the insurgents use an insurgency isn't an act of terrorism. Fighting a mass insurgency is war.

Not really, especially if it falls under meeting the terms on an alliance.

[Deus Naturae]

Uh, the President doesn't need authority to commit troops.

So..what military action do you think WOULD require the consent of Congress?

A declaration of war. What the US is carrying out against ISIS isn't war, it's protecting an ally from terrorism.

ISIS is a rebel/insurgent army. No matter how much cruelty the insurgents use an insurgency isn't an act of terrorism. Fighting a mass insurgency is war.

Not really, especially if it falls under meeting the terms on an alliance.

So...military conflicts don't count as wars if they involve alliances? Bro, do you even history?

[NewYorkExpress]

Uh, the President doesn't need authority to commit troops.

So..what military action do you think WOULD require the consent of Congress?

A declaration of war. What the US is carrying out against ISIS isn't war, it's protecting an ally from terrorism.

ISIS is a rebel/insurgent army. No matter how much cruelty the insurgents use an insurgency isn't an act of terrorism. Fighting a mass insurgency is war.

Not really, especially if it falls under meeting the terms on an alliance.

While we should take care of of ISIS, Iraq was an ally, it never was, it never will be an ally.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

So we're redefining "terrorism" to include any action of a self-proclaimed government which we don't recognize now?

[Mr. Morden]

Is the mutual defense agreement with Iraq actually a treaty?

^^^
Anyone?  Seems like this would be a relevant distinction re: Why the US would automatically be at war if a NATO ally is attacked, but not if an ally is attacked with whom we have a mutual defense agreement that isn't actually a treaty.

[Lief 🗽]

All this "war" and "constitutional" business and what have you is all completely besides the point. Unless we're talking about a full fledged invasion of a sovereign state, then the President gets to do whatever he wants when it comes to military operations. If the commander in chief wants to deploy a small amount of troops or planes or ships to defend American interests, he can do that, especially when we already have military forces operating in the immediate region. That's the way it's always been and that's the way it always will be.