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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:59:27 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Rand Paul on ISIS response: 'This war is now illegal'
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Rand Paul on ISIS response: 'This war is now illegal'  (Read 2459 times)
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 10, 2014, 10:11:54 PM »

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.


No, hardly anything is a treaty. 

As far as the Constitutionality, Lief is correct.  There is no formal system where the President needs to get permission from Congress to make decisions as commander-in-chief.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 10, 2014, 10:19:58 PM »

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.

No, hardly anything is a treaty. 

As far as the Constitutionality, Lief is correct.  There is no formal system where the President needs to get permission from Congress to make decisions as commander-in-chief.
The War Powers Act isn't formal?
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 10, 2014, 10:32:37 PM »

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.

No, hardly anything is a treaty. 

As far as the Constitutionality, Lief is correct.  There is no formal system where the President needs to get permission from Congress to make decisions as commander-in-chief.
The War Powers Act isn't formal?

It's unconstitutional.  A President can conform to the system it sets up, but it's totally at their discretion. 
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 10, 2014, 10:33:53 PM »

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.

Lief literally becomes a fire-breathing imperialist when a Democrat is doing the bombing. I for one think that Obama, Bush, and Clinton should all face the chopping block for their crimes, no matter whether they ran under the elephant or the ass.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 10, 2014, 10:44:48 PM »

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, but the law is what it is.

To add to what Bedstuy said on the WPR, presidents since Nixon have basically treated it as a non-binding legal formality. They'll usually make the reports to Congress as required by the law, but have never let themselves be constrained by it. I'm not sure whether or not the executives since Nixon have explicitly said that it is unconstitutional (like he did in his veto message) but they've basically treated it as such (and they are correct to, because it is unconstitutional).
Logged
Knives
solopop
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,460
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 10, 2014, 10:48:33 PM »

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.

Basically this.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 10, 2014, 10:55:35 PM »

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.

1. How is fighting an organized insurgency army armed with tanks, artillery etc. not a war?

2. The terms of an alliance doesn't suddenly change the actual meaning of words and concepts.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 11, 2014, 12:43:02 AM »

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.
What alliance?  When did we sign, let alone ratify a treaty making us and Iraq allies?
Logged
Knives
solopop
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,460
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 11, 2014, 03:22:14 AM »
« Edited: November 11, 2014, 03:32:43 AM by Solopop »

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.
What alliance?  When did we sign, let alone ratify a treaty making us and Iraq allies?

Well an agreement to support democracy in the region therefore justifies Obama's decision to make military action without the consent of congress. It's in the 'national interest'. Plus Obama could just as easily justify his choice under R2P.
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 11, 2014, 03:35:29 AM »

Joke candidate.   
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 11, 2014, 01:37:46 PM »

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

That's not what anyone said. It's that the President doesn't need authorization from Congress to protect an ally with military force at their discretion. If an ally is attacked it counts as a declaration of war against America.

All because you don't agree with something doesn't make it "illegal".
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 11, 2014, 01:43:27 PM »
« Edited: November 11, 2014, 01:45:30 PM by SPC »

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

That's not what anyone said. It's that the President doesn't need authorization from Congress to protect an ally with military force at their discretion. If an ally is attacked it counts as a declaration of war against America.

All because you don't agree with something doesn't make it "illegal".

I do not recall the amendment to the Constitution that granted the Iraqi parliament the war powers delegated to Congress. (Of course, the Constitution has been a dead letter for quite some time now, so technically Obama's actions are constitutional in the sense that the constitution of the United States has essentially been national executive dictatorship with minor advisory roles for the legislative and judicial branches under the occasional procedural guise of the capital-C Constitution.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 11, 2014, 01:46:51 PM »

I do not recall the amendment to the Constitution that granted the Iraqi parliament the war powers delegated to Congress.

Again, that's not what anyone said. Iraq (our ally, legally speaking) is under attack. The President has the right to use force to defend them. I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get around this.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 11, 2014, 01:58:53 PM »

I do not recall the amendment to the Constitution that granted the Iraqi parliament the war powers delegated to Congress.

Again, that's not what anyone said. Iraq (our ally, legally speaking) is under attack. The President has the right to use force to defend them. I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get around this.

Can you point to a provision that says that the President can go to war unilaterally so long as Iraq is under attack? Treaties do not count, as the Constitution is theoretically the highest law of the land, and thus could only be legally superseded by an amendment process.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 11, 2014, 01:59:40 PM »

Well an agreement to support democracy in the region therefore justifies Obama's decision to make military action without the consent of congress. It's in the 'national interest'. Plus Obama could just as easily justify his choice under R2P.
Do you not understand the concept of "illegality?" This has nothing to do with whether we have a "responsibility" to drop democracy on Iraq from fighter jets, protect some nebulous "national interest" millions of miles from our shores, or adhere to some abstract concept invented by the UN. You just keep bringing up random arguments that have nothing to do with what Paul is claiming: That Obama's conduct of the war violates the domestic law of the United States. Even if Obama's bombing campaign is in our "national interest" (whatever that is) or conforms to the meaningless ideals of UN bureaucrats, those things have no relevance whatsoever to whether or not his actions violate the War Powers Act (which they objectively do).

Just admit you believe that President has unlimited military authority and the WPA is meaningless (as Lief and Bedstuy have) instead of bringing up random stuff that has nothing to do with the President's authority under domestic law.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 11, 2014, 02:30:52 PM »

I do not recall the amendment to the Constitution that granted the Iraqi parliament the war powers delegated to Congress.

Again, that's not what anyone said. Iraq (our ally, legally speaking) is under attack. The President has the right to use force to defend them. I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get around this.

Can you point to a provision that says that the President can go to war unilaterally so long as Iraq is under attack? Treaties do not count, as the Constitution is theoretically the highest law of the land, and thus could only be legally superseded by an amendment process.

Obama has not "gone to war." Bombing ISIS is not a war.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 11, 2014, 04:20:55 PM »

I do not recall the amendment to the Constitution that granted the Iraqi parliament the war powers delegated to Congress.

Again, that's not what anyone said. Iraq (our ally, legally speaking) is under attack. The President has the right to use force to defend them. I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get around this.

Can you point to a provision that says that the President can go to war unilaterally so long as Iraq is under attack? Treaties do not count, as the Constitution is theoretically the highest law of the land, and thus could only be legally superseded by an amendment process.

Obama has not "gone to war." Bombing ISIS is not a war.

I would think bombing a nation during a time of peace would be an even more heinous offense.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 11, 2014, 04:45:30 PM »

The D's here are bending over backwards to defend Obama, they literally sound like Republicans from 2003 - "We don't want war, its just some bombing".
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 11, 2014, 04:50:11 PM »

Uh, no. Democrats here are explaining what the law is. Sorry that Rand Paul is ignorant of it.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 11, 2014, 05:02:26 PM »

Also, Democrats are not Quakers.  We're not anti-war doves in every situation.  These decisions aren't made by easy, bumpsticker platitudes, in favor or against.  It's an analysis of a variety of factors and it's always a tough choice based on the circumstances at hand. 

This is all consistent with what Obama has said for years.  Look up his 2002 speech on the Iraq War, his statements during the 2008 campaign, up through today, it's fairly consistent.  You may not like it.  You may want an idiot like Rand Paul making these decisions.  You may wish Obama had to ask Congress for permission.  But, that's not the case.  Deal with it.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: November 11, 2014, 05:38:49 PM »

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?

Yes, they do -- if America is to maintain credibility.

ISIS must die for the world to be safe. If we do not strike them in Iraq, then we will soon have to face them in a land war on Israeli territory. I am not saying that Israel would make a questionable ally; indeed, the Israelis would be just the ones to put up the most brutal fight that ISIS could ever imagine.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: November 11, 2014, 05:54:54 PM »

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?

Yes, they do -- if America is to maintain credibility.

ISIS must die for the world to be safe. If we do not strike them in Iraq, then we will soon have to face them in a land war on Israeli territory. I am not saying that Israel would make a questionable ally; indeed, the Israelis would be just the ones to put up the most brutal fight that ISIS could ever imagine.

For one, Paul supports strikes against ISIS, but objects to the idea of one individual deciding which conflicts to enter without any authorization from the legislative body. Second, the idea that ISIS could conquer Israel is laughable.
Logged
Knives
solopop
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,460
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: November 11, 2014, 07:00:22 PM »

Well an agreement to support democracy in the region therefore justifies Obama's decision to make military action without the consent of congress. It's in the 'national interest'. Plus Obama could just as easily justify his choice under R2P.
Do you not understand the concept of "illegality?" This has nothing to do with whether we have a "responsibility" to drop democracy on Iraq from fighter jets, protect some nebulous "national interest" millions of miles from our shores, or adhere to some abstract concept invented by the UN. You just keep bringing up random arguments that have nothing to do with what Paul is claiming: That Obama's conduct of the war violates the domestic law of the United States. Even if Obama's bombing campaign is in our "national interest" (whatever that is) or conforms to the meaningless ideals of UN bureaucrats, those things have no relevance whatsoever to whether or not his actions violate the War Powers Act (which they objectively do).

Just admit you believe that President has unlimited military authority and the WPA is meaningless (as Lief and Bedstuy have) instead of bringing up random stuff that has nothing to do with the President's authority under domestic law.

I'm just saying Paul's argument is futile because you can justify any action because at the end of the day the President is the Commander in Chief and Congress has no authority over the military.
Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: November 11, 2014, 07:15:00 PM »

He is right, every war we've been in since Vietnam is been illegal.  Only congress and declare war, and they have not done so yet.
Logged
Knives
solopop
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,460
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: November 11, 2014, 07:30:23 PM »

He is right, every war we've been in since Vietnam is been illegal.  Only congress and declare war, and they have not done so yet.

That's if you describe this as war.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 13 queries.