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

[Knives]

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

[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.

[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.

[Knives]

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.

[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.

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.

[Knives]

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.

[Knives]

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.