Sen. Rand Paul (R – KY) has today unveiled a draft declaration of war against ISIS that he intends to introduce in the Senate in December, authorizing “limited” ground operations against ISIS.
Congress has not declared a single war since World War 2, when it was declared in the wake of Pearl Harbor. On the one hand, Sen. Paul’s push is seen as an aim to assert Congressional authority to declare wars during an era when wars tend to be unilateral presidential decisions.
Yet Sen. Paul’s bill is being harshly criticized by antiwar groups as well, which see the draft declaration as risky, particularly to the extent that it defines “limited” operations well beyond what President Obama has already announced.
In an interview with US News and World Report, Antiwar.com Editorial Director Justin Raimondo predicted that the attempt to limit the scope was a strategy “likely to backfire and simply open the door to a wider war,” adding that “attempts to limit the introduction of ground troops will never hold.”
Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin also criticized the move, saying Sen. Paul, who has supported the ISIS war so far, is “not his father’s son anymore,” and risks alienating former Rep. Ron Paul’s (R – TX) supporters by positioning himself as more pro-intervention.
“If people want a candidate who’s going to be pro-intervention, they might as well vote for Hillary Clinton,” Benjamin added. President Obama has yet to comment on the proposal, but has expressed support for an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF), a legal shorthand occasionally used in wars that falls short of a formal declaration.
This guy used to be a nitwit, is now a nitwit and always will be a nitwit. Anybody that has taken him seriously at any time needs to replace their present laxative with a new and more convincing one. Paul has no ideology, he's simply an opportunist trading off the brand of his father. And he's distorted that with his attempts of late to kiss the ring of the Lobby. Paul has absolutely no personal authenticity. Libertarian religionists that fawn over him are just as bad or worse than he is. Please take Paul away. What's left of public sanity is at stake.
Hmmm…
I'll give the guy a chance to explain himself.
He's had to many opportunities to explain,and every time he choses to try and get away with talking out of both sides of his of his two faces.I knew Ron Paul,and Rand you are no Ron Paul.
Yep Joe. I had some hopes for Rand Paul, but this action of furthering US involvement against ISIS is putting a burden on those hopes. He is definitely alienating the base that his father created. Who is getting to you Rand–the Establishment GOP, AIPAC–who? ISIS is partially the creation of US intelligence, as well as Israeli and Saudi-Gulfie contributions. So we fight our own Frankenstein?
The man is simply trying to squeeze every ounce of personal political gain out of every situation he confronts. To the naive libertarian religionist he's Ron Paul, to AiPAC he's John Hagee, and to the defense industries he's now John McCain. I mean is there anything more stomach turning about a human being than raw, unmitigated personal ambition? Where did this clown come from anyway?
I prefer good faith diplomacy to advance American interests and to counter a danger to America's safety. If diplomacy fails, Congress should thoroughly investigate the threat, then debate the response in good faith.
Rand Paul isn't interested in either an investigation of the situation or a good faith debate on the response. Instead, he has opportunistically proposed to re-invade Iraq as his first shot in the Republican primaries. Sen. Paul will run for the Republican nomination as Hillary light.
I see several problems here, firstly under the Law of War which we declare wars The Hague Convention, it states that a war can ONLY be declared against a Nation State, a country, to declare WAR as in the Congress Authorizes the President of the United States to declare War, gives ISIS definite argument that they are a legal country! Isis itself is an offshoot AlQaeda or was and as such is covered by the AUMF against AlQaeda and its associated entities and allies!
One thing that the United States still after all this time can not get through its head is that it treats these people as Soldiers maybe not how they are treated as prisoners but in all other ways, If one looks at Indonesia it treats them as Criminals deals with them in civilian courts under civilian rules and the Muslim Civilians in Indonesia looks at them in the most as Criminals and when it executes them no one bats an eyelid they are Criminals Murderers and in Islam Murderers when executed go to Hell they do not become martyrs they do not go to Paradise they do not get virgins and they do not get to drink wine! It's all in the mind set, they are promised the life of a warrior for the Prophet in Indonesia they prosecuted as common murderers! All the Bali Bombers went through the civilian system, but for a small hand full of extremists one asks the question and the answer will be they were murderers and have gone to hell!
The military can go in as an official Police action, don't torture or treat the prisoners badly and Prosecute under Iraqi law for murder or CONSPIRACY to commit Murder and if the sentence is death, execute, but make sure they are prosecuted for Murder and rape and ONLY Murder and rape and make it known that is what they are being executed for! these thugs are not warriors of the Prophet but common rapists and Murderers and are not martyrs! Do not prosecute for ANYTHING that would give argument of a warrior status, none of this Unlawful Combatant rubbish that ONLY emboldens them to claim they are warriors and have Martyrdom status, as I said it is all in the Islamist mindset, big different in Islam between a Murderer and a Martyr!
I wil always prefer diplomaty as we have seen the results of war in Irak and Afghanistan only killings and destruction. Whole Irak is a ruine and killed millions of people what for?
"killed millions of people what for? "
To make the world safe for Capitalists. Someday the libertarians will figure out that capitalism can not exist without hierarchy, coercion, violence, and death.
Let's hope so.
IMO a Congressional declaration of war will only give Obama, and his successor, more latitude to keep expanding the conflict against IS – and other countries as well. Any such declaration would certainly be passed by Congress overwhelmingly – with Paul also voting in the affirmative. In fact, one could argue that not having this declaration is at least some small check against presidential aggression.
Indeed,
the resolution should be to cut back the activities of the global Pentagon/NATO and restore domestic liberties,
and certainly NOT to, as would Rand's bill, give MORE authority to the President & Pentagon
to curtail domestic liberties and to wage expanded war abroad.
No political dynasties! Once again the pattern is– worse in the next generation.
Like any good politician, Rand will adapt to please the most voters. He knows his daddy didn't come anywhere near winning by sticking to his libertarian principles. Sonny won't either, even after he's compromised what he pretended to stand for. Phhhhhhtttttt!
What everyone appears to ignore is that any declaration of war against ISIS is merely an imperialistic attempt to further the ludicrous "war on terror" and continue to propagate the ever increasing profits of war for US corporations. ISIS is not a country, and they do not threaten American life. This reason to wage war against an ideology is nothing more than a fabricated excuse to maintain instability in the Middle East and convince the American people of the phantom threat to their freedom and allow for greater military spending, and further expansion of the corporatocracy. As with the Iraqi war in 2003, we are and continue to be the aggressors of war. Our foreign policy is one of gobbling up nations by enslaving them either through economic manipulation or war. There is no greater cause that we fight for. We are not promoting freedom or Democracy, or any other moral purpose beyond perpetuating the status quo. The implementation of war doctrine, legal or not, is nothing more than a continuation of smoke and mirrors to create justification for our intervention. This is and always has been a "resource" war, that has absolutely no ethical justification, at all. The war on terror is nothing more than an elaborate hoax.
Very well said, Bryan. I couldn't agree more.
Sorry to those of you who think Rand Paul is a Libertarian. He is NOT. Just another war-mongering Demopublican (after all, they are two arms of the same party).
LibertarianBob