Posted on 02/01/2024 11:48:15 AM PST by RandFan
While Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., expressed remorse for the three soldiers that were slain this past weekend by an Iranian-backed proxy group, he remained apprehensive about America getting involved in yet another foreign entanglement — particularly one that has not been authorized.
"Without question, any president — Republican or Democrat — that wants to take us to war or commit significant acts of war has to come to Congress, and will they? Probably not," Paul said on "The Chris Salcedo Show" Wednesday.
The Kentucky senator was dubious that a president from either party would care much about the congressional authorization needed for war. He also remained concerned that the focus will be put on whom the U.S. decides to "kill in response to the killing" as opposed to why there are solders scattered across the globe in remote outposts in the first place.
"Look, my heart goes out to the families of the soldiers that died, but I wish they had not been placed in an untenable position. I think sprinkling 100 soldiers here, 100 soldiers there, that is not a strategic force ... they're sitting ducks," he told Newsmax.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
If we don’t know what winning looks like and how we’ll reach it, there’s nothing to gain by being involved from my POV.
Yes I agree with Rand and Trump too who tried to pull those troops out of there but was thwarted by our traitorous military leadership who refused to pull them out.
Paul should suggest repealing it, along with the Patriot Act. Otherwise he's just shooting his mouth off.
Whatever your view on intervention or not these scattered deployments are a concern and I feel Rand is 100% right.
And it’s going to escalate shortly... 😟
He has tried to repeal that several times and has been voted (massively) down...
The AUMF after 9/11 is open ended in both application and time period.
My copy of the AUMF disagrees with your description. Note that the scope of the actual AUMF is limited to Iraq.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-joint-resolution/114/text
AUMF, 16 Oct 2002, HJ Res 114, PL 107-323, 116 Stat 1498
Joint ResolutionTo authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
[...]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’’.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to—
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS.—The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338).
If I recall correctly, the post 9/11 AUMF authorizes going after terrorists anywhere at any time with no end specified. That's still in effect, and the current military forces in Iraq and Syria are supposedly going after ISIS, which would be an authorized activity.
To go back to Paul's objections, the other issue is that the President would usually not be considered to require authorization to have American troops respond to an attack. Whether that is limited to a response during the attack or only shortly after or before if an attack is imminent is an open question.
Wouldn’t be the first time.
In any case, we've been having these debates for 60 years, so to me the only real restriction is the Congress' ability to control funding. The President remains CINC, and if Congress gives him an $850 billion dollar stick, he can do a lot with it without having to go back to Congress. That's by design, by the way. A formal declaration of war has important -internal- consequences for the US, as the treason clause is then applicable. So be careful what you wish for.
The Democrats want war (because it’s profitable). Sitting ducks help that to happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.