From Libertarian presidential hopeful Darryl W. Perry via Free Press Publications:
Last week, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a declaration of war against The Islamic State. US News reports, “Paul’s legislation would repeal the 2002 Iraq War authorization, an action the Obama administration supports, and would set a one-year timer on the 2001 anti-al-Qaida authorization, which the administration currently cites as allowing the war against the Islamic State group.”
Defenders of the Senator say that his proposal is an attempt to have President Obama, and Congress, obey the Constitutional provision that Congress declare war. However, others see his draft declaration as a sign that he’s more interventionist than his father, former Congressman Ron Paul.
Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin says, “He’s moving himself so much to the right to position himself for a presidential run that people are not going to recognize who he is and what he stands for.” Adding, “If people want a candidate who’s going to be pro-intervention, they might as well vote for Hillary Clinton or any number of Republicans who will throw their hat in the ring.”
The proposal from Senator Paul would attempt to limit the use of ground troops to only those actions “necessary for the protection or rescue of members of the United States Armed Forces or United States citizens from imminent danger posed” by The Islamic State, “for limited operations against high value targets; or as necessary for advisory and intelligence gathering operations.”
On the one hand that “limits” the scope of operations well beyond what President Obama is seeking. On the other hand, Justin Raimondo from Antiwar.com says, “Paul’s attempt to limit the introduction of ground troops will never hold,” adding that an attempt to do so will “likely to backfire and simply open the door to a wider war.”
Ron Paul told Charles Goyette when he was on Congress, he introduced a declaration of war against Afghanistan, not because he wanted a war, rather he wanted to hold his colleagues accountable. The proposed war against The Islamic State, he said is different because it would not be a war against a recognized country, and could be akin to issuing a declaration of war against “terrorism.” That’s to say, it would be an endless war against an unknown enemy, that could never really be won, and could lead to more liberties being infringed for the sake of “keeping you safe.”
Though, in the long run, it doesn’t really matter if a declaration of war is passed by Congress or not, as long as the President and Congress want to intervene in nearly every conflict around the world and keep troops in nearly every country around the globe.
—
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
I like the declaration. Some of the detail towards the end probably doesn’t need to be included, as it gets back into the US dictating outcomes or creating the appearance thereof.
I don’t see it as a good thing for Rand Paul to gain credibility with them. They will exert more influence over him if it does.
Me too Jill, unfortunately there are 535 people in DC with very thick skulls. “We gotta throw the bums out but not my bum! He’s not like the other 534!” 🙄
I love your Delaration of Peace, Ron!
I suggested the declaration of war to then Congressman Ron Paul in 2002 and I suggested a similar declaration of war against Syria to his son for the same purpose. If the bills were defeated by Congress, the President would be restrained from waging war.
In 2002, the bill never got out of committee, but, as they rejected it, the Republican and Democratic leadership of the committee, made some pretty revealing statements in the Congressional Record. They said that they didn’t need a declaration of war because the Constitution was no longer relevant.
Ron used those quotes widely to raise the money that later started his Presidential campaign.
Unfortunately, Rand modified my suggestion in a dangerous way. Not only is it more likely to pass than a traditional declaration against a country, but it invites amendments that will broaden its impact. since ISIS is a CIA defined organization, what’s to stop them from defining IPR correspondents as insurgents or enemy combatants?
We can only hope that his bill is rejected but earns him some credibility with hawkish conservatives.
Here’s a couple of things that I am working on to replace his bill:
Declaration of Peace
Whereas The Congress of the United States has not declared war or issued any letters of marque and reprisal since December 8, 1941,
Therefore, we, the people of the United States, are at peace with every nation, organization, and person in the world.
We are at peace with Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Egypt, Ukraine, North Korea, Cuba, and all other nations on Earth.
We are at peace with ISIL, ISIS, al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Baath party, “radical Islamists,” “insurgents,” “enemy combatants,” all accused terrorist organizations, the Tea Party, the Libertarian Party, the Communist Party, and all other organizations on Earth.
We were at peace with Osama bin Ladin, Sadaam Hussein, and Moamar Gadhafi before they were murdered. We are at peace with Bashar Assad, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jung Un, Castro, and every other person on Earth.
And therefore, we demand that our government stop murdering people, anywhere, for any reason. And, we demand that our government stop waging the fraudulent “War on Terror” against falsely accused manufactured enemies. It is really a war against our American values.
The best way to end a war is to win it. We can win the war on terror by identifying the guilty parties, bring them to justice, and pay damages to all the victims.
The two Authorizations For the Use of Military Force issued by Congress were not declarations of war. They only authorized the President to use “appropriate force” to fight terrorism.
An act of terrorism, even if committed in the name of fighting terrorism, is still an act of terrorism. A drone strike on a compound where senior al Qaeda officials are meeting is the same as guiding an airplane filled with explosives into a building filled with civilians.
Every act of our government since 1991 related to that war has been a criminal, immoral, un-American act against our values. We demand that those responsible for these crimes against humanity be brought to justice.
Our government has no right to murder anyone, anywhere, without due process, for any reason. Not even Osama bin Ladin. They don’t have the right to cause regime changes for any reason in any nation except the United States. They don’t have the right to invade any nation, even if authorized by the United Nations.
We demand the following resolution to problems that our government has created:
1. The territories of Syria and Iraq that have been separated from control by their previous governments should be recognized as being independent from those governments. They should be allowed to form their own government, free from outside interference. Territories still controlled by the existing governments of Syria and Iraq should be recognized, and no country, including the United States, should continue to support any efforts to remove such control. (stop killing Moslems)
2. International supervision should be offered, with peacekeepers from neighboring countries supervising plebiscites to determine future governing agencies. Those peacekeepers should suppress any efforts by any parties to change the existing boundaries between competing forces. (stop killing Moslems)
3. We have no interest in propping up the puppet democracies our government rigged in Iraq and AfghanistanThe self-governing Kurdish region of Iraq should be recognized as an independent nation and encouraged to negotiate with Turkey and Iran to buy the rest of the predominately Kurdish territories from them with future petroleum revenues. . (stop killing Moslems)
4. The Shiite dominated rump nation of Iraq should be encouraged to merge with Kuwait or Iran or stay independent and live in peace with its neighbors.
5. The Pashtun regions of Afghanistan should be separated from the Northern
Alliance regions and put under a protectorate relationship with Pakistan. (unfinished)
I’m also working on a Letter of Marque and Reprisal to legally bring about a regime change in North Korea. I believe that, if South Korea offered retention of rank and pay to the army of the North, they would send their young dictator off for some “re-education” and reunite with the South. I haven’t worked out the details yet, but I’m beginning to lean toward South Korea rather than the US initiating that action.