Mediaboss Marketing

If Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution means anything, it means that the president must obtain congressional approval before takingus to war against a sovereign nation that has not attacked the U.S. or its allies and is not threatening to attack the U.S. or its allies. Senator Rand Paul said as muchin an interview today, and I agree with him. As Senator Paul said, The first thing we ought to do is probably obey the Constitution.

Yes, the commander-in-chief has broad, inherent authority to orderthe military to defend the national security and vital national interests of the United States, but every provision of the Constitution has meaning, and the Constitution gives to Congress the power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. While I acknowledge there are difficult questions on the margins about the extent of presidential authority and when congressional authorization is necessary, I dont believe this is a marginal case.

Assad has been engaged in one long war crime since the onset of the Syrian Civil War, and his gas attacks are hardly his deadliest. There has been a casus bellifor war against Syria on a continuous basis since the onset of Assadsgenocide, but the existence of a legal and moral justification for war does not always render war wise or just. Nor does it remove the need for congressional approval. There is no reason to forego congressional debate now, just as there was no reason to forego congressional debate when Obama considered taking the nation to war against Syria in 2013.

Congressional approval is not only constitutional, it serves the public purpose of requiring a president to clearly outline the justifications for war and his goals for the conflict. It also helps secure public support for war, and in this instance it strikes me as reckless that we would not only go to war against a sovereign nation, wed also court a possible military encounter with a great power like Russiawithout congressional approval. The nation needs to be ready for (and consider) all the grim possibilities and consequences. If Trump wants to go to war, he should take his case to Congress.

Continue reading here:
Rand Paul Is Right; Don't Launch War in Syria Without Congressional Approval - National Review

Story highlights

"The first thing we ought to do is probably obey the Constitution," Paul said on "Kilmeade and Friends." "When Nikki Haley came before my committee and I voted for her, I asked her that question. 'Will you try to take us to war? Will you advocate for war without constitutional or congressional authority?' And she said no. So I assumed what she means by this is that, the President, if he decides to do something in Syria, he would come to Congress and ask for a declaration of war. Short of Congress voting on it, I'm opposed to illegal and unconstitutional wars."

Paul said he had sympathy for the images coming out of Syria, but any action would need to be carefully weighed.

"I have the greatest amount of sympathy, I can't see those pictures, it's heartrending to see those pictures," he said. "But going to war we have to decide, will it be better or worse? Will we improve our national security? Are we threatened currently by Syria, and if we go to war is (Syrian President Bashar al-)Assad likely to use less chemical weapons or more? There's some argument for the more cornered and the more defeated in some ways more likely they are to use chemical weapons and actually for the less defeated they are that they're less likely to use them. The bottom line is it's horrific."

Link:
Rand Paul: Military action in Syria needs Congressional approval - CNN

Rare.us

Rand Paul reminds President Trump that he opposed Syria intervention back in 2013 Rare.us On Wednesday, Rand Paul sent a message to Donald Trump via Twitter that the president once strongly opposed Barack Obama militarily intervening in Syria's ongoing civil war. In August of 2013, the international community believed Syria's President ... Rand Paul tells Trump to stick to his 2013 guns on SyriaWashington Examiner Democrats: Trump 'really needs to come to Congress' to approve strikes on AssadCNN Paul, Lee: Congress needs to vote on Trump's military action in SyriaThe Hill (blog) MINA -Daily Caller -The Libertarian Republic all 4,503 news articles »

Continued here:
Rand Paul reminds President Trump that he opposed Syria intervention back in 2013 - Rare.us

I confess I always had mixed feelings about Rand Paul. The Kentucky senator is clearly a smart guy but his brand of libertarianism seemedbetter on paper than in real life. Moreover, his constant warnings about privacy and the excessive power of our overweening intelligence agencies felt overwrought. I assumed those agencies had their hands full withISIS et al. and that it bordered on the paranoid worrying abouttheir cooperating with our own government leaders in domestic spying. If anything was unAmerican, that was. And it was illegal.

Boy, was I wrong.

As events continue to evolve in the Susan Rice "unmasking" scandal, my hat's off to Rand. He's my new hero, out there demanding Rice testify andwondering whythe former national security adviserwas doing investigating that normally wouldhave been done by the FBI.

Another hero is Lee Smith, whosearticle in Tablet is positively blood-curdling. After reminding us of what we already know -- that Rice's "unmasking" of Trump teammates in and of itself is not a crime, even if unseemly -- Smithadds:

In a December 29, 2015article,TheWall Street Journaldescribed how the Obama administration had conducted surveillance on Israeli officials to understand how Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, like Ambassador Ron Dermer, intended to fight the Iran Deal. TheJournalreported that the targeting also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups.

Despite this reporting, it seemed inconceivable at the time thatgiven myriad legal, ethical, political, and historical concerns, as well as strict National Security Agency protocols that protect the identity of American names caught in interceptsthe Obama White House would have actually spied on American citizens. In a December 31, 2016, Tabletarticleon the controversy, Why the White House Wanted Congress to Think It Was Being Spied on By the NSA, I argued that the Obama administration had merely used theappearanceof spying on American lawmakers to corner opponents of the Iran Deal. Spying on U.S. citizens would be a clear abuse of the foreign-intelligence surveillance system. It would be a felony offense to leak the names of U.S. citizens to the press.

Increasingly, I believe that my conclusion in that piece was wrong. I believe the spying was real and that it was done not in an effort to keep the country safe from threatsbut in order to help the White House fight their domestic political opponents.

Smith goes on to show how Obama & Co. essentially weaponized the NSA's legitimate monitoring of foreign officials -- in thiscase Israelis -- to gain the administration's ends (i. e. tarnish Jewish-Americans in opposition to the Iran Deal for having "dual loyalties" in order to weaken opposition to thedeal).

More here:
Rand Paul's Day in the Sun - PJ Media

While President Trump is openly said to be planning a possible attack on Syria, and is discussing options for such an attack with Defense Secretary James Mattis, Sen. Rand Paul (R KY) is warning that any such attack would first require Congressional approval.

Sen. Paul cited assurances from US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley that she would not advocate war without congressional authority. While the current and recent administration have used the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force as a blanket attack everywhere authorization, this particular attack on Syria wouldnt be even tangentially related to al-Qaeda, and would stretch the AUMF far, far beyond incredulity.

The need for Congressional authorization for a war of regime change in Syria, already killed the Obama-era effort in 2013, as after Britains parliament voted against joining such a war, Obama Administration officials started courting Congress for their own vote, and when it became clear they had no chance of getting an authorization, they dropped the matter, despite arguing that they couldve unilaterally attacked without Congress.

The modern penchant for US presidents to unilaterally start wars without Congress rests heavily on Congress not openly challenging such moves, and the huge scope of a potential Syrian War, including the possibility of getting sucked rapidly into a war with Russia, would make it difficult for Congressional leaders to eschew their role in such a decision.

Sen. Paul also warned that the US war of regime change might make things worse, as it might back the Assad government into a corner and force him to make more rash actions.

Read more from the original source:
Sen. Rand Paul: Syria Attack Would Need Congressional Approval - Antiwar.com