Started By
Message
locked post

Rand Paul introduces MILITARY HUMANITARIAN OPERATIONS ACT OF 2017

Posted on 4/20/17 at 10:06 pm
Posted by TerryDawg03
The Deep South
Member since Dec 2012
15732 posts
Posted on 4/20/17 at 10:06 pm
Pretty succinct, as most of his bills are:
quote:


To provide that the President must seek congressional approval before
engaging members of the United States Armed Forces in military
humanitarian operations.

The President may not deploy members of the United States Armed
Forces into the territory, airspace, or waters of a foreign country for
a military humanitarian operation not previously authorized by statute
unless--

(1) the President submits to Congress a formal request for
authorization to use members of the Armed Forces for the
military humanitarian operation; and
(2) Congress enacts a specific authorization for such use
of forces.


Definition of Military Humanitarian Operation here.

quote:

(a) In General.--In this Act, the term ``military humanitarian
operation'' means a military operation involving the deployment of
members or weapons systems of the United States Armed Forces where
hostile activities are reasonably anticipated and with the aim of
preventing or responding to a humanitarian catastrophe, including its
regional consequences, or addressing a threat posed to international
peace and security.
The term includes--
(1) operations undertaken pursuant to the principle of the
``responsibility to protect'' as referenced in United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1674 (2006);
(2) operations specifically authorized by the United
Nations Security Council, or other international organizations;
and
(3) unilateral deployments and deployments made in
coordination with international organizations, treaty-based
organizations, or coalitions formed to address specific
humanitarian catastrophes.


quote:

(b) Operations Not Included.--The term ``military humanitarian
operation'' does not mean a military operation undertaken for the
following purposes:

(1) Responding to or repelling attacks, or preventing
imminent attacks, on the United States or any of its
territorial possessions, embassies, or consulates, or members
of the United States Armed Forces.
(2) Direct acts of reprisal for attacks on the United
States or any of its territorial possessions, embassies, or
consulates, or members of the United States Armed Forces.
(3) Invoking the inherent right to individual or collective
self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of
the United Nations.
(4) Military missions to protect or rescue United States
citizens or military or diplomatic personnel abroad.
(5) Carrying out treaty commitments to directly aid allies
in distress.
(6) Humanitarian missions in response to natural disasters
where no civil unrest or combat with hostile forces is
reasonably anticipated, and where such operation is for not
more than 30 days.
(7) Actions to maintain maritime freedom of navigation,
including actions aimed at combating piracy.
(8) Training exercises conducted by the United States Armed
Forces abroad where no combat with hostile forces is reasonably
anticipated.


Sorry for the wall of text, but that's the whole bill.
Posted by thelawnwranglers
Member since Sep 2007
38795 posts
Posted on 4/20/17 at 10:08 pm to
So if NK launches on SK he wants to have congress approve
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
134865 posts
Posted on 4/20/17 at 10:11 pm to
quote:

So if NK launches on SK he wants to have congress approve


quote:

(b) Operations Not Included.--The term ``military humanitarian
operation'' does not mean a military operation undertaken for the
following purposes:
(1) Responding to or repelling attacks, or preventing
imminent attacks, on the United States or any of its
territorial possessions, embassies, or consulates, or members
of the United States Armed Forces.
(2) Direct acts of reprisal for attacks on the United
States or any of its territorial possessions, embassies, or
consulates, or members of the United States Armed Forces.
Posted by TerryDawg03
The Deep South
Member since Dec 2012
15732 posts
Posted on 4/20/17 at 10:12 pm to
quote:

So if NK launches on SK he wants to have congress approve


Looks that way.

ETA: Nevermind.. just saw BestBank's points.
This post was edited on 4/20/17 at 10:20 pm
Posted by Bestbank Tiger
Premium Member
Member since Jan 2005
71194 posts
Posted on 4/20/17 at 10:12 pm to
quote:

if NK launches on SK he wants to have congress approve



quote:

(b) Operations Not Included.--The term ``military humanitarian 
operation'' does not mean a military operation undertaken for the 
following purposes: 
(1) Responding to or repelling attacks, or preventing 
imminent attacks, on the United States or any of its 
territorial possessions, embassies, or consulates, or members 
of the United States Armed Forces. 

(2) Direct acts of reprisal for attacks on the United 
States or any of its territorial possessions, embassies, or 
consulates, or members of the United States Armed Forces. 

(5) Carrying out treaty commitments to directly aid allies 
in distress. 


NK attacking SK would fall under 1, 2, and 5.
Posted by Texas Weazel
Louisiana is a shithole
Member since Oct 2016
8541 posts
Posted on 4/20/17 at 10:29 pm to
quote:

NK attacking SK would fall under 1, 2, and 5.


Not that it would make a difference, but just 5. North Korea could technically? attack South Korea in parts of the country in which we have no military or government presence. But that would still cause the Mutual Defense Treaty to kick in, so...same result.
Posted by DrunkerThanThou
Unfortunately Mississippi
Member since Feb 2013
2846 posts
Posted on 4/20/17 at 10:54 pm to
Its insane that this isn't policy already.
Posted by Sid in Lakeshore
Member since Oct 2008
41956 posts
Posted on 4/20/17 at 11:09 pm to
quote:

Its insane that this isn't policy already.


As dysfunctional as Congress is, it's insane that anyone would even consider this.
Posted by Navytiger74
Member since Oct 2009
50458 posts
Posted on 4/21/17 at 12:24 am to
Unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.


And silly.
Posted by Brosef Stalin
Member since Dec 2011
39222 posts
Posted on 4/21/17 at 12:29 am to
No chance of passing.
Posted by saint tiger225
San Diego
Member since Jan 2011
35654 posts
Posted on 4/21/17 at 1:10 am to
Basically, he's jealous he's not the president. And, I think little Rubio said it best "there's only one commander in chief, not 5000".
Posted by Rogers Hog
Member since Dec 2010
335 posts
Posted on 4/21/17 at 1:45 am to
The US Constitution grants the sole power to declare war to the Congress. It gives the President the commander in chief title to allow him the sole power to carry out the mission. Congress through the war powers act gave some authority to the president to start without asking first but still holding the power to decide if it will continue. Lately the executive branch has pushed the boundaries they were given so now it must be reigned in.
This post was edited on 4/21/17 at 1:46 am
Posted by Navytiger74
Member since Oct 2009
50458 posts
Posted on 4/21/17 at 2:02 am to
quote:

The US Constitution grants the sole power to declare war to the Congress.
And next time someone wants to declare war I'm sure Congress will get a call.

quote:

It gives the President the commander in chief title to allow him the sole power to carry out the mission.
The president has broad inherent and statutory authority to direct the armed forces and define the "mission(s)" pursuant to National Security and the greater strategic national interest.

quote:

Congress through the war powers act gave some authority to the president to start without asking first but still holding the power to decide if it will continue.
The WPR didn't "give" the president anything. It itself was an attempt to rein-in the president's authority as commander-in-chief. And its constitutionality is very much in question.

When the framers made the president CinC in the second article of the constitution, I'm sure they didn't envision a time when that office would have trillions of dollars in equipment and millions of troops and hundreds of bases and everything else that modern presidents inherit. Our standing armed land forces as constituted today, in fact, was never the intent.

But as long as the president has that standing force, he has the authority to direct it. That's not a function that could easily be carried out by a competent, informed committee. It certainly can't be done by a dysfunctional body like the US Congress.
This post was edited on 4/21/17 at 9:20 am
Posted by SoulGlo
Shinin' Through
Member since Dec 2011
17248 posts
Posted on 4/21/17 at 2:04 am to
quote:

The US Constitution grants the sole power to declare war to the Congress. It gives the President the commander in chief title to allow him the sole power to carry out the mission. Congress through the war powers act gave some authority to the president to start without asking first but still holding the power to decide if it will continue. Lately the executive branch has pushed the boundaries they were given so now it must be reigned in.

Posted by Rogers Hog
Member since Dec 2010
335 posts
Posted on 4/21/17 at 2:29 am to
I believe we are in agreement on the authority of the president being in charge of how the military mission is conducted in this he has wide latitude but he must still get congressional approval or he has overstepped his authority.
Let me expound on my interpretation and put in today's environment and see if we are in agreement. The president make use any means at his disposal to prosecute the war in Iraq or Afghanistan as long as congress continues authorizing it. He may not decide on his own, barring the exceptions in the war powers act decide to drop bombs anywhere else without asking permission from congress. I believe that both democrat and republican presidents have decided that they can do as they like as long as they meet the requirement of informing congress after the fact as they don't see that as asking for a declaration of war.
Posted by rsbd
banks of the Mississippi
Member since Jan 2007
22173 posts
Posted on 4/21/17 at 7:11 am to
VETO
Posted by the LSUSaint
Member since Nov 2009
15444 posts
Posted on 4/21/17 at 7:35 am to
Well, that means a healthcare deal is imminent. He's turned his attention somewhere else's.

Winning
Posted by Tchefuncte Tiger
Bat'n Rudge
Member since Oct 2004
57260 posts
Posted on 4/21/17 at 7:43 am to
quote:

So if NK launches on SK he wants to have congress approve


I may be going out on a limb here, but I think Congress would be justified in a legal declaration of war against North Korea if this were to happen.
Posted by Shepherd88
Member since Dec 2013
4590 posts
Posted on 4/21/17 at 7:49 am to
Love Rand Paul but this is a touchy issue. I don't believe creating more beaurocracy is the answer, it slows things down even more and put more lives at risk.

The War Powers Act allows the President to strike but not declare war so I don't see what this bill does any differently.
Posted by joeyb147
Member since Jun 2009
16019 posts
Posted on 4/21/17 at 9:00 am to
This is a good bill and i hope it passes.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram