- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Rand Paul introduces MILITARY HUMANITARIAN OPERATIONS ACT OF 2017
Posted on 4/20/17 at 10:06 pm
Posted on 4/20/17 at 10:06 pm
Pretty succinct, as most of his bills are:
Definition of Military Humanitarian Operation here.
Sorry for the wall of text, but that's the whole bill.
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 on 4/20/17 at 10:08 pm to TerryDawg03
So if NK launches on SK he wants to have congress approve
Posted on 4/20/17 at 10:11 pm to thelawnwranglers
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 on 4/20/17 at 10:12 pm to thelawnwranglers
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 on 4/20/17 at 10:12 pm to thelawnwranglers
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 on 4/20/17 at 10:29 pm to Bestbank Tiger
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 on 4/20/17 at 10:54 pm to TerryDawg03
Its insane that this isn't policy already.
Posted on 4/20/17 at 11:09 pm to DrunkerThanThou
quote:
Its insane that this isn't policy already.
As dysfunctional as Congress is, it's insane that anyone would even consider this.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 12:24 am to TerryDawg03
Unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.
And silly.
And silly.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 1:10 am to TerryDawg03
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 on 4/21/17 at 1:45 am to Navytiger74
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 on 4/21/17 at 2:02 am to Rogers Hog
quote:And next time someone wants to declare war I'm sure Congress will get a call.
The US Constitution grants the sole power to declare war to the Congress.
quote: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.
It gives the President the commander in chief title to allow him the sole power to carry out the mission.
quote: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.
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.
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 on 4/21/17 at 2:04 am to Rogers Hog
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 on 4/21/17 at 2:29 am to Navytiger74
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.
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 on 4/21/17 at 7:35 am to TerryDawg03
Well, that means a healthcare deal is imminent. He's turned his attention somewhere else's.
Winning
Winning
Posted on 4/21/17 at 7:43 am to thelawnwranglers
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 on 4/21/17 at 7:49 am to TerryDawg03
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.
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 on 4/21/17 at 9:00 am to TerryDawg03
This is a good bill and i hope it passes.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News