Senator Rand Paul Condemns US Counterterrorism Strategy

Photo of author

(Newswire.net — June 22, 2017) — During the last hearing in a year-long debate on war powers, US Senator Rand Paul said the US is leading “illegal” wars that he isn’t voting for, Russia Today reports.

Reportedly, the hearing on what to do with the open-ended 9/11 Proclamation on war authorization has divided the members of Congress on whether limitations should be imposed or not on presidential war powers.

Arguing about the president’s duties as commander-in-chief stipulated under Article II of the US Constitution, Senator Paul said that the founding fathers of the US, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, would strongly oppose liberal interpretations of the article. Senator Paul insists that it is up to the US Congress, not the president to decide whether the country should commence in war.

“I want to know, are we going to limit the president’s power?” Senator Paul asked during the debate. “Are we going to take back our power? Are we going to limit the duration of the war? Are we going to identify our enemy?”

According to Senator Paul, the US’ perception of the war against terrorism is becoming less and less acceptable.

“Well, just the Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL] is in 32 countries right now. I mean, you add in Taliban and you add in Al-Qaeda, we’re probably [talking about] at least 50 or 60 countries. I’m not voting to go to war in 50 or 60 countries,” the senator said.

That is why there should be strict and specific limitations on the president’s war powers, Paul argued, noting that if they pass something for the sake of it, and not to limit war powers, it wouldn’t be acceptable.

Paul stressed that marking as an enemy any country that shelters radical Islamists without a prior approval of the authority regulating the use of military power is illegal.

The controversial term “collateral damage” has been introduced to depersonalize civil casualties in media and ease the minds of people behind attacks. But does it actually help in fighting radical Islam? Senator Paul gave a fine example when the US forces killed several terrorists in their homes also killing their wives and children. “Is it better?” Paul asked, wondering whether there are fewer or more terrorists now.

Killing civilians only makes people seek revenge and that is something that is remembered for hundreds of years.

“We’re not going to defeat terrorism by having war in 60-some odd countries and dropping drones on everybody that we think in a village is of a radical ideology,” Senator Paul was adamant, concluding that he certainly would “never vote for something that doesn’t limit the president’s power, but simply gives a rubber stamp to what we’re doing.”