Rand Paul on ISIS response: 'This war is now illegal'

[pbrower2a]

Isn't he technically wrong anyways? I mean wouldn't our mutual defense agreement with Iraq automatically justify military action in their defense? We don't need Congressional authorization because we're upholding our treaty obligations, right?

Foreign treaties override domestic legislation?

Yes, they do -- if America is to maintain credibility.

ISIS must die for the world to be safe. If we do not strike them in Iraq, then we will soon have to face them in a land war on Israeli territory. I am not saying that Israel would make a questionable ally; indeed, the Israelis would be just the ones to put up the most brutal fight that ISIS could ever imagine.

[pbrower2a]

Isn't he technically wrong anyways? I mean wouldn't our mutual defense agreement with Iraq automatically justify military action in their defense? We don't need Congressional authorization because we're upholding our treaty obligations, right?

Foreign treaties override domestic legislation?

Yes, they do -- if America is to maintain credibility.

ISIS must die for the world to be safe. If we do not strike them in Iraq, then we will soon have to face them in a land war on Israeli territory. I am not saying that Israel would make a questionable ally; indeed, the Israelis would be just the ones to put up the most brutal fight that ISIS could ever imagine.

For one, Paul supports strikes against ISIS, but objects to the idea of one individual deciding which conflicts to enter without any authorization from the legislative body. Second, the idea that ISIS could conquer Israel is laughable.

They would certainly kill Israelis. We would also find out whether Israel really has an atom bomb.