The W
Views: 95543334
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
16.4.14 0847
The W - Current Events & Politics - Ron Paul questions Petraeus
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.92
Pages: 1
(365 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (11 total)
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 12 hours
AIM:  
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
Ok, I'm not normally a fan of embedded videos, but I'm going to embed this one.



He could have been more eloquent, sure. But if you can't listen to the whole thing, just jump to 3:20 in.




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
Promote this thread!
rinberg
Boudin rouge








Since: 30.1.02
From: South Georgia

Since last post: 827 days
Last activity: 76 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
I'm not trying to be contentious and I would like to hear from Bush & Co. on several of Dr. Paul's other questions, but why would it be significant that General Petraeus would not be willing to answer an opinion question not directly related to his current job? Even if the answer is "obvious", there is no benefit to Patraeus to declare that answer and the downside to answering is potentially huge.



One of the Thirty-two (or maybe Thirty-four....)!

kaynart. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 12 hours
AIM:  
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
OK, so here's my train of thought on this. I'm a little scattered...

"Just following orders" is not a valid excuse for committing illegal or immoral acts. One who has served in the military should be able to better explain the policy; I'll have to rely on something like this http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr01/MarApr01/david.pdf to make my point for me.

The general involved in operations in Iraq should know one way or another if it is legal for the POTUS to send his troops into a war without the authorization of Congress. If it is illegal to do so, he should not comply with the order.

I'm not naive. I know that that kind of order is probably followed whether it is legal or not. The point is that Paul is trying to shine the light of accountability on our military.

I think Petraeus should 100% know the answer to that question, and he should answer it unwaveringly. The fact that he has to hedge bothers me. Our military should be following the constitution, not the POTUS (if he is acting in an unconstitutional manner).




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 23 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.19
I'm sure someone with more military experience than I (i.e., zero) would have more to say about Guru's point, but I feel like once we have military leaders "following" the Constitution instead of the orders of the person above them in their hierarchy, it's not much longer until we have chaos on our hands.

- StingArmy
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.00
    Originally posted by StingArmy
    I'm sure someone with more military experience than I (i.e., zero) would have more to say about Guru's point, but I feel like once we have military leaders "following" the Constitution instead of the orders of the person above them in their hierarchy, it's not much longer until we have chaos on our hands.

    - StingArmy


I hope you are being ironic. Members of the military take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Having rules that are to be followed works much better than following a "personality", i.e. the leader. There were a few people punished after WWII for just following orders. I am not saying this is comparable to the Nazi movement, I am saying, you are only to follow orders if they are lawful.

The trouble with a lot of whatgoes on today is that it is in a gray area and needs lawyers to sort out.



Perception is reality
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 608 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.12
Paraphrasing Ron Paul just to make sure I'm addressing the right question: Does the President (any President) have the right to bomb Iran (or any other nation-state) without (further) Congressional approval?

Short answer, yes.

Longer answer, yes with some Constitutional restrictions. Despite Paul's assertion, it's pretty clear that the President can, in his role as Commander in Chief, order certain military actions to take place. It is also clear that Congress can refuse to fund those actions or the military in general. In other words, the President, whomever they might be, can order something that Congress explicitly disapproves of and Congress can then deny funding for that action. The President, leaving aside the notification requirements of the War Powers Act which open up a different set of issues, is under no requirement to seek Congressional approval for individual or limited military action despite Paul's claims to the contrary. For example, the Clinton administrations decision to bomb Kososvo is certainly an example of the Commander in Chief ordering a military action that did not require Congressional approval.

There is certainly a pretty clear case to be made that the President must seek Congressional approval in order to fight a war but Paul's question doesn't speak to that case. Of course, what exactly constitutes a "war" is also a highly contested argument. In this case, Paul simply misunderstands separation of powers and the roles of the Executive and the Legislature as they pertain to the military.

    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    The general involved in operations in Iraq should know one way or another if it is legal for the POTUS to send his troops into a war without the authorization of Congress. If it is illegal to do so, he should not comply with the order.

    I'm not naive. I know that that kind of order is probably followed whether it is legal or not. The point is that Paul is trying to shine the light of accountability on our military.

    I think Petraeus should 100% know the answer to that question, and he should answer it unwaveringly. The fact that he has to hedge bothers me. Our military should be following the constitution, not the POTUS (if he is acting in an unconstitutional manner).


I've got two problems with the argument I see being made here. First, that isn't what Paul asked. He asked about a specific act which is pretty clearly permissible. My second problem with this argument is that it is one where the answer can be argued about in a lot of ways because the language of the Constitution is open for interpretation. It seems pretty clear to me that
    Originally posted by Article II, Section 2
    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
gives the President the power to order the military into combat. It also seems pretty clear, given this
    Originally posted by Article I, Section 8
    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
that Congress has the power to both declare war and to fund the war. What happens when they disagree is an open question and one for which I wouldn't expect a serving officer to have a 100% certain answer. The War Powers Act tries to address that tension in a variety of ways, but it does so in a fashion that makes it Constitutionally questionable.

Depending on your perspective, Paul was "trying to shine the light of accountability on our military" or he was trying to play "Gotcha". In either case, all he did for me was demonstrate that he doesn't remember or didn't understand his civics classes.

Tim





Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus

All others things being equal, the simplest solution is usually stupidity. -- Darwin Minor
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 12 hours
AIM:  
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
It's not whether I think the answer is Yes or No. It's that I think the general who is most likely going to get the order to invade Iran (the General controlling the troops next door) should have an idea of whether or not he should invade Iran if ordered to.

If he doesn't know the answer right now before the order is given, how is he going to do anything other than follow it once it is given?

If the answer is 100% Yes, and he already knows it, he should honestly answer the question.

I am assuming that "Bomb Iran" is shorthand for "invade Iran". This may be a flawed interpretation on my part.

Not to split hairs, but being in charge of the military doesn't mean that any action led by the President is authorized. For example, if the POTUS ordered the military to bomb the Congress, that would clearly be an illegal and unauthorized action. I grant you that he is the head of the military, I just don't think that the article and section you quoted overrides Congressional authority to make it legal to go to war, which is really what they are doing when they declare war, isn't it?

The difference between a cop murdering you and a cop killing you in a justifiable homicide isn't in the action of pulling the trigger - it is in the laws regulating what actions can be taken by the officer. In either case lethal force is possessed by the cop. I see the POTUS as the man who holds the option of lethal force, but the Congress and a declaration of war as the legal justification for invasion.

I will admit I am not as knoweledgeable about the War Powers act as many people are, and I'm going to go read about this tonight.

//edit let's pretend that said Invade IRAN instead of Iraq.
//edit #2 TWICE even. Sheesh.
(edited by Guru Zim on 10.4.08 1548)

(edited by Guru Zim on 10.4.08 1626)

(edited by Guru Zim on 10.4.08 1626)


Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 12 hours
AIM:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
After reading the Wikipedia entry on the war powers act, it occurs to me that the U.S. has a history of fighting wars, and I'm probably not interpreting the constitution the way that constitutional lawyers have in order to justify all of the them.

I feel like there should be a check on Presidential power to invade countries, and it looks to me like it should be the authorization of Congress, but I can't find anything that states that it is possible for a Presidential invasion to be illegal.




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.62
Perhaps Dr. Paul disagrees with bash91's interpretation of Article II, Section 2. I know I do. This section simply states who is in charge when the military is called into service of the United States. It does not authorize the President to call for such service. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress such authority. Granted, this has been ignored time and again for decades now. But it doesn't change my belief (and probably Paul's as well) about how things are suppose to work Constitutionally. Congress declares the war and approves the funding, the President then runs the war.

The resolution that was passed by Congress only refers to Iraq, and does not grant authorization for military action in Iran. So of course the President would need to seek authorization to attack another nation if he is going to do things by the book.



(edited by ges7184 on 10.4.08 1814)

(edited by ges7184 on 10.4.08 1822)

The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 608 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.28
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    It's not whether I think the answer is Yes or No. It's that I think the general who is most likely going to get the order to invade Iran (the General controlling the troops next door) should have an idea of whether or not he should invade Iran if ordered to.

    If he doesn't know the answer right now before the order is given, how is he going to do anything other than follow it once it is given?

    If the answer is 100% Yes, and he already knows it, he should honestly answer the question.

    I am assuming that "Bomb Iran" is shorthand for "invade Iran". This may be a flawed interpretation on my part.


That's not the question that was asked, nor is it one that should be asked of a serving military officer unless you mean to impugn their character and their service. There is no doubt that any service member can and should refuse to follow an illegal order, Nuremberg settled that, but it is also clear that failing to follow the lawful orders of a superior can get you courtmartialed. In this case, it is not at all clear that an order to bomb , or invade, Iran would be unlawful. In other words, you're asking a serving officer whether or not they will obey a lawful order because they may not agree with the politics of the order. In the words of a very nice retired Colonel with whom I took some graduate classes, "That's a ******* horse**** question!"

    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    Not to split hairs, but being in charge of the military doesn't mean that any action led by the President is authorized. For example, if the POTUS ordered the military to bomb the Congress, that would clearly be an illegal and unauthorized action. I grant you that he is the head of the military, I just don't think that the article and section you quoted overrides Congressional authority to make it legal to go to war, which is really what they are doing when they declare war, isn't it?

    The difference between a cop murdering you and a cop killing you in a justifiable homicide isn't in the action of pulling the trigger - it is in the laws regulating what actions can be taken by the officer. In either case lethal force is possessed by the cop. I see the POTUS as the man who holds the option of lethal force, but the Congress and a declaration of war as the legal justification for invasion.


I think you need to split hairs here. You're right that not every action that the President could order is legal, but the range is probably smaller than you might think. I think the separation of powers provides for a very tricky balancing act in cases like this. I'm not arguing that Article II, Section 2 overrides Article I, Section 8 because that's not the case. What I'm arguing, from both theory and practice, is that the President and Congress have differing powers that partially overlap and that leaves some really interesting questions that don't have clear cut answers. Personally, I'm not convinced that it is Congressional authority that makes it legal to go to war. Congressional approval is necessary in order to legally fund the war, but not to make the war itself legal.

I'm not sure about your analogy because I don't think it accurately describes all of the tension between the Executive and the Legislative branches. I'm not sure how to concisely phrase my disagreement so I'll just say that I think it is an oversimplification.

    Originally posted by ges7184
    Perhaps Dr. Paul disagrees with bash91's interpretation of Article II, Section 2. I know I do. This section simply states who is in charge when the military is called into service of the United States. It does not authorize the President to call for such service. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress such authority. Granted, this has been ignored time and again for decades now. But it doesn't change my belief (and probably Paul's as well) about how things are suppose to work Constitutionally. Congress declares the war and approves the funding, the President then runs the war.


I'm not sure I understand the argument here. I don't think that the President has the power to create a new Army, Navy, or other branch of the armed forces but that's not what I'm arguing or the situation that currently exists. There is a Congressionally approved military in the service of the United States that is commanded by the President. Congress used their powers to create the military and the President uses his to command it. I fail to see the Constitutional problem that has been ignored for decades.

In all seriousness, how do you define war? Is it any conflict whatsoever? Only offensive? Defensive? Is the President required to get Congressional approval for any use of force? Must that approval be granted before the initiation of force or can it be authorized after the fact?

Almost since the beginning of the republic, it has been acknowledged by Congress that the President has the ability to order limited military action. For example, the first Barbary war, 1801-1805, was fought entirely without a Congressional declaration of war. Congress approved, but they didn't declare war and allowed Jefferson to prosecute the conflict as he saw fit. In the hypothetical offered by Paul, it is, I think, pretty obvious that bombing Iran without the prior approval of Congress is absolutely Constitutional.

Tim



Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus

All others things being equal, the simplest solution is usually stupidity. -- Darwin Minor
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 23 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.19
    Originally posted by DrDirt
      Originally posted by StingArmy
      I'm sure someone with more military experience than I (i.e., zero) would have more to say about Guru's point, but I feel like once we have military leaders "following" the Constitution instead of the orders of the person above them in their hierarchy, it's not much longer until we have chaos on our hands.

      - StingArmy


    I hope you are being ironic. Members of the military take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Having rules that are to be followed works much better than following a "personality", i.e. the leader. There were a few people punished after WWII for just following orders. I am not saying this is comparable to the Nazi movement, I am saying, you are only to follow orders if they are lawful.

    The trouble with a lot of whatgoes on today is that it is in a gray area and needs lawyers to sort out.

Those punished in the Nuremberg trials were punished for committing acts illegal according to customary international law. When people question whether invading Iran (or whatever) is "illegal" that could mean multiple things. If you are saying that a general shouldn't follow an order because it is illegal in that it was an improper exercise of the President's power (i.e., it encroached upon Congress's power to declare war), that is one thing. If you are saying that a general shouldn't follow an order because it is illegal in that it's asking the general to commit some sort of atrocity or obviously wrong act (e.g., rape civilian women, drop a bomb on Silicon Valley, etc.), that is something completely different.

Nuremberg was about people that did the latter and then tried to claim they were merely following orders. That won't hold water because those acts are against customary international law. This whole thing about who has what military powers in the United States, while obviously a very important constitutional issue in our country, means diddly squat to the rest of the world.

- StingArmy
Thread rated: 6.92
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Earthquake in Illinois!
Next thread: Air America's Rhodes suspended over calling Clinton a "big f*cking whore"
Previous thread: Clinton's Tax Returns
(365 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Wait, if the acronym is supposed to stand for "POK Erythroid Myeloid Ontogenic Factor" wouldnt it be POKEMOF? not [Poke em' on] - [Poke em' off!] (sorry I thought it was funny)
- CHAPLOW, Key Cancer Gene Found (2005)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Ron Paul questions PetraeusRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.115 seconds.