Defending the constitution

#26
#26
OrangeEmpire said:
Who is accountable when the possibility is fact and wmd is used
Click to expand...

If it is a fact that they have them, we still don't do anything until we know an attack is being planned and is imminent. Until then, diplomacy is the key. Sanctions are an act of war. A sanction is probably the best way to declare who you see as an enemy. We can do ourselves a lot of good (security-wise) by lifting all sanctions, and it would be constitutional.
 
#27
#27
OrangeEmpire said:
No
Click to expand...

Then what is your position? Should we obey the constitution and make no aggressive moves without the consent of congress? or should we attack whoever the president feels poses a threat? or should defense in an 'imminent' situation be resolved by whatever state is threatened as per the constitution?
 
#28
#28
RespectTradition said:
That is a valid POV. One I disagree with, but still I can see where you are coming from. However, you can't adopt that POV and still claim to be defending the constitution. You have abdicated your responsibilities to the constitution and given them to someone else. That is your prerogative. You may think that an aggressive, highly reactive military is more important than the constitution. I happen to disagree.
Click to expand...

There is the distinction. I do not see this as the military's decision to make. The decision to use any part of the DIME model (Diplomacy, Informational, Military or Economic) to influence a situation must come from within the National Security Staff and must follow proper reporting protocols vis-a-vis Congress. This structure is written into law according to the National Security Act of 1947, so while not written into the constitution itself is is still constitutional in my view.
 
#29
#29
nbakerld said:
If it is a fact that they have them, we still don't do anything until we know an attack is being planned and is imminent. Until then, diplomacy is the key. Sanctions are an act of war. A sanction is probably the best way to declare who you see as an enemy. We can do ourselves a lot of good (security-wise) by lifting all sanctions, and it would be constitutional.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you detect imminent attacks via intelligence channels which are often guarded for good reasons. What happens when you detect an attack, launch a pre-emptive attack to stop it and then those who were attacked claim innocence? We appear to bomb more milk factories than exist. . .
 
#30
#30
YorkVol said:
There is the distinction. I do not see this as the military's decision to make. The decision to use any part of the DIME model (Diplomacy, Informational, Military or Economic) to influence a situation must come from within the National Security Staff and must follow proper reporting protocols vis-a-vis Congress. This structure is written into law according to the National Security Act of 1947, so while not written into the constitution itself is is still constitutional in my view.
Click to expand...

Every person is responsible for his own actions.

Question

Let's pretend that congress can delegate its authority. Obama attacked Libya. The time period to report to congress and get permission to continue passed without such action. Obama continued to attack Libya. Was the military acting constitutionally when following his orders?
 
#31
#31
RespectTradition said:
Every person is responsible for his own actions.

Question

Let's pretend that congress can delegate its authority. Obama attacked Libya. The time period to report to congress and get permission to continue passed without such action. Obama continued to attack Libya. Was the military acting constitutionally when following his orders?
Click to expand...

Depends on who you are referring to. If I'm on the ground, I'm not tracking the situation in Washington as I'm too busy and there are too many between me and the President for me to worry about that. Again, as long as the orders are clearly not illegal.

If you are referring to the Unified Commander, such as the Commander of Africa Command or European Command, they do have a responsibility to ensure they have proper authority in place before ordering forces to engage. They will reference that authority in the operational orders they send out to the forces. If that authority is not clear they will and often do push back against the White House. We have troops in the Philippines and the Horn of Africa who cannot engage anyone except in situations of self defense despite initial Presidential desires for more active engagement.

If you are referring to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who sits as an adviser to the NSS, then he has a responsibility to inform the President of the President's responsibility to get congressional approval, as does the VEEP, SecDef, SecState, the Presidents Counsel etc. Congress has the responsibility to demand information and take action to approve or disapprove of the military operations. If the information isn't given or if the President pointedly ignores Congress, then they have the responsibility to impeach.
 
#32
#32
YorkVol said:
The problem is that you detect imminent attacks via intelligence channels which are often guarded for good reasons. What happens when you detect an attack, launch a pre-emptive attack to stop it and then those who were attacked claim innocence? We appear to bomb more milk factories than exist. . .
Click to expand...

Maybe we should catch them red-handed, rather than just bombing all the evidence to smithereens.
 
#33
#33
Your son may get my daughter pregnant. Let me cut his balls off pre-emptively to eliminate the threat.
 
#35
#35
OrangeEmpire said:
This is fantasy
Click to expand...

I realize that, but I'm working off the notion that we are already in a fantasy. We don't need to catch anybody doing anything to protect ourselves. Nobody takes a swing at the biggest kid on the block when he plays nice with others.
 
#36
#36
YorkVol said:
Depends on who you are referring to. If I'm on the ground, I'm not tracking the situation in Washington as I'm too busy and there are too many between me and the President for me to worry about that. Again, as long as the orders are clearly not illegal.

If you are referring to the Unified Commander, such as the Commander of Africa Command or European Command, they do have a responsibility to ensure they have proper authority in place before ordering forces to engage. They will reference that authority in the operational orders they send out to the forces. If that authority is not clear they will and often do push back against the White House. We have troops in the Philippines and the Horn of Africa who cannot engage anyone except in situations of self defense despite initial Presidential desires for more active engagement.

If you are referring to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who sits as an adviser to the NSS, then he has a responsibility to inform the President of the President's responsibility to get congressional approval, as does the VEEP, SecDef, SecState, the Presidents Counsel etc. Congress has the responsibility to demand information and take action to approve or disapprove of the military operations. If the information isn't given or if the President pointedly ignores Congress, then they have the responsibility to impeach.
Click to expand...

I get the reality as we practice it. I ask why
"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Click to expand...

the highlighted is even there under these circumstances.
 
#38
#38
Weezy said:
Somebody wake me up when someone, other than us, uses a nuke.
Click to expand...

A fairly convincing argument can be made that the development of nuclear weapons and implementation of such weapons has been one of the most positive inventions by mankind.
 
#39
#39
PKT_VOL said:
A fairly convincing argument can be made that the development of nuclear weapons and implementation of such weapons has been one of the most positive inventions by mankind.
Click to expand...

You have me intrigued, PKT.
 
#43
#43
therealUT said:
You have me intrigued, PKT.
Click to expand...

These are taken straight from a lecture given on International Relations (what I focused on in my Political Science minor). The lecture was entitled, Is war obsolete?

Battle Deaths Worldwide (1945-2000)

e6304595c3c2089fcdc6_1.jpg


Probability of Death in Battle (1946-2005)

e6304595c3c2089fcdc6_2.jpg


Great Power Wars (1500-2000)

e6304595c3c2089fcdc6_3.jpg


The second and third graph is very telling in my opinion.
 
#48
#48
OrangeEmpire said:
Why not? The biggest advances in us history has been due to weapons, civil war moved the country ahead 50 yrsvin 4 yrs, wwii, cold war etc
Click to expand...

Nope. Common economic fallacy, but war has nothing to do with economic advancement. Correlation, not causation. You can't get richer by diverting resources into war efforts. If you could then we should declare a perpetual global paintball war, and divert our resources into winning it.
 
#49
#49
nbakerld said:
Nope. Common economic fallacy, but war has nothing to do with economic advancement. Correlation, not causation. You can't get richer by diverting resources into war efforts. If you could then we should declare a perpetual global paintball war, and divert our resources into winning it.
Click to expand...

O........k
 
#50
#50
RespectTradition said:
I get the reality as we practice it. I ask why


the highlighted is even there under these circumstances.
Click to expand...

That is the enlisted oath, but aside from that, what would you suggest?

Military Officers are commissioned by Congress and are taught that we swear allegiance to the Constitution and not any particular person or position. It was set up to prevent any General or President from using the Armed
Forces for their own particular ends. Whether a deployment into a potential combat zone is Constitutional or not should not come into play otherwise we would chase our tails fielding questions about the legality of every inconvenient movement or short term overseas assignment.

Occasionally you will see an officer or enlisted challenge their orders to a combat zone on this very basis and I have not seen any challenges upheld. I don't know if anyone challenged the operations in N. Africa recently, but they tried to challenge deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan without success.

What should the oath say?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top