Quote :

"Are you trolling, a complete moron, or live in your dorm room at NCSU never stepping out to talk to people. Any grunt in the army that refuses to follow orders will likely face at BEST dishonorable discharge. If Private Pile decides to throw his gun down and argue the philosophical reasons of being in Iraq during the heat of battle or in the midst of a mission he will get thrown in the brig if not fucking Fragged by his comrades."

Of course all those things would happen.

It's also still the right thing to do, and no honor or respect is due to any soldier who does not do it.

8/31/2009 7:55:23 PM

where do you start to draw the line. orders from superiors are not open for debate. when orders are refused or ignored in combat, people can die and objectives lost. this has not changed since the dawn of organized armies.

it is paramount for the military's hierarchy to be blindly respected, and strictly followed. you are not an individual in battle, you are a soldier

8/31/2009 8:21:32 PM

Well, let's be real, here. These are not the kinds of Constitutional epiphanies that spontaneously come down on a soldier in the middle of a battle. That's a ridiculous idea.

These are decisions that the soldier would make state-side before deployment, or recently after deployment while reflecting on it, or reading in his rack one night in Iraq. Those are more realistic scenarios, and there have been dozens of soldiers who have done exactly that.

Lt. Erin Watada, graduate of West Point, is the most widely publicized, though. I would encourage anyone to look up any of his speeches on youtube. He carries himself with class. He's not crazy, or rabid, or anti-American....he simply, and respectfully, has required that Congress and the President issue lawful orders if they want him to deploy.

8/31/2009 8:26:16 PM

Quote :

"orders from superiors are not open for debate."

you're implying that ALL orders are not open for debate

in the US military, this is not true

8/31/2009 8:39:18 PM

Quote :

"It is not high-minded, academic or philosophical to read what the Constitution says, and note that both Congress and the President have openly and plainly disobeyed it."

I don't recall anything in the Constitution that says you can only deploy troops in a declared war. Perhaps you could clarify the point.

But really, the only thing you've said so far that makes any sense is this:

Quote :

"This can be changed. If the soldiers are fighting an offensive, undeclared war that only serves to inflame our enemies against us, and create new enemies, then the soldiers are threatening, rather than defending, our freedoms."

Well, yes and no. Let's be careful. We can't have it both ways. Either the enemies in these conflicts are legitimate threats to our territorial integrity and freedom or they aren't. If Iraq wasn't a threat before we invaded, it's damn sure not a threat now that we've bombed the place all to hell and set the factions to fighting each other.

8/31/2009 9:38:27 PM

...

8/31/2009 9:54:30 PM

Quote :

"I don't recall anything in the Constitution that says you can only deploy troops in a declared war. Perhaps you could clarify the point."

This is the only thing that the Congressional power to declare war can mean. Any other meaning is impossible and contradictory. The President cannot deploy troops in an undeclared war for several reasons:

1) He is not explicitly given that power.
2) If he does have the power to deploy troops at his own whim, without a Congressional Declaration of War - then that power given to Congress is absolutely meaningless. It is a worthless sentence and there is no point in it being in the Constitution at all.

So, it is true by the impossibility of the contrary. It is impossible for it NOT to be true.

On #2, what does the Congressional power to declare war even mean, in your view? If the President has the power to begin and prosecute a war without any (Constitutionally necessary) input from Congress....then what the fuck did the founders think they were providing Congress with? The power to be figureheads? A rubber-stamp after the fact of war beginning, if they were so inclined? By giving the power to begin and wage war to the President, you take every possible semblance of any real meaning out of that part of the Constitution.

Quote :

"Well, yes and no. Let's be careful. We can't have it both ways. Either the enemies in these conflicts are legitimate threats to our territorial integrity and freedom or they aren't. If Iraq wasn't a threat before we invaded, it's damn sure not a threat now that we've bombed the place all to hell and set the factions to fighting each other."

Iraq was not a legitimate threat to us in any way before the war. Iraq still is not a legitimate threat to us in any way "after" the war. How am I inconsistent?

How many radicalized Muslims were there, bent on the destruction of the U.S. at all personal costs, before the war? How many are there now, "after" it?

Besides, I can say that this war has threatened and taken away our freedoms, and the soldiers themselves have continued to be threats to our liberty, by the sheer fact that they are disregarding the rule of Law, and the Constitution they swore to protect. If they disregard one piece of that document, it represents a threat to the whole thing.

I am more scared of my government and its military than I am of Al-Qaeda, in the long-run. In the short run, I am not paranoid or scared about either one, really. But time flies in this respect, and the greatest threat to our nation is not wearing a towel on his head, he's wearing a suit in Washington or a kevlar helmet doing the suit's bidding without a single moral reservation.

8/31/2009 10:53:03 PM

Quote :

"where do you start to draw the line. orders from superiors are not open for debate. when orders are refused or ignored in combat, people can die and objectives lost. this has not changed since the dawn of organized armies. it is paramount for the military's hierarchy to be blindly respected, and strictly followed. you are not an individual in battle, you are a soldier"

The only military experience TULIPlovr

has experiences is hitting "CTRL-P" to equip his level 90 Noble Squire World Of Warcraft character with his mythical long dagger
to fight in the alliance army versus the orcish horde.

8/31/2009 11:30:49 PM

You want me to scan a copy of my USMC DD-214?

8/31/2009 11:39:45 PM

well damn.

hey HUR, fuck off.

8/31/2009 11:41:02 PM

I'm quite annoyed when people bring that up as some sort of measure of whether a person's argument has merit.

My work history is not relevant at all to anything I posted. It is right or wrong on its own.

Yet, I'm glad I have the silly qualification that might satisfy him

9/1/2009 12:01:18 AM

So you often disobeyed your superior officers or NonComs command b.c it did not fit in with your morale standards?

9/1/2009 12:05:25 AM

Quote :

"The President cannot deploy troops in an undeclared war"

That's true, especially for the past few decades. Vietnam made Congress decide to put clearer limits on what the President can and cannot do with regards to sending troops to places. Unless I am very mistaken (and it's possible, I've been drinking), George W. Bush followed that requirement in the lead-up to military intervention in Iraq (and probably Afghanistan, though I don't seem to remember it as clearly).

Quote :

"On #2, what does the Congressional power to declare war even mean, in your view? If the President has the power to begin and prosecute a war without any (Constitutionally necessary) input from Congress....then what the fuck did the founders think they were providing Congress with? The power to be figureheads?"

As of the past few decades, the President has to ask the Congress for permission to use troops for a given purpose after a certain period of time. I want to say 180 days, but again, I'm not quite on top of my game. That seems reasonable enough to me; as Commander in Chief, the President has to take some immediate action. I don't think FDR waited a day to ask Congress's permission to untie his hands. Certainly the troops on the ground didn't; they shot at the Japanese without waiting for a DOW.

And, of course, the Constitution provided Congress with the power to impeach the President. Admittedly after 230+ years, that's been a rare enough event that it now seems almost impossible. Nonetheless, it exists. Unless I miss my guess, the founders intended this to be a major obstacle to hasty, unwarranted conflict. Certainly few (if any) of the founders had an issue with the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion, even if it was internal. Regardless, they themselves set the standard of letting the President go ahead and smash things in the short term. If, after that, he proved to be out of line, they could kick him out.

Quote :

"Iraq was not a legitimate threat to us in any way before the war. Iraq still is not a legitimate threat to us in any way "after" the war. How am I inconsistent? "

I don't necessarily know that you are being inconsistent, but I am unwilling to go back through all your posts to see your positions in the past. Regardless, it is important to point out the issue.

Quote :

"Besides, I can say that this war has threatened and taken away our freedoms, and the soldiers themselves have continued to be threats to our liberty, by the sheer fact that they are disregarding the rule of Law, and the Constitution they swore to protect."

1) It is not a given that you are correct in your assessment of the Constitutional powers delegated to the President and the Congress with regards to war, conflict, or management of the Army.

2) It is unreasonable to expect that soldiers (or most civilians, for that matter) have a detailed enough understanding of the Constitution to form any relevant, concrete opinion over it.

If we limited membership in the military to people who really, fully understood the constitution, we'd have a force that might protect us against invasion from Luxembourg.

Quote :

"I am more scared of my government and its military than I am of Al-Qaeda, in the long-run. In the short run, I am not paranoid or scared about either one, really. But time flies in this respect, and the greatest threat to our nation is not wearing a towel on his head, he's wearing a suit in Washington"

This assessment is not entirely unreasonable to me. But so far, there is a consistent American history of being able to vote against the people who scare you.

9/1/2009 12:10:10 AM

Quote :

"So you often disobeyed your superior officers or NonComs command b.c it did not fit in with your morale standards?"

I am not proud of my "service." I was a die-hard, unquestioning, standard evangelical flag-waving Republican my entire tenure. There are many things I would have done differently.

9/1/2009 12:16:22 AM

Quote :

"That's true, especially for the past few decades. Vietnam made Congress decide to put clearer limits on what the President can and cannot do with regards to sending troops to places. Unless I am very mistaken (and it's possible, I've been drinking), George W. Bush followed that requirement in the lead-up to military intervention in Iraq (and probably Afghanistan, though I don't seem to remember it as clearly)."

First, I would object to the 180-day rule, as there is not even a whisper of that in the Constitution. But second, the problem comes with enforcement - maybe it's my cynicism of any of our three branches, but I cannot possibly see this limitation meaning anything. The cat is already out of the bag. No President, if he violates that 180-day rule (I haven't checked it, but believe you are right), will have any serious congressional consequence to bear. And it's a rubber-stamp anyway - what kind of Congressman would vote to remove Presidential authorization to wage a conflict in the middle of that same conflict? A rare one, indeed. Even if the public hates the war, you just can't get away with that.

Quote :

"As of the past few decades, the President has to ask the Congress for permission to use troops for a given purpose after a certain period of time. I want to say 180 days, but again, I'm not quite on top of my game. That seems reasonable enough to me; as Commander in Chief, the President has to take some immediate action. I don't think FDR waited a day to ask Congress's permission to untie his hands. Certainly the troops on the ground didn't; they shot at the Japanese without waiting for a DOW."

I don't think anybody objects to Presidential authority to defend the territorial United States with military force when the invasion force is en route or already invading.

But the Constitution says what it says. It didn't take 180 days to get Congress to convene and declare war even at the founding of the Republic. It would take a maximum of 1-day now. There is no positive reason to give a President that much latitude, especially in conflicts that are merely "in our interests" and lie abroad, rather than actual defense of our country.

Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. The standard ought to be in how soon Congress can convene, not a 6-month free pass.

Quote :

" I don't necessarily know that you are being inconsistent, but I am unwilling to go back through all your posts to see your positions in the past. Regardless, it is important to point out the issue."

It seemed like you were alleging inconsistency on my part, so I figured you already had one in mind. No biggie.

Quote :

"1) It is not a given that you are correct in your assessment of the Constitutional powers delegated to the President and the Congress with regards to war, conflict, or management of the Army."

True, and the part you were responding to is built on that premise.

Quote :

"2) It is unreasonable to expect that soldiers (or most civilians, for that matter) have a detailed enough understanding of the Constitution to form any relevant, concrete opinion over it."

"Congress shall have the power......To declare War" seems pretty clear. Not too many details involved. This simply means that if the President wants to use the military, Congress gets to tell him when, except in the most extreme emergency in which the President has the power to respond until Congress can be convened, which is < 1 day.

It only becomes complicated and hard if we want to have our cake and eat it, too. If we want the power to be a flexible, global superpower who can respond with varying levels of force in many regions simultaneously to protect our "interests." That requires more Presidential latitude if it's going to work at all. And this might clue us in as to why the founders didn't give the President that latitude.

Quote :

"This assessment is not entirely unreasonable to me. But so far, there is a consistent American history of being able to vote against the people who scare you."

But everyone scares me Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum are both horrendous.

[Edited on September 1, 2009 at 12:35 AM. Reason : quote tags really messed up somehow]

9/1/2009 12:33:19 AM

Quote :

"First, I would object to the 180-day rule, as there is not even a whisper of that in the Constitution."

I figured it would come to this. It's our main problem. I tend to view "unconstitutional" as anything prohibited by the constitution. You view it as anything unmentioned by the constitution. Both of us are ignoring certain parts of the document. There is an "elastic clause," as you no doubt know.

Quote :

"But second, the problem comes with enforcement - maybe it's my cynicism of any of our three branches, but I cannot possibly see this limitation meaning anything. The cat is already out of the bag. No President, if he violates that 180-day rule (I haven't checked it, but believe you are right), will have any serious congressional consequence to bear."

The fact that the rule exists is evidence of some degree of enforcement. Congress could have sat by and stayed quiet, but they imposed the 180 day rule. And since then, Presidents have sought Congressional approval, which is not always a given -- especially with a split congress.

Quote :

"I don't think anybody objects to Presidential authority to defend the territorial United States with military force when the invasion force is en route or already invading."

That leaves a pretty big goddamn gap, doesn't it? I hate to belabor 9/11, but those weren't invasion or occupation forces. Is that something which should be ignored or even pawned off to Interpol?

Quote :

"It would take a maximum of 1-day now. There is no positive reason to give a President that much latitude, especially in conflicts that are merely "in our interests" and lie abroad, rather than actual defense of our country. "

I understand why this line of thinking is popular -- and also why it is not practical. Since the founding of the republic, things have changed. Our interests used to be much more localized than they are now. Survival as a country is no longer all about guarding the official territory of the nation.

Quote :

""Congress shall have the power......To declare War" seems pretty clear. Not too many details involved. This simply means that if the President wants to use the military, Congress gets to tell him when, except in the most extreme emergency in which the President has the power to respond until Congress can be convened, which is < 1 day. "

That's not a given by a long shot. Declaring war =/= fighting. And as you said, the President gets to use the military with clear Congressional restrictions.

I also think that your assumptions on how fast the Congress can actually respond to crises is overly optimistic. Perhaps not incredibly so, but still so.

9/1/2009 1:13:45 AM