Troops Tea Party seems upset

[Fitz]

Correct - the operative phrase being so far.  POTUS at this point HAS NOT used the US military to support Al-Qaeda, as far as we know. (Though there is some question about which "rebel" groups in Syria we're aiding - and how.)

But when POTUS has indicated an intent to embark on a course of action that legal opinion seems to strongly suggest is not only illegal but unconstitutional, I hardly think persons who object are failing to fulfill their obligations.

If Congress ultimately approves attacking Syria, the legalities will have been satisfied, at least insofar as American law is concerned, which will change the dynamic of the debate, and the attack orders will be lawful; foolish, but lawful.

They ARE failing to fulfill their obligations. One of those obligations is not making political protests in uniform.

[AZRedhawk44]

Fitz:  When the CinC fails to meet his obligations by declaring he may go to war over Congress' explicit vote of "No," doesn't that then present an opportunity for troops to do as they are doing here? 

CinC/POTUS is essentially saying his contract with COTUS is not worth honoring.  If that contract isn't any good, what good is any subordinate contract (i.e. enlistment contract)?

[Fitz]

Fitz:  When the CinC fails to meet his obligations by declaring he may go to war over Congress' explicit vote of "No," doesn't that then present an opportunity for troops to do as they are doing here? 

CinC/POTUS is essentially saying his contract with COTUS is not worth honoring.  If that contract isn't any good, what good is any subordinate contract (i.e. enlistment contract)?

It has not happened yet.

I don't get to break the rules because of something that hasn't happened yet.

And if the president DID do that, it STILL wouldn't be time to break the rules until congress fails to start impeachment proceedings.



It is not time, until it's time. Until it's time, soldiers have DUTY. We don't get to shirk our duties based on POSSIBILITIES.

[Scout26]

I'll try again to see if we can get AZ to grok this.

If Congress approves and the president orders, then Fitz salutes, says "Three Bags Full" and goes to Syria.

If Congress does not approve and the president still orders then Fitz salutes, says "Three Bags Full" and goes to Syria.


However, in scenario #2 above, hopefully those officers appointed over him say "Hold on a second Mr. President, I think that's an illegal order."  Hopefully, it's officers with stars on their shoulders (not bars or leafs).  That being the case, the USSC will get to decide what the War Powers Act really means, and as to whether it's an illegal order or not.  Or they could simply salute, say "Three Bags Full" and let Congress defund the mission.  Again, more than likely bringing in the USSC and the meaning of the War Powers Act.  Yes, Obama has tried to do end-arounds of Congress before (*cough* recess appointments), and been slap by the courts.  

[Fitz]

It's important to note that NEITHER scenario means I want to be there. My obligation to my troops is strong

[Jamisjockey]

Puff...puff....
Dude....so like what if they had a war.....and nobody showed up....?

[lupinus]

I'll try again to see if we can get AZ to grok this.

Good luck and godspeed

[AZRedhawk44]

[Balog]

So, just to be clear, .mil personnel abiding by the contracts they voluntarily signed instead of pre-emptively breaking them in order to make a symbolic protest, is the same as 1. Nazi soldiers slaughtering Jews and 2. Pontius Pilot sending Jesus to be crucified. Gotcha.

You really are dedicated to expanding the use of hyperbole aren't you?

Also, care to answer why, as a voluntaryist, you're so eager and supportive of folks breaking their contracts?

[AZRedhawk44]

So, just to be clear, .mil personnel abiding by the contracts they voluntarily signed instead of pre-emptively breaking them in order to make a symbolic protest, is the same as 1. Nazi soldiers slaughtering Jews and 2. Pontius Pilot sending Jesus to be crucified. Gotcha.

You really are dedicated to expanding the use of hyperbole aren't you?

Also, care to answer why, as a voluntaryist, you're so eager and supportive of folks breaking their contracts?

Wow.

It's an animated gif of some dude washing his hands.  Settle down.

#1 is just so far off-base from what I said that I'm not going to respond.

I already conceded the point about contracts.



(No, I'm not calling anyone a fairy with this gif... that's just Tink washing her hands.)

[Balog]

You're right, somewhere in your repeated analogies of Americans losing a war to Russia and being tried like the Nazis at Nuremburg I must have mistakenly gotten the impression that you were comparing American soldiers to Nazis. No idea where that came from.

[vaskidmark]

Ever since WWII the world has agreed to an outline of what constitutes a crime against humanity and ever since 18__ agreed to what constitutes a war crime.  At the bottom we have the Geneva and Hauge convention agreements, along with several decisions in "the world court of opinion" that those conventions are considered binding even if your country is not a formal signatory.  It just takes getting to the end of the physical conflict before applying the standards against the losing side.

Somewhere there is a quote about the military being what one country applies against another country to make that second country agree with the first country when talking about it while wearing formalwear has not been successful.  In this case it is how POTUS intends to carry out his political policy about something.  To me it looks more like POTUS wanting to rub Syria's nose in the mess created by somebody using chemical weapons in order to make Syria not want to do thata\gain.  But like training puppies and children, the longer the delay between the act that p'd you off and the rubbing of the nose in the mess the less meaning said nose rubbing has.

But the most the military can do is share their considered opinion on how sucessful the proposed action will have on achieving the proposed outcome.  POTUS is supposed to have political advisors that do the same thing from that perspective.  Then once POTUS makes up his mind the military puts on its collective socks and ties its collective boots, while the political advisors consider whether or not they should start looking for new jobs.  As I understand it, officers have the option of resigning their commission, but the non-commissioned ranks (NCO and lesser ranks) do not have that option, so when new officers are commissioned the troops are under contract to obey them until and unless a specific illegal order is given.

That would be along the lines of "Bomb the Damascus Main Hospital where we know civillians are being housed and treated" as opposed to "Our best intelligence suggests X (that we are wanting to destroy because of its military value) is located here, so bomb the crap out of right here", or an order to "take no prisoners" or to "shoot all civillians even if they are not armed and are not offering any resistance".

Since POTUS usually does not micromanage the application of tactical military might (as opposed to approving the use of political might for the purpose of attaining political goals) it would be difficult for POTUS to give an illegal order.  The best he might be able to do is tell the Joint Chiefs to tell the troops to kill all ragheads with red rags on their heads, but leave ragheads wearing any other color alone - unless the red rag signified the uniform of "the enemy".  But then the Joint Chiefs could either share their considered wisdom or quit and hope anybody appointed to replace them shares the same opinion about the proposed carrying out of political goals by application of military might.

But let us get back to the analogy of the puppy.  What can POTUS accomplish to further his political goals by waiting until next Tuesday to do something?

stay safe.

[Boomhauer]

It's an animated gif of some dude washing his hands.  Settle down.

Uh huh sssssssuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeee

[Ryan in Maine]

 

[charby]

Wow.

It's an animated gif of some dude washing his hands.  Settle down.

#1 is just so far off-base from what I said that I'm not going to respond.

I already conceded the point about contracts.



(No, I'm not calling anyone a fairy with this gif... that's just Tink washing her hands.)

[Scout26]

AZ hat seems to think that if Congress says "Simon Sez", then should the Syrians or the Russians captured US Servicemembers then they cannot be tried for warcrimes by those capturing powers.    Unlike what the Norks did to the crew of the Pueblo or what the North Vietnamese did to US fighter pilots.  I mean even though Congress gave Truman to police Koreaand then gave LBJ the Tonkin Gulf Resolution (a go to war permit), they didn't hold warcrimes trials or violate the Geneva and The Hague Conventions.   Nosiree.


And  if you are trying to play dumb with the Ponitas Pilate gif, it's very convincing.

[cordex]

AZ has been off base, but haven't Fitz and others said that even if lawful orders were given to conduct operations against citizens of this country there would be a right and proper refusal to do so?  I seem to recall some approving discussion about keys being left in armored vehicles where they might be found by the opposition ...

Obviously there are some differences between the scenarios, but there is at least some acceptance by the same people who are proclaiming the importance of enforcing military obedience to unpopular orders about refusing lawful orders if they seem unjust or wrong.

[Fitz]

That wouldn't be a lawful order

[Sergeant Bob]

And  if you are trying to play dumb with the Ponitas Pilate gif, it's very convincing.

I think he is merely implying that he is "washing his hands" of this discussion?

[Fitz]

AZ has been off base, but haven't Fitz and others said that even if lawful orders were given to conduct operations against citizens of this country there would be a right and proper refusal to do so?  I seem to recall some approving discussion about keys being left in armored vehicles where they might be found by the opposition ...

Obviously there are some differences between the scenarios, but there is at least some acceptance by the same people who are proclaiming the importance of enforcing military obedience to unpopular orders about refusing lawful orders if they seem unjust or wrong.

I have a lot more to say about this comparison, let me get to a computer

[Fitz]

OK, I'll try to lay this out the best I can, bearing in mind that some may disagree.

To me, a war in Syria authorized by congress is legal. That's probably not in dispute. Stupid? Sure. Illegal? Nope.

A war denied by congress, but pursued anyway, is not legal in my mind. As I said previously, I'd probably obey anyway (while writing my representatives asking them to start impeachment proceedings.) This has nothing to do with the legality of the order, and everything to do with my troops. Also, the folks protesting in uniform? I will no longer have an objection to that if congress says "no" and Obama goes anyway. Such an order will be , in my mind, illegal and unconstitutional, and I cannot fault a man for standing up against that, even if I won't myself.


An order to use military force against American citizens in any of the scenarios we are warned about in fiction, I would not obey. Even if authorized by congress, mass confiscations of weapons, suppression of dissent, etc etc.... those things are all unconstitutional. Again, it's like simon says. Congress and the president can give all the orders they wish, but if they're unconstitutional, I have not only the RIGHT to deny, but the DUTY.

Some may ask why the disparity. Why would I obey an unconstitutional order to invade Syria after denied by congress, but refuse an order (even duly authorized by congress) to, for example, collect all weapons from private citizens and melt em down, round up <insert group here> and put them in camps, etc?

Quite simply, my loyalty to my troops ends where my loyalty to the American public begins. Although I love my troops, they know that if there's ever an occasion where the US military is called to oppress citizens and violate their human rights, take their weapons, etc... then they better hope they don't see me again, because it'll be them looking down my rifle barrel.

I'm willing to sacrifice my duty to the constitution to go invade Syria if necessary, because I care about my troops, and they need me. I have no loyalty to Syrians on either side, and to me conducting a war there is a small price to pay to take care of my troops.

I am not, and never will be willing to sacrifice my duty to the constitution in order to conduct a war against Americans, gun owners, jews, christians, or whatever group they want me to stomp under a jackboot. My troops will either come with me, or they'll become my enemy. Authorized by congress or not, such a campaign renders my committment to the country null and void, IMHO.

I DO realize that this makes me a hypocrit. However, it's a hypocrisy I can live with.

[cordex]

Fitz,

Sounds fair and honorable to me. Thanks for taking the time to write that.

[Fitz]

Lol!!!

[Bigjake]

What Fitz said.   

What those people are doing is illegal, as far as our oath goes. The president may well be full of *expletive deleted*it,  but anyone that took that oath should know better.

That being the case,  If ordered,  I'll go.  I wouldn't agree with it,  but my Marines don't get to choose,  why should I?