but will they stop the madman? shades of Dr. Strangelove and general ripper here boys and girls. mad to the very end.
but remember, they are sending all our military away from country and bringing private military back. what does that suggest to you?
Posted by oldtree at January 12, 2007 11:32 AMTwo thoughts:
* America's democracy is in sad f(*&ing shape if we're counting on the military to save us from illegal wars, instead of the voters, Congress, the press, protests, etc.
* If the military DID refuse to fight the war, would they stop there, or would they discover that the kinda LIKED the taste of running the show?
Posted by dj moonbat at January 12, 2007 11:45 AMI wouldn't be opposed to the military dragging Bush and Cheney out of the White House in handcuffs and handing them over to the Hague to face charges of war crimes.
Posted by Christopher at January 12, 2007 11:46 AMI wouldn't be opposed to the military dragging Bush and Cheney out of the White House in handcuffs and handing them over to the Hague to face charges of war crimes.
Yeah, the rule of law is for suckers.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 12, 2007 11:51 AMrule of law schmle of law. bush is above the law and jose padilla is below it. hey presto, we're a 3rd world country.
Posted by benjoya at January 12, 2007 12:07 PM1. "Would they obey Bush and start a clearly illegal and insane war with Iran..."
--paradox
Absolutely. And without hesitation.
2. "...handing them over to the Hague to face charges of war crimes."
--Christopher @ 11:46 AM
Unnecessary. We have perfectly good war crimes statues (e.g. 18 USC 2441) right here in America. The ICC can have what remains after our legal accounting has concluded.
3. Write a LTE and/or Senators & Representative objecting to this gross, jejeune and perfidious beligerance. For your convenience, draft follows:
"If Israel’s second Lebanon disaster is our template to attack Iran, America’s non-negotiable lifestyle will end meanly. Despite overwhelming firepower savagely applied, sacrificing lives, reputation, resources and influence secured no US/Israeli military or political advantage. None. Intentionally battering Lebanon’s civilians not only failed to alienate Hizb’Allah’s supporters and allies but, unlike America and Israel, increased their adherence and attracted the uncommitted. Big surprise: where force failed, more force also failed...again.
Like Hizb’Allah, Iran can withstand US/Israeli attacks beyond our sustaining political will. It can also retaliate abroad through state allies, sub-national militias and global energy disruption. Our Iraq occupation troops may repeat a desert Chosin Reservoir while we deal with China's margin call, $200+/barrel oil and other unforeseeable adversities. Goodbye easy credit, happy motoring, big box, suburban asteroid belt.
Due to the real military affairs revolution, people living on “our” resources now have effective defense and having long hated our policies need tolerate them no longer. There’s no military solution. Leaders who see all problems as nails, hammers their only tools, need a long overdue, if unearned, silent retirement. Only honest negotiators can resolve our grievances. Otherwise, our future is Wadi Saluki’s smashed Merkavas writ large."
We really don't have to go quietly, you know.
they better obey a direct command from a superior officer. The entire operation of any army depends on that action. Paradox, would you have a soldier with a key to launch a retaliatory strike if we were under certain nuclear attack refuse to do so because of a sudden rush of conscience? no. If Bush is a madman, insane as you say, then the Congress of the United States needs to remove him. It's not a soldiers responsibility, its Hagel, Lieberman, Reid, Biden and the rest of them. They keep him in power and they can remove him. If they can impeach Bill Clinton for fibbing about a perfectly legal fling, then they can dump Bush.
Posted by T2 at January 12, 2007 12:25 PMT2,
"then they can dump Bush."
Yes, they can and I fervently hope they FINALLY will. The problem is, we may have only days or weeks before the twit strikes. I don't advocate military revolution either, but we fought a World War or two already and after the last one, we had these funny trials in a town called Nurenburg.
There we solemly decided that soldiers have a higher responsibility, and no, I'm NOT talking about the Christian Embassy and their Big God O'War. A soldier has a duty as a person. A person whoe individual action, as in the case of a nuclear missile silo, could result in the horrific deaths of hundreds or even MILLIONS of fellow human beings. I CERTAINLY would want a soldier receiving a disastrously stupid and ILLEGAL order to have the courage to just say NO SIR!.
Just because they put on a uniform and underwent cult-like training does not make them less a responsible, thinking, human being. It just doesn't!
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 12, 2007 12:42 PMDeminNJ - if your dream comes true, I hope, for your sake, the Army and it's commanders who take over intend to run the country the way you want, because once a military state assumes power, you can't vote them out. You are under the gun.
Posted by T2 at January 12, 2007 01:02 PMGotta wait until May. Seven Days in May.
No, I agree with Paradox,this is quite serious. However, it is not news. The blogs reported the tasking of carriers months ago when the first one steamed out. The second one was under orders and this was known before Christmas--actually, I think around Thanksgiving. The Admiral's appointment lent credence to the speculation. The leaking of Israel's nuke plans on Iran was next and now the deliberate effort to provoke a reaction by invading the consular offices....it is all of a piece. NPR commenters this morning were saying this was not intended to provoke an excuse for war, but to tighten the screws and get Iran to co-operate with the UN. We have been down that road before.
I think a carrier group could launch an air-war on Iran in the name of cutting off supplies to Iraqi "insurgents" while Israel takes out the nuclear facilities in the confusion.
Stupid? Absolutely. Would these guys do it? Absolutely.
Posted by suds at January 12, 2007 01:14 PMWe're in very dangerous constitutional waters. I wish I knew more about the laws and requirements involved. I hope people write their representatives and senators asking this question: have you asked the military what they will do if Bush insists on starting a war with Iran and will you remind them that Bush has no authorization from Congress for such a war? Privately or publicly the question has to be asked.
It should also be publicly acknowledged that Bush has been playing games with Syria and Iran for the past four years. Any number of incidents on our part could justify war. I should add that occassionally the Iranians have done things in support of the Iraqi government that our own government hasn't liked. That is a bizarre situation and just one of many reasons why we need a 'surge' in diplomacy, not troops.
We're in a situation similar to the Cold War; over a period of 45 years, particularly in the first 40 years, there were many incidents going on between the United States and the Soviet Union that could have led to open warfare. We are fortunate that no one during the Cold War in a position of power wanted 'hot' war. Although mistakes were made, they were mostly rational people. Cheney and Bush would have been disasters in that era just as they are a disaster now. In the bubble that Cheney and Bush occupy, everybody is 'an imminent threat.'
Posted by Craig at January 12, 2007 01:18 PMIf Bush&Co goes to war with Iran, a large chunk of the carrier fleet will rest on the bottom. those missiles the Iranians have been building are to kill ships, not to hit Israel.
It would be utter stupidity.
Posted by Nobody at January 12, 2007 01:21 PMSir! Yes Sir!
...won't even think twice.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 12, 2007 01:26 PMHey, Nero, Deadeye and the military only pledged to defend and uphold the Constitution---not to read it!
Posted by euzoius at January 12, 2007 01:41 PMWell euzoius, didn't you know it was only "A godamned piece of paper!"
Posted by Seven of Six at January 12, 2007 02:00 PMI don't recall the details (military service was many years ago for me), but the UCMJ not only authorizes, but requires, that a military person - officer or enlisted - NOT obey an illegal order. Illegal order types are listed in the code, but still very few in service would take that chance since if the order is legal then they face charges for disobeying a lawful order.
But saying: I was just obeying orders doesn't cut the mustard. If the order was illegal, obeying it still can get one court-martialed, depending on the degree of illegality of the order.
A resolution should be passed by the House and Senate NOW saying the President has no authority to attack Iran. Bush can't veto it, but it will require 60 votes in the Senate to pass. That is NOT sufficient, however.
The supplementary military appropriations bill (the $106 billion Bush plans to request) should contain this same prohibition. If the GOP wants to fillibuster this, let them have at it. If Bush thinks he can operate without an appropriation he is acting unlawfully. THAT would be a high crime (and more than a misdemeanor).
Posted by JimPortlandOR at January 12, 2007 02:05 PMAttacking Iran would not be illegal or against the constitution. Whether to do so or not is another question entirely.
As for the military, they must obey the commander in chief. Arresting the president would be unconstitutional. But perhaps there are those who believe we have reached that point - where coups are the answer? I guess they could not be considered democrats, could they?
As for diplomacy, it rests on both carrots and sticks. The only carrot we could offer Iran would be to let them go nuclear. This is where the threat of force can be handy. This does not mean that it needs to be used.
As for Iran and Iraq, Iran is providing funds, arms, and even trainers to fighters in Iraq. Iranians in Iraq involved in such activities are fair game. Naturally, their diplomats should be sent home unharmed - a lot more than the revolutionary government of Iran did for the American Embassy.
Posted by InIraq at January 12, 2007 02:15 PMThe only carrot we could offer Iran would be to let them go nuclear.
how about talking to them? or not threatening "regime change" oh, no, that would give them a "PR victory" can't do that. much better to threaten while we bleed -- what are they gonna do, let loose the shi'ia on us? why, once we get rid of that al-sadr and hook up with SCIRI, it should be smooth sailing. know what SCIRI stands for, einstein?
Posted by benjoya at January 12, 2007 02:27 PMwait, i forgot latest talking points -- we're not throwing maliki under the bus even though his majority rests on al-sadr's party's involvement. even though the pro-iranian al-hakim visited bush, we are not turning to him and will stick with malikis's sadr-inclusive government. genius, sheer genius.
Posted by benjoya at January 12, 2007 02:30 PMDear Paradox,
The military has sadly already answered that question with the attack on the Iranian consulate in Erbil, and the naval carriers in the Gulf.
InIraq sez: Arresting the president would be unconstitutional.
Show me where it says this. I believe for the military to arrest its civilian leadership would constitute a mutiny, and thus perhaps treason (which could be considered unconstitutional). But I don't see immunity from arrest listed anywhere in Article II.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 12, 2007 03:05 PMAttacking targets in Iran without the prior authorization of Congress would be a blatant disregard of the provisions the Constitution. The fact that presidents have wrongfully asserted this false executive "power" is another question entirely.
If InIraq is "militarily" in Iraq, then I guess we have the answer to the question of the post, don't we?
InIraq also would be a pretty poor and unimaginative diplomat--perfect for Bushco!
Posted by euzoius at January 12, 2007 03:49 PMI've been away from my computer for a while. so I haven't been able to respond. I have NOT advocated a military coup. However, there is no excuse for a military person executing an unlawful or immoral order. I think the sanest response for anyone given an illegal order is simply to refuse to execute it. Yes, it represents a risk of career and even freedom. It is also the correct, moral thing to do. Just because you have an asshole in command you don't have to be as stupid.
If I was in a nuclear silo, I would be utterly aghast at the idea that ANYONE would pull a nuclear trigger, poisoning my world and consigning millions of fellow humans to incendairy death or painful, wasting disease. Whe THE HELL thinks a fucking President has that kind of authority? JUST REFUSE IMMORAL ORDERS! It's not really that hard to conceive and it certainly doesn't spell the END of democracy. Quite the opposite!
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 12, 2007 05:11 PMHowever, there is no excuse for a military person executing an unlawful or immoral order.
The law is a pretty complicated beast. I would only expect military personnel to refuse orders that were plainly wrong.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 12, 2007 05:44 PMA young man soldier named Watada is refusing to be shipped out to Iraq because the war in Iraq is not legal. He is being court-marshaled. He is using the very argument postulated here.
Posted by suds at January 12, 2007 05:52 PMThe Soldier's Oath:
"I, _____, 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."
Here is the UCMJ.
What do soldiers do when the pResident is disobeying the Constitution of the United States?
Posted by Seven of Six at January 12, 2007 05:57 PMI read yesterday Schlesinger told the military not to do anything "crazy" when nixon was melting. One would hope someone beside 'it's our due' cheney and 'mission accomplished' bush would be consulted.
Posted by at January 12, 2007 06:23 PMWhat do soldiers do when the pResident is disobeying the Constitution of the United States?
Again, considering that the Constitution leaves lots of room for interpretation (that's why it's lasted), it would be asking too much for them to ponder the ins and outs of the Con Law underlying each order. We can only expect that they will refuse to do things that are, on their face, unjustified.
An unprovoked war (Iraq) is pretty bad, and an unprovoked war without Congress's say-so (Iran) is even worse. Is that where the generals draw the line? Probably not.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 12, 2007 06:25 PMA lot of people here are pretty informed regarding the Nuremberg defense - hey, I was just following orders. That doesn't fly if the orders are unlawful. The issue of disobeying unlawful orders is built into the UCMJ. Watada is unusual in that he is an officer and is standing up to disobey what he believes to be an unlawful order. He's a brave man. They are few and far between in or out of the military.
If this president orders an unlawful attack on foreign soil I think the attack will be carried out. The military types are natural mavericks, they tend more to the authoritarian chain of command mindset.
Our president is a war criminal. The country has jumped the shark.
Posted by angel at January 12, 2007 06:37 PMSomeone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Hagel said today, that attacking Iran would force a Constitutional Crisis, and that Congress would have to cut funds off and start impeachment proceedings.
Here's an interesting fact. For every American killed in this war, 16 are injured severaly.
Posted by Judith at January 12, 2007 08:00 PMDid anyone in Congress vote on the Bay of Pigs? Did Congress authorize the Carter Admins attempt to rescue our hostages in Tehran, Iran? How about Grenada during Reagan's presidency? The Panama incursion to nab Noriega? Would Congress have to be consulted before launching a nuke strike? Would they have to vote on it? Illegal orders, bunch of crap. Presidential orders are legal and moral period. They carry the weight of the US Constitution period. If one is deemed illegal, take him to Congress, impeach him and convict him in the Senate. Let Chief Justice John Roberts hear it. Otherwise what a bunch of crap.
Real funny up there...have Congress vote on a resolution banning the President from attacking Iran. How many resolutions did it take for the US to attack Iraq? You want to hold the President of the US accountable to just one resolution and let the 17 Iraq had imposed pass for nothing. Real thoughtful there. Your words lose their meaning rapidly. Iraq had the authority of Congress behind the President. No matter how it has turned out. It was authorized by Congress, bipartisan Congress. Some may have regretted the vote they cast after the fact, sure doesn't change any facts of the vote they made. Freely and fairly cast, no gun to head, no person held hostage, they voted for this of their own accord. Your Congress voted for this. The American people voted for this. They might not like it today but they voted for this yesterday.
Our President isn't a war criminal, if he is we all are, all Americans. I am not a war criminal.
When are you going to submit yourself to the Hague Court for trial????
Posted by peter at January 12, 2007 08:05 PMOh
My
God.....
Peter, I hope you've just left the building- you really, REALLY don't belong here...
Posted by Marty at January 13, 2007 12:57 AMThe President does not need Congress to grant authority on every military action. Congress does not have access to the same intelligence (granted, debating Bush's personal intelligence is valid) that the President has. The role of Congress is to legislate, not manage military actions and war. Congress can however cut funding - that is their only source of leverage.
The military cannot arrest the President because he is a civilian - the military has no jurisdiction.
As for diplomacy, we can only talk to Iran if we have something to offer them. It is pretty clear what they want. Threats backed by force are also a valid tool in diplomacy. Always have been, always will. However, that does not mean they should always be employed.
As for disobeying orders, soldiers can do that and must take the consequences of their actions. If they want to disobey an order they think is immoral, more power to them. Thankfully, the military is made up of very educated and dedicated people who are capable of making the moral decision of when to follow orders and when to disobey.
I think a lot of the positions offered by InIraq and Peter are essentially untested. As one said, take it to the Supremes and find out. Impeach if you have the political power. I agree with both parts of that. The Constitution can defend itself and us (and U.S.) if our elected representatives let it---but they have not yet done so in the present situation. I am angry and bitter about Bush, but there NO "Constitutional Crisis" if you let it operate the way it was designed.
As to War Powers of previous Presidents, I believe that is an interesting historical exercise, but I think it can be demonstrated that the present case has no precedent---i.e., Bush Administration is impeachable for abuse of power and an impeachment proceeding (if enacted) has a reasonable chance of proving the case. But it all comes down to doing what is required by the Constitution instead of being afraid of doing what is prescribes when there is doubt about the sanity, motives and/or designs of the Executive.
There ain't no crisis. How can we hallow a document and be so damned afraid of it at the same time?
Posted by gtash at January 13, 2007 04:58 AMI believe the power to declare war rests with Congress. It's in the Constitution somewhere. I know, I know, stop talking about that damn piece of paper.
Presidents have tried to seize that authority for the past 50 years, but there are vestiges of our constitutional framework like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Aggressive war is a war crime. Attacking a nation that has not attacked you is aggressive war. Bush = war criminal.
You see if the neocons thought that war crimes prosecution is not a real problem, then Mr. Kissinger would have gone to the Hague decades ago to dispense with their silly idea of putting him in the docket for bombing Cambodia and other misadventures.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/22/uk.kissinger/
Posted by angel at January 14, 2007 07:17 AM