Soldier refuses to deploy/follow Obama due to the POTUS is not US Citizen

[SavageEagle]

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Another problem I see with this resolution, we've already caught 90% of those involved with the 9/11 attacks. Where do the rest of these terrorists fall into?

 

[ATF Consumer]

Again. A declaration of war must be authorized for it to be a LEGAL war and not just a Conflict that carries National Security interests. You can call it a war, but by law it is not unless it carries a Declaration of war with it, signed by Congress. Just passing a bill for money to fund the conflict DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A DECLARATION OF WAR.

Well said...

 

[techres]

Well said...

Agreed. All or nothing baby, all or nothing.

 

[MoparMan]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf

 

[ATF Consumer]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf

Unconstitutional...not valid by any means.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Looks like this discussion isn't moving forward much, as those that disagree with the constitution keep posting unconstitutional laws to prove their point, but it is all invalid as they keep turning a blind eye to the truth.

 

[MoparMan]

I believe we have discussed this latter topic in many threads and people have different conclusions.

I think the initial topic was about a soldier no following the orders of the president in which he will be court martialed and kicked out dishonorably. Whether anyone likes him as a president he still is.

This is the same bull that we soldiers dealt with overseas when our own people and media arm chair quaterback President Bush. It makes us look like the third world country when we cant support our president even though we may not agree with his decisions.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I believe we have discussed this latter topic in many threads and people have different conclusions.

I think the initial topic was about a soldier no following the orders of the president in which he will be court martialed and kicked out dishonorably. Whether anyone likes him as a president he still is.

This is the same bull that we soldiers dealt with overseas when our own people and media arm chair quaterback President Bush. It makes us look like the third world country when we cant support our president even though we may not agree with his decisions.

When the decisions are unconstitutional, questioning them does not make one UNPATRIOTIC.

Why is it that some people only want to protect PORTIONS of the constitution and step on other parts? Let's play a little Bush game here...

You are either for the Constitution or you are against it.
Which side are you on?

 

[MoparMan]

In 2 words.-THE PRESIDENT
Since im in the military currently i do what im told. I dont have the luxury of sitting at a computer desk typing away and arguing/researching what every politician does. Even if i did, who cares. One's politician is just as bad as the next lawyer.

I guess thats why our country is great, you can disagree with the president and not get your head cut off. Thanks for the conversation, time for a cigarette and join another topic.

 

[dburkhead]

Again. A declaration of war must be authorized for it to be a LEGAL war and not just a Conflict that carries National Security interests. You can call it a war, but by law it is not unless it carries a Declaration of war with it, signed by Congress. Just passing a bill for money to fund the conflict DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A DECLARATION OF WAR.

The people that wrote the Constitution did not think so.

The bill did not just authorize "money to fund the conflict." It authorized the president to use force. That. Is. A. Declaration. Of. War.

Note that the occupation after cessation of hostilities is not war. It's, generally, part of the terms of surrender. However, not being war it does not require a declaration of war. Likewise, Status of Forces Agreements, in which a nation agrees to allow basing of US military forces, is not war and does not require a declaration of war. Likewise the 1882 treaty with Mexico which allowed forces on either side to pursue raiders (intended for use against Apaches, but later used by Pershing to pursue Pancho Villa) across the border is not war but action in accordance with an agreement between nations.

None of those things has ever required a "declaration of war."

Now, on to some of your specifics.

Somalia and Pirates. Suppressing piracy has been a US Navy mission since there's been a US Navy--since before the Constitution was conceived, let alone ratified. You may think it's "unconstitutional" but the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution didn't think so as demonstrated by your own actions.

China and Cyberspace. You are now stretching "war" beyond all meaning. Sorry. Just because you call it "war" doesn't make it "war" in the meaning of the Constitution.

"That's an invasion, regardless of permission." That is nonsense. If you have permission to be there it is not an invasion. Saying it is is like calling having guests over a "home invasion" despite having permission to be there.

North Korea. Authorizing the use of force is a declaration of war. You seem to be hung up on whether they said certain words, like invoking a magic spell. When Congress says "you can go hammer that country flat" regardless of what wording they use, that's a declaration of war.

Afghanistan. If they're going into Afghanistan to fight us that's their lookout. We are not responsible for having to list everyone who attacks us, or even holding the nations responsible if individuals from that nation choose to go to a foreign nation to fight us. In much the same way, Germany was under no obligation to declare war on the US just because their happened to be Americans fighting with the British in 1940 through November of 1941. They were perfectly within their legal rights (once war was enjoined--whether they had the "right" to start the war in the first place is a separate question) to shoot at the Americans flying with the British as well. Nor were the Japanese required to declare war on the US before engaging Chenault's group of civilian volunteers. Thus, we can exclude all the "they are going to Afghanistan to fight" examples.

"It's like Congress giving you money to..."

Actually, it's like Congress telling you that you have permission to pave a road and then you go ahead and pave the road. It's not the money that makes it a declaration of war but the authorization, the permission, of Congress to use miltiary force.

What you are failing to understand, I think, is that there is no "formal" or "standard" wording for a declaration of war. It's not a form letter where you just put the name of the country on which you are declaring war and print it under your letterhead. It's a concept. It's a public declaration that a particular country is subject to attack. You don't have to attack. Consider the "phony war" phase of WWII. Germany and Italy on one side, Britain and France on the other had all declared war on each other and were just sitting for a period. While in that case there was essentially no chance that either side would back down enough to prevent the "sitzkreig" from turning into a shooting war, but in principle that could happen. Thus, whether one starts shooting immediately or not, or even starts shooting at all before other approaches are taken, doesn't make a declaration of war any less of a declaration. Thus, that not all authorizations to use military force lead to actual use of military force make them any less a declaration of war.

But quibbling over whether certain specific wording was used? "Louis Wu, I found your challenge verbose. When challenging a Kzin, a simple scream of rage will suffice. You scream and you leap." (They key is that the scream comes first.)

 

[dburkhead]

Looks like this discussion isn't moving forward much, as those that disagree with the constitution keep posting unconstitutional laws to prove their point, but it is all invalid as they keep turning a blind eye to the truth.

Um, you might want to rethink that approach. I do not disagree with the Constitution. I do, however, disagree with what you think the Constitution means.

One of the people who "disagrees with the Constitution" as you put it was Thomas Jefferson. You remember him, don't you? Extremely anti-freedom and pro-government power individual?</sarc> You will look in vain for any more than one of the Congressional resolutions you are decrying now as a "declaration of war" against the Barbary pirates. Oh, by the way, the "declaration of war" against the US by the Pasha of Tripoli also wasn't any formally worded document as you and SE seem to want, but the simple expedient of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the US Consulate.

As I said to SE, there's no "standard," "formal," or "approved" verbiage for a declaration of war. At it's heart a declaration of war is nothing more than a statement that the nation against whom war is being declared are subject to military attack by the nation doing the declaring. Whether it's cutting down a flagstaff, publically authorizing the use of military force, or actually using the specific words "we declare war on..." it's the public warning that military attack is actively on the table on the one hand, and Congress actually giving the go-ahead to the President on the other that makes it a declaration of war.

 

[SavageEagle]

Forget it. You want to talk semantics and, like ATF said, use unConstitutional resolutions and laws to make your point there's no sense arguing with you. I'm wrong, your right, David Burkhead/Jeremy for Prez/Vice Prez.

WTFEVER.

 

[dburkhead]

Forget it. You want to talk semantics and, like ATF said, use unConstitutional resolutions and laws to make your point there's no sense arguing with you. I'm wrong, your right, David Burkhead/Jeremy for Prez/Vice Prez.

WTFEVER.

Actually, no, you are the one talking semantics in complaining basically because the verbiage isn't to your liking. I, on the other hand, have been referring to things like actual events in history and the actual actions taken by folk like Thomas Jefferson who were instrumental in writing that document you are citing.

But I guess you know better than the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution as to what it means.

 

[SavageEagle]

No, I was stating it as it is. The President IS part of the military, A declaration of war, not a BUDGET bill, is required for a legal war, and if the Prez isn't legally Prez, then all orders from him are moot and illegal orders. Those are my points, they are fact, any arguement against them are poo, I"m right, you're wrong, deal with it and move on.

 

[Vigilant]

If the President was not part of the military he'd have no way to issue an order. He may be a civilian, but he is also military by design. He does hold rank. The highest rank. And is therefore subject ot military law aswell.

Also, I never said the military could take this all the way and throw him out of office. I simply said that they can investigate this. They find the proof, they present it to Congress. Congress is then forced to do their job when the evidence is already known.

Look SE, it is obvious you do not know how our miltary system and UCMJ work. The POTUS IS a CIVILIAN, NOT, a member of the Armed Forces. He is the CIVILIAN Commander in Chief, just as the Secretary of Defense is a CIVILIAN, but also in the MILITARY chain of command. They are NOT subject to UCMJ actions, just as a civilian committing murder on a military base is tried in civilian court not under UCMJ.

 

[SavageEagle]

Look SE, it is obvious you do not know how our miltary system and UCMJ work. The POTUS IS a CIVILIAN, NOT, a member of the Armed Forces. He is the CIVILIAN Commander in Chief, just as the Secretary of Defense is a CIVILIAN, but also in the MILITARY chain of command. They are NOT subject to UCMJ actions, just as a civilian committing murder on a military base is tried in civilian court not under UCMJ.

Show me where it says the President is EXEMPT from UCMJ.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Um, you might want to rethink that approach. I do not disagree with the Constitution. I do, however, disagree with what you think the Constitution means. There was a bit of sarcasm in that in which it was quite fascist for Bush to have place individuals as being unpatriotic for not supporting his war wishes.

One of the people who "disagrees with the Constitution" as you put it was Thomas Jefferson. You remember him, don't you? Extremely anti-freedom and pro-government power individual?</sarc>
May be why he wasn't a signer to the constitution, and just because he disagrees with it does not invalidate it.
You will look in vain for any more than one of the Congressional resolutions you are decrying now as a "declaration of war" against the Barbary pirates. Oh, by the way, the "declaration of war" against the US by the Pasha of Tripoli also wasn't any formally worded document as you and SE seem to want, but the simple expedient of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the US Consulate.
Again, if it was not declared by congress, then any wage of war actions would be unconstitutional regardless of when it happened. Other nations or people do not follow OUR Constitution so their declaring of war doesn't matter from that perspective.

As I said to SE, there's no "standard," "formal," or "approved" verbiage for a declaration of war. At it's heart a declaration of war is nothing more than a statement that the nation against whom war is being declared are subject to military attack by the nation doing the declaring. Whether it's cutting down a flagstaff, publically authorizing the use of military force, or actually using the specific words "we declare war on..." it's the public warning that military attack is actively on the table on the one hand, and Congress actually giving the go-ahead to the President on the other that makes it a declaration of war.

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that says anything other than "To declare War...", so to say congress can do anything other than that seems to be in conflict with what it states. And for the president to wage war without the declaration of such, would be in conflict with that as well.

 

[Vigilant]

Yea, but the problem here is it's not a conventional war. It's not a war against any one certain Country. Not yet anyway. How can Congress declare war when there's no one Country or person to declare war on? The war on terror or war on drugs or war on poverty are not real wars that can be "Declared". Not conventionally anyway. Yes, technically those wars were declared, but not as if when we declared on Japan, Germany, Italy, Iraq, etc.

The war as it is now is not the same as it was before Sadaam was captured. We are now fighting in 4 Countries and none of them we've declared war ON. Just certain people within them Countries. That's the problem with this war. The rules still apply, but even though Congress approves the budget, they've never made the Declaration like they have in the past.

Now if you can show me the Declaration of War after Sadaam fell that was signed I'd be happy to recant all of the above...

If you were a little older, and maybe a student of history, you'd find that we've had troops "in harm's way" in many more countries over many more years than since 9/11 just not on the evening news every night, ALL without formal declarations of war. Congo, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, Bosnia, Grenada, Somalia, Lebanon, and many others that never made the news. No declaration of formal war, but our boys took and returned fire in every one of them.

 

[MoparMan]

Show me where it says the President is EXEMPT from UCMJ.

US CODE: Title 10,802. Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter

 

[techres]

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that says anything other than "To declare War...", so to say congress can do anything other than that seems to be in conflict with what it states. And for the president to wage war without the declaration of such, would be in conflict with that as well.

Here is what a state of war declaration by Congress looked like in 1941:

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on was against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.