# The Link Between Military and Political Service



## Sukerkin (Jul 11, 2010)

A very interesting read in the BBC on-line magazine:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/10575471.stm


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 11, 2010)

Some interesting things...

At the federal level, veterans can add their years of military service to their eligibility for federal civilian retirement, they get hiring preferences, and they may even be able to 'double-dip' on retirement benefits.

One might also note that military life is a life of working within massive bureaurocracy, so civil service can be quite normal for them.

Until recently, it was also assumed that anyone seeking public office would get their ticket punched by doing a term in the military.

And frankly, I think most veterans in the USA tend to view civilian leaders with no military experience with some distrust. Non-veterans haven't the first clue what it is like to serve; and often insult us by pretending they do. No, Mr. President, if you haven't worn the uniform of our military, you're not one of us, you never will be, and quit trying to pal up with us.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 11, 2010)

I agree with the US view that we must have civilian control of the military but ALSO agree that it is problematic when someone meant to be CINC has not the first clue about the business.

If I were king, we wouldn't have either problem because a minimum 9 months( 3 months boot camp, 6 month hitch) would be mandatory for ALL citizens before they could claim citizenship. This way, anyone wanting to join up after their hitch, can, anyone who wants to be done with the service for the rest of their lives , can, but EVERYONE is on the same page from a national defense standpoint, and since all those seeking office must be citizens, every politician would be former service. End of problem.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 11, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> If I were king, we wouldn't have either problem because a minimum 9 months( 3 months boot camp, 6 month hitch) would be mandatory for ALL citizens before they could claim citizenship. This way, anyone wanting to join up after their hitch, can, anyone who wants to be done with the service for the rest of their lives , can, but EVERYONE is on the same page from a national defense standpoint, and since all those seeking office must be citizens, every politician would be former service. End of problem.



I know that some countries do this, but I am glad that I live in a country where this is not the case.  I have no desire for myself or any of my kith and kin to serve the Military Industrial Complex.  I don't think that there should be any special benefits offered to veterans.  Nor should there be any special connection between military service and politics.  IMO, we risk our freedoms by doing this.  Our Founding Fathers knew that standing armies were one of the biggest threats to freedom that could exist in a country.  The creeping influence of the military in our society threatens, not protects, our Constitution.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 11, 2010)

An interesting point from Andy, that I do actually agree with mostly, despite the fact that I think that Mauna has his finger on something very important too.

Amongst the reasons the Founding Fathers left Britain was to get away from religious strictures and the de facto totalitarianism that existed through the military power of the monarchy.

It is one of the great ironies is that the state of the USA at the present time reflects, to outside eyes at least, the very things they tried to get away from in the first place.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 11, 2010)

While I understand Andy's intention, I wouldn't want mandatory service (beyond a draft in a national crisis). First off, it's seems contrary to the American spirit and secondly I would't want to be serving with someone who was forced to serve.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 11, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> I know that some countries do this, but I am glad that I live in a country where this is not the case.  I have no desire for myself or any of my kith and kin to serve the Military Industrial Complex.  I don't think that there should be any special benefits offered to veterans.  Nor should there be any special connection between military service and politics.  IMO, we risk our freedoms by doing this.  Our Founding Fathers knew that standing armies were one of the biggest threats to freedom that could exist in a country.  The creeping influence of the military in our society threatens, not protects, our Constitution.




I agree that no one should have to serve in order to claim a birthright. However, while I also agree that veterans should have no special rights, I do believe in privileges for those who have served honorably. We are special, nothing wrong with recognizing it.

I'm no threat to the constitution; on the contrary, I took an oath to defend it.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 11, 2010)

I don't know what "special benefits" he is talking about. If a person served their nation/government and was promised a service that promise should be kept. If that person was injured/disabled because of that service the gvt. should take care of that person. Just like any other employee/employer contract or workmans compensation arrangement. The only "special benefit" I ever received as a "veteran" was a VA loan to buy my house...all that amounted to was that I didn't have to put any cash down on the purchase. I guess I could also go to the VA hospital if I was ever deprived of my health benefits....


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 11, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Our Founding Fathers knew that standing armies were one of the biggest threats to freedom that could exist in a country.  The creeping influence of the military in our society threatens, not protects, our Constitution.




Yet GENERAL Washington would have easily been able to have declared himself "King" if he had but desired too....


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 11, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm no threat to the constitution; on the contrary, I took an oath to defend it.



And would have given your life to have upheld that oath. While others who live under the protection of that same Constitution at no personal risk to themselves would disparage you or minimize the honor of your service.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 11, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> And would have given your life to have upheld that oath. While others who live under the protection of that same Constitution at no personal risk to themselves would disparage you or minimize the honor of your service.



It's not disparagement to point out that our military is being used in an unconstitutional fashion. The Oath is meaningless if at the moment you take it you have to break it in order to carry out the orders one is given. The intent behind some peoples decision to serve is good, I object to the way the military is used. 

As far as special priveleges go Bill noted them in a post above. One that I've experienced first hand is the fact veterans get first find for federal jobs. The danger in this exceptionalism is that it creates another class of citizenry. We've got a long way to go in order to hit any historical benchmarks in that regard, however maybe we don't need to go that far any more. Maybe what we have is plenty to encourage a class of people to oppress another. 

It's dangerous to the founding principles of our country to have a military so large and pervasive in our society and culture. We need WAY more non military people in politics and the government.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 11, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> It's not disparagement to point out that our military is being used in an unconstitutional fashion. The Oath is meaningless if at the moment you take it you have to break it in order to carry out the orders one is given. The intent behind some peoples decision to serve is good, I object to the way the military is used.
> 
> As far as special priveleges go Bill noted them in a post above. One that I've experienced first hand is the fact veterans get first find for federal jobs. The danger in this exceptionalism is that it creates another class of citizenry. We've got a long way to go in order to hit any historical benchmarks in that regard, however maybe we don't need to go that far any more. Maybe what we have is plenty to encourage a class of people to oppress another.
> 
> It's dangerous to the founding principles of our country to have a military so large and pervasive in our society and culture. We need WAY more non military people in politics and the government.



Veterans do get preference in hiring for federal jobs, it's the law.  And they also get preference for federal government contracting, as do minority and women owned businesses.  It's called a 'preferential set-aside' and it was intended to right historical injustices.

With regard to veterans, it was intended to right two injustices.  The first was the (at the time) strong anti-military sentiment in the USA, which put veterans in the same light as criminal convicts.  The second was the simple concept that while they were serving our nation, they were not going to college or building up experience in private industry, and that they should not be penalized for having taken time out of their lives to serve their country while others were busy climbing the corporate or federal employment ladder of success.

I like it myself, although it has never benefited me one iota (except the VA loan, which was a promise made to me prior to my enlistment).

And frankly, I see my fellow veterans as heroes and I always will.  No amount of disparagement of our service will ever make me think that we're anything less than terrific people who performed an admirable service for a sometimes less-than grateful public.  Love us or hate us, your choice.  But we gave you a gift.  Wipe your *** with it as you see fit, we still get the props for having given it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 11, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Love us or hate us, your choice.  But we gave you a gift.  Wipe your *** with it as you see fit, we still get the props for having given it.



I believe your attitude about veterans is basically right, and I honor the service.  As I honor the service of many others.

However, every war this country has fought since WWII has been entirely voluntary.  Those wars have not addressed any real threat the country has faced.  They have been fought mainly to advance political goals and the nebulous "interests" of the US.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 11, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree that no one should have to serve in order to claim a birthright. However, while I also agree that veterans should have no special rights, I do believe in privileges for those who have served honorably. We are special, nothing wrong with recognizing it.
> 
> I'm no threat to the constitution; on the contrary, I took an oath to defend it.


 
As did I. And while my days in uniform are now officially over, I don't recall ever having rescinded that oath.



 But at least now, if something were to happen on my soil, I have, at least, compared to someone who's never had service, half a clue about how military tasks are carried out and how to teach others the basics as well. We could only benefit from having as many civilians on the same page with this stuff as possible.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 11, 2010)

Serving in the military in an unconstitutional fashion in unconstitutional wars at the behest of nebulous international and corporate interests is not a gift. It's a mistake. I will talk any young person I can out of it in order to save them a lot of grief. 

I respect the intent to serve others and sacrifice, but I don't see the military as a venue where you can really do that any more. You do not protect our country or its interests by essentially acting as socialized corporate mercenaries.

I'm not going to give a modern military man one ounce more deference then I would give anyone else who does a tough job.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 11, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> I believe your attitude about veterans is basically right, and I honor the service. As I honor the service of many others.
> 
> However, every war this country has fought since WWII has been entirely voluntary. Those wars have not addressed any real threat the country has faced. They have been fought mainly to advance political goals and the nebulous "interests" of the US.


 

I won't deny that at all. And I think given our current debt/financial situation that's gonna have to be over soon whether those in power want it that way or not.

I am talking about getting rid of the problem in the OP, of politicians becoming involved in military affairs who never wore a uniform or fired a weapon themselves.

An example might be the way the Clinton administration handled Somalia.
Have a news crew, camera, lights and all, right there waiting to interview the top secret Special Forces unit as it hits the beach? No problem. Have a general describe in exacting detail, every move you intend to execute two hours bafore the attack? Can do. It'd be great publicity, right?

It's also military suicide.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 11, 2010)

Double post


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 11, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Serving in the military in an unconstitutional fashion in unconstitutional wars at the behest of nebulous international and corporate interests is not a gift. It's a mistake. I will talk any young person I can out of it in order to save them a lot of grief.
> 
> I respect the intent to serve others and sacrifice, but I don't see the military as a venue where you can really do that any more. You do not protect our country or its interests by essentially acting as socialized corporate mercenaries.
> 
> I'm not going to give a modern military man one ounce more deference then I would give anyone else who does a tough job.


 

I would agree our inessential involvement abroad would have to cease for my plan to be of any use.

Given our financial situation as it is, that's going to happen very soon anyway.

Another option is to do as i did and join a State Guard or State Defense Force where such exist anymore, which cannot be deployed outside its state. 

And since soon all there are GOING to be are states, that could work with my original idea, too.

But again, my idea at this point is just that, an idea and no more.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jul 11, 2010)

Interesting discussion.

In Canada we have had 22 Prime Ministers, and only two, (three if you want to argue the point), ever had any military experience. Both of those two, never seen any combat. 

I would argue that the effectiveness of Canada in war time has not been hindered or enhanced in any way by these facts. Canadians would still have fought and died in wars regardless of the sitting PM having military experience. 

The civilian government may say we are going to war, but it is our generals, (and thankfully we&#8217;ve had some great ones), that continue it from there. 

Civilian authority is an absolute must over the military, otherwise we end up as dictatorships.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 12, 2010)

If you really think that War is fundamentally any different NOW when it comes to why soldiers serve and why nations go to war than it has ever been ...you are a fool.


----------



## geezer (Jul 12, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> If I were king...  a minimum 9 months (3 months boot camp, 6 month hitch) would be mandatory for ALL citizens before they could claim citizenship...



Interesting idea except that it would deny citizenship to anybody with even a mild handicap (even flat feet!), anyone who is openly gay, or anyone who belongs to a pacifist religion (like the Quakers), people over the age limit who  legally immigrate to this country, and a host of others who don't qualify for the military under current standards. 

If you want to have a requirement like that, you'd have to make allowances so all willing people could serve honorably in some fashion, or relegate all those, who like myself, were excluded from military service to_ an inferior class of sub-citizen residency._ Doesn't sound very fair to me. In fact it's ideas like that make be glad to be a gun owner and martial artist... even if the army wouldn't take me I can still fight for my constitutional rights!

More to the point, Clinton and Obama both proposed creating _alternative forms of service_ to your country -- modern equivalents of the CCC, WPA and the like -- so that all young people (and many older folks as well) could serve their nation either within the armed services or through other channels like Vista, the Peace Corps, Teach for America, and so forth. I think it would be a wonderful idea if it became _the norm_ for young people to dedicate a couple of years to serving their country right after high school, before settling down into the work force. But saying that only those who've been in the armed forces should be citizens is wacko. OK, it was interesting when Heinlein suggested it in his science fiction, but it's crazy-talk in the real world.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 12, 2010)

Take the Iraqi war for example:
It was not for the protection of the US (no WMD).
It was started over lies (they knew they had no proof).
It did not do much good for Iraq (if we just look at body count etc).
It did not make the world a safer place.
It did not make the middle east more stable.
It did not make America more safe/
It did however, squander any international goodwill the US had after Afghanistan.
It did cost the US a lot of money.
It did give anyone with a grudge against the US a cause to rally to.

I have respect for anyone who joins the armed forces to defend his / her country. But the Iraqi war is not really a 'gift'. You can be proud of the fact that you served your country as you promised when you signed on the dotted line. Make no mistake I respect that a lot. But the war itself and what the US did in Iraq is nothing to be proud of.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 12, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Another option is to do as i did and join a State Guard or State Defense Force where such exist anymore, which cannot be deployed outside its state.



This is something I think I would support.  I don't know if Minnesota had something like this when I was younger.  I don't know much about these institutions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 12, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> If you really think that War is fundamentally any different NOW when it comes to why soldiers serve and why nations go to war than it has ever been ...you are a fool.



That is a huge romanticized generalization.  Reality is contextual.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 12, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Take the Iraqi war for example:
> It was not for the protection of the US (no WMD).
> It was started over lies (they knew they had no proof).
> It did not do much good for Iraq (if we just look at body count etc).
> ...



Like you, Bruno, I respect the intent, but I am sorely disappointed in my country.  We can do so much better.  We could really be the shining light of liberty and freedom on the planet...but...alas...I fear what they say about cynics is true, we are frustrated idealists.  

One thing I would like to make clear is that it's not the people, it's the institution.  I have so many friends who are members of the various branches of armed services and I hope they can all get out without getting maimed or killed for this hegemonic ********.  

The myth that our troops are doing something to protect America has got to end.  People need to take a step back and see this from a different perspective.  Here's the sad thing though, my point of view is actually quite common, but you'll never get elected for expressing it, because it's expected that politicians bow down and kiss the MIC at every ceremony from funerals to sports events.  

We have a lot of sacred cows in America and this is one of the biggest.  And this one pretty much runs the show and we are worse off for it.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 12, 2010)

geezer said:


> Interesting idea except that it would deny citizenship to anybody with even a mild handicap (even flat feet!), anyone who is openly gay, or anyone who belongs to a pacifist religion (like the Quakers), people over the age limit who legally immigrate to this country, and a host of others who don't qualify for the military under current standards.
> 
> If you want to have a requirement like that, you'd have to make allowances so all willing people could serve honorably in some fashion, or relegate all those, who like myself, were excluded from military service to_ an inferior class of sub-citizen residency._ Doesn't sound very fair to me. In fact it's ideas like that make be glad to be a gun owner and martial artist... even if the army wouldn't take me I can still fight for my constitutional rights!
> 
> More to the point, Clinton and Obama both proposed creating _alternative forms of service_ to your country -- modern equivalents of the CCC, WPA and the like -- so that all young people (and many older folks as well) could serve their nation either within the armed services or through other channels like Vista, the Peace Corps, Teach for America, and so forth. I think it would be a wonderful idea if it became _the norm_ for young people to dedicate a couple of years to serving their country right after high school, before settling down into the work force. But saying that only those who've been in the armed forces should be citizens is wacko. OK, it was interesting when Heinlein suggested it in his science fiction, but it's crazy-talk in the real world.


 
If i actually believed this idea would ever happen, I would include such an option as well( I joined a State Guard because I myself was turned away from federal service due to my hearing).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> However, every war this country has fought since WWII has been entirely voluntary.  Those wars have not addressed any real threat the country has faced.  They have been fought mainly to advance political goals and the nebulous "interests" of the US.



First, there is no rule that says military might is only used to protect against military threats.  Many threats are less tangible than bullets and bombs, but they exist nonetheless.

Second, the power of the military does not exist only in breaking things and killing people, but in the military's perceived ability to do same.

Third, political goals and nebulous interests are the realm of the elected leaders of the country.  The electorate has the ability to change that leadership as they wish.  That they choose not to do so is not the fault of the military, nor would we want it any other way.

The military is led by elected civilian leaders.  If those leaders are idiots, then that is the leadership we get for the military.  It has not been, and should not be, the military's job to say _"Hold on a minute, that's stupid, we're not going to do it."_  The military's job is to carry out all lawful orders given it by proper authority.  And we're not seabag lawyers, either; we don't parse Constitutional law and probe Congressional intent; that's for the civilian citizenry.

And you frankly would not want it any other way.  If our military picked and chose which orders it would follow and which it would not, we would not have a truly free society - we'd have the type of society where every so often, the military came in, deposed this or that president, set a junta, and then, perhaps, allowed free elections again in a few decades.  There are several examples of precisely that in the world.  I don't think you want that - I know I don't.

And so, our military does what it is told by our elected leaders.  And some complain that we're the tool of the government.  Well, duh.  We're a tool, that's exactly right.  Use us incorrectly and it's YOUR bad, not ours.  We're the tool, do you blame the hammer when you whack your thumb?

Do we take our marching orders from major corporations?  Only if those corporations first influence our elected civilian leaders to issue the orders.  And that, again, is hardly the fault of the military.

Once again, voters fail to provide our nation with good government and seek to blame others.  The military responds to our elected leaders.  If those leaders suck, it's YOUR fault, (and mine as a fellow voter).  It is not the fault of the military.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 12, 2010)

That was a well laid out espousal of the ideal relationship between a government and it's military in a democracy, Bill :tup:.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Serving in the military in an unconstitutional fashion in unconstitutional wars at the behest of nebulous international and corporate interests is not a gift. It's a mistake. I will talk any young person I can out of it in order to save them a lot of grief.
> 
> I respect the intent to serve others and sacrifice, but I don't see the military as a venue where you can really do that any more. You do not protect our country or its interests by essentially acting as socialized corporate mercenaries.
> 
> I'm not going to give a modern military man one ounce more deference then I would give anyone else who does a tough job.



You're not required to thank us for what we do for our nation.  All you have to do is stay out of our way while we do it.

As my father once told an indignant woman he held a door for when she complained that _"you don't have to do that just because I'm a woman."  _He replied _"I don't do it because you're a woman; I do it because I am a gentleman."_  I didn't join my nation's military to get thanks wrung from the unwilling, or respect from the ungrateful.  I did it because I wanted to give something back to my country, and I felt I owed my nation a debt that I wanted to repay.  I don't need your approval or your respect; I know what I did was honorable, and I likewise honor the service of all who have served our nation.  You'll never know that feeling; that's your loss.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Once again, voters fail to provide our nation with good government and seek to blame others.  The military responds to our elected leaders.  If those leaders suck, it's YOUR fault, (and mine as a fellow voter).  It is not the fault of the military.



Who said anything about the military being to blame?  Certainly not I.  I was pointing out that the Gift you refer to, generally referred to as "defending our freedom", hasn't been the case since WWII.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Who said anything about the military being to blame?  Certainly not I.  I was pointing out that the Gift you refer to, generally referred to as "defending our freedom", hasn't been the case since WWII.



The gift is that of loyal, dedicated, and honorable service to the nation.  I don't characterize it as _'defending our freedom'_, and in fact I doubt we've defended our OWN freedom since the Civil War or perhaps the War of 1812.  That's just a popular and easy catchphrase, it's hardly accurate.

The problem is when people define the role of the military as _'defending freedom'_ when that is far from the sole purpose of the military.  I did not swear an oath to the concept of freedom, nor even democracy.

The Oath of Enlistment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment



> I, _(name)_, 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.[1]



Who is _'all enemies'_?  It is whomever the nation says it is, via our duly-elected leaders and my chain of command.  My sworn oath and my allegiance was to the Constitution, and I pledged to obey the orders of the President and my military chain of command.

Nothing about _'defending democracy'_ or _'protecting our freedom'_ in there.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 12, 2010)

Since this has come up a couple of times already in other discussions, and the question is an obvious one: where does that oath place you if the President is acting in violation of the Constitution?

I don't ask this to be provocative, but this seems to be an awkward position that could happen, and according to how you define / interpret things, has already happened for the last of presidencies to some degree.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Since this has come up a couple of times already in other discussions, and the question is an obvious one: where does that oath place you if the President is acting in violation of the Constitution?
> 
> I don't ask this to be provocative, but this seems to be an awkward position that could happen, and according to how you define / interpret things, has already happened for the last of presidencies to some degree.



It's difficult, isn't it?  On the one hand, the UCMJ as well as the Oath of Enlistment require that a military member obey all _'lawful orders'_, which would presumably give one the the inherent requirement to determine for oneself what is _'lawful'_ and what is not.

And indeed, we can be held responsible for obeying orders that are unlawful.

So what to do?

When I was in the Marines, we took classes in which this question came up.  At the time, it came down to common sense and I found this quote from a case involving a man who shot and killed a Vietnamese civilian under direct orders from a superior officer:

The Court of Military Appeals held that "_the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal._"

In other words, a military man is not a machine.  We must be able to tell the difference between a legal and an illegal command given directly to us.

And this applies even to orders given by the President.  In 1799, President Adams authorized the US Navy to intercept any ship bound from or to a French port.  A US Navy Captain seized a Dutch ship, and he found himself convicted of following an illegal order.  Note that his crew was not similarly found guilty, however.  They would not have had any obligation to know that the President's order was illegal; that was up to the Captain of the vessel.

I was never given a direct order by the President of the United States.  I must presume that any order given me by my superiors is lawful unless as an _'person of ordinary sense and understanding_' knows it to be illegal.

There is no fine line, no black-and-white here.  It's all down to interpretation.  However, recent cases have shown that a servicemember may not refuse duty assignments to what they consider to be an 'illegal war' for example.  So apparently, that interpretation is not up to the individual directly.

Sorry there is no absolute answer or clear concise definition.  It's all a bit mushy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And so, our military does what it is told by our elected leaders.  And some complain that we're the tool of the government.  Well, duh.  We're a tool, that's exactly right.  Use us incorrectly and it's YOUR bad, not ours.  We're the tool, do you blame the hammer when you whack your thumb?
> 
> Do we take our marching orders from major corporations?  Only if those corporations first influence our elected civilian leaders to issue the orders.  And that, again, is hardly the fault of the military.
> 
> Once again, voters fail to provide our nation with good government and seek to blame others.  The military responds to our elected leaders.  If those leaders suck, it's YOUR fault, (and mine as a fellow voter).  It is not the fault of the military.



The individual cannot absolve themselves of responsibility whether as a voter or as a military man.  The bottom line remains that you must volunteer for this service.  With all of the unconstitutional wars being waged across the world, volunteering for this service is like breaking your oath before you take it.

People need to think very seriously about that before they make the decision.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You're not required to thank us for what we do for our nation.  All you have to do is stay out of our way while we do it.
> 
> As my father once told an indignant woman he held a door for when she complained that _"you don't have to do that just because I'm a woman."  _He replied _"I don't do it because you're a woman; I do it because I am a gentleman."_  I didn't join my nation's military to get thanks wrung from the unwilling, or respect from the ungrateful.  I did it because I wanted to give something back to my country, and I felt I owed my nation a debt that I wanted to repay.  I don't need your approval or your respect; I know what I did was honorable, and I likewise honor the service of all who have served our nation.  You'll never know that feeling; that's your loss.



There are a lot of ways to give back to your country.  There are a lot of ways of doing this that are far more productive and beneficial then serving in the military.  I would advise anyone to seek those paths out if they are truly interested in doing something good for their countrymen.  

This notion of exceptionalism has got to be challenged in our society.  One million dead Iraqis is not an honorable outcome.  It's damn tragic and people who can check their conscience at the door and volunteer for that need to hear things from a different point of view.  People need to stop heaping respect on atrocity or it will never stop.  

The lone guy on the street with a protest sign has more dignity and honor then the guy in the chopper blowing up little kids and blowing it off and laughing.  People need to shake the veil of propaganda from their eyes and respect our warriors when they do something worthy of our respect.  If our leaders continue to insist that people sacrifice themselves in this way, I think the only honorable decision is to not volunteer.

That's why we need more non-military people in politics.  You'll probably won't hear that from someone who has served and our people desperately need to hear that message.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2010)

Expletive deleted.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Expletive deleted.








Just to further elaborate, 2 million people showed up to protest the imminent invasion of Iraq and it still went down.  The people don't have any power to change things unless we stop the hero worship call a spade a spade.  People need to be held accountable for their decisions and that includes people who volunteer for this "service."

When the supply of recruits dries up, the wars stop.


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 12, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Just to further elaborate, 2 million people showed up to protest the imminent invasion of Iraq and it still went down. The people don't have any power to change things unless we stop the hero worship call a spade a spade. People need to be held accountable for their decisions and that includes people who volunteer for this "service."
> 
> When the supply of recruits dries up, the wars stop.


 
Or when enough potential recruits decide that the caliber of the American people is such that they are not worth defending.  Keep up the good work.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Just to further elaborate, 2 million people showed up to protest the imminent invasion of Iraq and it still went down.  The people don't have any power to change things unless we stop the hero worship call a spade a spade.  People need to be held accountable for their decisions and that includes people who volunteer for this "service."
> 
> When the supply of recruits dries up, the wars stop.



A protest is not a vote, a plebiscite, or a binding referendum.  It's a protest.  Our nation is not governed by who whines the loudest or the longest.  No elected official in the USA has ever failed to leave office when voted out.  Therefore, the power to stop whatever it is you think needs to be stopped still remains in the hands of the electorate.  If that effort fails, it is not the fault of the military.  Place blame where it belongs; on the electorate.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 12, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> Or when enough potential recruits decide that the caliber of the American people is such that they are not worth defending.  Keep up the good work.



Uncalled for.  Criticizing militarism and what one sees as unnecessary wars doesn't make someone unworthy of defense.

If you define patriotism as wanting what is best for the country, it should even count as patriotic.  That doesn't make the argument necessarily correct, but it is an honorable intention.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No elected official in the USA has ever failed to leave office when voted out.  Therefore, the power to stop whatever it is you think needs to be stopped still remains in the hands of the electorate.  If that effort fails, it is not the fault of the military.  Place blame where it belongs; on the electorate.



I've made this point to you before, but everyone bears responsibility for what they do or don't do.  In an unnecessary war, the electorate is responsible for supporting it/not voting out the leaders, the leaders and other parts of the government are responsible for starting and going along with it, and those that choose to fight bear their responsibility as well.  Both/and not either/or.  Washing your hands like Pilate does not absolve you of moral responsibility for your actions or inactions.


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 12, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Uncalled for. Criticizing militarism and what one sees as unnecessary wars doesn't make someone unworthy of defense.
> 
> If you define patriotism as wanting what is best for the country, it should even count as patriotic. That doesn't make the argument necessarily correct, but it is an honorable intention.


 
Actually, it's a point that bears consideration. We have a volunteer military. What happens if those who volunteer look around and say, "Nah. Not worth it."? Of course, if maunakumu is right and we don't actually need a military then there's no problem.

Update:  wanted to elaborate: what makes someone worthy of defense is in the eyes of the defender.  You can argue that someone is worthy of defense, but only if someone is willing to pick up a rifle and do so.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 12, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> I've made this point to you before, but everyone bears responsibility for what they do or don't do.  In an unnecessary war, the electorate is responsible for supporting it/not voting out the leaders, the leaders and other parts of the government are responsible for starting and going along with it, and those that choose to fight bear their responsibility as well.  Both/and not either/or.  Washing your hands like Pilate does not absolve you of moral responsibility for your actions or inactions.



That's basically my point.  No one gets to absolve themselves of responsibility any more.  As much as the voter is responsible, the recruit who chooses to serve in this unconstitutional fashion is also responsible.  I don't think we should keep blindly supporting our troops when they are participating in this mess.  No one needs to hurl insults or spit, but we can quietly turn our backs and show our displeasure.

Regarding politics and voting, well, the MIC has such a grip on the levers of power in both parties that I don't think you can solve this with the voting box unless something fundamental changes.  We need a grassroots change in thinking in regards to the military.  People need to redefine what is appropriate service and stop participating in actions that fall outside those definitions.  People need to look at all of this from a different perspective.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 12, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> We have a volunteer military.  What happens if those who volunteer look around and say, "Nah.  Not worth it."?



Ideally, those in power would then constrain their military adventures to what the volunteers would see as necessary and worth fighting for.  Of course, they wouldn't do that, they'd just draft who they needed.

Which brings up something I was surprised to learn when I was younger.  I was surprised to find out there was a draft during WWII.  I suppose I had naively assumed that enough people would volunteer to fight an obvious evil like Hitler.  Obviously our focus on higher technology, lower manpower has its benefits.



CoryKS said:


> Of course, if maunakumu is right and we don't actually need a military then there's no problem.



You know how I know you didn't really pay attention to what he said?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 12, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Regarding politics and voting, well, the MIC has such a grip on the levers of power in both parties that I don't think you can solve this with the voting box unless something fundamental changes.



I don't think the MIC is a sufficient explanation, although it is part of it.  The electorate basically *likes *war.  Wars nearly always have high support at the beginning, there is no impetus to vote out war starting leaders unless those wars drag on too long or go too badly.  Why that is, I couldn't say.  I would guess very few of those so enthusiastic about war have ever experienced it.  Even the great generals and soldiers of the past weren't too enamored of the experience, which their writings showed.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 12, 2010)

Of course this is coming from a 9/11 truther so take the rest as you will...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 12, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> I don't think the MIC is a sufficient explanation, although it is part of it.  The electorate basically *likes *war.  Wars nearly always have high support at the beginning, there is no impetus to vote out war starting leaders unless those wars drag on too long or go too badly.  Why that is, I couldn't say.  I would guess very few of those so enthusiastic about war have ever experienced it.  Even the great generals and soldiers of the past weren't too enamored of the experience, which their writings showed.



It's part of our culture.  Our schools focus way to much time and energy on war and we have all of these TV shows and movie that glorify it.  Many of these same programs actually receive funding from the Pentagon, so they are directly linked to the MIC.  In the end, I think it all ties back directly or indirectly.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No elected official in the USA has ever failed to leave office when voted out.  Therefore, the power to stop whatever it is you think needs to be stopped still remains in the hands of the electorate.



That was such an important point I thought it deserved highlighting.  

For all we moan about our governments, that quintessential element of legitimacy and legality is so very important that taking it for granted is almost unforgivable.

It can be argued that often we are voting to replace one government with another that is a carbon copy but with a different name.  But at least we have that established tradition of democracy that means that power does indeed spring from the ballot box rather than the barrel of a gun.

Of course over here we have the great privilege of having that chain of legitimacy being overseen by the longest serving head of state in the world.  I fear somewhat what will happen to our system once she has passed on as she has been such a sterling example of what a monarch should be.  There is no-one with her gravitas to take on the mantle when the time comes.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 12, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> The individual cannot absolve themselves of responsibility whether as a voter or as a military man. The bottom line remains that you must volunteer for this service. With all of the unconstitutional wars being waged across the world, volunteering for this service is like breaking your oath before you take it.
> 
> People need to think very seriously about that before they make the decision.


 
I'm curious about what "unconstitutional wars" are being waged "across the world"?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 12, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I'm curious about what "unconstitutional wars" are being waged "across the world"?



http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=77

An interesting point of view on the matter, don't you think?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 13, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=77
> 
> An interesting point of view on the matter, don't you think?


 
With all due respect to Ron Paul (who I actually like), I don't believe it's that simple.  The article brought these thoughts to my mind:

Although Congress has the exclusive right to declare war, does that mean that the only time the President can use military force is upon a declaration of war?  If so, this brings up a couple of interesting thoughts in my mind.

Some Founders, such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson agreed with the use of the military against the Barbary Corsairs, all without the "declaration of war" against them.  So, did the people who just wrote the Constitution immediately defy what they just enacted?  After all, it was their intent which gives meaning to the powers enacted by the Constitution.

Secondly, the old USSR screwed up what China now has a chance to do:  they can wait till a Congressional recess when all of the Federal legistature goes back to their constitutant states and attack us with nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation.  Congress would never get back to D.C. in time to declare war to "authorize" a retaliatory strike, and they would be unharmed.

In this case, the only thing that the Congress could do, is to set a legal standard for an automatic declaration of war so that the President could utilize the nuclear arsenal, or for any invasion or attack on the United States.  Or any other use of force as they see fit.  Which is exactly what they did with the War Powers Act.

So, without any definitive guidance by the Founders as to what the nature of the ability to of the President, as Commander in Chief, to utilize the military, I would say that, based on the Separation of Powers, he has the ability to utilize it as he sees fit.  Congress in turn can "defund" the military if it doesn't like how he is utilizing it.  Or if they believe that how he is using it is an impeachable offense, they may do so.

Now, in terms of what Ron Paul calls the "unconstitutional" War Powers Act, I have heard the argument that it is not Congress' deferment of "war declaration" which makes it unconstitutional, but Congress' interference in an Executive Branch power that does so.  The more I think about it, the more I actually agree with that interpretation.

So, I have to say that, even if I agreed with Ron Paul in principle about the ability of the President to authorize military force, it hardly goes to show that what is occuring is unconstitutional.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 13, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> That was such an important point I thought it deserved highlighting.
> 
> For all we moan about our governments, that quintessential element of legitimacy and legality is so very important that taking it for granted is almost unforgivable.
> 
> ...



Many have argued, and perhaps with merit, that at least in the USA, our manner of conducting our elections allow for undue influence through fair means and foul - from corporate spending to political party electioneering and so on.  I 'get' the argument that even having a choice in an election means having no effective choice - we're presented with two or perhaps three candidates to choose from for a given office, and all of them have already been thoroughly corrupted and controlled and are not beholden to us but to those who have bought them.  Yes, I get that.

However, it ignores a single possibility which still belongs to the electorate; that of not voting for the candidates put up by the two major parties.

Unlikely to happen?  Yes.  But that does not remove the power of the electorate; democracies and representative republics do not depend upon the electorate being smart or making wise decisions, but upon them maintaining the power of the vote, which they clearly do.

In short, we are (mostly) horribly stupid, shallow, vain, and willing to vote for whomever panders to our base selfish desires and needs.  That may be a bad thing, but it is still control in the hands of the voter.  We can't help it that they're mostly booger-eatin' morons.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So, I have to say that, even if I agreed with Ron Paul in principle about the ability of the President to authorize military force, it hardly goes to show that what is occuring is unconstitutional.



I agree with Dr. Paul's interpretation.  The writings of the Founding Fathers are specific.  They wanted to limit the use of military force in order to make going to war difficult.  I believe that when we circumvent the rules they gave us, we are circumventing the Constitution.  If we use military force, we need to have specific goals, we need to achieve them efficiently, and we need to get out and get back to a peaceful society as soon as possible.  

We can't have these unending wars with nebulous goals and endless propaganda.  It's going to bankrupt our nation and destroy our freedoms.  Our country is going to kill itself trying to maintain this unipolar hegemony with bases and troops spread across the world, fighting two wars (and possibly a third), and clamping down on dissent back at home.  The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves to see what we are doing now.

It's unconstitutional in principle and in spirit.  What we are doing goes directly against the Founding Fathers advice to us and is leading to the very things they warned us against.  It has to stop or America will be unrecognizable in a generation.

Here is another man who knew the terrible price we could pay by ignoring our Founding Father's advice.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 13, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Since this has come up a couple of times already in other discussions, and the question is an obvious one: where does that oath place you if the President is acting in violation of the Constitution?


 
Exactly what Bill said - an order has to be pretty obviously illegal.  It is not the place of a troop to determine the constitutionality of an order.  If the president is issuing orders contrary to the constitution, it is WAY above most of our pay grade to determine its constitutionality - and believe it or not, there are some damn smart people who advise him and determine these things.  We have very high ranking military leaders who determine these things.  

This is a more philosophical discussion than anything, because if the president issues an order, it is about 40 levels of command before it reaches the people who are actually following it, by then, they are just going to do it.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 13, 2010)

I have a really hard time with all of this.  This topic is a very big philosophical debate...one that most people in the military don't really care about.  To the majority of us, it is a job.  Try to heap responsibility on us....but the image that some people seem to have of the helicopter pilot laughing and shooting children is WAY off.  There are VERY few of us who want to or like killing ANYONE, let alone children....and those who do are quickly shown their way out.

I liken the whole thing to working for a large corporation.  I don't like big box stores or huge corporations that destroy small business and don't care about the consumer....but I don't blame the workers.  And I wouldn't say "if you don't agree with it, don't work for them."  I can have a philosophical disagreement with the concept of a company and still work for them.  

There are plenty of 18-22 year old kids with a wife and kids of their own who joined the military because it is a good job.  The government takes care of us, teaches them a skill, and offers great benefits....mainly because the cost of doing your job, might be getting killed.  

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that the link between the military and political service happens at a very high level, not at the level of troops in the field.  Those are just guys doing their jobs and quite frankly, with less people, it just means more work for those of us left.  Something like 90% of the military has NOTHING to do with the business of fighting a war....we are support and no different than someone who works in an engineering firm or a restaurant or for an airline or in a hotel.  I'm not about to quit my job because I disagree with the politics of what is being done or I have some philosophical disagreement with the constitution or how it is being executed.

I'm happy about how this country views the military...did any of the guys coming back from Vietnam deserve to get spit on?  Some of them...probably, most of them, HELL NO.  Personally, I'm about to deploy and I have no desire to be spit on when I get back.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2010)

MBuzzy said:


> To the majority of us, it is a job.  Try to heap responsibility on us....but the image that some people seem to have of the helicopter pilot laughing and shooting children is WAY off.  There are VERY few of us who want to or like killing ANYONE, let alone children....and those who do are quickly shown their way out.



The wikileaks video was disturbing and they are just about to release who bunch of new ones that basically show the same things.

I can't see most people acting like that, however.  Most people are decent folks, but at the same time, when you've got over a million dead civilians directly or indirectly tied to your actions, you've got a gigantic moral problem that you've got to deal with.  

Going to work everyday and "accidentally" blowing away some innocent people doesn't seem like any solution, even if you are torn up about it afterward.  It seems like avoiding responsibility to go back day after day...and that's the crux of my argument.  You are responsible for what you do and eventually you need to make a choice regarding what you really stand for.



MBuzzy said:


> There are plenty of 18-22 year old kids with a wife and kids of their own who joined the military because it is a good job.  The government takes care of us, teaches them a skill, and offers great benefits....



Yeah, I call many of these guys my friends.  Our society has been offshoring jobs for a generation and this is about the only place where a person can find this kind of work.  That's not right either.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 13, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> I agree with Dr. Paul's interpretation. The writings of the Founding Fathers are specific. They wanted to limit the use of military force in order to make going to war difficult. I believe that when we circumvent the rules they gave us, we are circumventing the Constitution. If we use military force, we need to have specific goals, we need to achieve them efficiently, and we need to get out and get back to a peaceful society as soon as possible.


 
It's all well and good to agree with his interpretation, but I am interested in from where he derives his interpretation.  After all, as I pointed out, the military had been used in combat when the Founders were still in charge of the country in absence of a declaration of war.  So I don't get how he could believe that it is unconstitutional for the President to use military force unless such a declaration is made, when the people who wrote the Constitution did it.  



> We can't have these unending wars with nebulous goals and endless propaganda. It's going to bankrupt our nation and destroy our freedoms. Our country is going to kill itself trying to maintain this unipolar hegemony with bases and troops spread across the world, fighting two wars (and possibly a third), and clamping down on dissent back at home. The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves to see what we are doing now.


 
We can agree with the net affect of these engagements, but that says nothing about the Constitutionality of said conflicts.



> It's unconstitutional in principle and in spirit. What we are doing goes directly against the Founding Fathers advice to us and is leading to the very things they warned us against. It has to stop or America will be unrecognizable in a generation.


 
It may go against what they forsaw as being good for the country.  But in the instances of military conflict, they gave Congress and the President their specific roles for using their discretion as to when to use their enumerated powers.  And they are doing it.  We may not agree with it, and the Founders may not agree with the specific way those powers are being used, but I don't think, based on their own actions and statements, that they would argue that it's unconstitutional.

In fact, a declaration of war is a legislative act which the President can veto.  He can be overruled by two-thirds of Congress, and war can still be "declared".  But there is nothing in the power of Congress which would allows them to force him to act upon it militarily.  Because the executive, of which the military is apart, is controlled exclusively by the President.  As such, he can determine when to use it.

The power of Congress is to control the purse strings.  If they don't like the President's use of the military, then can cut him off.



> Here is another man who knew the terrible price we could pay by ignoring our Founding Father's advice.


 
As you showed me a great man, I will show you the quote of another.



> THE President of the United States is to be "commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE of the United States." The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself, and it is, at the same time, so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it. *Even those of them which have, in other respects, coupled the chief magistrate with a council, have for the most part concentrated the military authority in him alone.* Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. *The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.*
> 
> Alexander Hamilton - Federalist #74


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So, I don't get how he could believe that it is unconstitutional for the President to use military force unless such a declaration is made, when the people who wrote the Constitution did it.



You'll have to look at the differences between what they did and what we are doing.  They are vastly different.

A modern day example that fall under the CIC's constitutional power would be securing the border with Mexico.  It's basically failed state.  We've got Federalis sending helicopters in unchallenged and having running gun battles with drug runners.  We've got police and civilians getting killed every day by criminals, coyotes, and drug runners.  We have no go zones, where the Federal government has basically given up and they basically tell no one to go there.  That would be something I think the FF's would send the military to clean up and secure.  It's a clear threat to our nation.

They would not support nation building.  George Washington clearly warns us against that and the Constitution was designed to prevent this.  That we are involved in it, means that we have violated the Constitution in principle and spirit.

I'll see if I can find more of Dr. Paul has to say on the matter.  He can explain it much better then I can.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 13, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> You'll have to look at the differences between what they did and what we are doing.  They are vastly different.



In this discussion it doesn't matter why they did what they did.  This is about what power the President has over employing the military.  If he is the CIC, and empowered to deploy the military as he sees fit, then what does it matter, as long as he doesn't violate specific clauses of the Constitution.  



> A modern day example that fall under the CIC's constitutional power would be securing the border with Mexico.  It's basically failed state.  We've got Federalis sending helicopters in unchallenged and having running gun battles with drug runners.  We've got police and civilians getting killed every day by criminals, coyotes, and drug runners.  We have no go zones, where the Federal government has basically given up and they basically tell no one to go there.  That would be something I think the FF's would send the military to clean up and secure.  It's a clear threat to our nation.



I would agree. But that he could / should be doing these things doesn't mean that he can't / shouldn't do others.




> They would not support nation building.  George Washington clearly warns us against that and the Constitution was designed to prevent this.  That we are involved in it, means that we have violated the Constitution in principle and spirit.
> 
> I'll see if I can find more of Dr. Paul has to say on the matter.  He can explain it much better then I can.



If you're going to argue that these actions violate the principle or spirit of the Constitution, I would rather you show me where the people who wrote the document say so, not someone's interpretation of it.  They will have their own biases based on what they feel is the correct reading of the document.  

Show me the original stuff.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 13, 2010)

Here is an interesting link to a report written by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33837.pdf

It basically shows that Congress has always endorsed the use of military force by the President, but not necessarily through the declaration of war. It shows that Congress can legislatively limit the purposes for military action.  

So, without getting into too much detail, the use of military force without the express declaration of war has been done since the beginning of our country, and with the approval of several of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.  

So my question now becomes, what exactly is unconstitutional about these wars?  History has proved Ron Paul wrong in this respect, including what the Framers have said / left unsaid.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> History has proved Ron Paul wrong in this respect, including what the Framers have said / left unsaid.



I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion because other constitutional scholars basically agree with Ron Paul on the matter.  This isn't a satisfactory answer to your question, it's more like an attempt by me to say ,"hold your horses, hoss."

You make a lot of good points, lets examine exactly how this statement is defended.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 13, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion because other constitutional scholars basically agree with Ron Paul on the matter. This isn't a satisfactory answer to your question, it's more like an attempt by me to say ,"hold your horses, hoss."
> 
> You make a lot of good points, lets examine exactly how this statement is defended.


 
Fair enough. What I meant was more along the lines of the fact that our country has been doing what Ron Paul is saying is unconstitutional since it's beginning, so it behooves Paul to detail his point more thouroughly.  If he has, I will admit that I am not a scholar of Ron Paul articles, so I will plead ignorance on that account.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 14, 2010)

Okay, well this has gotten very complicated, but it still seems to ring that the current use of military power around the world is unconstitutional.

Congress must declare war.

In Article 2, section 2 of the Constitution, the powers of the Commander in Chief are explained.



> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
> 
> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


The enumerated powers of the Legislative branch are spelled out in Article 1 section 8.




> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> ...







The checks on the Presidential powers of Commander in Chief are described by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist papers #69.




> The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. ... It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces ... while that [the power] of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all [of] which ... would appertain to the legislature.



The Legislative branch has declared war in major engagements five times in the history of our country.  Other engagements were limited and were performed via extra-constitutional executive agreements.  The Legislative Branch deferred from declaring war because the actions of the CIC were limited and clear.

After WWII, the President and Congress began to engage in arrangements that allowed the CIC to deploy forces in major, nebulous, engagements around the globe.  The Legislative branch deferred its ability to check the President by passing resolutions and changing the name of these actions from "war" to "police actions."  This was done in accordance to Article 2 of the UN Charter (1945), which limits the members ability to declare war.  More on that later...

After Vietnam, the public had had enough of this and demanded laws that would regulate the CIC in the usage of the military and demand congressional approval.  Thus, the War Powers Act was passed and this basically stated that Congress must approve of any military action after 60 days and that they could do this without a declaration of war.

The Constitutionality of this act is questionable as it would seem to support and violate parts of Article 1 Section 8.  

Regardless of it's Constitutionality, it become apparent that the Framers originally intended that the only way the US could be engaged in war was by a formal declaration of war and that the progress of this war could be controlled by Congress through appropriations.  

The complicating part of this is that the US is also part of the UN.  According to the UN Charter, no country may declare war on each other.  Since the US, is a member of this organization, Congress is not able to actually declare war and must circumvent this Constitutional requirement.  

So, what we have here is a Legislative Branch and an Executive Branch that have made an end run around Constitutional requirements in regards to the use of military forces.  Dr. Paul is essentially correct that the UN is seen by Congress to supercede the authority of the Constitution and that Congress must declare war in order fulfill its Constitutional duties.

Two major bits of irony become apparent.  The first is that it would seem that US troops are actually beholden to the UN charter OVER the Constitution.  The second is that the UN, an organization dedicated to peace, has actually made it EASIER for the US to go to war.  The bar set by our Constitution for engaging in war is higher then the UN's.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 15, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Okay, well this has gotten very complicated, but it still seems to ring that the current use of military power around the world is unconstitutional.
> 
> Congress must declare war.


 
Where does it say this in the Constitution. I will agree that the Congress may have to sanction any use of military force, but, once again, that does not mean that they have to declare war, as you later concede with this:



> The Legislative branch has declared war in major engagements five times in the history of our country. *Other engagements were limited and were performed via extra-constitutional executive agreements. The Legislative Branch deferred from declaring war because the actions of the CIC were limited and clear.*


 
Unless you believe that such actions, albeit limited and clear, were unconstitutional, which it doesn't sound like you are. Not only that, but at least one of these situations, the sanctioning of the use of the navy against the Barbary pirates without a declaration of war, was done by the Founders themselves.

But, once again, where is the limiting language used by the Founders or in the Constitution that prevents them from doing so. With all due respect, it is your interpretation of the matter. 
In Article 2, section 2 of the Constitution, the powers of the Commander in Chief are explained.



> The enumerated powers of the Legislative branch are spelled out in Article 1 section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> The checks on the Presidential powers of Commander in Chief are described by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist papers #69.


 
I will concede that the Congress has the sole authority to approve of military use of force, outside immediate exigencies.




> After WWII, the President and Congress began to engage in arrangements that allowed the CIC to deploy forces in major, nebulous, engagements around the globe. The Legislative branch deferred its ability to check the President by passing resolutions and changing the name of these actions from "war" to "police actions." This was done in accordance to Article 2 of the UN Charter (1945), which limits the members ability to declare war. More on that later...
> 
> After Vietnam, the public had had enough of this and demanded laws that would regulate the CIC in the usage of the military and demand congressional approval. Thus, the War Powers Act was passed and this basically stated that Congress must approve of any military action after 60 days and that they could do this without a declaration of war.
> 
> ...


 
But, once again, you have yet to show me any writings of the Founders which prevents them from doing so, nor any limitations within the Constitution itself. In fact, the Constitution tells us otherwise, as you have shown:

*To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal*

If we look at Wikipedia:



> According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. Clarendon Press, 1989 ( def. 1 of "marque" & def. 2a of "marque" defining "letter of marque"), the first recorded use of "letters of marque and reprisal" was in an English statute in 1354 during the reign of Edward III. *The phrase referred to "a licene granted by a sovereign to a subject, authorizing him to make reprisals on the subjects of a hostile state for injuries alleged to have been done to him by the enemy's army."*




One could make a simplistic arguement that this does not necessarily have to be given to a privateer, as was done in the past, but could be written authorization to the President to utlilze the military in combat action not amounting to war. In fact, looking further into the Wikipedia article on "Letters of Marque":



> The issue of marque and reprisal was raised before Congress after the September 11, 2001 attacks and again on July 21, 2007, by Congressman *Ron Paul*. *The attacks were defined as acts of "air piracy", and the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 was introduced, which would have granted the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state.* The terrorists were compared to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means. Congressman Paul also advocated the use of letters of marque to address the issue of Somali pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden on April 15, 2009. However, the bills Congressman Paul introduced were not enacted into law.


 
The Letters of Marque and Reprisal actually make the War Powers Act unnecessary. This is similar to the idea that the Founders (in general, as evidenced by the Federalist Papers) did not want, or place into the Constitution, a limit on the Federal governments ability to tax whatever it wanted. We then have the 16th Amendment redundant. The only limit on taxation that the Founders put into place was what they could spend the money on, not how they could obtain it.




> The complicating part of this is that the US is also part of the UN. According to the UN Charter, no country may declare war on each other. Since the US, is a member of this organization, Congress is not able to actually declare war and must circumvent this Constitutional requirement.
> 
> So, what we have here is a Legislative Branch and an Executive Branch that have made an end run around Constitutional requirements in regards to the use of military forces. Dr. Paul is essentially correct that the UN is seen by Congress to supercede the authority of the Constitution and that Congress must declare war in order fulfill its Constitutional duties.


 
Once again, this is not a Constitutional requirement. See Above.




> Two major bits of irony become apparent. The first is that it would seem that US troops are actually beholden to the UN charter OVER the Constitution.


 
This is not true, though it may seem as though it is. See the U.S. Supreme Court case of Reid vs. Covert. Consitutional law cannot be trumped by an international treaty.



> The second is that the UN, an organization dedicated to peace, has actually made it EASIER for the US to go to war. The bar set by our Constitution for engaging in war is higher then the UN's.


 
See above.

Now, I will admit that my argument is certainly stretched when it comes to *justification* for such engagements where we are not physically attacked.  This would be where the philosophy of the Founders may come into play.  But, in this particular case, I would argue that since the Founders did not put any specific limitations upon the Government for when it may or may not use military force, that they left it up to the government, as legislated by the Congress, believed were necessary for the safety of the People.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 15, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Where does it say this in the Constitution.



The Constitution specifically states what Congress may do to approve military action.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Unless you believe that such actions, albeit limited and clear, were unconstitutional, which it doesn't sound like you are. Not only that, but at least one of these situations, the sanctioning of the use of the navy against the Barbary pirates without a declaration of war, was done by the Founders themselves.


 
The "founder" in question didn't abrogate his Constitutional power, Congress did.  For some reason, Congress chooses to look the other way on some occasions.  This was a violation of Constitutional duty.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> But, once again, where is the limiting language used by the Founders or in the Constitution that prevents them from doing so. With all due respect, it is your interpretation of the matter.



This is a matter of ideology.  Some people believe that the Constitution says what it says and some believe that if it doesn't say it, then it's fine and dandy.  From what I have read, this is how Congress is able to approve of military force without following the measures that the Constitution lays out.  The argument is simply, "well, the Constitution doesn't way we can't do that."  



5-0 Kenpo said:


> I will concede that the Congress has the sole authority to approve of military use of force, outside immediate exigencies.


 
 From what I've read, it would seem that the Constitution set up military powers so that they are solely used for defensive measures.  The Framers believed that we should live in a peaceful nation and defend ourselves if attacked.  This calls into question Bush's Doctrine of Preemption.  American doesn't attack first.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> But, once again, you have yet to show me any writings of the Founders which prevents them from doing so, nor any limitations within the Constitution itself. In fact, the Constitution tells us otherwise, as you have shown:



Monty Python does a skit about the Holy Hand Grenade that is appropriate here.






The Constitution is specific on what Congress may do and some people believe that it is okay for Congress to invent new ways of approving military action and some believe that you must follow the Constitution to the exact wording.  

Now we see why holy dogma was so exacting and specific, LOL.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> One could make a simplistic argument that this does not necessarily have to be given to a privateer, as was done in the past, but could be written authorization to the President to utlilze the military in combat action not amounting to war. In fact, looking further into the Wikipedia article on "Letters of Marque":


 
Ron Paul was wise in trying to get Congress to assume it's Constitutional Duties as it would have limited military action to the people who "attacked" us.  This is what the Founders intended.  They gave the President the power to use force in a number of ways and Congress must approve.  They gave Congress the ways that they may approve and hoped that this language would be clear enough.

The bottom line is that Congress has specific ways that it may approve of military force.  That is what the Constitution says.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> This is not true, though it may seem as though it is. See the U.S. Supreme Court case of Reid vs. Covert. Consitutional law cannot be trumped by an international treaty.


 
I need to read more about this, because that case would mean that a great many treaties would be invalidated.  Thanks for this.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Now, I will admit that my argument is certainly stretched when it comes to *justification* for such engagements where we are not physically attacked.  This would be where the philosophy of the Founders may come into play.  But, in this particular case, I would argue that since the Founders did not put any specific limitations upon the Government for when it may or may not use military force, that they left it up to the government, as legislated by the Congress, believed were necessary for the safety of the People.



The Founders gave Congress specific direction on how they may approve military force.  It comes down to ideology.  Do you want to read the Constitution, or do you want interpret what it doesn't say.  It's like rules in game, "well it doesn't say we CAN'T do that."  

Well, actually, it says what you CAN do and that's actually more clear then laying out a thousand commandment of what you CAN'T do.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 15, 2010)

The Constitution is unclear on many points, and where it is, there are many interpretations that come into use.  Until challenged and settled by the SCOTUS, they remain unclear; but to declare them unconstitutional on the basis that they violate the intent of the Framers is opinion, not a statement of fact.  In essence, they are treated as lawful unless the judicial branch makes a finding that they are not.

The Framers certainly did not intend for the President to have unfettered ability to unilaterally declare war, and Congress has expressed their unease with allowing Presidents in past times to push normally-legal Police Actions into all-out war (Korea) without a formal declaration from Congress.

However, this is not the same as saying that such actions are therefore unconstitutional.  If a challenge to such actions should be granted cert by the SCOTUS and they should find that yes, such actions do violate the Constitution, then and only then may we say such actions are unconstitutional.

It was always my opinion that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right to have and bear arms.  But until recent events, I would have been incorrect to insist that laws that have now been declared unconstitutional were so in a legal sense, and the people who implemented such laws are hardly criminals for having violated the Constitution.

Likewise, those members of the armed forces who carry out the orders of the President and engage in armed hostilities at his direction are hardly war criminals, nor are they violating their oaths to the Constitution; not until such time as the SCOTUS has ruled and stripped the President from that particular currently-assumed authority.

Your statement is incorrect; if the Constitution says what Congress can do, that does not mean that is the only way it can be done.  In questions where there is no clear statement, SCOTUS must rule or a defining amendment must be put in place; else such behavior will be considered legal.

I rather dislike the concept that every member of the armed forces violates their oath to the Constitution the moment they put on a uniform, or that people actually hold that opinion.  Frankly, I've sort of left this conversation because I find such opinions not just incorrect but distasteful.  The clear hostility displayed leaves me not just angry but sad.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 15, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> The Constitution specifically states what Congress may do to approve military action.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But how do you address the issue of Congresses ability to issue letters of Marquee and Reprisal.  Those letters, ie. congressional legislation authorizing a military use of force.l, can be issued to anyone by the Congress, including to the President.  As the president is the CIC, he is then Conditionally authorized to use the military for such action.

There is no abrogattion by Congress' power, just a different way of "issuing the letter".


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 15, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The Constitution is unclear on many points, and where it is, there are many interpretations that come into use.  Until challenged and settled by the SCOTUS, they remain unclear; but to declare them unconstitutional on the basis that they violate the intent of the Framers is opinion, not a statement of fact.  In essence, they are treated as lawful unless the judicial branch makes a finding that they are not.
> 
> The Framers certainly did not intend for the President to have unfettered ability to unilaterally declare war, and Congress has expressed their unease with allowing Presidents in past times to push normally-legal Police Actions into all-out war (Korea) without a formal declaration from Congress.
> 
> ...



You make a good point here.  Legally, what is going on is law until it is actually challenged and found differently by the SCOTUS.  

Regarding opinions, well, that's a different story.  It certainly is proper to reason that something is unconstitutional.  People do this all of the time.  It has no legal standing, but it still may be a convincing argument.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 15, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> But how do you address the issue of Congresses ability to issue letters of Marquee and Reprisal.  Those letters, ie. congressional legislation authorizing a military use of force.l, can be issued to anyone by the Congress, including to the President.  As the president is the CIC, he is then Conditionally authorized to use the military for such action.
> 
> There is no abrogattion by Congress' power, just a different way of "issuing the letter".



I think we are getting off track here.  These letters don't really apply to large scale, all out, war.  I found this from a lawyer and constitutional scholar on the matter.  Here is someone who knows way more then me about and he lays out the argument convincingly.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0128-08.htm



> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Congress cannot  transfer to the president its exclusive power to declare war any more  than it can transfer its exclusive power to levy taxes. Such a transfer  is illegal. These are non-delegable powers held only by the United  States Congress.
> [/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
> [/FONT]
> ...



Notice that he goes on to say that it's not only the current wars, it's also the precedent that has been set since WWII.



> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the midst of  the rushed congressional debate in October 2002, U.S. Sen. Robert C.  Byrd (D-W. Va.) warned that the resolution under consideration was  unconstitutional. "We are handing this over to the President of the  United States," Byrd said. "When we do that, we can put up a sign on the  top of this Capitol, and we can say: 'Gone home. Gone fishing. Out of  business.'" Byrd added: "I never thought I would see the day in these  forty-four years I have been in this body... when we would cede this  kind of power to any president."
> [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
> [/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The  Iraq war is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. The  president and the members of Congress who voted for that October  resolution should be held accountable for sending this nation into an  illegal war.
> ...




It's not just Ron Paul, we have people on both sides of the aisle that are saying that the wars are illegal and unconstitutional.  Many of these people put their political careers on the line to say this and I respect that, because this point of view needs to get into the minds of the public.  



The implication is that the US has strayed from it's Constitutional roots and is heading down a path the Founding Fathers warned us against.  This infuriates me and saddens me, because I think that if we simply followed the rules of our Republic we and the world would be a lot better off.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 15, 2010)

Here is another article on the matter in which a group of law students and professors research the matter in detail and actually sue the Bush Administration on the subject of the illegality of the war.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202421359865


----------



## Carol (Jul 15, 2010)

MBuzzy said:


> I have a really hard time with all of this. This topic is a very big philosophical debate...one that most people in the military don't really care about. To the majority of us, it is a job. Try to heap responsibility on us....but the image that some people seem to have of the helicopter pilot laughing and shooting children is WAY off. There are VERY few of us who want to or like killing ANYONE, let alone children....and those who do are quickly shown their way out.


 
I don't think illistrating someone in the armed services as a person that wants to or likes killing is any more accurate than illustrating someone on the mat as a person that wants to or likes killing.  :idunno:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 17, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> I think we are getting off track here. These letters don't really apply to large scale, all out, war. I found this from a lawyer and constitutional scholar on the matter. Here is someone who knows way more then me about and he lays out the argument convincingly.
> 
> http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0128-08.htm
> 
> ...


 
The problem with your argument is that the Founders themselves, through Congressional authorization regarding the use of military force without an official declaration of war, did these things.  This is not a modern phenomenon, but something that goes back to the beginning of the country.  I point you to the Northwest Indian War, the First Barbary War ("started" by Thomas Jefferson, no less), the Quasi-War (ironic, don't you think), and Tecumseh's War.

The Founder's own actions deny the position that Congress must declare war in order for the military to be used.  In fact, there were times when some Founders, such as James Madison, used the military without Congressional Authorization, such as during the Seminole Wars.  And he was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers!

Authough I think that the Founders intended it to be difficult for the Government to get into a war, they did so by setting up the bureacracy in such a way as to make it difficult.  In no way did they limit for what the military could be used.  War is a political enterprise, and therefore the political body had to have the flexibility to utilize force as it saw fit within the confinse of the Constitution.  And that document says nothing about how the military could be utilized, only who can authorize it's utilization.


----------

