|
rhaig
Mar 8, 2007, 10:00 AM
Post #1 of 19
(730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2006
Posts: 2179
|
since when does the legislative branch control the military?
Report this Post
|
Can't Post
|
|
AP Story: http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_5384594
In reply to: In a direct challenge to President Bush, House Democrats unveiled legislation Thursday requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the fall of next year.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, nor a lawyer, nor a mindless straight-ticket voter. But I'm curious about how enforcable such legislation would be if it were passed. (It will be passed since it is attached to a war funding bill)
I won't even go into how smart it is to tell the opposing forces when we are leaving. (whoops... there I went)
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Mar 8, 2007, 10:45 AM
Post #2 of 19
(711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
well, i dont know how things work in the US, but in many countries the parliament (or their equivalent) has to pass a bill that allows the deployment of troops onto missions, like peacekeeping, invading other countries, stuff like that.
especially if youre currently not in war.
by the same means, they can reacall them.
|
|
|
|
|
zozo
Mar 8, 2007, 11:06 AM
Post #3 of 19
(699 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2004
Posts: 3431
|
Yeah,
Congress never declared war. Bush was given congressional "Authorazation".
|
|
|
|
|
lnchrdawg
Mar 8, 2007, 11:10 AM
Post #4 of 19
(693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 3, 2007
Posts: 23
|
your right congress only has the power of funding for the military. The President (as commander in chief) has to power to deploy troops and determine troop movement.
rhaig you in el paso? I was stationed there twice and should be coming back in about a year.
|
|
|
|
|
crankinv9
Mar 8, 2007, 11:33 AM
Post #5 of 19
(686 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 713
|
rhaig wrote: AP Story: http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_5384594 In reply to: In a direct challenge to President Bush, House Democrats unveiled legislation Thursday requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the fall of next year. I'm not a constitutional scholar, nor a lawyer, nor a mindless straight-ticket voter. But I'm curious about how enforcable such legislation would be if it were passed. (It will be passed since it is attached to a war funding bill) I won't even go into how smart it is to tell the opposing forces when we are leaving. (whoops... there I went)
You and the White House seem to know how al-queada thinks, tell us more and try to think for yourself this time......
I offer this solution: pull the troops back to secure the borders and let the Iraqis handle their own security in the interior of the country.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 8, 2007, 12:20 PM
Post #6 of 19
(678 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17347
|
lnchrdawg wrote: your right congress only has the power of funding for the military. The President (as commander in chief) has to power to deploy troops and determine troop movement. rhaig you in el paso? I was stationed there twice and should be coming back in about a year.
Congress has the power to declare war, not the president.
But save withholding the checkbook I don't think they can force troop movement in the time left in Bush's term if he decides otherwise.
Let this whole thing be a lesson to Congress anyway.... (not that they'll take it to heart): the political expedience of 'authorization to use force' has cost us 3000 lives and the democrats who voted to yea have just as much blood on their hands as Bush. They allowed it to happen because they feared mom and apple pie backlash.
All this crap is just political positioning to force conservatives in congress to take a stand or abandon their president. I don't like it.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
rhaig
Mar 8, 2007, 12:43 PM
Post #7 of 19
(671 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2006
Posts: 2179
|
nah.... that was just the first article that came up on google news for that topic.
it's AP so it's all the same basically.
|
|
|
|
|
rhaig
Mar 8, 2007, 12:57 PM
Post #8 of 19
(663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2006
Posts: 2179
|
crankinv9 wrote: You and the White House seem to know how al-queada thinks, tell us more and try to think for yourself this time...... I offer this solution: pull the troops back to secure the borders and let the Iraqis handle their own security in the interior of the country.
just because you hear one idea in my post that someone else has has, you assume that I'm a mindless drone. jackass.
it has nothing to do with who the op-for is. broadcasting your exit strategy, or troop movement plans, or any military plans to the op-for is generally considered a "bad idea"(tm). Think about it from the bad-guy's perspective (regardless of who that bad guy is). If I say on June 1 I'm withdrawing all my troops to my main point of entry to your country, and on June 30 I'd be done with putting them all on planes, would that affect your attack strategy?? Maybe you'd hold off until July. Maybe you'd pull everyone back to my foothold and harass them as we come in. Maybe you'd harass while we were withdrawing. I don't know how the enemy thinks in this case, note that I never claimed to. you just made an assumption (remember what Benny Hill said).
My point is military plans should not be broadcast.
And I don't disagree with your offered solution, (I'm actually with you on that point) I just think the calendar shouldn't be the only influence on when it happens.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 8, 2007, 1:04 PM
Post #9 of 19
(660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17347
|
rhaig wrote: crankinv9 wrote: You and the White House seem to know how al-queada thinks, tell us more and try to think for yourself this time...... I offer this solution: pull the troops back to secure the borders and let the Iraqis handle their own security in the interior of the country. just because you hear one idea in my post that someone else has has, you assume that I'm a mindless drone. jackass. it has nothing to do with who the op-for is. broadcasting your exit strategy, or troop movement plans, or any military plans to the op-for is generally considered a "bad idea"(tm). Think about it from the bad-guy's perspective (regardless of who that bad guy is). If I say on June 1 I'm withdrawing all my troops to my main point of entry to your country, and on June 30 I'd be done with putting them all on planes, would that affect your attack strategy?? Maybe you'd hold off until July. Maybe you'd pull everyone back to my foothold and harass them as we come in. Maybe you'd harass while we were withdrawing. I don't know how the enemy thinks in this case, note that I never claimed to. you just made an assumption (remember what Benny Hill said). My point is military plans should not be broadcast. And I don't disagree with your offered solution, (I'm actually with you on that point) I just think the calendar shouldn't be the only influence on when it happens.
Wars of conquest are not compatible with free press, freedom of speech and democracy in general. The proper way to conduct a war of conquest is in total secrecy, refusal to communicate with the general populace and the utter destruction of anyone who resists.
We CANNOT and should not fight wars that way. A further lack of transparency in the Bush admin would deliver a carte blanche to do whatever they pleased. What with illegal eavesdropping programs, torture and renderings, the last thing we Americans should do is promote further secrecy.
So yea dude, militarily speaking, broadcasting troop movements is a bad idea *for the most part.* I say most part in deference to Patton's Rope-A-Dope with the Nazis while the real Normandy invasion was planned elsewhere. Sometimes you WANT the enemy to know about certain movements.
But we aren't at war and we haven't been. Bush does not have war powers and should not have them sans an open and formal declaration of war. It needs to be all-out and as a proud American I hope our next all-out war won't be a pathetic attempt at nation building and conquest.
Shame on the conservatives for creating this goddamned mess.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
rhaig
Mar 8, 2007, 1:29 PM
Post #10 of 19
(654 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2006
Posts: 2179
|
dingus wrote: Wars of conquest are not compatible with free press, freedom of speech and democracy in general
don't disagree with anything you said. Except please don't perpetuate the misconception that the US is a democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 8, 2007, 1:34 PM
Post #11 of 19
(651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17347
|
Mmmm, not worth quibbling about; republic, democracy, oligarchy, MilitaryIndustrialComplex, lottery... whatever it is, its as close as I'm going to get to freedom and still have food on my plate and a roof over my head.
Cheers dude
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
crankinv9
Mar 8, 2007, 2:46 PM
Post #12 of 19
(631 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 713
|
rhaig wrote: crankinv9 wrote: You and the White House seem to know how al-queada thinks, tell us more and try to think for yourself this time...... I offer this solution: pull the troops back to secure the borders and let the Iraqis handle their own security in the interior of the country. just because you hear one idea in my post that someone else has has, you assume that I'm a mindless drone. jackass. quote] nice, that didn't take long did it. rightwing talking points and name calling good work rush tell us how we are " fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them here" don't forget to add the bit about not supporting the troops lol
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Mar 8, 2007, 4:33 PM
Post #13 of 19
(618 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
crankinv9 wrote: nice, that didn't take long did it.
Up until the 5th post, it had the potential to be a decent discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
crankinv9
Mar 8, 2007, 5:00 PM
Post #14 of 19
(612 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 713
|
reno wrote: crankinv9 wrote: nice, that didn't take long did it. Up until the 5th post, it had the potential to be a decent discussion.
I guess you are happy following the white house lead on such matters...
I prefer to think and make my own decisions and just complaining and spewing RWTP(rightwingtalkingpoints) is not a discussion
|
|
|
|
|
graniteboy
Mar 8, 2007, 5:49 PM
Post #15 of 19
(602 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 1090
|
As far as the legal authority and control that the legislative branch has over the Military, I suppose we ought to actually read the document. The pertinent clauses of the US Constitution, Article I, section 8, show pretty clearly that the legislative branch has authority that far exceeds the simplistic "power of the purse" that the Current Occupant of the Executive branch would have you believe. Rememember: the founding fathers were pretty bright guys....much smarter than most the riff raff involved in politic today....
I think a strong case can and has been made regarding clause 18 below in terms of the legislative branch's authority in these matters. Particularly, you should peruse clauses 14 and 16, and note that it is our "militia" (national guard) who are being sent over there on extended tours of duty over and over again....congress clearly has massive authority over how those guys are being used.
Clause 11:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13:
To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14:
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 17:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
Clause 18:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
HOWEVER: PROBABLY MORE GERMANE TO THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT A WAR THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH CLEARLY LIED TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IN ORDER TO CON US INTO GOING TO WAR, IS THE FOLLOWING CLAUSE, PERTAINING TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESAND SENATE, RESPECTIVELY
Clause 5:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Clause 6:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Clause 7:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 9, 2007, 5:28 AM
Post #16 of 19
(582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17347
|
graniteboy wrote: Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
This one is pretty funny. This war has been financed - Start your War TODAY! And you pay NOTHING till 08. THAT'S RIGHT FOLKS, COME ON DOWN TO OLE GW'S USED CONSERVATIVE LOT AND PICKUP A SLIGHTLY USED WAR FOR NO MONEY DOWN AND NO MONTHLY PAYMENTS TILL I'M OUT OF OFFICE!!!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
g
Mar 9, 2007, 9:28 AM
Post #17 of 19
(560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 270
|
reno wrote: crankinv9 wrote: nice, that didn't take long did it. Up until the 5th post, it had the potential to be a decent discussion.
rhaig wrote: I won't even go into how smart it is to tell the opposing forces when we are leaving. (whoops... there I went)
Dingus, I don't know how you were reading that, but I think the Founding Fathers meant that funding for a war could not go beyond a two year term. In other words, Congress can't write a blank check to the President to prosecute a war, and they must review it and appropriate more funding.
|
|
|
|
|
rhaig
Mar 9, 2007, 12:34 PM
Post #18 of 19
(535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2006
Posts: 2179
|
g wrote: So Reno, a decent discussion for you is one that is born out of ignorance? Sorry Rhaig, if you are an American, you seriously need to go read a basic text on American Government.
Don't disagree with you. Last time I studied govt was about 15years ago. I've not kept up with it and I didn't pay that much attention to begin with.
I understand the meaning of the word ignorant. I'm sometimes embarassed to be as ignorant as I am on some subjects, but not being stupid, I can fix the ignorance if I cared to (but I'm terribly apathetic too).
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 9, 2007, 5:07 PM
Post #19 of 19
(515 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18059
|
dingus wrote: ...Congress has the power to declare war, not the president...
Yep. It's a real shame they have abrogated that authority for the last 50 years, too.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
