Thousands of Marines face involuntary recalls because of Iraqi Civil War

[IminWonderland]

I think the bottom line, is that we are getting to a point in our country, where our leaders are taking us in a direction that the rest of us don't want to go in. And the real question is, is although our soliders are trained to take orders, do they love their country enough to defy orders when they are sending them into a situation that we shouldn't be in. Although you might say that they aren't in a position to be able to make that decision or conclusion, I believe that if they are going to be sent to kill people, they should at least know why. We've always known WHY we were being sent to war. We knew WHY in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and we knew WHY we were being sent to Korea. We knew the WHY in Desert Storm. And now, with this conflict, the WHY keeps changing. The cause keeps changing. It leads many to believe, that there was no pure WHY in the first place that would warrant this action. The WHY is being kept from us. We are being lied to left and right. And now, women I know, whose Husband's valiently served their countries, and gave their time, are now in fear of having to leave, once again, without a cause to even fight for.

We can't ask WHY, because then we are unpatriotic. What do the American citizens have left to depend on, if we can't depend on our soldiers to do the right thing?

What if next, the Marines are being turned on the people of this country, and once again we are left without a WHY? Or the why is not justified?
Do they just follow their orders, and to hell with having a thought for what they are being asked to do? Is that what we want of our soldiers?

[smokie700]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

No, we're talking about military people getting called back into war. Now, personally I think that if they're in the military, then getting deployed by the military should be no surprise.

However, if the oath, as previously quoted, says they must only obey lawful orders by their superiors, that means that they should be able to claim the war to be unlawful and not go.

The only body that can make a statement that the soldiers orders to go to Iraq are unlawful is congress. Guess What? Congress said the orders were lawful. IF any soldier were to follow your logic they could either be thrown in jail or face other types of punishment.
A soldier can say that an order is unlawful. Then it will go the a higher authority to decide if order was indeed unlawful. If that order is proven to be a lawful order the soldier is officially Fucked.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by smokie700

The only body that can make a statement that the soldiers orders to go to Iraq are unlawful is congress. Guess What? Congress said the orders were lawful. IF any soldier were to follow your logic they could either be thrown in jail or face other types of punishment.
A soldier can say that an order is unlawful. Then it will go the a higher authority to decide if order was indeed unlawful. If that order is proven to be a lawful order the soldier is officially Fucked.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you about the soldiers having to obey. As I said, it is not their job to protest the war by not going to war. They can do it in the same ways that civilians do it.

But what I'm saying is that congress gave the president a free pass to do as he wished without declaring war. So, since we're AT war, that can only mean that the PRESIDENT is the one who declared it. Therefore, the war is either not a war, or it is an illegal war.

[smokie700]

from the wiki
Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War," however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Many oppose that reasoning. The postulate has not been tested in court, however, this article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title.

Despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war, in practice, formal Declarations of War have occurred only upon prior request by the President.

After World War II, Congress voluntarily limited its use of the power to declare war to issuing authorizations of force. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations eleven separate times.


Those who believe that formal declarations of war are not necessary, argue that since the Constitution expressly prohibits the states from engaging in war without consent of Congress unless actually invaded or in imminent danger, that if a similar prohibition had been intended for the President, then such words would have also been written to effect it. They also point to the military connotations of the phrases engaging in war (used in the aforesaid prohibition) and levying war (used in the definition of treason) as opposed to the diplomatic connotations of the phrase declare war. Further historical arguments point to the decisions to not issue a formal declaration of war preceding either the Civil War or the Revolutionary War, the latter decision being made by a Continental Congress comprising a number of those who went on to write the Constitution. Moreover, the term "Declaration of War" is not, in fact, mentioned by the US Constitution. Instead the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..." without defining the form such declarations will take. Therefore, many have argued congressionally passed authorizations to use military force are "Declarations of War."
...................


The Iraq war is officially a military engagement which was authorized by congress. The president has very limited powers when using military force without congressional approval.

So you can say the Iraq war is not a war using technicalities. However congress made the military engagement legal and the Presidents order lawful by approving it.

[JaJae]

Congress also continues to vote for funds. Iraq is perfectly legal.

[Ardentfrost]

Man, you guys are missing the point.

Congress just giving this kind of power to the president is completely counter to the constitution. There is supposed to be a SEPERATION of powers, and saying "do whatever the fuck you wanna do" is not a seperation.

Without a declaration of war, why are we at war? Military Engagement is just a fucked up way of saying "war." You guys are buying into this bullshit they want you to believe so that you'll accept it.

[smokie700]

So you are pissed at Congress?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by smokie700

So you are pissed at Congress?

Yeah, for every military conflict they have let us get involved in for the past 50 years

I see it as a huge slap in the face to the constitution. But that really doesn't have much to do with the OP. I brought this up merely to point out that it seems to me, by what someone quoted (the military oath), that someone in the military could claim the war to not be legal.

But then, why on Earth would they have joined the military if they didn't agree with us getting involved militarily with other countries illegally? I doubt any 50+ year olds are joining who can say "back in my day, congress had to declare war before we went galavanting around the world killing mofos"

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Congress also continues to vote for funds. Iraq is perfectly legal.

It makes it legal not constitutional, and officers swear an oath to the constitution

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It makes it legal not constitutional, and officers swear an oath to the constitution

How is it not constitutional?

The constitutional says Congress can declare war. It also says the president with the approval of congress can engage in military actions. There is nothing in the constitution that says there must be a formal declaration of war. All it says is that we can go to war and engage militarily with the approval of congress.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

How is it not constitutional?

The constitutional says Congress can declare war. It also says the president with the approval of congress can engage in military actions. There is nothing in the constitution that says there must be a formal declaration of war. All it says is that we can go to war and engage militarily with the approval of congress.

Congress did not approve or authorize the soldiers to intervene in a civil war

It was a stretch to allow them until the ENTIRE Iraqi government was set up...but now that we are...we are occupying a democratically elected and fully sovereign country and acting a peacekeepers to keep the new government from being wracked by civil war...

That was no where in the 2002 bill

These officers should be speaking up publically, instead of leaking to the press

[Ardentfrost]

whoa whoa whoa, where does it say the military can engage anyone without declaration of war? The only thing I see is that states can defend themselves without congressional consent if they are invaded.

Remember, the constitution doesn't say what the forms of federal government can't do, it says what it CAN do. Anything not mentioned must be understood to be "can't."

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Congress did not approve or authorize the soldiers to intervene in a civil war

It was a stretch to allow them until the ENTIRE Iraqi government was set up...but now that we are...we are occupying a democratically elected and fully sovereign country and acting a peacekeepers to keep the new government from being wracked by civil war...

That was no where in the 2002 bill

These officers should be speaking up publically, instead of leaking to the press

What is this about a civil war? And why do you think it has any relevence?

Congress has approved our military to go into Iraq. Period. What is or isn't happening in Iraq means ABSOLUTELY nothing in regards to the legality of the decision or the constitution.

The bill that was signed doesn't need to be updated to allow for your "civil war" context. It is still legally binding and has been renewed by congress.

Point to me the exact part of the constitution that we are violating and point to me exactly how we are violating it.

Saying congress didn't approve us to intervene a civil war means absolutely nothing. For someone who claims to be in the legal system, you should know that. This is as basic as an introductory constitutional law class.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

whoa whoa whoa, where does it say the military can engage anyone without declaration of war? The only thing I see is that states can defend themselves without congressional consent if they are invaded.

Remember, the constitution doesn't say what the forms of federal government can't do, it says what it CAN do. Anything not mentioned must be understood to be "can't."

Not can't. It gives the president certain guidelines with the military and states congress can declare war.

It does not define what a declaration of war because it's irrelevent and doesn't mean anything regardless. Congress has the power to use our military on a vote. They are doing that. Any time congress votes and signs a bill to invade another country it is legal whether the president says the words "We declare war" to the media or if congress spells it out in crayon for the country we're invading.

[JaJae]

It's funny because I remember when we first went in Bush was saying we're going to war with Iraq. And everyone made a fuss saying it wasn't constitutional because congress didn't approve it.

Then congress approves it and again it's not constitutional because why? Nobody physically said "we're going to war" in a manner they deem appropriate before sending our entire military into Iraq?

[smokie700]

I like the statement "I voted for the war but I really didn't want it"

[Thorgrim]

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Councilresolutions regarding Iraq

---

"in order to" to achieve those objectives

UN resolutions are no longer an issue, so scratch 2

So we just have left as our only authorized objective:
"1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"

Iraq is our ally, they are not a continuing threat we toppled Saddamist Iraq that was the supposed threat and the designed threat in the legislation

This is not some far-out wacky theory...several republican senators such as Hagel and Warner have said the president should look at reauthorizing the military action, as the supreme court ruled, there is no "blank check" for security actions, there are limits the president can not simply do whatever he pleases

You ask what he violates? First off, nothing gives him the power to do what he says, so he can simply he cited for violating his limited powers, he needs to be granted powers of war by congress on SOME LEVEL

In Korea, it was part of a UN role designated by treaties the US had approvaed

In Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin was a defense of SK act, which we were doing from start to finish

Other small several month/week operations were authorized by congress as short military stints

The Iraq War was designed to topple Saddam, not to defend the Shia, or Sunni, or Kurds from each other

There was NO congressional authorization which there has ALWAYS been, and without that our American Occupation is unconstitutional

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Councilresolutions regarding Iraq

Well it's a good thing Congress authorized the war then right?

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

There was NO congressional authorization which there has ALWAYS been, and without that our American Occupation is unconstitutional

Oh
Damn I thought I was on a roll.

oh wait, what's this?
CBS News | Congress Says Yes To Iraq Resolution | October 16, 2002 13:01:30

Both the House and the Senate have now voted to authorize war-making powers for President Bush, who heralded the chamber's vote as a resounding message to United Nations and to the world that "the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally."