Service members anonymously protest potential war against Syria on Facebook

[Misterveritis]

Did invading Iraq fit the bill?

Iraq had a declaration of war. Congress did the right thing.

 

[Misterveritis]

Not sure how it is relevant, but the country as a whole agreed with the war in Iraq at the time if you recall. And if they did have WMD and WERE training Al Queda then yes, it did fit the bill.

The particulars do not matter and are not relevant. The President asked for and the Congress declared war. That makes Iraq qualitatively different from Syria.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

The particulars do not matter and are not relevant. The President asked for and the Congress declared war. That makes Iraq qualitatively different from Syria.

Excellent point, that President actually cared about the Constitution.

 

[Misterveritis]

So they claimed.. The Bush Admin claimed they were trucking them back and forth between Syria and Sudan.

Sudan? In Africa? That is one heck of a trucking.

 

[Misterveritis]

No, it would not be Unconstitutional. All he has to do is notify Congress 48 hour prior. That is all. He could be telling them now then attack Sunday morning, and it is perfectly legal.

I disagree. He could certainly do it. But it would not pass Constitutional muster. Only the Congress can declare war. The president can act if there is a vital national interest and time urgency. Otherwise he makes his case to the American people and their representatives. Any other action is at odds with the Constitution. It is not his military. It is our military.

 

[Misterveritis]

ANd why do you say that? Because we need a declaration of war before any hostilities need be taken?

If that is your argument, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

In my opinion unless there is a vital national interest and time urgency then the president must make his case to the people for war.

Syria does not pass this simple test. And by his actions the president agrees.

 

[Misterveritis]

Yup. We do that all the time, actually. It's called "Collateral Damage", and it's when we know we are going to kill innocents, and consider the objective worth the loss.

The president is unlikely to give those orders.

There must be a legitimate military objective for any strike that will kill noncombatants not to mention all of the other possibilities (destruction of religious or cultural items...for example).

 

[Misterveritis]

No such thing as innocent in war. All are legitimate targets.

That is not true. I sure hope you are not in authority anywhere.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Before we attack another country, especially one that has no security threat to the United States, absolutely we must have a declaration. That is what the Constitution says. We don't need to be involved in any other type of operations, including Syria.

No, it does not.

Over 200 years ago, in 1801 President Jefferson went to Congress and said he did not have the power to attack the Barbary Pirates, because there was no declaration of war by Congress.

Now follow this closely. Congress held some meetings and determined that such a declaration was not needed for the President to take military action. This was the same Congress that was chock full of individuals who had drafted the Constitution in the first place! This was the 7th US Congress, and most of the members were among those who had drafted and approved the Constitution in the first place.

So if anybody should have an idea of what the Constitution was intended to allow and disallow, it should be them. And if there was ever somebody who was a stickler for following the Rule of Law when it came to the Constitution, it was President Jefferson.

And are you now saying you have a better idea of what the Constitution allows and does not allow then these august individuals?

 

[Oozlefinch]

The president is unlikely to give those orders.

There must be a legitimate military objective for any strike that will kill noncombatants not to mention all of the other possibilities (destruction of religious or cultural items...for example).

Not only that, he has to also follow the Posse Comitatus Act, and the state or region has to be declared to be in a state of rebellion before he can order US troops to take actions upon US soil.

Why is it that so many people have absolutely no idea what the military is allowed and not allowed to do?

 

[Oozlefinch]

Iraq had a declaration of war. Congress did the right thing.

No, Iraq did not have a declaration of war. It had an authorization to use force, something completely different.

 

[Wiggen]

So was Eisenhower in violation of this act when he sent paratroopers to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce school desegregation?

We Shall Overcome -- Little Rock Central High School

 

[PirateMk1]

That is not true. I sure hope you are not in authority anywhere.

War is evil, brutal business. The more brutal it is the quicker is done with. Only fools would seek to reform it.

 

[PirateMk1]

Not only that, he has to also follow the Posse Comitatus Act, and the state or region has to be declared to be in a state of rebellion before he can order US troops to take actions upon US soil.

Why is it that so many people have absolutely no idea what the military is allowed and not allowed to do?

Because people call what happens in school an education.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

No, it does not.

Over 200 years ago, in 1801 President Jefferson went to Congress and said he did not have the power to attack the Barbary Pirates, because there was no declaration of war by Congress.

Now follow this closely. Congress held some meetings and determined that such a declaration was not needed for the President to take military action. This was the same Congress that was chock full of individuals who had drafted the Constitution in the first place! This was the 7th US Congress, and most of the members were among those who had drafted and approved the Constitution in the first place.

So if anybody should have an idea of what the Constitution was intended to allow and disallow, it should be them. And if there was ever somebody who was a stickler for following the Rule of Law when it came to the Constitution, it was President Jefferson.

And are you now saying you have a better idea of what the Constitution allows and does not allow then these august individuals?

I'm saying you are not comparing the same thing. The Pirates were not another Nation.

 

[Oozlefinch]

So was Eisenhower in violation of this act when he sent paratroopers to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce school desegregation?

We Shall Overcome -- Little Rock Central High School

That is actually a grey area. Since he did not order them to do anything other then escort students, it is hard to make the claim that anything in regards to the PCA was violated.

Because people call what happens in school an education.

I think the problem is that a lot of people stopped learning after they left school. A day that passes in which I learned nothing new I consider to almost be a waste.

School is only to give the basics, it is up to us to learn the details that they did not have the time to teach in school.

I'm saying you are not comparing the same thing. The Pirates were not another Nation.

Fail once again.

It was either the Vilayet of Tripolitania, a Province of the Ottoman Turks, or the Kingdom of Tripoli, depending on who you ask. It was indeed another nation, with the "pirates" operating under Letters of Marque, allowing them to attack any shipping of Christian nations.

 

[Misterveritis]

No, it does not.

Over 200 years ago, in 1801 President Jefferson went to Congress and said he did not have the power to attack the Barbary Pirates, because there was no declaration of war by Congress.

Now follow this closely. Congress held some meetings and determined that such a declaration was not needed for the President to take military action. This was the same Congress that was chock full of individuals who had drafted the Constitution in the first place! This was the 7th US Congress, and most of the members were among those who had drafted and approved the Constitution in the first place.

So if anybody should have an idea of what the Constitution was intended to allow and disallow, it should be them. And if there was ever somebody who was a stickler for following the Rule of Law when it came to the Constitution, it was President Jefferson.

And are you now saying you have a better idea of what the Constitution allows and does not allow then these august individuals?

I think you are doing history violence. Congress had allocated resources and already given its imprimatur to his actions.
Jefferson's first efforts to deal with the Islamists of his day occurred 1785 or 1786. That fell through when other governments failed to proved funding for the joint operations against the pirates.

In his state of the union letter in December 1801 he wrote that the Barbary States had blockaded US commerce in the Mediterranean, an act of war. He sent a squadron of frigates to protect US commerce. Here are words I like from his letter, "Unauthorized by the constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go out beyond the line of defense, the vessel being disabled from committing further hostilities, was liberated with its crew."

And from the same letter, "I communicate all material information on the subject, that in the exercise of the important function considered by the constitution to the legislature exclusively, their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight."

The question of the day for that Congress was whether or not they needed a formal declaration of war given that the Barbary States had declared war upon the US and were prosecuting that war through attacks, seizures, and demands. When Jefferson asked for a declaration of war Hamilton argued that when another nation wages war against us a state of war already exists and no declaration is needed. The Congress apparently agreed with Hamilton.

I searched through Jefferson's collected papers and found a half dozen pages on this. I searched Hamilton's collected writings and found nothing. So I moved my search from my books to the Internet.

I found this source: Annotation 41 - Article I - FindLaw

These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress. When hostile action is taken against the Nation, or against its citizens or commerce, the appropriate response by order of the President may be resort to force - See more at: Annotation 41 - Article I - FindLaw​

and ...

...whether the President is empowered to commit troops abroad to further national interests in the absence of a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization short of such a declaration. The Supreme Court studiously refused to consider the issue in any of the forms in which it was presented, and the lower courts generally refused, on ''political question'' grounds, to adjudicate the matter. In the absence of judicial elucidation, the Congress and the President have been required to accommodate themselves in the controversy to accept from each other less than each has been willing to accept but more than either has been willing to grant - See more at: Annotation 41 - Article I - FindLaw​

and this as well:

The cruelty, exorbitance, and intransigence of the Barbary states, however, would decide things. The level of tribute demanded began to reach 10 percent of the American national budget, with no guarantee that greed would not increase that percentage, while from the dungeons of Algiers and Tripoli came appalling reports of the mistreatment of captured men and women. Gradually, and to the accompaniment of some of the worst patriotic verse ever written, public opinion began to harden in favor of war.​

Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates by Christopher Hitchens, City Journal Spring 2007

and this:

In the altered mood that prevailed after the encouraging start in Tripoli, Congress passed an enabling act in February 1802 that, in its provision for a permanent Mediterranean presence and its language about the “Tripolitan Corsairs,” amounted to a declaration of war.​

From these sources I believe that Jefferson asked for and, for all intents and purposes, received a declaration of war from the Congress.

This was an interesting question.

 

[Misterveritis]

War is evil, brutal business. The more brutal it is the quicker is done with. Only fools would seek to reform it.

While I agree with this I do not agree that noncombatants may be targeted because none are innocent. That is a crime worthy of the death penalty.

 

[Misterveritis]

No, Iraq did not have a declaration of war. It had an authorization to use force, something completely different.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. As do I. There is no required format for a declaration of war. There is only the requirement that it come from Congress. I believe it can be as simple as authorizing additional funding to take the war actions. An authorization to use force is about as clear a declaration of war as one will ever get.

 

[Misterveritis]

Not only that, he has to also follow the Posse Comitatus Act, and the state or region has to be declared to be in a state of rebellion before he can order US troops to take actions upon US soil.

Why is it that so many people have absolutely no idea what the military is allowed and not allowed to do?

I had the benefit of 20 years of active duty with all of its schools and training. Not every citizen has the need for such training nor the interest. So we use these interesting questions to explore what is and is not allowed, assuming one is following the Constitution and the laws.

 

[Misterveritis]

I'm saying you are not comparing the same thing. The Pirates were not another Nation.

The pirates acted under the color of authority of the Barbary States. There were nations to wage war against. And that is what actually happened.

 

[PirateMk1]

While I agree with this I do not agree that noncombatants may be targeted because none are innocent. That is a crime worthy of the death penalty.

Shermans o general orders for the Savannah campaign.

... IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day's provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, apples, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.

V. To army corps commanders alone is entrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.

VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or brigades. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance.

VII. Negroes who are able-bodied and can be of service to the several columns may be taken along, but each army commander will bear in mind that the question of supplies is a very important one and that his first duty is to see to them who bear arms....

— William T. Sherman , Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120, November 9, 1864

Sherman should have been put to death by your standards. In war there is no such things as innocents. Everyone contributes to the war, everyone is a potential combatant or target. Notice Sherman emphasized the destruction of property rather then killing people. Also notice he didn't shy away from killing either.

 

[Misterveritis]

Shermans o general orders for the Savannah campaign.

Sherman should have been put to death by your standards. In war there is no such things as innocents. Everyone contributes to the war, everyone is a potential combatant or target. Notice Sherman emphasized the destruction of property rather then killing people. Also notice he didn't shy away from killing either.

Sherman is dead. The civil war has ended.

It seems that Sherman, by his orders, does not agree with you.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I had the benefit of 20 years of active duty with all of its schools and training. Not every citizen has the need for such training nor the interest. So we use these interesting questions to explore what is and is not allowed, assuming one is following the Constitution and the laws.

And I have 15 years Active duty, and am still serving (10 years of that in the Infantry). Your point is?

And I am aware of the difference between a State of War and a Declaration of War. That was made clear way back during Operation Just Cause. One is not necessarily the other. And in Iraq there was no Declaration of War.

Of course, if you can provide me the Congressional Action which made a Declaration of War, I would love to see it.

 

[Misterveritis]

And I have 15 years Active duty, and am still serving (10 years of that in the Infantry). Your point is?

I was answering your question. You asked why everyone doesn't know...