Then what exactly does the act say?
Congress does not have a Constitutional prerogative of confirming military officers in their command.
So you're saying that if the un force was commanded under Kim Jong Il, our soldiers would under obligation to follow his orders?
When he volunteered for military service, the laws governing US participation in UN missions were in full effect. This is perhaps New's most laughable argument.
Is that pointed out when they hand out the 'you joined the military' handbook. I wasn't aware of it but ignorance of the law is no excuse. I wonder how many soldiers aren't aware of that?
I think I understand you now. You defend jihadist bullies, you support the un, you support American soldiers taking orders from non US military leaders. Is that all? Are you an American or are you posting from another country?
It says (
"The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter [article 42 is the part authorizing military force - wideawake's note] and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements."
It basically says that the president has unilateral authority to deploy US forces in pursuance of UN military objectives, but does not authorize the President to increase the scope of the deployment beyond the UN request unless he consults Congress.
So you're saying that if the un force was commanded under Kim Jong Il, our soldiers would under obligation to follow his orders?
They cannot be commanded by anyone the US does not approve of, or the US can simply pull its forces.
Is that pointed out when they hand out the 'you joined the military' handbook. I wasn't aware of it but ignorance of the law is no excuse. I wonder how many soldiers aren't aware of that?
I think an intelligent, rational actor - as opposed to a shirking junkie like New - would probably consult someone who had knowledge of military law before refusing a direct order.
I think I understand you now.
And then you proceed to demosntrate that you do not.
You defend jihadist bullies,
Demonstrably false.
you support the un,
Demonstrably false.
you support American soldiers taking orders from non US military leaders.
Demonstrably false.
Is that all? Are you an American or are you posting from another country?
I'm one of the few on this thread who realizes that arson against a US embassy is an horrific act which should outrage any American patriot, and one of the few on this thread who has registered disgust at the the thought that America could possibly "deserve" such a vile act against it.
I actually love my country without waiting to see if a gang of Serb arsonists give me permission to love it, like the lickspittles on this thread.