Posted on 03/15/2009 5:06:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
One thing about President Barack Hussein Obama, he usually means what he says, at least initially that is. He is always having to back track to cover up the things he really meant when he said it the first time. For example, he said the Rearend Wright was his spirtual mentor. Anyone who has studied the guy knows that this was truly what he meant, but of course Obama had to eventually dump the Rearend when he continued to hear flack about that asscociation of twenty years. Then there are many things he has spoken that are so unfamiliar with the typical American lexicon that they have been shrugged off as just campaign rhetoric. When he mentioned about having a "civilian national security force" that was just as strong and equally funded as the military, it went without hardly a mention by the major news outlets. Obama has never been pressed on this, and so he has not had to do his kabuki dance around what he meant. Oh, you heard about it in conservative pockets, like on Townhall, and on my blog on Yahoo 360. The thing is, this President is serious about what he says. In the video from July when he said it, the people just clapped on cue like a bunch of Obamatons while their beloved candidate was telling them that he will have a federal security force within our own country to enforce the coming federal mandates upon the states and the people.
Here's the comments from July, along with a well done illustration using the music from the "Sing for Change" kiddies that were used during the campaign. Thanks to Brain Dead Republican on youtube.
(VIDEO AT LINK)
Well, Mr. President Obama repeated his remarks just the other day at the dedication of Abraham Lincoln Hall at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C..
"And that’s why my administration is committed to renewing diplomacy as a tool of American power, and to developing our civilian nationanl security capabilities… … We have to enlist our civilians in the same way that we enlist those members of the armed services in understanding this broad mission that we have."
You can read more extensively by going to a great site called RightReborn.com . Their post has extensive links on this topic, including an audio clip from the Mark Levin show that has the above comments by Obama. During the campaign, I kept steering people to Investor's Business Daily and their series Audacity of Socialism. RightReborn also mentions IBD and one of the articles of that series. What good is information if it is never received and acted on in wisdom? The past couple of years have been a frustrating exercise for those who seek to truly inform others. There just does not seem to be much reception until everything goes to hell in a handbasket.
Each individual must make that decision whether they are a general or not. The point is that we still have civilian control over the military. If the JCS had a formal agreement to make them the ones to decide whether to carry out the orders of the President or not, they are in violation of the Constitution. They could resign rather than carry out the order, but to actively disobey it and stop that order from being carried out is a far different matter.
Without any proof you can make any allegation you want. That doesn't make it true. For example, I recall reading somewhere that one of the JCS chiefs shot at President Nixon in the Oval Office, but he missed. Whether it was true or not, I have no way of knowing. Note: If I had made the former statement you would be asking for proof.
But on a side note, the person carrying the football, if the president for no apparent reason wants to launch an attack, does he have to do it regrardless of the facts surrounding the events?
Of course he must or be prepared to pay the price of disobedience. The Presient decides not the guy holding the "football," nor the guy at the ICBM base who is told to to launch the missiles, or the pilot flying the bomber. What kind of miliary would we have if each individual could decide whether or not they wanted to obey a lawful order. And you are presuming that the guy with the "football" is privy to all of the facts.
>>He needs the “terroist attack” crisis to establish his brown shirt brigade.”<<
BINGO!!
As I mentioned the article was in the Washington Post, I have no way to research to locate the article for you and am not intersted in debating something as stupid as this.
Actually google is your friend.
The Joint Chiefs actually spied on Nixon to boot.
But here is a link to what I was discussing.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a082274mediacoup&scale=0#a082274mediacoup
TEXT:
August 22, 1974: Pentagon, Joint Chiefs ‘Kept Watch’ on Nixon to Prevent Coup Attempt, Newspaper Reports
August 22, 1974: Pentagon, Joint Chiefs ‘Kept Watch’ on Nixon to Prevent Coup Attempt, Newspaper Reports The Washington Post prints a small, almost-buried story entitled “Pentagon Kept Watch on Military.” The relatively innocuous headline conceals a potentially explosive charge—that during the final days of the Nixon administration, Defense Secretary James Schlesinger and the Joint Chiefs of Staff had “kept a close watch to make certain that no orders were given to military units outside the normal chain of command.” The article, careful in its word choices, says the extraordinary alert was “based on hypothetical situations that could arise during a period when President Nixon’s hold on the presidency was not clear.… Specifically, there was concern that an order could go to a military unit outside the chain of command for some sort of action against Congress during the time between a House impeachment and a Senate trial on the impeachment charge.” Pentagon sources say no one has any evidence that any such action was being contemplated, but steps were taken to ensure that no military commander would take an order from the White House or anywhere else that did not come through military channels. The implication is clear: Pentagon officials worried that Nixon might use certain elements of the military to stage some sort of coup. Schlesinger gives the story “legs” by issuing the following non-denial: “I did assure myself that there would be no question about the proper constitutional and legislated chain of command, and there never was any question.” [Werth, 2006, pp.
“The relatively innocuous headline conceals a potentially explosive charge—that during the final days of the Nixon administration, Defense Secretary James Schlesinger and the Joint Chiefs of Staff had “kept a close watch to make certain that no orders were given to military units outside the normal chain of command.” The article, careful in its word choices, says the extraordinary alert was “based on hypothetical situations that could arise during a period when President Nixon’s hold on the presidency was not clear.… Specifically, there was concern that an order could go to a military unit outside the chain of command for some sort of action against Congress during the time between a House impeachment and a Senate trial on the impeachment charge.” Pentagon sources say no one has any evidence that any such action was being contemplated, but steps were taken to ensure that no military commander would take an order from the White House or anywhere else that did not come through military channels. The implication is clear: Pentagon officials worried that Nixon might use certain elements of the military to stage some sort of coup.”
Seems I was correct!
I am surprised he did not break his neck putting his nose in the air that far.
I disagree. At that level, one's resignation must be approved or disapproved by the very person who is being disobeyed.
Further, if a commander judges an order to be illegal or immoral, it is that commander's responsibility to ensure that soldiers in their command do not follow the illegal/immoral order. At the JCS level, that means countermanding the order for the entire services.
Finally, the generals swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. Under nearly all circumstances, that means taking orders from the President and his civilian leadership team. Under extraordinary circumstances, where the civilian leadership has breached the constitution and its subservient laws, it means NOT obeying the President. If the generals had sworn fealty to the President, or even to the office of the President, then their duty under the oath would be obedience to the order. If they swore loyalty to the President, they would in effect be a private army at the disposal of a politician, rather than an arm of United States policy under the direction of the duly elected leader of the country.
Just my opinion, of course. And may God grant that we (as a country) never have to see such extraordinary circumstances as would cause the military to forswear the orders of a duly elected President.
LOL. You have a reading comprehension problem.
“The relatively innocuous headline conceals a potentially explosive charge"
Pentagon sources say no one has any evidence that any such action was being contemplated, but steps were taken to ensure that no military commander would take an order from the White House or anywhere else that did not come through military channels.
The implication is clear: Pentagon officials worried that Nixon might use certain elements of the military to stage some sort of coup.”
Lots of conjecture, short on facts and evidence. This is all crap and to give it any kind of credence is just part of the Leftist MSM propaganda. Notice nothing was mentioned about disobeying orders in the national interest. Again, where is the credible source and evidence?
And who the hell is History Commons? Is it a reliable source?
That kind of tautology is nonsense. You publicly announce your resignation and the reasons why, period. It has been done before, including under Nixon. Remember the resignations of Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus. Richardson resigned when Mr. Nixon instructed him to fire Cox and Richardson refused. When the President then asked Ruckelshaus to dismiss Cox, he refused, White House spokesman Ronald L. Ziegler said, and he was fired. Ruckelshaus said he resigned.
Finally, the President turned to Solicitor General Robert H. Bork, who by law becomes acting Attorney General when the Attorney General and deputy attorney general are absent, and he carried out the President's order to fire Cox. The letter from the President to Bork also said Ruckelshaus resigned.
This is the principled way to handle an order you cannot carry out.
Further, if a commander judges an order to be illegal or immoral, it is that commander's responsibility to ensure that soldiers in their command do not follow the illegal/immoral order. At the JCS level, that means countermanding the order for the entire services.
Wrong. Countermanding the order is far different than refusing to carry it out. And the principled thing to do is for that commanding officer to submit his resignation, not countermand the order. The President was elected by the people. The military commander was not. If that commander will not carry out the order than someone further down the chain of command will. We cannot have every commander making the determination of whether an order is "immoral" or not before carrying it out. If it is a matter of personal conscience, than resign and let the public decide.
Under extraordinary circumstances, where the civilian leadership has breached the constitution and its subservient laws, it means NOT obeying the President. If the generals had sworn fealty to the President, or even to the office of the President, then their duty under the oath would be obedience to the order. If they swore loyalty to the President, they would in effect be a private army at the disposal of a politician, rather than an arm of United States policy under the direction of the duly elected leader of the country.
The point is that this can't be a group decision, but a personal one. What you are describing is the justification used by generals in Pakistan, Turkey, Greece, etc. to take over the democratically elected government because they knew what was best for the country. We don't need a military junta to ensure that the Constitution is upheld. There is a reason that the President was made CIC of the military.
Just my opinion, of course. And may God grant that we (as a country) never have to see such extraordinary circumstances as would cause the military to forswear the orders of a duly elected President.
God help us that there are not many citizens like you who would accept such a circumstance. I say that advisedly having served as a naval officer for 8 years and a Foreign Service Officer for 28 years. I have no problem with people refusing to carry out orders as a matter of individual conscience and principle and accepting the consequences of those decisions by resigning or being punished. However, for these dissenters to remain in power countermanding the orders of a duly elected President goes far beyond just principled dissent. It is a revolution and the people don't have a say.
Well I said only I read the article what 30 years ago and this is what I recall. I never stated the article was fact.
I am sorry you cannot understand the difference between an oath to a person and an oath to the Constitution. I can and do understand - and your condescension belies your ignorance.
Have a good day.
It was just something that I recalled and added it to the conversation.
I was fairly accurate in my recalling the article.
And I do not need to answer you you..
And if you did serve, thank you for yor service.
Of course that is not the issue. Our Constitution provides a means to get rid of a President who violates the Constititution. It is called impeachment and it is carried out by the legislative branch that represents the people. I do not want the military acting as the guardians of our Constitution by seizing power or countermanding orders.
I have taken that oath twice. It is a personal one and I do not have the right to impose my views on my subordinates. I will not follow any order blindly. I will resign before carrying out any unlawful or immoral order, but it remains a personal decision.
You seem to place more reliance on the judgment of the military than you do the people and their elected representatives. Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. God help us from "citizens" like you who do not understand our Constitution and the foundation of our government.
Your statements regarding resigning rather than countermanding an illegal order reminds me of those who say “I don’t believe in abortion because it’s murder, but I don’t believe I should impose my will on anyone else”. You would not carry out the illegal order, but you would abet it by standing idly by, after you resign.
Illogical.
As I have repeatedly said - and let me stress this once again - this situation arises ONLY when illegal orders are given.
I’m sorry you and I disagree so strongly that you feel compelled to be insulting and demeaning. Feel free to continue, although I will likely not respond hereafter. It is obvious we cannot have a discussion without your oozing arrogance and condescension, so I’ll not waste my time.
Illogical? If I felt strongly enough to disobey an order from those above me in the chain of command, I would have to either resign or suffer the consequences. My resignation would be made publicly just like Richardson did. Remember that this is a subjective judgment on my part. Others in the chain of command may not agree with me. And there is also the distinct possibility that by not carrying out the order could have damaging consequences to the unit or the nation.
“I don’t believe in abortion because it’s murder, but I don’t believe I should impose my will on anyone else”.
The operative phrase here is "impose my will." Words have meanings. Abortion is legal in this country. How do I deal with the current situation? I can either work through the legislative system to try to change the laws or I can use vigilante justice by blowing up abortion clinics and carrying out some "citizen justice" by "eliminating" the doctors [read murderers] who perform these abortions. After all, by just standing by and allowing these murders to take place, you are abetting the abortionists and could be considered an accomplice. Personally, I prefer the former option to the latter. We are still a nation of laws.
As I have repeatedly said - and let me stress this once again - this situation arises ONLY when illegal orders are given.
No, you used immoral as one of the criteria as well. And who determines what is legal and illegal?
I’m sorry you and I disagree so strongly that you feel compelled to be insulting and demeaning. Feel free to continue, although I will likely not respond hereafter. It is obvious we cannot have a discussion without your oozing arrogance and condescension, so I’ll not waste my time.
You initiated the ad hominem attacks. I have no problem having the last word. You are defending the indefensible.
St. Patrick’s Day Bump!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.