Now they own it. I will always draw the line when American forces are in Danger...I maybe retired from the Air Force but I still care about the troops as if they were my own.
Posted on 08/24/2011 4:53:40 PM PDT by smoothsailing
August 24, 2011
Florida Republican Congressman John Mica offered the following morally clear Amendment (5/25/2011-H.AMDT.318 (A018) Amends H.R.1540):
Amendment requires that the rules of engagement [ROE] allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protect their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Just to be honest, I am not a Ron Paul supporter but if the guy is right, he's right.
Ron Paul is NOT a republican...he is a libertarian the next best thing to a progressive commie. Besides being just plain crazy.
...obsession with the Fed, isolationist, totally anti Israel and anti Jew....they think America is at fault for the worlds problems...
“Obesession with the Fed, pro Israel, have no problems with Jews, and a belief that we spend far too much money and expend too many lives trying to go around the world “nation-building, makes me what? “
A little incongruence between my statement which describes Paulistas and your statement of beliefs. Perhaps you are a rare outlier in the Paul camp.
I'm pretty sure that Article I, Section 8 expressly states that congress shall have the power to "Make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces."
bump.
Why do you think Congress should be responsible for setting ROE instead of the Commander in Chief?
You've correctly identified the authority of Congress to establish the UCMJ, not battlefield ROE.
I see.
Out of curiosity, does the amendment really set the ROE or does it simply limit how strict the ROE can be? I would suggest that it does the latter and that doing so is fully within the Constitutional authority of Congress.
“You’ve correctly identified the authority of Congress to establish the UCMJ, not battlefield ROE.”
Please give a citation that supports this incorrect statement. Because I don’t believe there is a restriction contained in, “...Regulation of the land and naval forces.”, that supports your contention.
Since when do we send our military out to build schools and deliver food? Since the end of sanity, that's when. That's the problem with stupid civilians trying to run a war. Either it is a war, or it isn't , and if it isn't, don't send them.
Oh they’ll try to ignore it, same as $1Mill Russian campaign funds and soros backing though ronpaul’s larryflint ad run. Besides they are all having a wild Cjerk over on a Perry thread and may never notice or care.
Impossible to reason with irrational paulnutz and they’ll agree with the little whacko regardless.
Now they own it. I will always draw the line when American forces are in Danger...I maybe retired from the Air Force but I still care about the troops as if they were my own.
Furthermore, remaining faithful to my convictions, I would not want to vote in favor of something that is contrary to common sense, thereby opening myself to future criticism.
Joshua has some fine ROE’s too given him. Joshua won wars. Scrap Geneva.
THE President of the United States is to be "commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE of the United States." The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself, and it is, at the same time, so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it. Even those of them which have, in other respects, coupled the chief magistrate with a council, have for the most part concentrated the military authority in him alone. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.
“Although not a member of Congress, I, too, would have voted against such a lame idea.”
You vote with Democrats then.
“Since when do we send our military out to build schools and deliver food? “
Despite the fact that that is a simplification of what is going on, our military fights in reality, not our utopian version of the way things should be.
Our military’s hands are tied and they are there. They need to be able to fight and defend themsleves, not be hamstrung by Obama’s pathetic attempts at getting our soldiers killed.
No, since that goes to the raising of forces and the regulation of the land and naval Forces, i.e. a power of Congress.
“Such is the intent of our founding fathers.”
Not quite. The Federalist Papers are a great resource but they do not have superiority over the US Constitution. The Constitution clearly does not restrict “regulation of the army and navy”. Quite the contrary.
Further, there was great debate among the Founders on War Powers that is too complicated to put into less than several pages of explanation.
Suffice it to say there was healthy debate on the issue.
I'm just a dumb old combat veteran, but I gotta go with the 217 Republicans on this one. The 143 Democrats and Ron Paul can KMA.
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.