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 ...
Sorry. I didn't vote for the man, and I don't like him, but it is unfortunately the way it has to be.
And by the way, another power of the Congress is to bring and army home, or pass rules preventing their use in a particular arena, which is a clear part of raising armies and declaring war.
Jack Wheeler says: So I'm happy that Christie isn't running - and not that Ron Paul is. Once again, in the Ames, Iowa debate last night (8/11), he exposed himself as a Blame America Firster who has no desire whatever to defend our national security.
He's done this with complete consistency in Congress, never once voting for a single defense authorization bill. But last night, he went total wacko. Not only did he blame the US for Iran being a state sponsor of terrorism, not only did he excuse Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, he actually wants Iran to have nukes. It's "natural" for the mullahs to have nukes, and "what's so terribly bad about this?"
I've gotten a number of pro-Paul TTPers mad at me for saying this before, but this seals the deal that he has a Hate America foreign policy as bad as Noam Chomsky's. At least in Ames it's out on full undeniable display. And by defending Mullah nukes, it also shows he's a Hate Israel Anti-Semite. No wonder he was booed.
“I am sorry, but there is no more important function of command than the determination of when force is to be employed and when it is not. It is the function of the CINC to determine whether the use of force is in support of or contrary to the interests of a particular policy.”
Then I suggest you reread your Constitution. The President is the Commander in Chief but the Congress is given powers also.
“The Constitution distributes war powers among Congress and the President. Congress is authorized “To declare War, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;” “To raise and support Armies [and] provide and maintain a Navy;” furthermore “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” and “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States;” finally “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.”
I doubt even that piece of excrement would have DELIBERATELY devised ROE that give the advantage to the enemy. Denied air cover when ambused - cant' shoot until shot at etc
How many of YOU know that this traitorous CICINO devised his ROE in favor of the Taliban and have resulted in 2009 in DOUBLING our troops killed from the previous worst year? And TRIPLED in 2010? And on it's way to be 4 TIMES KIA in 2011?
And where are the voices screaming in defense of our troops?
DID you even KNOW? NO excuse just because the press is silent ever since their boy took office. We all have the Internet. The information is there. Did you know about the bases that they troops were made to just walk away from AND LEAVE big caches of weapons for the Taliban? Ever hear of THAT in the annals of warfare?
And not a word is said. And no on mentions TREASON. WAKE THE F UP!
I'll bet 99% of you won't even take to time to learn any of this by watching a few clips. I KNOW because of past disinterest on FR in this.
But for the 1% who might care about our troops:
They aren't given the air cover they need - ‘might’ kill a goat, you know. The Taliban are loving this advantage.
http://webnews.ampnetmedia.com/2009/09/were-pinned-down-4-u-s-marines-die-in-afghan-ambush/
Ever see the documentary “Restrepo”
This is the thanks this traitor in the WH gave those troop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WamBeYQeRvE
and another gift to the enemy - to use against our troops -and they did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uj6sRlzgik&feature=fvwrel
chart of KIA’s - take a GOOD LOOK - and demand the media cover this!
If Congress set a restrictive ROE, would that supersede the orders of the CINC, in your opinion?
The president has "supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy" - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #69 You would subordinate the CINC's 'command and direction' of the military to Congress?
Congress has the power to declare war, the President the power to wage war. You propose that Congress should do both.
Read the Constitution.
There are no restrictions, indeed, there is a Section calling for Regulation of the military by the Congress.
But, hey, you go ahead and believe counter to the Constitution.
“Congress is authorized to: raise and support Armies [and] provide and maintain a Navy;” furthermore “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” and “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States;” finally “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.”
I’ll ask again, since you ducked the question: If Congress set a restrictive ROE, would that supersede the orders of the CINC, in your opinion?
In short, who runs the battlefield, the CINC, or Congress?
Your question is flawed in its premise.
“Who runs the battlefield” is too generalized. The President is the Commander in Chief and Congress has war powers as well.
The President, through the Executive Branch decides the overall strategy of the war...however, Congress may restrict Executive powers (See War Powers Act).
The Congress is authorized to generally run the military and regulate the military, however. This comes into play in this situation. The President has dictated ROE to the Generals, who follow the Presidents’ orders.
However, the Congress has every right as stipulated in the Constitution to write law to right something, they as Congress, see as fatally flawed. The current ROE is fatally flawed.
Divided government has peculiar strife which was forseen by the Founders. The Supreme Court has for the most part ruled that they will not decide these issues and will let them play out in the political arena. In other words, the Executive and Legislative will have to fight it out.
...or you Paulistas can jump out of the warm bath of your fantasyland and look at reality.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:18:./temp/~bdulyM::
Now I’ve gone and started a new Paulian conspiracy.
lmao
Try this, click on Amendments and then scroll to
HAmdt 318
or do your own search since Thomas isn’t cooperating.
Point is...this vote really took place in reality and your elementary understanding of the Constitution is a fantasy...this Paulistas is reality.
No, it's straight to the point. You want 536 CINCs, whereas the Constitution stipulates 1, and for good reason.
The President, through the Executive Branch decides the overall strategy of the war
Do you think Congress is responsible for the tactics? When, in 220+ years of our government, has the Congress dictated ROE to the CINC? Congress declares wars, Presidents wage wars.
This comes into play in this situation. The President has dictated ROE to the Generals, who follow the Presidents’ orders.
You should keep in mind that the current ROE were suggested by the generals, as part of the COIN strategy, so you're actually suggesting Congress should override the generals and the CINC in this instance with respect to strategy and tactics.
However, the Congress has every right as stipulated in the Constitution to write law to right something, they as Congress, see as fatally flawed. The current ROE is fatally flawed.
The Constitution stipulates how the CINC can be replaced if you don't approve of his strategy and tactics (we hold these events every four years), but it doesn't subordinate the CINC's authority over the battlefield to Congress.
And since you ducked it again, I'll post it again: If Congress set a restrictive ROE, would that supersede the orders of the CINC, in your opinion?
There are many VERY important differences between Libertarians and Conservatives.
(RowdyFFC and smoothsailing have seen this, I believe, but it’s time to run it again.) In the interest of reason, just give it a read - no harm no foul:
This is pretty good - Dick Morris talking about RP tonight on BOR - Why Is Ron Paul Dodging the Factor? -
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.- Mohandas Gandhi
Great answer there!
Another great answer - we need more like you :-)
I wonder if BHO will pay any attention to the Constitution when he usurps Congress’ powers and calls forth the Militia to suppress the coming Insurrections.
Suppose, as an example, a truce has been negotiated by the CINC. Does a soldier have the right to break the truce and restart the war on a claim of self-defense. Tens of thousands can be put at risk because one soldier claims, righly or wrongly, he felt threatened?
It isn't generalized at all. It is the essential function of the CINC.
Or you warmongering Bushbots can look at reality and realize that the country is now bankrupt from trying to "fix" the middle east. We are bankrupt. We are overspending revenue by, not 10%, but 50%, we are so far in debt, nationally, corporately and presonally we will never be able to repay it all, and you want to talk about reality?
Have you gone insane?
I am not a Paulista. Let's face it. Paul is not going to be president. You know that. I know that, and especially he knows that. So why does Paul get under your skin more than say Pelosi or Reid? It isn't because he is a nut case, but because he is right so much of the time.
One guy who stands on the US constitution, and you go nuts. You would rather waive the constitution than admit that Paul is standing on some principles we should all believe in.
You are so busy backing a bunch of RINOs who wanted to take an Unconstitutional wack at your demon, that you would shred that piece of paper. If a democratic congress passed a bunch of ROEs tying down Bush or telling him how to run a war you hypocritical fools would be the first to support him ignoring the unconstitutional law, which it would be.
And because you cannot argue your position, because you cannot analyze the implications of your twisted logic you you call names. And your position would be suicide. The CINC who ran the revolutionary war was in the room when the Constitution was written.
And no I am not a Paulista. I am pretty much disgusted, however, with a whole lot of unhealthy behavior exhibited by so-called conservatives.
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.