Posted on 10/30/2002 3:59:17 AM PST by madfly
You have nailed the problem with FR in general. I just took the time to read the entire article (most people in FR respond to headlines, and rarely read the articles), and every response.
There have been several people, people in a position to give facts pertinent to this situation, explaining what this is all about. But no one is listening to them. The sad truth, the white elephant in the living room, is the fact that FReepers rarely concern themselves with the truth.
The vast majority of the posters here, including the Liberal jackass insisting on calling President Bush "shrub", have an agenda.
They are here spreading dissent, at the behest of their handlers, in the wake of elections.
To those of you that provided information to clarify the "author's" allegations, thank you for holding the truth above rhetoric.
Coto, you are an unadulterated ass.
"...the Administration is actively involved in negotiating a draft international convention at the United Nations to provide a special international convention at the United Nations to provide a special international status for individuals serving in peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations under a UN mandate... "
"Special international status" would give United Nations military forces immunity from prosecution, even if they murder citizens within the United States. That wouldn't be just foreign troops, either. United States military forces, if operating under the authority of the United Nations, would be able to commit acts that are illegal under United States law, with no fear of sanctions. Don't tell me it could never happen here. Waco happened here, live on national television.
"Our government must adapt?" Our Constitution provides for "adaptation" within our governmental structure. That provision does not include adaptations to our internal government made through international treaty.
Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2Please show me where the President has the authority to transfer absolute authority and control of the US Military to some other nation and/or entity ??He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
I'll call 'em as I see 'em - don't care if it hairlips Hell
"...Coto, you are an unadulterated ass..."
....ouch....I gotta get a Band-aid....
you hurt my feelin's...
Idjit3
So nice to see that some folk Get It !! !!
Bravo !!
This site is just like I've been warned
As long as you play nicey-nicey, and swallow everything that proceedth from the mouth of anyone named Bush, all's well with the world.
So, everyone of the Partyline BushBots just sit back and enjoy the ride as dear ol' GW continues the dreams & wishes of Herr Klinton.
His Patriot Act was only a response to UN Resolution 1373 - he will cry to the UN for everything...instead of taking responsibility for his own hide...just like PaPa.
Shrubs don't grow too far from the tree - and GW's shadow is indistinguishable from the previous Bush's....complete with all of the plans of His "New World Order" that he was so proud of in his State of the Union speech.
I shudder to think what would've happened if Spotted Alore had won...that's why I actually voted for GW instead of Gore. But he has yet to impress me with any single action.
This is what makes you an ass, and a propagandist.
The President never "transfers absolute authority and control of the US Military" to anyone, at any time.
Even when he attaches units or individuals to a multi-national task force, he retains command authority. He can order them to come home at any time he so desires.
For troops of the Nations participating in any multi-national joint mission, maintaining autonomy in the field would be fatal, armies need a clear chain of command.
To: exodus
Well, yes.
The Democrats are liberals, which is the same thing as saying that they're socialists. Sadly, the Republicans are also liberals, they just lie and say that they aren't. The goal of both parties is the same goal socialists have always had; complete control of the entire world, under the command of one central government.
True, what the U.N. wants is contrary to our best interests. That doesn't mean that our government's interests are contrary to the interests of the United Nation's.
HEY! That's a good question!
What do you say Toto?
To: Coto
What provision of the Constitution gives our President the authority to share his military power with a foreign government?
Yes, armies do need a clear chain of command in time of war. However, we are not at war, and haven't been since the end of World War 2. Every United Nations "police action" that we have ever participated in has been illegal on our part, including the war Bush waged against the nation of Afganistan.
Sending our country into battle on the order of a foreign power is un-Constitutional.
"How is service with the United Nations a violation of that oath?"To: Non-Sequitur; Coto
"I swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, except where it interferes with my duties as a member of the military forces of the United Nations."
To: exodus
The President has broad war powers, in wartime. We are not legally at war.
In time of war, I have no problem with the President putting our troops under the command of a foreign ally, and I would expect them to follow that commander's orders quickly and faithfully.
In peacetime, the rules are different.
In peacetime, our President's power as Commander in Chief is limited. He isn't allowed to go adventuring on his own initiative. Without a Declaration of War, a President assuming war powers as Bush did is a violation of the Constitution, and of his oath to uphold that Constitution.
Michael New was and is a Hero to me. The oath is your promise to be faithful to the Constitution. If it had been me, and believing as I do that the United Nations is an evil organization, and an enemy of our nation, I would have made the same argument.
To: Coto
You don't think that Michael New understood what he meant when he took the oath? Wouldn't he be considered the expert on his loyalties, and what he believed would violate those loyalties?
The oath promises to defend the Constitution and obey the orders of his superiors. The word "and" is an inclusive term. An oath-taker promises to defend and obey, not defend or obey.
If his orders force him to decide which is more important to him, following an illegal order or the Constitution, don't be surprised when a volunteer military man errs on the side of freedom.
That wasn't my arguement. I was referring to your post saying NEW had a duty to uphold the Constitution more than follow orders from the CiC. The Article I cited shows the President has Constitutional authority to enter into treaties (agreements). The US has written agreements with the UN to assist in peace-keeping duties. Michael New was not defending THAT part of the Constitution.
This is all moot. Didn't you see the above posts about US commanders NOT relinquishing authority over their troops to UN commanders? It's all been explained above why New has been found guilty. I don't care for the Marxist UN people and I especially don't like the idea of US troops playing cop, but New disobeyed a "lawful" order.
His position did not give him the authority to decide what is an illegal order and what is not. New made his decision and judged that being ordered to serve with the UN was an illegal order. It turns out he was wrong, it was not an illegal order or a violation of his oath. He took his stand and paid the price for it. IMHO he should shut up and accept the fact that he was wrong and deal with it.
I tell you what, the constitution of the United States doesn't give the president the right to take a vacation either, but they all do.
"Every United Nations "police action" that we have ever participated in has been illegal on our part, including the war Bush waged against the nation of Afganistan"That's another bit of lying and propagandizing.
Show me where in the constitution it limits the use of the United States Armies to declared Wars.
Yea, out of tin foil. Familiar with them?
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.