I guess soldiers are not allowed Freedom of Speech are they?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

flxnimprtmscl

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2003
7,962
2
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
He was protesting by holding a sign that said, "Bring our Troops Home" at anti-war rallies while home on leave.

He was charged and punished appropriately.
I guess you have information that the rest of us do not because nowhere in that link do I see a sentence or a picture that would indicate he was "holding a sign that said Bring our Troops Home".

As to the other part of your post I don't see how you believe that. If what Gaard posted was an excerpt from the UCMJ then he was neither charged or punished appropriately and I don't see how you can say that he was. You seem very fond of strict adherence to the rules, but buy punishing him for stating his personal belief when it did not "disavow allegiance owed to the United States" the U.S. Navy broke the rules.

I guess the rules are abstract things and can be whatever you'd like them to be.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
I guess you have information that the rest of us do not because nowhere in that link do I see a sentence or a picture that would indicate he was "holding a sign that said Bring our Troops Home".
Well if you are only relying on the links provided you deserve to be ignorant.

As to the other part of your post I don't see how you believe that. If what Gaard posted was an excerpt from the UCMJ then he was neither charged or punished appropriately and I don't see how you can say that he was. You seem very fond of strict adherence to the rules, but buy punishing him for stating his personal belief when it did not "disavow allegiance owed to the United States" the U.S. Navy broke the rules.

I guess the rules are abstract things and can be whatever you'd like them to be.
This isn't a rule it's a federal law and as such is subject to the same interpretation nuances as any other law until a clear definition is made via the judicial system. The details of this particular case aren't publicly available (but are enroute nonetheless) but I would be willing to be that if he was charged with Art. 134 (Disloyal statements) the particular specification was probably "attacking the war aims of the United States".


 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,520
4,941
126
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
I guess you have information that the rest of us do not because nowhere in that link do I see a sentence or a picture that would indicate he was "holding a sign that said Bring our Troops Home".
Well if you are only relying on the links provided you deserve to be ignorant.

As to the other part of your post I don't see how you believe that. If what Gaard posted was an excerpt from the UCMJ then he was neither charged or punished appropriately and I don't see how you can say that he was. You seem very fond of strict adherence to the rules, but buy punishing him for stating his personal belief when it did not "disavow allegiance owed to the United States" the U.S. Navy broke the rules.

I guess the rules are abstract things and can be whatever you'd like them to be.
This isn't a rule it's a federal law and as such is subject to the same interpretation nuances as any other law until a clear definition is made via the judicial system. The details of this particular case aren't publicly available (but are enroute nonetheless) but I would be willing to be that if he was charged with Art. 134 (Disloyal statements) the particular specification was probably "attacking the war aims of the United States".
You have others? If so, why would someone "deserve" to be ignorant?
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
So if the law professors are right and Bush violated the US Constitution by his invasion of Iraq, doesn't that mean that the military, sworn to protect the US Constitution, is pointing their guns the wrong way?
 

flxnimprtmscl

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2003
7,962
2
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
I guess you have information that the rest of us do not because nowhere in that link do I see a sentence or a picture that would indicate he was "holding a sign that said Bring our Troops Home".
Well if you are only relying on the links provided you deserve to be ignorant.

As to the other part of your post I don't see how you believe that. If what Gaard posted was an excerpt from the UCMJ then he was neither charged or punished appropriately and I don't see how you can say that he was. You seem very fond of strict adherence to the rules, but buy punishing him for stating his personal belief when it did not "disavow allegiance owed to the United States" the U.S. Navy broke the rules.

I guess the rules are abstract things and can be whatever you'd like them to be.
This isn't a rule it's a federal law and as such is subject to the same interpretation nuances as any other law until a clear definition is made via the judicial system. The details of this particular case aren't publicly available (but are enroute nonetheless) but I would be willing to be that if he was charged with Art. 134 (Disloyal statements) the particular specification was probably "attacking the war aims of the United States".

*sigh* Please provide us with the additional information you've dug up then. I'd love to see what you have.

Regarding the other part of your post please don't quibble with me over the words I use. Or, if you must, at least familiarize yourself with the English dictionary a bit more. A law is a rule. A rule may not always be a law but a law, in this sense of the word, is always a rule. In case you can't find it in the dictionary I'll help you out.

law (lô)
n.
A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
And you call me ignorant. How amusing.

Furthermore, you'd earlier said that he was punished correctly. Yet you've cited no examples of similar rulings. Therefore, since the law (happy now?) is ambiguous and open to interpretation (according to you) I'm not sure how we're expected to believe your assertion that he was correctly disciplined when you don't provide any facts to back that up.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: GrGr
So if the law professors are right and Bush violated the US Constitution by his invasion of Iraq, doesn't that mean that the military, sworn to protect the US Constitution, is pointing their guns the wrong way?

IF is a big question. That IF cannot be determined by Law Professors. It requires a Congressional.. (The House) look see. The Generals are prosecuting this based on the Constitutional Articles which give The President the Authority and them the Responsibility to effect The Presidents orders. If they were to 'turn the guns around' they would violate their oath unless it is reasonably obvious that their orders violate the law. They may not do less than carry out their orders. They may, however, do so under protest (of sorts). That is to say; going on record in order to mitigate an eventual judicial process. But, it is clear that they must follow orders unless a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstance would know that to do so violates the oath taken upon being commissioned an officer in the US Army. The failure to carry the orders out otherwise can get you shot.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: GrGr
So if the law professors are right and Bush violated the US Constitution by his invasion of Iraq, doesn't that mean that the military, sworn to protect the US Constitution, is pointing their guns the wrong way?
What is thier argument? I know it's written only congress can declare war but did'nt they?
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
*sigh* Please provide us with the additional information you've dug up then. I'd love to see what you have.

Regarding the other part of your post please don't quibble with me over the words I use. Or, if you must, at least familiarize yourself with the English dictionary a bit more. A law is a rule. A rule may not always be a law but a law, in this sense of the word, is always a rule. In case you can't find it in the dictionary I'll help you out.


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
law (lô
n.
A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And you call me ignorant. How amusing.
Yes ignorant. In the context the word was used it was incorrect. No different than saying, "Ohio has a rule against murder." The words are not synonymous.

Furthermore, you'd earlier said that he was punished correctly. Yet you've cited no examples of similar rulings. Therefore, since the law (happy now?) is ambiguous and open to interpretation (according to you) I'm not sure how we're expected to believe your assertion that he was correctly disciplined when you don't provide any facts to back that up.
No such examples will be forthcoming, at least not from me. They probably aren't even available since results of Captain's Mast aren't normally publicized except onboard ship. As far as additional info is concerned, it took me about 10 seconds on Google to find at least some additional info. Anyone not willing to do so themselves deserves to be ignorant.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
flxnimprtmscl,
Furthermore, you'd earlier said that he was punished correctly. Yet you've cited no examples of similar rulings. Therefore, since the law (happy now?) is ambiguous and open to interpretation (according to you) I'm not sure how we're expected to believe your assertion that he was correctly disciplined when you don't provide any facts to back that up
Because the UCMJ gives 'that court' the authority to determine and punish. They determined and they punished. The issue, I think, is in the very nature of Article 134. It is vague and it is all encompassing. It is unlike any state or federal law... but, it is subject to appeal. The Civilian Court may view the appellant's argument to be valid and reverse.. except when the person opts for an Article 15 'hearing' from which there is no appeal.. (to my knowledge) Article 15 in 'Non Judicial Punishment'.

edit to add: Article 15 NJP is 'Captain's Mast' or in the army 'I just forgot what it is called---- getting old....
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: GrGr
So if the law professors are right and Bush violated the US Constitution by his invasion of Iraq, doesn't that mean that the military, sworn to protect the US Constitution, is pointing their guns the wrong way?
What is thier argument? I know it's written only congress can declare war but did'nt they?
The President can send troops into harms way persuant to the War Power Act (which may itself be Unconstitutional) or just send them into war under Article 51 of the UN Charter (our law by treaty) which is what he did or just send them and then deal with the bringing them back later. The process of finishing up in Iraq is also under UN and US law. They are there under constitutionally proper conditions, I think.. - assuming we started this venture off legally... the invasion under Article 51 of the UN Charter... but, no one has yet determined that to be illegal.

 

flxnimprtmscl

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2003
7,962
2
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
flxnimprtmscl,
Furthermore, you'd earlier said that he was punished correctly. Yet you've cited no examples of similar rulings. Therefore, since the law (happy now?) is ambiguous and open to interpretation (according to you) I'm not sure how we're expected to believe your assertion that he was correctly disciplined when you don't provide any facts to back that up
Because the UCMJ gives 'that court' the authority to determine and punish. They determined and they punished. The issue, I think, is in the very nature of Article 134. It is vague and it is all encompassing. It is unlike any state or federal law... but, it is subject to appeal. The Civilian Court may view the appellant's argument to be valid and reverse.. except when the person opts for an Article 15 'hearing' from which there is no appeal.. (to my knowledge) Article 15 in 'Non Judicial Punishment'.

edit to add: Article 15 NJP is 'Captain's Mast' or in the army 'I just forgot what it is called---- getting old....
So, basically the military court is given the authority to decide what they feel is an infraction despite what the UCMJ might say? Kind of make things up as they go? I'm not trying to be rude, just to get an understanding since I've never served.

Ultra Quiet: You've actually rendered me speechless.

Yes ignorant. In the context the word was used it was incorrect. No different than saying, "Ohio has a rule against murder." The words are not synonymous.
Actually, they are synonymous. You'd realize that if you took a minute to look up "Law" in a thesaurus. For the last time; A LAW, by definition, is a RULE. I can't begin to imagine how this is such a difficult concept to grasp. As I said before, the fact that something is a rule does not necessarily make it a law but a law is a rule. If you don't agree with that defenition take it up with Webster's. The fact that you're trying to argue this is laughable. You sir, are an original :beer:
 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Originally posted by: Gaard
"I don't agree" = disloyal statements, criticism, and somehow fits the following quoted passage..."Examples include praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the United States, or denouncing our form of government with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection among members of the armed services. A declaration of personal belief can amount to a disloyal statement if it disavows allegiance owed to the United States by the declarant. The disloyalty involved for this offense must be to the United States as a political entity and not merely to a department or other agency that is a part of its administration."

???
Well, given that definition what he did was not a disloyal statement. He certainly did state his belief but considering the fact that he said "I'll do my part" I don't see how his statement "disavows allegiance owed".
This was exactly my point. What we seem to have published is his father's account of what he did and Fisk's news story which seems heavily based on the father's account. Given that my experience is that military courts are even less likely to innovate on rulings than civilian courts and given that I regularly read letters to the editor from military people in Stars and Stripes newspaper that express misgivings about the conduct of the war in Iraq, I wonder if there may be more to this story. Perhaps the specific acts or statements he was convicted on are not those described by his father.


 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
So, basically the military court is given the authority to decide what they feel is an infraction despite what the UCMJ might say? Kind of make things up as they go? I'm not trying to be rude, just to get an understanding since I've never served.
What I'm saying is that IF something is not explicit in the UCMJ but, is detrimental to the Military it can fall under article 134. That is for the court to determine based on the facts. The board has taken an oath to find facts fairly.. and if they did they did under those conditions.
'Make up things as they go'.. is not the case.. they, the board - finders of fact, hear the charge, the alleged facts and the defense to those facts and determine, under an oath, what are the facts. If found to be true then 'that court' - not the finders of fact - may punish consistent with the infraction. Yes! This is broad. But, so may be the infraction... short of a capital allegation...

If one is afforded Article 15 (NJP) instead the case is handled as a non-judicial event. The 'captain', 'commander' etc. listens to the allegation and determines the facts and punishment subject to a maximum or denies NJP (before the NJP hearing) and submits the case to Court Martial.

I should say that usually, article 134 is included in all Court Martial events because one may be found innocent of a specific article violation charged for some technical reason but, still brought discredit upon the military and should be punished for something.. the loophole closer.. so to speak. But, keep in mind that there is a number of reviews before Civilian Appeals Court review.. like the 'Convening Authority' usually the base commander or someone with stars on the shoulder..
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet


There's nothing vague about an enlistment contract, the UCMJ nor the regulation about comments made about the President. Sorry.
when people who have made an oath to uphold the principles of our constitution, punish a man for exercising the liberties acconolaged by that constitution, there is most definitely something vague about the terms of the contract.
Posted here for the ignorant:

I, ___________________________________, do hereby affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The courts have ruled time and again that the maintaining of good order and discipline in the armed forces overrides any Constitutional argument of free speech. Anyone who has spent more than 10 minutes in the .mil understands that "support and defend" does not mean "you have the freedoms guaranteed by it". This is the key "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
I ammended your oath to be correct in the way I took it, just for clarity. As any student of language can attest to, placing the 'obeying orders and ucmj' at the end after the 'and' relegates it to a place of LESSER importance than the first two oaths, to the constitution. Ergo, your duty as a soldier/sailor is to the constitution first, and providing the later addendums don't conflict with those first duties, then to obey the president and etc. You can NOT refute the fact of this in our language, the only thing you can do is argue that that's not what they mean now adays when it's said. Well tough crap. Smarter people than us wrote the damn thing and I intend to follow THEIR interpretation, not current yahoos. IF the president or officers above me act in the manner of an enemy of the CONSTITUTION, not the current administration open interpretation thereof but the actual document as intended by the fathers, then all military personal have a sworn duty (many swore to god himself) to find some manner to defend it.

You don't have to call the president a fruit loop to defend the constitution, in fact, you're adding to the harm by removing a true patriot from the ranks of her defenders if you do. No, you develop clear and articulate arguments against the current course of action and provide an alternative more effective and constitutional friendly method, and you remain open to revising and modifying that suggestion based on the input of others. THAT's how you defend the constitution without violence. Then you stand by your decision, be honorable, true and just, and take whatever comes from your actions. Should a point ever be reached where we face the absolute abolishment of original constitutional intent, then there may well be no alternative but to take up arms and declare the current government/administration non-functional and replace it through any means necessary with one that serves the intent, and not the self. At this point, that is also the action of a patriot and oath taker. Those who side against will always name this traitorous, and those who side for will name them patriots. That was the way when we first formed this nation, that will likely be the way again. It's just the way it is.

No one suggests you're still protected by the bill of rights when you enlist, but you're duty bound by the oath you took, and you should never ever, regardless of consequences, shirk that duty. You just have to be willing to accept the penalties for being a good person in our current world, which are generally swift and harsh.

But the key to all this, is that defense of the CONSTITUTION, and nothing else, is the primary duty of all military members...as established by our founding fathers.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
sure it is legal, but the point is that it is sick and wrong.
If you were in combat and you had to rely on everyone around you, would you want someone there who keeps talking about how they don't agree with their commanding officer? Heck no! It would make everyone else nervous. In the military, you keep that crap to yourself.
That's exactly why people keep dying. That's why administrations continue to abuse their positions like they have. Tradition doesn't make something right, morality and intelligence make something right. Hell slavery was tradition, but it was a BAD one. You don't question orders in a firefight, cause there's no politics IN the foxhole. But outside of the hot zone, it's your DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY to point out problems, questions, or concerns. That's what forms a strong organization, be it military, commerical, or private. Moreover, I ONLY trust people that stick to their personal philosophies and honor. Anyone who does something they don't agree with is untrustworthy and a liability.

People seem to forget that as a soldier/sailor you swear an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION against domestic enemies as well as foreign. If the president himself attacks the constitution, you're sworn to respond. But people don't. Cause they have no ideals, no honor, no courage any more. They fear isolation, reciprocation. They don't believe they can win. If our founders had felt that way we'd be drinking our tea and praising the queen to this day. Standing up for what's right is ALWAYS the most important thing. Always.
Of course you are right, however, you should wait until you are no longer in the service before you question your orders and ideals that you are protecting. As I said, it's ok to have feelings, but it is inappropriate to question what your commander-in-chief while he is actually commanding you.
Then you miss, or disagree, with my entire point. At the time your enlistment ends you are no longer duty bound to question. While you are in the military in any capacity you are SWORN to protect the contitution from ANYONE, including the president himself. Your duty to that document EXCEEDS your duty to any one man. It would be inappropriate to question or refuse orders that did not contradict the intent of the constitution...however, since free speech IS the purpose of the constitution (one of them at least), we have a catch 22 where almost anything is correct to do.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
So if the law professors are right and Bush violated the US Constitution by his invasion of Iraq, doesn't that mean that the military, sworn to protect the US Constitution, is pointing their guns the wrong way?
Correct. But that's the military for you...which is why we also have militias, even if not at the level we should.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay

edit to add: Article 15 NJP is 'Captain's Mast' or in the army 'I just forgot what it is called---- getting old....
In the army, we simply call NJP "Article 15". Basically, there are three types: summary, company grade and field grade.

Jeez, I think the last time I even worried about Article 15 proceedings regarding one of my soldiers was maybe five years ago.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: KenGr

This was exactly my point. What we seem to have published is his father's account of what he did and Fisk's news story which seems heavily based on the father's account. Given that my experience is that military courts are even less likely to innovate on rulings than civilian courts and given that I regularly read letters to the editor from military people in Stars and Stripes newspaper that express misgivings about the conduct of the war in Iraq, I wonder if there may be more to this story. Perhaps the specific acts or statements he was convicted on are not those described by his father.
The incident has me wondering a bit also. I don't think we know the full story yet. Fisk's news story is heavily biased, by the way.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: GrGr
So if the law professors are right and Bush violated the US Constitution by his invasion of Iraq, doesn't that mean that the military, sworn to protect the US Constitution, is pointing their guns the wrong way?
What is thier argument? I know it's written only congress can declare war but did'nt they?
The President can send troops into harms way persuant to the War Power Act (which may itself be Unconstitutional) or just send them into war under Article 51 of the UN Charter (our law by treaty) which is what he did or just send them and then deal with the bringing them back later. The process of finishing up in Iraq is also under UN and US law. They are there under constitutionally proper conditions, I think.. - assuming we started this venture off legally... the invasion under Article 51 of the UN Charter... but, no one has yet determined that to be illegal.
Thanks lunar:) I was wondering how congress gave up it's right and duty in article one. IMO yes both are unconstitutional since they give up congressional power and circumvent the ideals the founders had of a "review" of sorts by congressional discussion before our assests and troops are commited. And I'm sure there's something in the idea of total commitment too when a war is declared.. so you better be serious about it, have discussion and win.. no half assed effots as we've seen and no globe trotting as we've seen and unpopular efforts we have seen. But since they gave up thier own rights it's more difficult to determine.

PS I thought something in the 1950's also empowered the president?

PSS I still don't understand why congress would have to sue for compliance and direction. Seems the USSC should step in if someone brings a case..no?
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
They may, however, do so under protest (of sorts). That is to say; going on record in order to mitigate an eventual judicial process.
That would be a violation of the same law that this thread is about. They aren't allowed to express any disagreement with the aims of the war. To disagree with war is treason.
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
It would be inappropriate to question or refuse orders that did not contradict the intent of the constitution...however, since free speech IS the purpose of the constitution (one of them at least), we have a catch 22 where almost anything is correct to do.
Expressing disagreement with your orders is not the same as disobeying them. You may not think it prudent to conduct the war or battle in the way that your superior has decided, but you could still follow his orders. (Isn't this what the "permission to speak freely" thing is all about? However, that only applies when an inferior is talking to a superior. I think the problem was that an inferior was speaking freely to the general public.) If you follow a different strategy, you'll be on your own. This is clearly less prudent than following a slightly less prudent strategy, but with the strength of many other soldiers around you. :)
 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,849
234
106
Explanation. Certain disloyal statements by military personnel may not constitute an offense under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2385, 2387, and 2388, but may, under the circumstances, be punishable under this article. Examples include praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the United States, or denouncing our form of government with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection among members of the armed services. A declaration of personal belief can amount to a disloyal statement if it disavows allegiance owed to the United States by the declarant. The disloyalty involved for this offense must be to the United States as a political entity and not merely to a department or other agency that is a part of its administration.

Lesser included offense. Article 80?attempts

Maximum punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: LunarRay

edit to add: Article 15 NJP is 'Captain's Mast' or in the army 'I just forgot what it is called---- getting old....
In the army, we simply call NJP "Article 15". Basically, there are three types: summary, company grade and field grade.

Jeez, I think the last time I even worried about Article 15 proceedings regarding one of my soldiers was maybe five years ago.
Different climate I guess.. I don't think more than a few even get to NJP not to mention Court Martial if you have a good NCO running the show. A soldier is late or most minor infractions are 'handled' in the way they should be.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: rjain
Originally posted by: LunarRay
They may, however, do so under protest (of sorts). That is to say; going on record in order to mitigate an eventual judicial process.
That would be a violation of the same law that this thread is about. They aren't allowed to express any disagreement with the aims of the war. To disagree with war is treason.
Via the chain of command an individual can express his feelings, seek guidance, request transfer or any number of things if the individual feels he is unable to comply with his orders. He may be ordered to proceed notwithstanding his protestation and if so he must comply. In context, it is the chain of command and not a street corner speech or protest that I referred to.


 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Zebo,
Thanks lunar I was wondering how congress gave up it's right and duty in article one. IMO yes both are unconstitutional since they give up congressional power and circumvent the ideals the founders had of a "review" of sorts by congressional discussion before our assests and troops are commited. And I'm sure there's something in the idea of total commitment too when a war is declared.. so you better be serious about it, have discussion and win.. no half assed effots as we've seen and no globe trotting as we've seen and unpopular efforts we have seen. But since they gave up thier own rights it's more difficult to determine.

PS I thought something in the 1950's also empowered the president?

PSS I still don't understand why congress would have to sue for compliance and direction. Seems the USSC should step in if someone brings a case..no?
Hehehehehehe, you play chess?

" These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress. When hostile action is taken against the Nation, or against its citizens or commerce, the appropriate response by order of the President may be resort to force. But the issue so much a source of controversy in the era of the Cold War and so divisive politically in the context of United States involvement in the Vietnamese War has been whether the President is empowered to commit troops abroad to further national interests in the absence of a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization short of such a declaration. The Supreme Court studiously refused to consider the issue in any of the forms in which it was presented, and the lower courts gen erally refused, on ''political question'' grounds, to adjudicate the matter. In the absence of judicial elucidation, the Congress and the President have been required to accommodate themselves in the controversy to accept from each other less than each has been willing to accept but more than either has been willing to grant."

Annotations to the Congressional Article 1 section 8 authority

Awhile back I said the President's staff created wiggle room in this Iraqi issue. This is one such wiggle. Remember he invaded Iraq persuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter.. (our law as well by treaty).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY