Suppose Bush* gave the order to attack Iran and Congress told the troops to stand down

[Toots]

What do you think would happen. Would the military follow the Congress (People of USA) or would they follow Bush*? I can visualize this as being a very real scenario and I suspect they would follow the orders of Bush*. That would seal the deal as Bush* being "Unitary Executive" for real... What then?

[madokie]

1. the way this crew operates congress won't know until its too late

[LynnTheDem]

4. and that's the rub.

And the exact truth of the bushit.

[LynnTheDem]

2. They would stand down, per Congress.

[Toucano]

6. Based on what, Lynn?

I don't recall congress having any command authority over the military.

[LynnTheDem]

30. Congress saying no to a war would render any such war illegal.

The other side is that in spite of the rightwingnut propagaganda, fact is 2/3rds of US troops are NOT republics and bush is NOT popular even with those 1/3 of troops who are republics.

Congress also holds the purse strings. Unless George W. bUsh & regime plan on financing a war(s) out of their own pockets.

[Toucano]

34. I see. I got confused about the premise. n/t

[Fovea]

10. I doubt it.

that is the whole idea behind the unitary executive.
I think the command structure might fragment with dozens of courts marshal and some summary field executions to put down any small insurrections.

But I don't see what's left of the military showing any more commitment to the co-equality than congress has.
All * has to say is CinC and National Emergency, and the game is over. At least until the civil war starts.

[ohio2007]

39. wrong answer

recheck the constitution

[Civil war surgeon]

47. The congress of the United States

is not in the military chain of command. They have no command authority of any aspect of military operation. Congress can force the military to take on projects, such as weapons systems but they cannot order the 2nd Marine Division to stand down or deploy.

[rpgamerd00d]

3. Bush can legally start a war, but after X days, Congress must declare it, or else...

... the war ends. I forget what X is. 90 days maybe? I know its something short.

[davhill]

8. 60 days

A lot of damage can be done in 60 days, particularly with nuclear weapons.

[Selatius]

12. A bombing campaign with cruise missiles and B-52s carrying smart bombs will end rather quickly

By 60 days, there will be few things left standing.

[davhill]

18. Isn't that what they said about Iraq

It will take nothing less than a Hitler style genocide against all Shiites world wide.

[Selatius]

24. Are we talking about a full-scale invasion or an air war?

I am talking about an air war to destroy Iran's airforce, destroy its communications grid, knock out its power grid, take down its radar defense grid, and blow up their nuclear processing facilities. We have insufficient troops to occupy Iran, but we have the firepower in the form of warplanes and cruise missiles and smart bombs to do an air war if Bush elects one.

[Toucano]

5. They have to follow the orders of the President.

That's why the job is so much more important than "who would you like to have a beer with".

[OneBlueSky]

7. they have to follow the LAWFUL orders of the President . . . n/t

.

[madokie]

14. the operative word being 'lawful'

has the tyrant done anything in the past six years that is lawful, very little methinks

[Toucano]

15. Attacking might not be unlawful.

Unless Congress passes a resolution beforehand.

I'm not sure if international law is a factor.

He has wide-reaching authority here.

[cool user name]

27. International Law is a factor to law abiding nations ...

However, with out past disrespect, it may not be. Perhaps, when the sane control the helm, Bush can be sent to The Hague?

:shrug:

[Fovea]

16. Right, and attacking Iran would be 'lawful'

in the sense the the UCMJ would see it.

Now how congress would see it, or SCOTUS is another matter.

[KharmaTrain]

9. He Can Do What He Pleases...

First...before the last Congress escaped, they gave this regime a boatload of cash to play war for the next few months. Booooshies troop surge is being funded this way as has most of his past antics. All he does is pushes through a "supplemental" that has been a blank check.

Putting restrictions on his funds would have a lag effect...this regime wouldn't feel it for 3 or 6 months down the road...plenty of time to create an incident and play other games.

Be assured, boooshie will be back to the House & Senate soon with another supplemental. And he's gonna dare the Democrats to stop him...and, honestly, few will. As they did in the past, this regime, along with the corporate media, will frame anyone who doesn't pass the spending bill as "not supporting the troops"...trying to trap Democrats in the same box as they had in past supplementals (Kerry's I voted for before I voted against)

Lastly, unfortunately, one of the titles booshie stole and loves to play with is "Commander In Chief"...the head of the military, and his Napoleon complex makes him believe that this power supercedes any and all else.

[WinkyDink]

11. It would take a coup of the High Command for the troops not to obey their CiC.

[davhill]

13. Members of the Military are Sworn to Uphold the Constitution

I see a possible Civil War in this country if Congress countermands Bush's military orders. The military may split with half obeying Bush and half following Congress.

[Fovea]

20. I can see a situation where the AF

mostly follows the pres, and the marines have quite a bit of trouble, but the National Guard goes completely off the reservation.

[sanskritwarrior]

49. If half

of us followed Congress we would be in violation of UCMJ as Congress is not in our chain of command.

That's a tough one, my heart says don't follow the orders, my 13 years of Army time says follow the orders and let the Government sort it out. This all comes back to the power of the executive. Bush can order us to do anything, the Congress can remove him. Until such time I believe I would be obligated to follow such orders, no matter how frakked up I think they are....

[davhill]

52. If for example

Congress tries to impeach Bush and Bush as Commander in Chief orders you to shut down congress and place the legislators under arrest, I belief there would be a split in the armed forces. It has happened in other countries. Maybe we've just been luck these last 230 years.

[cool user name]

17. Congress can't tell the troops to stand down.

It's un-Constitutional.

Edit: Of course, Bush can't invade countries without authorization or a Declaration of War from Congress. That, aslo, is un-Constitutional.

So we're in a bit of a pickle. Now, I see why you asked the question.

[Selatius]

19. The military will obey Bush over Congress.

Congress does not have the authority to command the US military. That power was given to the Executive branch of the federal government. However, Congress has the authority to declare war and make peace. Bush would only have a certain amount of days before going to Congress to get authorization for more funding, troops, etc.

If Congress is in the mood, it will refuse, and beyond that point, the US military would have to pull back simply for lack of funds.

[yojon]

44. Maybe the troops will work for free

and Halliburton/KBR will extend credit. Dick will work for an IOU.

[mmonk]

21. Any arguments any politician gives that they can't

constitutionally stop bush is bogus. The current war and thus any spinoffs are illegal by their nature because they are against laws and treaties the US signed on for (and thus unconstitutional).

[Fovea]

23. Welcome to the return of the revenge of the son

of Iran Contra. When the congress cuts the purse strings. Covert funding for a covert war.

Same problem, same corrupt solution by the admin. The question is will a bush be allowed to pardon his way out of it again?

[cool user name]

28. Good point ... n/t

[sanskritwarrior]

50. But

laws Congress pass supersede any treaty we enter into. If we signed the ICC treaty bt Congress passed a law saying no one involved with Iraq can be prosecuted under the ICC treaty, then we don't send anyone to The Hague.

This prevents a whacko from frittering away our sovereingty....

[spanone]

22. As Pelosi said the other day, bush* is rushing the troops in before Congress can act.

This is another criminal act IMO.

This is why bush* stalled after the ISG report.

This is why bush* delayed his speech.

This is why soldiers died while he kept silence.

IMPEACH THIS CRIMINAL BASTARD.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

25. I think it depends on what level of seriousness Bush's phony

provocation is.

[Bitwit1234]

26. By defying congress he is guilty of treason

The constitution says in no uncertain terms that congress is the only body that can declare war and invading Iran is an act of war. If bush does this he would have no authority and should be immediately arrested. Since cheney wants the same thing they both should be jailed. There is no desputing this. It is a direct violation of the constitution. Doesn't he say when he takes the oath of office he will support and defend the constitution of the United States. If he defies the constitution and congress in this manner, the AG, the republicans and no body can say him. With the bunch they have in congress today there is no way they would let him get away with it.

[Doctor_J]

29. That would probably be mutiny, but if the entire active military did it

there wouldn't be much he could do about it.

BTW, this would be a very bad thing for the US. Our military would be completely unable to protect us if they don't follow orders. The right thing to do in the situation we're in is to remove the CINC quickly and lawfully, and replace him with a sane person. We cannot have a brekdown in command for ANY length of time without putting ourselves in grave danger.

[mod mom]

31. All these comments underscore the significance of fraudlent elections!

Never again should Americans allow a tyrant to take power over the will of the people!

[lonestarnot]

32. Commander of cheese.

[davhill]

33. Please Contact your Member of Congress

Ask them to support HJ Res 14. It specifies that Congress has NOT authorized an attack on Iran.

<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110Eu4sHE::>

[Catch22Dem]

35. They'd follow the orders of the president...it's in the oath

They don't answer to congress. The only recourse they'd have, is they cannot be punished for disobeying an ILLEGAL order. If the president gave an illegal order, they could stand down and avoid punishment. It would be a nasty fight, but, in the end, if the order was proven to be illegal, they'd be in the clear. The My Lai massacre resulted in soldiers receiving training on how to recognize an illegal order, and we had it drilled into our heads that to disobey an order like this was the right thing to do.

[LynnTheDem]

37. The FIRST sworn oath is to defend and protect the USC against

"all enemies, foreign and domestic".

[cynatnite]

41. Not quite...

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or 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.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm

[LynnTheDem]

51. EXACTLY quite;

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

[Catch22Dem]

46. And?

When the congress voted for IWR, they made the president's order legal. There's nothing they can do.

[kitkat65]

53. Thank you! I was hoping someone would post that before I got to the end of the thread.

With Bush completely eviscerating the Constitution, he has committed treason as far as I'm concerned.

[jody]

36. That requires 291 congresspersons and 67 senators to override Bush's veto and pass that law.

IMO that's not going to happen.

I believe the House could impeach a president with 50% of the vote plus one and then 67 senators could find him guilty and remove him from office.

If that's correct, then impeachment might be easier than passing a law stopping the war, i.e. impeachment requires 218 congresspersons' votes plus 67 senators versus passing a law requiring 291 congresspersons' votes and 67 senators' votes.

[ohio2007]

38. Military takes orders from CIC

And only takes orders from the president. It's in the constitution.

[cap]

40. this is very dangerous...

I can see Congress cutting off funding for the troops as is their right to do so. I can see them passing legislation calling for the return of the troops.

I can also see Bush refusing to move the troops and leaving those kids in a very vulnerable position. I can see kids dying because they've been hung out to dry. I can see a huge blame game with Congress.

[teryang]

42. He' s put in place a chain of command that will obey...

...this isn't something that is going to be debated before it's done.

[frogcycle]

43. This is the exact issue that points out the flaw in...

what started out to be an elegant and effective new form of government.

The framers of the Constitution thought they had developed a system to avoid dictatorship. They came very, very close.

The Executive was not designed to have anywhere near the power as that to which the position has now evolved.

The fundamental concept is simple: The People select representatives to make laws (policy), the administrator carries them out, and the judiciary acts as arbiter of disputes of interpretation.

That is crystal, crystal, clear.

The issue of war was singled out for special treatment because it is so critical. It is the means by which despots exert and expand their power, after all.

Consistent with the overall structure, the military reports to the President. He carries out the decisions of Congress, and issues orders to his "staff" - whether military, treasury, foreign affairs, whatever. All of the staff are supposed to follow the boss's orders. But the military have later interpretations of the law to abide by - they are supposed to refuse illegal orders.

If the administrator selected by the people is deemed to have committed acts justifying it, Congress has the power to remove him. An order of succession is spelled out, so that a "coup" is not possible, wherein someone gets to say "you're out and I'm in".

Nowhere in that scenario is any mechanism whereby congress gives direct instruction to the military. Even if they passed a nonbinding resolution, the boss is still the boss unless they remove him.
And if they passed a law limiting his authority, he'd veto it, and besides, if it interfered with his being commander-in-chief, he'd ignore it and the supreme court would likely back him. In would take an amendment to the constitution to change the order of things.

This whole elegant setup has been perverted by the rise of:

(1) political parties, where officials feel stronger allegiance to the party than to the people (think communist party, baath party, nazi party...)

(2) big business/big money influence where officials feel stronger allegiance to those who fund their campaigns and fatten their purses than to the people (think feudalism)

I expect the founding fathers did not envision this. They could not know what technology would bring - the type of communications that exist today, the rise of monster corporations, etc. They relied on "the people" to use the "free press" as their watchdog to keep tabs on the whole thing, and then an "informed" populace would set right any drift from government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Since the "free press" is largely a thing of the past, having been subsumed by the monster corporations - well, there you have it.

It's off the rails. It's a sham. It no longer works. The people are now a manipulated, mind-controlled bunch of ignoramuses with no idea what is really going on (think 1984). Big Brother is really running the show. If Big Brother wants to invade Iran, Big Brother will invade Iran. Appropriate "spin" will be applied to convince the shambling idiots of the populace that it is necessary. The vestiges of our constitutional government will be used as a "cover" to make it look all proper. Oh, they stumbled badly with Iraq, and got exposed a bit. But Big Brother learns. Just as the "dirty tricks" of the Nixon era became better masked in more recent times, the rush to war will be better packaged next time.

This is the crux of the problem. The vast majority of people continue to believe in "the system" and think that selecting a president based on "who would you rather have a beer with" is ok. The vast media mind-control mechanism we have today was not envisioned by the founding fathers, but it was by George Orwell.

I believe it can still be fixed. To use a rather obvious analogy, just as Al Gore speaks of a "tipping point" yet to be reached in the climate crisis, we may not yet have reached the point where Big Brother has permanent control. But just as with the climate crisis, the first step in addressing the problem is recognizing the problem. The tendency to deny the enormity of the problem, to prefer quibbling over trivia, appears to be a human trait, and the mind-control experts use it very successfully.

[rustydad]

45. You have all missed the boat

Bush will not attack Iran. He will strike Iran in *SELF DEFENSE*. That is a torpedo attack on a US warship in the Gulf will happen. Of course the story will be that Iran fired the first shot, never mind that it came from an Israeli sub. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin and the USS Liberty. Mix ingredients and we have nuclear war in the ME and maybe global. Bob

[halobeam]

48. thanks

You just reminded me to kick back and enjoy myself again. I get lost in the crisis of it all. Sometimes I don't achieve balance in what may be weeks at a time. I am active in good causes, I raise my family, and then I go to sleep. Where did "I" fit in, during these days that just blend one into another? This one life that I am given, and I hand it ALL out, as if it were bread to the ducks in the pond, until there's nothing left. Not good. I find reading here at DU, the "friendly reminder", that it's ALL precious. Life, time, etc... for All of us, "I" included. I just watched "john and oko: year of peace". I can't help but imagine a world with REAL peace. I am completely convinced it would be heaven on earth. I know I need to imagine it, for it doesn't exist. If I let go of myself in this world, as cold as it is, I may not find my lost self in time to save me, regardless of the warmth my loved ones bring me. Frozen solid. How then would I be able to offer my hand in peace/unity and communication within the world? DU always brings me back home to me. It never fails... someone provides a post that reaches me and it happens as quickly as I tend to get lost in the crisis of it all. Both unpredictable and necessary.

Time for some chocolate... my favorite food. Wish I could throw you a piece.

[ohio2007]

54. Gulf of Tonkin pt II ? MSM said Iran is on missile exercise but

don't count on Iran denying any right to self defense. They will take credit for any attack on the US fleet. They have their own whack job president beating the drum to distract the population from social problems at home.