Sean Osborne, Associate Director at the Northeast Intelligence Network ("Investigating threats to our homeland") follows the logical consequences.
Money quote(s):
"President Obama fully and intentionally skirted the U.S. Constitution in illegally ordering the Pentagon to commence acts of war against Libya. In light of this fact President Obama’s orders to the U.S. military to execute these attacks in Libya constitutes an illegal order under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Members of the US Armed Forces who obey illegal orders are subject to criminal prosecution." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA)
A similar thought had crossed my mind. We're really in uncharted waters here; up until now presidents have been pretty careful about following the forms of, for instance, the War Powers Act, even if they've denied its Constitutionality.
"The UCMJ allows for the disobedience of illegal orders because such orders constitute a crime, or be part of a criminal conspiracy, either under military, civilian or international law."
Will we see a sequel to H.R. McMasters' classic "Dereliction of Duty" that addresses this someday? Given the current over-lawyered condition of our military and naval forces, it approaches undeniable implausibility that some staff judge advocate hasn't looked at their principal's legal exposure in this regard.
6 comments:
I want to know which side of the Constitution the military brass is on. Do they support the usurper POTUS, or do they stand by their oaths to defend and protect the Constitution.
@H.J.:
Usurper? Not hardly. The man was elected, however unhappy many were of that fact and regardless of the growing "buyer's remorse."
The questions being posed at this juncture are whether or not:
1. Intervention in Libya is Constitutional/Legal; and, if not
2. U.S. military and naval member risk legal exposure for following (therefore) illegal orders?
I took a look at that "northeastern intelligence" site. Full of anti-islamism, barely concealed racism, and typical neo-con drather. There is also a birther rant a few posts down.
"As most people know and despite demonstrably false assertions to the contrary, Obama has failed to provide proof of eligibility to occupy the White House. Furthermore, those responsible for vetting his credentials and filing the necessary documents to allow him to be included on the ballot have failed to be held accountable for their inaction."
Having served in the military, I was always trained if someone had doubts about the legality of that order, they should contact their SJA first, unless that is not an option. You don't just disobey orders because some PV2 thinks they're "illegal" based on his years of legal experience.
How far does one have to stretch one's imagination here? By the time an allegedly "illegal" order was discussed at the highest levels of civilian leadership, military leadership, then passed down through every single operational level down to Joe Snuffy mounting JDAMs, not a single person said anything about it?
Come on, that's patently ridiculous. Now, to be sure, there are certainly unsettled Constitutional issues about the War Powers Act, and what limited war-making authority the President has in absence of Congressional approval. But that's not what those people are talking about. To be clear, the director of this organization doesn't even think the President is a U.S. citizen, and is willing to openly lie on his blog, despite mountains and mountains of peer-reviewed, fact-checked evidence to the contrary, to prove his point.
And you're buying any of this?
*disclaimer -- all commentary in my personal, not professional capacities.
@SWATJester:
I believe I already addressed several of your concerns as I commented above, but to recapitulate and expand:
The president is the president; he was elected and notwitstanding various misgivings (political or otherwise) about that it is reality. Calling him an "usurper" (as the earlier commenter, HighlanderJuan did) is counterproductive and unhelpful.
There's frankly far too much smoke and nonsensical noise (to the exclusion of reasonable criticism or commentary) on the Art. II presidential eligibility issue, quite a bit of which I've discussed elsewhere in this web log. I'm honestly quite tired enough of descending down that particular rabbit hole.
The legal "what-ifs" that cascade, citizenship-wise, from the hypothetical "what-if-the-Hawaiian-birth-record-is-false" scenario are of primarily of interest to a consular officer or passport examiner solely as a training tool or thought experiment only.
As far as I'll commit at this point is to note that, professionably speaking I do not opine on the validity of a birth record which I do not have in front of me. Also, and unsurprisingly, I'm one of the vast majority of State Dept. personnel who've _never_ accessed the president's passport file.
Persons having any actual evidence of citizenship or passport fraud in this connection, are urged to get in touch with DS's passport fraud section. Persons who think one U.S. citizen parent and a birthplace within the U.S. are insufficient to constitute "natural born" citizenship should consider adjusting their medication or another layer of tinfoil for their headgear.
As for your other criticisms of the NIN site, as a former military member have you given any broader thought as to who it is, and under what motive forces, that has been waging war against the U.S. since at least 1998 (or 1993, if you like that date better)? Also, calling Islam a race doesn't make it so in any anthropological sense. While I'm at least as eager as President Bush was to avoid a Huntington-ian intercivilizational bloodbath, that doesn't mean I can ignore inconvenient ideological facts about America's enemies. I am sworn, after all, to "uphold and defend" and I can't very well do that while wearing self-imposed blinders of political correctness.
As for "neo-con," that political descriptor was drained of much of its meaning when it became apparent, by no later than 2005, that it was being used as a form of shorthand to signal "things-Democrats-don't-agree-with" with a side order of anti-semitism-slash-Israel-bashing.
To comment, finally, on the issue of illegal orders, I believe one of the points I raised above, noting how over-lawyered today's miltiary has become, was that an SJA well above the PV2 level _has_ _had_ to have considered and vetted this. Anything else is approaches an "undeniable implausibility."
Modern day admirals and generals don't make a move without a JAG lawyer okaying it. It's unthinkable. Inconceivable. The brass must have lots of legal cover on this, so the sailors and airmen needn't fret too much.
Various members of Congress will disagree, and may take that up as is their Constitutional role to do so. The ensuing fireworks will be educational; politically the president can be expected to weather this reasonably well until either U.S. forces begin taking casualties (an eventuality whose likelihood is being minimized), massive civilian casualties occur _despite_ (or _because_ of) U.S./NATO intervention, OR the side we've chosen to back in the Libyan civil war turns out to be quite unsavory.
Thanks for commenting!
Sorry, to be more clear, I wasn't directly commenting so much on your post, but rather criticizing the Northeastern intelligence people. I probably shouldn't do that on other people's blogs. I wasn't suggesting that you have any doubts (as is apparent from your previous comments @H.J.).
In regard to your substantive points, who we have fought in our last 10 years is, in the long run, immaterial. We've devoted serious military attention to North Korea, to China, to many nations not located in the Middle East, or with large Arab or Muslim populations. Aren't we always criticizing DoD for fighting the last war and not planning for the next?
"Also, calling Islam a race doesn't make it so in any anthropological sense."
That's why I differentiated the racism and anti-islamism. There exists on that site both racism towards people of arab decent as well as religious intolerance towards people of islamic background, without the slightest bit of regard towards understanding or acceptance of a non-Judeo-Christian belief structure. You could write a book on the demonstrably false information being put forth on that site. Hence my distate for it being used as a source for anything.
"While I'm at least as eager as President Bush was to avoid a Huntington-ian intercivilizational bloodbath, that doesn't mean I can ignore inconvenient ideological facts about America's enemies. I am sworn, after all, to "uphold and defend" and I can't very well do that while wearing self-imposed blinders of political correctness."
Who are "America's enemies" exactly? They're either specifically identifiable groups of people, in which case political correctness should not matter -- you can simply identify them by name. Or, it's a broad class of individuals, in which case, what direct evidence is there that any individual of that group is a criminal?
Political Correctness is a non-issue. I look at it as a lawyer, and as a veteran. If I don't have the evidence I need to win a lawsuit against someone, I should not be making accusations about them. If I do not have a positive ID on my target, I should not be taking a shot. So why is it acceptable that without proof that someone is an "enemy of America", that they should be lumped into that class by nature of their birth or national origin (classes, btw, that we are not allowed to discriminate by due to U.S. laws that we're sworn to uphold and protect.)
I guess it just wasn't entirely clear to me from the original question whether you supported the premise that the war was illegal, or whether you had any stance at all. It seems we're actually in agreement about the likelihood that along the line it was rigorously cleared by lawyers far smarter than I am.
Post a Comment