Will US Generals Refuse to Obey an Unconstitutional Order to Attack Iran Unprovoked?

[Crepitus]

Not exactly

Congress can declare war
They would also have to provide funding for an invasion

Interesting question…Could Trump build an international coalition to invade Iran?
I would doubt it

tRump would have a difficult time building an international coalition to throw a bar-b-cue.

Nobody trusts him.

 

[whitehall]

Truman sent Troops to Korea under an illegal E.O. LBJ sent Troops to Vietnam on the basis of a faked "crisis" that never happened. Bill Clinton bombed a defenseless country in Europe to the stone age and then he and his minions in the media declared a victory. Please don't lecture Americans about what their military leaders will and might not do under the leadership of a president like Trump who loves his Country.

 

[jotathought]

Did Trump get authorization for his many attacks on Yemen? Authorization is not always required.

I don't disagree. While Trump did not seek new congressional authorization for military actions in Yemen, he relied on the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force and his Commander-in-Chief authority. This was against both Al-Qaeda (AUMF) and the Houthis (Commander-in-Chief powers).

 

[Concerned American]

Truman sent Troops to Korea under an illegal E.O. LBJ sent Troops to Vietnam on the basis of a faked "crisis" that never happened. Bill Clinton bombed a defenseless country in Europe to the stone age and then he and his minions in the media declared a victory. Please don't lecture Americans about what their military leaders will and might not do under the leadership of a president like Trump who loves his Country.

True--however, in 1965 LBJ escalated the number of troops in Vietnam as Eisenhower sent the first troops (advisors) there in the fifties. Just sayin'

 

[Rigby5]

No. A strategic attack to protect American interests is not a declaration of war.

Does not matter if it is a declaration of war or not, it is still totally illegal and against the Constitution.

 

[Rigby5]

They bombed Bosnia and Libya for Democrats.

Bombing Bosnia was to protect civilians so was defensive.
Bombing Libya was illegal, but so was Shock and Awe and Desert Storm.
If Congress does not impeach, then presidents get away with crimes.

 

[Rigby5]

Trump is Commander-In-Chief and the military takes its orders from him and not from Congress.

Wrong.
The military is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not a president turned dictator.
Congress is supposed to be in charge in a republic.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Wrong.
The military is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not a president turned dictator.
Congress is supposed to be in charge in a republic.

Congress ceded its power to declare war to the president nearly 25 years ago, and it’s going to have a hard time clawing it back. Just one week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Congress gave the president authorization to strike back at any country, group, or person involved with the attacks “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.” Still in effect, the authorization has served as the legal basis for U.S. military operations unrelated to 9/11, such as when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes against the Islamic State group in Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

 

[Rigby5]

Especially since it is far from true that such an order would be unconstitutional.

But, buy the premise, buy the question.

It is obvious that an order to bomb would be unconstitutional.
It is not at all defensive, since nukes are only good for a defensive deterrent and can't be used offensively without being annihilated.
Presidents can only act without congress, in immediate defense against a sneak attack.

 

[DonGlock26]

Bombing Bosnia was to protect civilians so was defensive.
Bombing Libya was illegal, but so was Shock and Awe and Desert Storm.
If Congress does not impeach, then presidents get away with crimes.

So, we can bomb Iran to protect Israel and US civilians.

So, we can we charge Hillary? Hillary was no president.






She was intoxicated with killing Libyans.

 

[DonGlock26]

It is obvious that an order to bomb would be unconstitutional.

How so?

 

[Scoutster]

A president doesn’t need congress authority, what do you not understand about commander-in-chief? I hope the bunker busters are halfway there ready to **** that country up!

 

[Rigby5]

Congress ceded its power to declare war to the president nearly 25 years ago, and it’s going to have a hard time clawing it back. Just one week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Congress gave the president authorization to strike back at any country, group, or person involved with the attacks “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.” Still in effect, the authorization has served as the legal basis for U.S. military operations unrelated to 9/11, such as when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes against the Islamic State group in Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

Wrong.
When congress gave Bush authority to decide if we should attack Iraq or not, it was not universal. It only applied to Iraq.
{...

H.J.Res.114 — 107th Congress (2001-2002)​

Passed Senate without amendment (10/11/2002)​

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

Requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

How so?

It is illegal for a president to harm or kill anyone, unless either required by the defense of others, or by the direction of Congress.

 

[Scoutster]

How so?

Why do you waste your time? The leftists here are a joke. No complaints when Clinton sent missiles into other countries or any other Democratic president.

 

[Rigby5]

A president doesn’t need congress authority, what do you not understand about commander-in-chief? I hope the bunker busters are halfway there ready to **** that country up!

Wrong.
Only congress can authorize the use of force, unless we are attacked and an immediate response to that attack becomes necessary.
A commander and chief does not own or have any authority to direct that use of the military.
Only Congress can do that.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Wrong.
When congress gave Bush authority to decide if we should attack Iraq or not, it was not universal. It only applied to Iraq.
{...

H.J.Res.114 — 107th Congress (2001-2002)​

Passed Senate without amendment (10/11/2002)​

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

Requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.
...}

What you post is correct. Thank you.


The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. ch. 33) is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution. It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".

Has 60 days.

 

[Rigby5]

Why do you waste your time? The leftists here are a joke. No complaints when Clinton sent missiles into other countries or any other Democratic president.

Wrong.
Presidents need no authorization if they are in an immediate defensive response to protect people.
But Iran would be an offensive attack, that is not legally justifiable.

 

[Scoutster]

Wrong.
Presidents need no authorization if they are in an immediate defensive response to protect people.
But Iran would be an offensive attack, that is not legally justifiable.

You are a joke!

 

[JLW]

Israel would not have attacked Iran without Trump’s consent.

So, yeah, when Trump gives the order to bomb Iran we will “officially” be co-belligerents with Israel and yes the military will follow whatever order Trump gives even if it leads us into the abyss.

Unfortunately there is no Dwight Eisenhower that can stop this insanity.