PeterDavid.net

Well shuck my grits, first at bat! I don't know about a constitutional crisis as such, however a credibility crisis already exists.

Since the Decider in Chief has become accustomed to a rubberstamp, boot lick legislative branch, there will probably be a period of adjustment. Meanwhile, look to presidential hopefuls from both parties to sniff the popular wind to see which direction has the best odds of getting him/her into the Oval Office.

None of the Republican hopefuls will back an impeachment since Dubya appeals to the religious right, and the Repubs are afraid of them. The Dems will only push for impeachment if they think they can take Cheney out with Bush.

As I understand the succession, that will put Nancy Pelosi in the big chair until the 08 elections, which is a thought that makes little chicken hawks wet their beds at night, and will not please Hillary to much, as she has designs on the title of "First Woman to be President."

The only way there will be a crisis is if anyone really pushes hard. If Dubya pushes Congress to hard, they will push back. If congress pushes to hard, the GOP will try to use the Dems "lack of support for the troops" as a wedge issue in 08 to peel the Blue Dog Dems from the main party.

Or I could be way out in left field, and congress decides nuff zed, we'll try to take out Bush, and hope President Cheney gets the message.

As I understand, Congress has the power to declare war and make peace (by ratifying a treaty). However, there's no one really to make peace with over there. The Constitution gives the President the power to control the movement of the troops, and in recent history that power has been used in "police actions", wars that weren't ever declared wars. That issue has come under challenge several times, most prominently with the War Powers Act. It's never really been settled conclusively (though obviously each branch has its own opinions on what the Founders intended) so ultimately it comes down to whoever is on the Supreme Court at the time the issue is raised. Given the makeup of the SC today, I kinda doubt they'll side with Congress this time around.

Hmm... A little digging around just now brought me to the War Powers Act. Passed by Congress in 1973, it "places a 60-day limit on any presidential commitment of U.S. forces abroad without specific authorization by Congress" (Grolier Encyclopeia of Knowledge, vol. 19, page 256). Would that apply to an additional commitment of troops? Does it mean that Congress could recind its approval of the current commitment in Iraq, legally requiring the withdrawal of our forces within sixty days?

This is assuming that the War Powers Act hasn't been overturned - my encyclopedia could be outdated - or that it isn't superceeded by the Patriot Act. And then there's the issue of additional presidential powers during times of war. The "war on terrror" is rather convenient in that regard, with the assertion that we're in a perpetual state of war....

Is Bush capable of realizing that Congress is a counter-balance and equal partner in government, not just a body of flunkies meant to carry out his will? This could be the issue that really puts that question to the test.

"This is assuming that the War Powers Act hasn't been overturned - my encyclopedia could be outdated - or that it isn't superceeded by the Patriot Act."

As I understand it, the Patriot Act supercedes anything that is inconvenient (Habeus corpus, detention without charge, freedom of speech, FISA) to national security.

PAD, yer freedom clock may have to run a bit longer than expected.

Just a note - as I wrote my post, no comments were showing yet, so I hadn't read Matt Adler's mention of the War Powers Act. Just in case that seemed repetative.

PAD, yer freedom clock may have to run a bit longer than expected.

UGH. Please don't even joke about that.

The only power Congress has over Bush and the military is the power of the purse. They authorized Bush's going into Iraq, and have continued to authorize the funding for it. They are continuing to give him the option of how to pursue this.

These non-binding resolutions are just that - non-binding, and non-effective. What Congress is really doing is giving Bush enough rope to hang himself with. They are on record being against the surge/escalation/expansion or whatever you want to call it. It puts Bush on notice that this is his last chance. They are giving it to him by making non-binding resolutions. I wish they would just come out and say it this way, though.

The next major set of votes (in 9-12 months I'm guessing) will be to cut funding except for what is necessary to withdraw. If that happens Bush will have no choice.

On a related note, and I haven't seen it widely reported. al-Sadr has (once again) decided to play ball politically. Apparently, the increase in troops has made him nervous enough to come back to the table. It's the first thing I've seen in months that seems positive.

Would that apply to an additional commitment of troops? Does it mean that Congress could recind its approval of the current commitment in Iraq, legally requiring the withdrawal of our forces within sixty days?

That's where it gets into a grey area. The War Powers Act established that the president had to get permission for commitments beyond that 60 days... but it made no mention of what happens if Congress later changes its mind. Theoretically, Congress could pass a new law saying that the president has to get renewed permission or somesuch... but he would no doubt argue that they were intruding on his powers as commander-in-chief and that's when it would come back to the Supreme Court.

Myself, I believe the Framers intended that no military action could be launched against another nation without an express declaration of war from Congress... but that premise was violated so many times in the 20th century (and now into the 21st) that it unfortunately has become virtually irrelevant. The way we operate now is that Congress has transferred its power to declare war to the President, without any Constitutional amendment. And unless the Supreme Court says otherwise, that's how it's going to stay.

Congress hasn't declared a war since WWII, so it's not just the recent congresses who have abrogated their responsibility.

Peter David: What I want to know is whether Congress has the power to say, "We're done. We were told the United States was going to war for these reasons. These reasons no longer exist. The war is over. We're pulling out," and then inform the President that he no longer has Congressional authority to wage war, and that if he continues to do so, he will be impeached.
Luigi Novi: Well, if what Mark said about Congress having the power to cut off Bush's purse strings is true, then that may be an avenue through which they can end the way without a direct confrontation with Bush. Otherwise, impeachment is pretty much what it comes down to. With Bush's approval rating at 28%, perhaps they're going to have to choose between a legal action that has only been taken twice (almost three times) in our history, one which will require a grave commitment, and possibly cross a line in the sand, or allow more of our kids to be killed overseas. Then again, perhaps the mere threat of impeachment will be enough to scare Bush into reversing his policies.

With Bush's approval rating at 28%

Wow, is it that low now? I thought it'd stay somewhere between 30% and 40% for the remainder of his presidency if he kept doing what he was doing.

Then again, perhaps the mere threat of impeachment will be enough to scare Bush into reversing his policies.

Don't bet on it.

It's below 28%. Those polls are only for 1000 random people. I'm sure if there was a national vote about Iraqi pullout and getting a new President and VP next week, it would without a doubt happen. A good 3/4ths of America dont like him, and I'm sure if people were not scaredto death to have Dick Cheney as President, Bush would be gone.

Congress never declared war; therefore, they don't have the power to "undeclare" it. As several have pointed out, Congress principal check on the President's actions here is through the budget.

The President, as an institution, is more than an instrument of Congress. It is a co-equal branch of the Republic. This is demonstrable by the fact that Congress doesn't have the power to impeach a President it disagrees with. They don't get to decide if the President is doing a good job. That's not their role. Impeachment is an extreme act, reserved for an officer of the state, including the Presdient, who commits "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

So, even though many might disagree with the President, he's empowered to make these decisions. And the Constitution gives Congress the power to check that decision. In that case, through its power to control the treasury.

I think the purpose of the non-binding resolution is to hamstring Republican contenders for the 2008 presidential election. Several Democrats have said the purpose of the resolution is to get people on the record about the Iraq war. If Republicans refuse to support the resolution and Iraq hasn't gotten any better by 2008 (considering there's over 1,000 years of ethnic strife, I doubt the next year will see any significant progress), Democrats can say that those Republicans showed their support for a failed war. If Republicans support the resolution, Democrats can say they're more in line with Democratic thinking than their party. And if any Republicans abstain, Democrats can say the Republicans lacked the conviction to take a stand. For Republicans, it's a lose-lose situation.

Mr. David, it is my understanding that Congress actually has the power to do all of the things that you mentioned. The President's role of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is simply that of the highest ranked General. He's not supposed to be able to determine when we're fighting a war. Alexander Hamilton made that clear while writing the Federalist Papers with James Madison trying to convince the various states to ratify the Constitution. Congress could un-enact the two Authorizations to Use Military Force that got us into Afganistan and Iraq (it they had enough votes to override the certain veto that would result), and the President would be legally obliagated to comply. I'm sure the Whitehouse wouldn't agree with that, but they also think that the President doesn't have to worry about petty little nuisances called "laws" (like FISA) even though the Constitution explicitly says "[The President] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." I'm sure that there would be resistance from the Whitehouse. Congress could also de-fund the military operations in Iraq, and they could always impeach him if he defied those measures.

All of that is in theory, of course. Congress has those powers but I don't think for a minute that any of those measures is going to actually come out of the Congress that we've got right now. President Bush is nowhere near as popular as he used to be. Right now I suspect he'd kill for Jimmy Carter's approval ratings, but he's still got an incredible amount of support from the Republicans in Congress. I've joked in other places that he could star in a snuff-porn movie filmed on the Whitehouse lawn in broad daylight and there still wouldn't be enough Rebublicans in the Senate willing to actually impeach him out of office. In order for that to happen the snuff-porn would have to also be one of three things.

A) Satanic ritual snuff.
B) Infanticide snuff.
C) Gay porn.

If you want to get all constitutional about it, the power to end war rests with the Senate, which is the branch of Congress that ratifies treaties (including peace treaties). I don't believe the Constitution makes any mention of who decides it's time to negotiate a peace treaty or who gets to negotiate, however, though I'm not aware of any time that peace negotiators have been nominated by someone other than the President.

The real problem, of course, is that you can't have a peace treaty without being at war, and as has been pointed out above, the United States hasn't been at war since 1945, since neither has Congress issued a declaration of war nor has the United States had a war declared upon it since then.

If someone wants to no if Congress has a legal recourse to end the occupation of Iraq other than cutting off funding or the (likely unsuccessful) extreme of impeachment, they'd have to go back and reread the congressional authorisation of action in Iraq to see if it has any limits written in.

Though since we're not "at war" with anyone at the moment, I'm not sure there'd be anything (constitutionally or legally speaking) to stop Congress just passing a law mandating the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq.

Congress could revise the Authorization to Use Military Force (the AUMF) against Iraq. Unfortunately, I don't believe that Bush would feel bound by it, let alone the War Powers Act.

See, the Bush Administration believed at the time (and, as best I know, still believes) that the Congressional resolution passed in the wake of 9-11 to eliminate al-Qaeda authorized the President to take any military action he deemed necessary. I'm going to have to find the citation on this, because it's a very weird argument. It's that the preamble of the resolution, which is an introductory passage intended to indicate what the purpose of the bill is, allows for the President to take unilateral military action. I was listening to a story about this on NPR about nine months ago, and a constitutional scholar was saying that bills were never meant to be interpreted this way, that the preamble doesn't mention anything about military force, and yet Alberto Gonzales had made the argument that the preamble allowed for whatever the Administration wanted. (I recall that they've claimed the preamble authorized lots of other things too, like Jose Padilla's incarceration and torture, but I'll leave that for another time.)

Ultimately, yes, we will be heading for a Constitutional Crisis. I don't think I'm batshit crazy, but I can certainly see that there may not be an orderly transition of power to the 44th President.

In all this discussion of Congress voting for ww deuce, it should be remembered there were even some dissenting votes against going to war with Japan. Germany, it should be remembered, declared war on the US.

Hitler also used manufactured incidents to get Germany into war. In 1939, a Polish raid on a German frontier radio outpost was used as the final "justification" for the invasion of Poland.

I am not saying that Bush and Co. staged 9/11, but that tragedy has been used to justify every excess of the current administration since.

Can anyone tell me how many reasons were given for the invasion (20 lashes for anyone calling it "liberation") of Iraq? 9/11 link, then WMD, then democratization. Now "stay the course". What's next?

Alberto Gonzales also tried to invoke a concept from English common law whose Latin name I can't recall, but which boils down to "Whatever the King does is by definition legal," to justify certain actions of the Bush Misadministration. It wouldn't surprise me if he tried to claim that the preamble to the AUMF was more important than the body, if it served the interest of His Imperial Maj- er, I mean the President.

Didn't Ted Kennedy say this week Bush would have the 21k troops in Iraq by the time a cut in war-funding was enacted, and that they would be accused of cutting funding for all of them?

The whole purse-string issue doesn't seem to be any more complicated than a hostage situation.

"The whole purse-string issue doesn't seem to be any more complicated than a hostage situation."

The problem there is that the Neo Cons have managed to get support of the mission to be directly equated with support for the troops.

Someone has to change the equation to support of the troops equals not wasting their lives on pissing matches.

Truman not only got us involved in a full-blown war in Korea without declaring war (thus avoiding the step where Congress declares war), he's the only president who did so WITHOUT EVEN ASKING Congress.

Vietnam, an even bigger war, was also undeclared, and Johnson's massive escalation there basically cemented the trend where the president can apparently commit as many troops as he wants to a conflict, and leave them as long as he wants -- providing Congress doesn't cut off the money.

What I find ironic is that most of the people here who are upset that the president now apparently has more leeway than ever sending troops in harms way are Democrats.

The War Powers Act of 1973 was an attempt to rein in the president somewhat to prevent future extended conflicts like Korea or Vietnam, but I think it's pretty obvious it has failed.

PAD's question is a simple one. Congress can in fact declare an end to the war. The problem is that in order to pass such a resolution, they need to have enough vote to avoid a sentate fillibuster and override a presidential veto.

The non-binding resolutions is a part of a long-term political strategy by the democrats to slowly co-opt enough Republicans to do this.

"Truman not only got us involved in a full-blown war in Korea without declaring war (thus avoiding the step where Congress declares war), he's the only president who did so WITHOUT EVEN ASKING Congress."

The Korean War was actually a UN operation. It was undertaken in the post WWII panic about further communist expansion into Asia.

Ironically, Truman got the UN Dubya would have adored. Willing to be an extension of US policy.

PAD's question is a simple one. Congress can in fact declare an end to the war.

I'm not sure it's that simple. Under the War Powers Act the President has to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). (from wiki)

Having complied with that by getting P.L. 107-243, I doubt that they can now do much about it other than cutting off funding. How likely is that? Well, congress actually had a chance to DO something this week--they could have voted down approving General David Petraeus for Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Unlike the nonbinding resolution, that might have actually affected whether or not the surge occurred. He was approved without a single nay vote, 81-0.

It would seem the only action anyone is willing to take is the kind that doesn't do anything other than express feelings.

Ultimately, yes, we will be heading for a Constitutional Crisis. I don't think I'm batshit crazy, but I can certainly see that there may not be an orderly transition of power to the 44th President.

You're not batshit crazy but you are sounding an awful lot like those right wingers who swore that there was no way Bill Clinton was going to hand over power at the end of his term. I expect to hear a lot more about the upcoming Bush coup right up to the day he hands over power in about 723 days, by the old clock on the monitor. I'd put money on it but I can't imagine anyone would take such a lose/lose bet.

Manny wrote "The Korean War was actually a UN operation. It was undertaken in the post WWII panic about further communist expansion into Asia."

It doesn't matter that the U.N. was involved. Truman wasn't elected by the U.N., and Truman unilaterally decided to commit massive amounts of troops to the fight, without consulting Congress.

Even the hawkish Gen. MacArthur, who allegedly was prepared to use nukes during that confrontation, and who was later fired by Truman for not following Truman's specific orders, later wrote in his memoirs that he was disturbed by the way Truman went about entering that war.

Truman's approval rating during the Korean War, which we came to within a hairsbreadth of losing, was so low, it makes President Bush's current rating look positively glowing.

One final point. Because of the stalemate that was the cease fire that ended the Korean War, we have spent an additional 54 years in South Korea, with tens of thousands of U.S. troops on a constant hair-trigger alert (spending trillions of dollars in the process). What have we to show for it all? Well, we've deterred North Korea from attacking South Korea (a country with far less strategic interest to the U.S. than, say, Iraq), but the regime shows no sign of going away, it has developed nukes, and, because it holds the millions of innocent people of Seoul hostage (because the city is so close to the DMZ), there hasn't been a damn thing we could do about it.

Watch out for another attack on US soil....

I work late and on the way home I listen to those political talk shows like Michael Savage and such and THEY said that therell be another Sept 11 attack here which (of course) will unite us and then Bush will have the excuse he needs to go into Iran.

(although I don't see how if we don't have enough troops (or enough additional BILLION$ !!!)
for the FIRST darn area we're in)

"It doesn't matter that the U.N. was involved. Truman wasn't elected by the U.N., and Truman unilaterally decided to commit massive amounts of troops to the fight, without consulting Congress."

I'll agree to this statement, however Truman had already decided not to run in 1952, so he made a lame duck decision, and, like Shrub, at the time, the move was met with general popular approval.

I will also agree that the UN did not elect Truman. Nor did the world elect Bush. Yet the Decider in Chief has had a Canadian citizen sent to Syria to be tortured. In the interests of full disclosure, the information that led to this clusterfuck came from the RCMP.

Since that time, a Canadian investigation into the event has cleared Maher Arar, the Canadian government has paid him 10.5 Mill plus legal expenses. And still, the US will not take his name off their no fly list, for all practical intents and purposes making it impossible for the man to travel.

I'm Canadian. I don't recall electing Bush.

Ultimately, yes, we will be heading for a Constitutional Crisis. I don't think I'm batshit crazy, but I can certainly see that there may not be an orderly transition of power to the 44th President.

You're not batshit crazy but you are sounding an awful lot like those right wingers who swore that there was no way Bill Clinton was going to hand over power at the end of his term.

You're not batshit crazy and you don't sound batshit crazy.

What's batshit crazy is comparing Bill Clinton to the constitution-trampling George W Bush -- whose attorney general refused on the senate floor to deny he had the authority to sweep citizens off of American streets and, at his own descretion, send them to be foreign countries to be tortured.

What's batshit crazy is sheltering an obvious predatory agenda with transparent denial.

Hmmm. My gut feeling is that we are not headed for a Constitutional crisis. The Democrats in Congress are only going to press removing the troops so far. In a very public vote in the Senate, we will see one or two republicans stop the cutting of any funding for the surge et al.

Iraq is going to be the number one campaign issue for Democrats in 2008. Why would anyone think that they would want this issue gone?

Actually it would only hurt the poor troops over there if the funds got cut off NOW....

It will make us look really stupid(er) to the rest of the world but maybe in the long run its best we just leave and reboot and take a different tac

and 'No' I havent got a clue what KIND of tac or a solution.....

after all- thats what I pay those old farts in Washington for.

Bill~

Actually it is that simple. By approving a military action congress does not abrigate it's ability to declare or undeclare a war/military action/etc.

One of the successes of the neo-con movement is that it has successfully conflated political problems with legal ones. IE they will argue to the public that congress doesn't have the power to end the war and will use all te examples given of undeclared wars as proof.

However, the barriers to those examples were never legal. Rather they had to do with politics and process.

The problem currently is that congress passed a resolution that said, basically, "we approve of any action you take in Iraq and this resolution also counts as your regular consultation"

Having granted the president a free pass, they now have to vote to take it away. Once it's gone, they can simply refuse to continue authorizing military action, effectively ending the war.

Politically this is vey difficult to do, because the democrats do not have enough votes fo cloture or to over-ride a veto.

So legally, yes they have the power. But they have hamstrung their ability to exercise that power by creating a process in this case were they have to pass legislation to exercise it.

Which, is precisely why the GOP worded the authorization the way they did.

In the other cases, keep in mind that a lot of congress people may have claimed to object to various operations, but did not necessarily want to go on record one way or the other. Also, there is a dynamic tension between the branches that allows the president to try loopholes knowing that the conservative nature of the senate will delay any action regardless of the objective legality.

As to claims that the Dems are being wussies for passing a non-binding resolution, I disagree. They need Republicans on board and party loyalty runs deep in the GOP. Various senators need to be walked up to a place were they are ready to hoist Bush over. Sending up a non-bindng resolution is a win-win. If Bush accepts it, Dems win. If he rejects it, the republican supporters can begin the psychological process of "breaking up" with Bush.

That's why the neo-cons are pushing the funding meme. Which Democrats are actually pushing that as a solution? It's a GOP talking point being pushed because it helps keep the base energized (look who hates the troops) and pressure on potential republican defectors in congress in line (if you vote with the dems our base will destroy you).

Actually it is that simple. By approving a military action congress does not abrigate it's ability to declare or undeclare a war/military action/etc.

I just can't come up with any examples of congress "undeclaring a war" in progress. At teh risk of sounding like a neocon conflating political problems with legal ones, I think Bush could argue to the Supremes that giving authorization and then taking it away amounts to congress taking over the constitutional right of the executive branch to serve as commander in chief. I'd feel the sme way if they had jerked the rug out from under Clinton's feet once we went to the Balkans.

That's why the neo-cons are pushing the funding meme. Which Democrats are actually pushing that as a solution?

Feingold and Kucinich come to mind...but I agree it's a total non-starter. Now if they were smart they'd try to pass a law that would, say, limit how many tours soldiers and reservists could serve on foreign soil or some other indirect way of preventing the surge. That would be very popular and it would mess up any attempt to increase the number of troops in Iraq. But as I said above, since nobody--nobody!--voted against confirming General Petraeus it doesn't seem likely that any active interference with the surge is forthcoming.

Bill~
Part if the problem is that, with a 4 mos old attached firmly to my chest, my ability to go do some real sourcing for you is limited.

I would suggest you consider this. How many declared wars have we actually been in? And of those, how many were politically unpopular enough for Congress to take the relatively extreme position of "undeclaring". If I could remember the correct term that might help.

As unpopular as Vietnam was, Nixon was re-elected. And the Dems were in a tough spot because they started the whole damn thing.

I also (and I may be wrong) don't remember congress ever passing a resolution allowing the pres. a pass on consultation. So the reason you don't remember it is because they probably never had to pass a law to exercise it before. And that gives the President a lot of power whereas if he had to consent with them they have the leverage to pressure him in less extreme ways.

And this may sound like a minor quible, but the President *is not* the Commander in Chief. He is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He is a public servant we elected and the executive branch is a peer of the Congress and the judicial, even if the responsibilities differ. I believe that the use of the term Commander in Chief is a calculated effort to project an image of authority outside his actual powers. Glenn Greenwald has written a good posting recently about this. I think it also blurs his relationship with congress.

Although I hate business as government metephors and analogies think of it this way.

Bush is the CEO and Congress is the Board of Directors. The CEO might handle day to day affairs and be the nominal "boss" of the employees (in this case the military) he is ultimately answerable to the board of directors. Again, it is an imperfect analogy but it's the best I could do on short notice.

And contrary to a previous posting, the Congress could in fact impeach the President if they didn't like his policies. They just have to get enough members of congress to agree that these policies consitute High Crimes and Misdemeeners to vote for impeachment. I think people underestimate how hard that actually is. First, the impeachment needs to be filibuster proof and then each one of these congressmen needs to explain to their consititients why they over-rode the results of the presidential election.

The system is rather ingenious actually.

As for Dem proponents, I don't believe that's what Fiengold was saying. I believe he was discussing options generically not "this is what we should do". I could be wrong, and that would be significant since Fiengold is pretty influential. I give you Cranky K though. I had forgotten about him cause he has no real power.

Bill~
Again, I apologize for the lack of citations and sourcing tha would probably clarify your questions. If you can wait about 2 years once the baby has grown more I sould have some extra time :)

But I would recommend glenn greenwald. He may have posted something. And while he definitely haes Bush and is a liberal, he is a lawyer and takes great pains to be intellectually honest and analyze the law based on what it says, not what he wants.

Allyn,

Congress could revise the AUMF, but the Democrats don't have the votes at this time.

I don't really think this is much disputed in the legal world. The rulings related to Presidential Power have gone against Bush. If it got to the Supreme Court I highly doubt Bush would win.

The constitutional crisis that may occur is not in the courts. It is what the NeoCons would do if the court ruled against them. They are already ignoring certain court orders. I suspect the Administration believes it would lose because Gonzales is on record as saying that the courts do not have authority in matters of related to War.

Bill~
As you can see I have a few minutes open.
I did some quick research and discovered that a ruling in 1999 (Campbell v. Clinton) found that while Congress could pass an act "un-declaring" a war, that it had no legal power as long as congress continues to approve funding. The court found that by approving funding congress was defacto granting it's consent for continued hostilities both declared and undeclared.

That's what Cranky K was referring to when he was dicssing cutting off funding.

Part if the problem is that, with a 4 mos old attached firmly to my chest, my ability to go do some real sourcing for you is limited.

Congratulations! Don't worry about me, it isn't like I need an excuse to go happily hunting things down on the internet (seriously, how did we ever live without it?).

I also (and I may be wrong) don't remember congress ever passing a resolution allowing the pres. a pass on consultation. So the reason you don't remember it is because they probably never had to pass a law to exercise it before.

I'm not sure you can say that Bush hasn't "consulted" with them. It may depend on the definition of consult. Certainly generals and politicians have gone before congress and testified. Views have been exchanged. Now if by consultation they meant that the president had to get approval for any major tactical decision, I guess they worded it wrong. Consultation does not equal agreement.

And this may sound like a minor quible, but the President *is not* the Commander in Chief. He is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

I don't think too many people don't realize that by "commander in chief" we are referring to his position in the military. What else would it mean?

And contrary to a previous posting, the Congress could in fact impeach the President if they didn't like his policies. They just have to get enough members of congress to agree that these policies consitute High Crimes and Misdemeeners to vote for impeachment.

Sure but by that standard they can remove him or her for ANY reason. It's so unlikely that it falls out of the realm of possibility, in my opinion.

As for Dem proponents, I don't believe that's what Fiengold was saying. I believe he was discussing options generically not "this is what we should do".

i was using an editorial Feingold wrote for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=551680) where he said, among other things, "It's time for Congress to use the power of the purse to end this devastating war and finally bring American troops out of Iraq."

Personally, although I disagree, I have to respect him for backing up his opinion with a proposal for action. It takes more guts than confirming the general who is planning on implementing the surge (so that, in the event it works one can claim credit for sending the right man for the job) while publicly predicting failure (so, in the event it doesn't work one can claim they KNEW this would happen).

Again, I apologize for the lack of citations and sourcing tha would probably clarify your questions. If you can wait about 2 years once the baby has grown more I sould have some extra time :)

Please! When I had a 4 month old I was in little condition for writing the kinds of well presented arguments you've done. I don't think I could have found the computer "on" button, much less the keyboard.

PDog, thanks for the reference. Campbell v. Clinton seems to me to be an odd little case--the ruling I found (Which was not a supreme court decision so we can't consider it as settled, I guess) said that the ended up stating that the plaintiffs did not have the authority to sue the president. The merits of the case weren't the issue. I'm not sure it really settled the questions we're looking at.

But reading court rulings makes my head hurt so if any of the several legal minds on the board are more familiar with the case I'd love to hear their take on it.

When I had a 4 month old I was in little condition for writing the kinds of well presented arguments you've done.

If by "well presented arguments" you mean he didn't lie, libel anyone, propgate whisper campaigns, weigh democratic lapses the same as republican corruption, or rely on transparent denials -- well, it isn't like you ever really recovered.

A mild tangeant, I've been led to understand that Shrub's presidential library will run to 500 Mil. Can anyone confirm that number?

The only reason I ask is, I'm wondering exactly how many Scooby Doo colouring books 1/2 bil will buy. He definitely never read the constitution.

Bill~

I had a longer response written but nuked it by accident. Since time is precious I'll stick to the core of PAD's question: Can Congress "Un-declare" War.

I interprit Campbell vs. Clinton differently than you did. I believe the ruling explicitlily acknowledged Congress' right to declare/un-declare war under the consent/advice wording.

The specific lawsuit was accusing Clinton of not consulting Congress and the court found that the Congress had de facto been consulted when operational funds were requested. Further, the court found that if Congress approved funding for a military operation that was defacto approval.

The specific reason for the lawsuit (unauthorized military force) is not germane here. What is germane is that by ruling funding to be defacto authorization the courts have put a substantial political burden on congress.

So in short, as I read the law, yes they can. But, as I read Campbell v. Clinton, the political cost is very very high.

Ok, that sounds more definitive. What I had read seemed to be saying that they more or less just denied the case based on the idea that the plaintiffs did not have the right to bring the lawsuit anyway.

Anyway, get some sleep. You never know when someone will need reattachment to your chest :)

It'll all be moot as Bush will find some excuse to attack Iran by summer. That's his "exit strategy" for Iraq.

I don't think the Senate can force Bush to negotiate a treaty. They can only ratify a treaty that has already been presented to him.

What's truly frightening is that the Decidinator thinks that things like "the law" and the "will of the people" as quaint, pre-9/11 thinking.

Remember all those times your mother told you "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it?" Ok, me, neither, but I imagine it's been heard by some.

Anyway, that's essentially congress. Not that they created the President, but they define and limit what he can do. Or that's the way it's supposed to work, anyway.

Congress hasn't declared war in this case. What they have done is pass a law that grants the President whatever authority he needs to fight terror. And it's pretty much stated in words to that effect, and that broadly. It doesn't assign specific funds, so the president must continually go back to congress and ask for more money. Which puts congress in a bind, as they face the choice of funding a strategy they don't agree with, or cutting funding and risking the president committing troops anyway, and risking the troops because they don't have money for equipment. Like bullets, which I'm told you pretty much need to engage in modern combat.

So, unless congress repeals the law that gives the president this authority, there's no real connsitutional challenge coming up. In my view, it's essentially a shield for Bush against any claims that he's violated the Constitution, even with his warrantless wiretaps of US citizens, and erasure of habeas corpus. All he has to do is claim that every action was to further tha fight against terrorism, and he's insulated from any action against him.

The thing is, neither side really wants to take that power away from the president, because each wants to be able to use it. While preventing the other side from using it. So what's probably going to happen is, as we get closer to the next presidential election, we'll see whatever side feels it's going to lose start to make a push to repeal the law. And the side that thinks it's going to win will resist that. If it's the Dems that seem ahead, that's going to be very interesting, because I'd say there are more Dems willing to relenquish that power, in the face of gaining control of it, than there are Repubs that would do the same.

"I don't think the Senate can force Bush to negotiate a treaty. They can only ratify a treaty that has already been presented to him."

Treaty with who? There is no government to negotiate with in this case. To negotiate a treaty to end the war in Iraq, a treaty to end the "War on Terror" is needed, since the Decisionator (Devidinator? Polarizer?) called Iraq the central front in the war on terror, and there was no actual declaration of war with Iraq that I'm aware of.

This one is an unending war, since it's a war with a method, not a country or government. The only out for Congress to take, IMHO, is probably impeachment.

Counts could include lying to Congress about the evidence justifying the invasion of Iraq. Or the awarding of no bid contracts to politically connected companies. That at least has the possibility of tainting Cheney in the process, and taking that nauseating slab of suet out of the picture.

Unfortunately, given the glacial pace that Congress works at, by the time things actually get going, it'll be election time.

Unlike Nixon, and there are not enough Republicans on the hill willing to vote for impeachment to convince Bush to resign.

Hi all,

My two cents is this:

Cent Number One: Listening to the very well thought out analysis by others in this thread (thanks PDog, Bill Mulligan, and Den!) Congress has the right to shut off funding for the war, but I doubt has any political power to micromanage the war or directly stop the war short of impeachment.

Cent Number Two: Impeachment is not as unlikely or inappropriate response as one might think. Because the House draws up charges of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and the Senate tries an impeached President, the only court that needs to be respected are the hearts and minds of the members of the United States Senate.

They alone will determine what is truly a "High Crime", whether we think it is or not. They do not necessarily have to be guided by legal precedent because their decision is not appealable.

Therefore if the President chose to ignore the orders of the Congress, impeachment proceedings could be drawn up on charges of simply ignoring the will of Congress. Period.

In most cases most presidents with these two options facing them would put in place changes and institutions that would avoid impeachment and satisfy Congress. For example Nixon's resignation or when there was widespread corruption in government contracts during WWII, the Truman Committee was able to balance Congress' war concerns without micromanaging the President. (Unlike what happened to Lincoln during the Civil War)

The issue however, is that any other President would have gotten the message by now. While impeachment would be unlikely in most cases we are dealing with a very stubborn President to whom threat of impeachment may not be enough and ACTUAL impeachment be regarded as the only way to make sure Congress' (and the people's wishes) are carried out.

--Captain Naraht
(An Official Cutsy Moniker)

P.S. As I was typing the words "Bill Mulligan and Den." I suddenly had a flashback to the drive-thru scene in "Dude, Where's my Car":

DRIVE THRU MIC: "aaaaannn dennn....."
ASHTON KUCHTER: "NO 'AN DEN'!!!"
DRIVE THRU MIC: "aaaaannn dennn!! aaaaannn dennn!! aaaaannn dennn!!"

I wish I had saved the link, but somewhere in the Time Mag archives is an article that deals with this...

Basically, as I understand it, there are three main reasons why the Congress will have difficulty stopping the invasion/military action/war/civil war/clusterf**k (pick one)

1> The lack of a supermajority in the Senate. Find ing 10 people to cross the aisle to stop a fillibuster will be extremely difficult if not impossible. (That whole fearing to look like not supporting the troops.). Without that, a few senators not planning to run again or safe for a few years can hold the whole shebang up.

2> Even if the congress votes to cut funding, there is nothing stopping the Pentagon from reallocating money from other lines to keep things going for a while. The only way to stop this would be to write a bill that strips the pentagon of the ability to adjust spending to meet military conditions, and that will not (and honestly should not happen). Which means passing a politically risky bill would have 0 effect in the short term. If I recall the article correctly (it was written pre-'surge' they could theoretically sustain an addition 60K troops for up to one year without additional funds allocated. The side effect of that would be the army would be fundamentally incapable of ANY military action for 3-5 years due to the scavenging that would occur to keep the troops active.

3> By using troops already in theatre, they are using troops for which funding has been already approved. Any changes would affect future funds for troops already on station.

Bleak as it sounds, here is a realistic assessment of the situation, which most people are downplaying (I think) because it just is so horrible.

We are now in an official no-win scenario:

We cannot pull out, as that will leave a gaping hole that WILL provide a terrorist haven as well as affect oil prices. (The question of what would have been the case had we not gone in is a purely intellectual and political exercise).

We cannot put the boots on the ground to secure the country and keep it secure, because, well, we don't have them. The number I have heard to do that that seems right to me is about 400,000.

We CAN try to 'expand our influence' in the area (any guesses what I mean here) but no one (well mebbe a few people) think thats a good idea, but even then, NO TROOPS.

The reason no one can come up with a 'better solution' is that there ISN'T one. The only question is as Americans do we prefer to hemorrage (sp?) money, blood or both.

That's about the strangest play on my name I've heard in a long time.

Manny raises a good point: who would we negotiate a treaty with? I supose that we could draft a treaty recognizing Maliki's government as the new legitimate authority in Iraq and turn over all internal matters to them. That would give everyone in Congress and the White House cover, though it wouldn't end the current civil war.

The basic problem with impeachment is that its determination is entirely political. Like any other Senate vote, it's too easy to do the political calculus beforehand and know that they're aren't enough votes that would remove a president if he did X, no matter how much of an egregious violation of the law/Constitution X was. That gives president the courage to push the envelope and convinces many in the House that even trying an impeachment vote is a waste of time.

Nixon resigned just as an impeachment resolution was being prepared and he realized that he had less than ten GOP Senators still on his side. I'm not sure what can happen to convince Bush that he's going to get the boot anyway.

I do think, however, that while I believe the man is truly delusional in his way of thinking, he'd have to be beyond batshit crazy if he tried to stay in office at the end of his term. Remember the definition of a Senator? Someone who sees the next President of the United States of America when he shaves in the morning. If Bush tried some kind of coup and declare himself president for life, McCain and the other 48 GOP "next presidents" would never stand for it. After all, they can't have a turn if he doesn't step down when his time is up.

I remember all the talk from the far right that Clinton wasn't going to step down at the end of his second term and it seemed nuts back then, too. They held up a statement by him to the effect that if the Constitution didn't prevent it, he'd have considered running for a third term as proof.

Bush has lost a lot of his swagger over the past two years and I think he's grown tired of the job, having realized that it actually involves hard work. I don't think he wants a third term. I'm sure the PNAC can find another stooge fairly easily from among the presidential wannabes.

"An Den..." stated:
"Nixon resigned just as an impeachment resolution was being prepared and he realized that he had less than ten GOP Senators still on his side. I'm not sure what can happen to convince Bush that he's going to get the boot anyway."

Right now a good number of GOP Senators are not happy. What if it turns out that when Scooter Libby uses as a defense in his perjury case that he was told to leak Valarie Plame's name by higher ups like the President and Vice President, AND IT WORKS? What does the GOP do then?

Then the GOP Senators will be thinking about how their party can run in 2008 with the taint of a huge war-causing scandal. Just as Republicans were afraid of losing the White House in 1976 if they did not completely separate themselves from the President in 1974. They lost House/Senate seats in November 74, but nearly gained the White House by 76 because they made Watergate a Nixon issue not a Republican one.

--Captain Naraht
An Official Cutsy Moniker

"I don't think the Senate can force Bush to negotiate a treaty. They can only ratify a treaty that has already been presented to him."

Thanx Capt. Naraht (A.O.C.M.). I forgot about that little turd in the political crap mixer. Only problem I see is that at best they would get a clean shot a Cheney. (Irony, anyone?).

To end the war by impeachment, you need a twofer. Get Bush and Cheney both. Cheney has got the Plame leak affair, the Vice President's energy commitee (basically a giant circle jerk for Halliburton et. al.), Halliburton's no bid contracts in Iraq, and don't even go into quail hunting. There is also his actions as President of the Senate.

For Bush, outside the war, there is the longshot of the whole Katrina debacle. It's shakey at best, but "Sometimes you gotta roll a hard six."

I remember all the talk from the far right that Clinton wasn't going to step down at the end of his second term and it seemed nuts back then, too. They held up a statement by him to the effect that if the Constitution didn't prevent it, he'd have considered running for a third term as proof.

Amen, bro. There's also the little matter that any coup would require the complicity of the armed forces and I doubt that anyone other than the absolute fringe black helicopter crowd on the right and left think that the military is just itching to take over the country.

GWB: "I'm the decision-maker [when it comes to Iraq]."

72% of Americans: "Dude, that's not anything to brag about."

Paul

Ixnay on the ilitarymay not unningray the ountryray. You don't want to let them in on the secret that they don't all ready.

While the Senate can't force the president to negotiate a treaty, they can remove a president that fails to abide by the overwhelming desires of Congress. Failing to pursue a peace that is advocated by a large portion of the populace, and has the backing of Congress, could be seen as treason.

"Failing to pursue a peace that is advocated by a large portion of the populace, and has the backing of Congress, could be seen as treason."

Lying about the reasons for going to war could be seen as treason. Handing foreign policy over to Halliburton, KRB and large commercial mercenary corporations,outing a covert CIA field officer to punish her husband, illegal wire taps, firing generals for giving their honest proffessional opinions on the current military situation...

Who needs the guy to refuse to negotiate a peace in Iraq? The Hole in the Head Gang on the hill just need the political balls to pull the trigger.

There's also the little matter that any coup would require the complicity of the armed forces and I doubt that anyone other than the absolute fringe black helicopter crowd on the right and left think that the military is just itching to take over the country.

Absolutely. And I'd also like to believe that the Secret Service would also respect the Constitution and not back a president that refused to vacate the White House when his time was up.

Bush's approval ratings are so low, even the republicans are now counting down the days for when he leaves, if only because he's becoming largely irrelevent to the domestic side of policy.

As for Clinton, it was ludicrous to say that he'd be willing to run for a third term if the law allowed it as proof that he wasn't planning on leaving at the end of his second term. That's like claiming that somene saying they might try smoking marijuana if it were legal is proof that they're a smack addict.

"They held up a statement by him to the effect that if the Constitution didn't prevent it, he'd have considered running for a third term as proof."

God, that was a fun time. We had a several from that crowd working for us at the time. They used that line to point out what a power hungry scumball Clinton was for wanting to subvert the American process like that.

I loved pointing them to the same quote made by their hero, Big Ronnie, and to the fact that, before being hit hard by his illness, he said that he had wanted to work to get the law changed to allow that kind of thing again. Oh, it was so much fun to watch them sputter on about how, when Reagan said it, it was totally different and maybe even a good idea. it was just evil when Clinton said it.

And that one line in there often confused most of them. Most of them had no idea that you could serve more then two terms in America for a longer time then you couldn't. It also shocked them a bit to learn that it was an R thing that came back to bite them in the butt when they most wanted a three termer themselves.

Gotta love politics sometimes.

;)

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at January 29, 2007 03:21 PM

Failing to pursue a peace that is advocated by a large portion of the populace, and has the backing of Congress, could be seen as treason.

That would dilute the term "treason" to the point of meaninglessness. According to the Microsoft Encarta dictionary, treason is a "violation of the allegiance owed by a person to his or her own country, for example, by aiding an enemy." Merely pursuing an unpopular course of action clearly falls short of any reasonable interpretation of the definition above.

And yes, before anyone jumps down my throat, I am aware that Bush's actions have made this country less secure. But incompetence in and of itself is not treasonous.

I recall nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires the president to only pursue popular courses of action.

its a common trip going back 200 year where a president is faced with a congress not willing to pay for the millatry action he want to take, so he will sent them out anyways then congress will be have to pay for it reguardless of where they want to or not. Example that come to mind is Teddy Rosvent wanting to show the world the new upgraded 7 fleet with a round the world tour. congress send no but teddy had enough money in the budget to get them half way there knowing that congress would have to pay to bring them back.

In this case bush can send troops, but should congress choose to end the war that would be the end of it. But for some reason the dems woudl rather pass non binding resoltion rather doing something that does more that point fingers.

And yes, before anyone jumps down my throat, I am aware that Bush's actions have made this country less secure. But incompetence in and of itself is not treasonous.

Well, could gross negligence rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

Posted by: Sasha at January 29, 2007 05:01 PM

Well, could gross negligence rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

The U.S. Constitution provides no guidance on what is meant by "other high crimes and misdemeanors." So, really, the term can mean whatever we want it to mean.

The problem with actions is that they have consequences. In spite of the rationalizations offered on the surface, Clinton was impeached because Republicans didn't like his policies and hated the man. The people I've heard advocating Bush's impeachment have been offering rationales that pretty much amount to the same thing. Do we want to see farcical impeachment proceedings every four to eight years? I sure don't.

Also, bear in mind that you can't summon the devil and then expect him to behave. Using impeachment as a weapon in a policy dispute now will hamper the ability of future presidents to lead... including ones whose policies you agree with.

"Well, could gross negligence rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors?"

I don't know. How badly do you really want to devalue the meaning of those words?

From a photo of the protests over the weekend, somebody had a sign that read:

"Impeachment, it's not just for blowjobs any more".

The U.S. Constitution provides no guidance on what is meant by "other high crimes and misdemeanors." So, really, the term can mean whatever we want it to mean.

Possibly, but I think the Supreme Court would knock down any attempt that did not include an actual crime or misdemeanor.

Now, they could just make something up and convict him of an actual crime for which there is no evidence. I'm not sure that there are penalties for a jury knowingly delivering a verdict they know to be unjust.

Of course, the idea that you could get 60 senators to go along with such a radical plan is so unlikely it strains credibility.

Bill Mulligan, I don't believe the Supreme Court has any authority to stop such proceedings. The U.S. Consitution states that "The House of Representatives shall... have the sole Power of Impeachment," and that "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

If the President of the United States is tried, the U.S. Constitution does stipulate that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court will preside. But nowhere do I see anything that would give him the power to set aside the Senate's verdict.

Mind you, I'm not advocating that we go crazy with impeachment just because we can. As I said in a prior thread about impeachment, it's like a hammer. You can do a lot of things with both, but that doesn't mean you should do all of those things.

Wow. It's a hoot reading so many constitutional scholars argue back and forth. If only some of the arguements held any water...

High crimes or misdemeanors are felonies or misdemeanors. Period. Lying to a grand jury is a crime. Doing something that people don't agree with isn't a crime. So, in order to cause a constitutional crisis, all the house and senate would have to do is attempt impeachment at this point.

Next, if Bush were to be impeached and forced out of office, there's Cheney waiting in the wings. If Bush scares you as President, then Cheney should scare you even more. Oh, but wait...someone said something along the lines of "let's get them both at once". Nice try, but it doesn't work that way. If somehow both were going thru the impeachment process, then I have no doubt that Cheney would resign and someone like McCain, or Giuliani or even Jeb Bush would be nominated as VP. At that point, impeachment would have to stop and confirmation of the VP would begin.

Jeff in NC, are you a Constitutional scholar? Because in the articles I've read, actual Constitutional scholars have generally stated that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is an "art term," and that impeachment was intended by the framers of the Constitutional to be a political rather than a judicial process.

Attitude is no substitute for knowledge.

Sigh... I'm tired, not feeling well, and not writing well either. I'm not sure I made this clear in my post above: by "art term," the scholars quoted in articles I've read (and interviewed on television shows I've watched, like the Jim Lehrer News Hour) meant that the phrase "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was deliberately left wide, wide, w-i-d-e open to interpretation by the framers of the Constitution.

Blessedly, throughout history impeachment has been a rarity and in general only applied in extreme cases. Unfortunately, there have been frivolous impeachments of government officials. I would argue that the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton fall into that category.

If that was already clear, sorry, no intent to condescend. I'm just tired and headachey right now. Off to bed soon.

The problem with actions is that they have consequences. In spite of the rationalizations offered on the surface, Clinton was impeached because Republicans didn't like his policies and hated the man. The people I've heard advocating Bush's impeachment have been offering rationales that pretty much amount to the same thing. Do we want to see farcical impeachment proceedings every four to eight years? I sure don't.

Your sheltering of a predator who arbitrarily sacrificed over 3,000 and counting of the best of their generation -- for the ivory-tower principle of preventing a presidential impeachment every 4-8 years -- is nauseating.

It isn't an issue of trading Bush's life for the many, or even of his mortgage hanging in the balance. To you sheltering the president's job is more important than the lives of 3,000 soldiers and their families. Vanity is the currency of your world.

Bush is subject to the uniform code of military justice. He ordered the invasion of an oil-rich Muslin nation on no evidence. Let him be fired for the crime of fraud, waste, and abuse.

Bill Myers, no offense taken. : )

My point was that there has to be some reason other than "we disagree" to go for impeachment. I don't remember the details about Andrew Jackson, but for Clinton, he lied to the grand jury. That is a crime. I do agree, however, that how it got to the grand jury was a waste of time and energy. Without something that falls into the legal definition of a crime, I think it would be very difficult to bring impeachment procedures against any politician.

And Mike, even though the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, he isn't bound by the UCMJ since he isn't an actual active member of any of the armed forces. The US was set up to have civilians in charge of the military.

Unfortunately, there have been frivolous impeachments of government officials. I would argue that the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton fall into that category.

But those are the only two impeachments of US presidents, so what were the reasonable ones?

If the President of the United States is tried, the U.S. Constitution does stipulate that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court will preside. But nowhere do I see anything that would give him the power to set aside the Senate's verdict.

No but if the President were to appeal to the court on the grounds that the Senate was violating the constitution for bringing about impeachment for a non-crime, they would have the power to do something about it.

My guess--purely a guess since, as I've said, this is not going to happen--is that even the most liberal members of the court (who might be thrilled to see Bush gone) would be very reluctant to give so much power to the Senate and throw the balance of power out of whack.

At any rate, I see little evidence that there is any groundswell of desire in the Senate for such a confrontation. Hey, did anyone fromthe Senate even bother to speak at the big war protest the otehr day?

I have to agree with Bill Myers about SCOTUS and impeachment. There really is no provision for appealing an impeachment. If the Senate votes to remove a president from office, it's a done deal.

I do wish there was some way we could argue that gross incompetence is a high crime and misdemeanor. But, having bad policies as a reason for impeachment is probably a bad precedent to set.

As it is, I predict the GOP will introduce their first impeachment measure against the next democratic president about five seconds after he/she is sworn in anyway.

My guess--purely a guess since, as I've said, this is not going to happen--is that even the most liberal members of the court (who might be thrilled to see Bush gone) would be very reluctant to give so much power to the Senate and throw the balance of power out of whack.

I don't know about that. A 2/3's majority is required in the Senate to remove the president. SCOTUS may be reluctant to interfere if that many Senators have agreed that the president has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors". The court has in recent years (Kelo) given the elected officials wide latitude when the limits are not clearly spelled out in the law.

Scalia and his sock puppet (Thomas) would of course, vote in favor of a republican even if he was caught on video tape raping a girl scout. It's still uncertain about Alito and Roberts.

Posted by: Jeff In NC at January 29, 2007 11:25 PM

Bill Myers, no offense taken. : )

Sorry about the confrontational nature of that last post. I really wasn't feeling well last night and should've stayed away from the keyboard.

Posted by: Jeff In NC at January 29, 2007 11:25 PM

My point was that there has to be some reason other than "we disagree" to go for impeachment.

Oh, I absolutely agree. While the framers of the Constitution provided little guidance as to what constitutes (no pun intended) "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," they clearly intended the impeachment process to be a remedy for criminal behavior. In fact, I believe George Mason wanted to include "maladministration" as grounds for impeachment, but James Madison, who favored criminal behavior as the only grounds, won out.

Posted by: Jeff In NC at January 29, 2007 11:25 PM

Without something that falls into the legal definition of a crime, I think it would be very difficult to bring impeachment procedures against any politician.

Ultimately, I believe "We the People" are the "check and balance" in the process as the House and Senate are ultimately answerable to the voters. Of course, that only works if people a.) vote and b.) make an informed vote.

Posted by: Den at January 29, 2007 11:26 PM

But those are the only two impeachments of US presidents, so what were the reasonable ones?

Per the Constitution, "civil Officers of the United States" may be subject to impeachment. At the Federal level, one Senator and more than a dozen judges have been impeached throughout our nation's history, as well as one Presidential Cabinet member.

Of course, I'm not sure that all of those were "reasonable" because I don't know the exact details of all of those impeachments. :)

Personally, all I want is if Bush or Cheney is Impeached, is to show anyone running for Presidential office that there is some distinct accountability for your bad decisions. Especially when you start a failing War, and your direct inability for decisive action at the proper moment directly lead to the death of thousands of American Civilians. See, the way I see it, giving Bush or anyone like him a lifelong pension, Secret Service security, and a Library are simply rewards after failing being a proper leader. Screw that. Maybe thats how things work in a corporation, but for public office, hell no. More people need to realize that if enough of us push the issue to these people we voted in, things may change.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors are whatever the House says they are. Under our presidential impeachment process, the House draws up the articles of impeachment, which must be passed by a simple majority. The Senate then conducts the trial. It really is as simple as that. Is it a good thing, government wise, to go about impeaching a president that's unpopular, or politically unfavored? Perhaps not. But when the reason for those low opinions is because of his actions, and those actions make the country less safe, cost the lives of American soldiers, and waste billions of American taxpayer dollars, I'd say hell yes.

We can argue about what High Crimes and Misdemeanors should mean, or might mean. but in the end, if Congress is uniformly displeased by the president, for whatever reason, they have the means to remove him. It's part of the checks and balances built into our government. The main reason they don't use that power willy nilly is because they have something to lose...their seats. Moreso today than maybe ever before, the value of holding onto a seat is extremely high, and few are willing to take an action that could cost them votes in the next election cycle.

Bush is subject to the uniform code of military justice. He ordered the invasion of an oil-rich Muslin nation on no evidence. Let him be fired for the crime of fraud, waste, and abuse.

And Mike, even though the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, he isn't bound by the UCMJ since he isn't an actual active member of any of the armed forces. The US was set up to have civilians in charge of the military.

Persons subject to [the UCMJ]:

A. The following persons are subject to this chapter: 1. Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

The CinC is a regular component of the armed forces. Unless you are referring to a specific disqualification for the president, the UCMJ applies to him.

*Extra long post warning*

Jeff from NC stated: "If somehow both were going thru the impeachment process, then I have no doubt that Cheney would resign and someone like McCain, or Giuliani or even Jeb Bush would be nominated as VP. At that point, impeachment would have to stop and confirmation of the VP would begin."

To this I say "so?". Like with House Majority Leader Gerald Ford, the President has to pick a likable candidate or the Speaker would be President. (Bella Abzug tried this during the Watergate in 74, but failed)

Expect a VP candidate like Sen Richard Lugar (R)IN or Sen Olympia Snowe (R)ME. A Republican the President is on good terms with that a Democratic Senate would still approve.

Bill Myers stated: "Unfortunately, there have been frivolous impeachments of government officials. I would argue that the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton fall into that category."

Let's not let a frivolous impeachment get in the way of the fact that President Andrew Johnson was a two-legged colostomy bag, and a racist, murdering, scumbag.

Mike stated in response to Bill Myers: "Your sheltering of a predator who arbitrarily sacrificed over 3,000 and counting of the best of their generation -- for the ivory-tower principle of preventing a presidential impeachment every 4-8 years -- is nauseating.
...To you sheltering the president's job is more important than the lives of 3,000 soldiers and their families. Vanity is the currency of your world."

Do you get the feeling that Mike isn't a kindergarten teacher or that he doesn't have his own TV kids show on PBS called "Happy Smiley Time with Jungle Mike".

SHEESH Mike I agree with you about 90% of the time, but do you mind dialing the abuse down a few dozen notches?

--Captain Naraht
(An Official Cutsy
Moniker by Ray in NH)

Posted by: Captain Naraht at January 30, 2007 09:36 AM

SHEESH Mike I agree with you about 90% of the time, but do you mind dialing the abuse down a few dozen notches?

Ray, I appreciate your taking a stand for civility, but don't waste your effort trying to get Mike on board. He is convinced that he has the moral high ground.

In case you missed it, a little while back Mike picked a fight with me because I had the temerity to tell him that an analogy he offered was inflammatory and without substance. He took it as a personal attack and then unleashed invective at me. He then expanded his "enemies list" to include Bill Mulligan, Micha, Jerry Chandler, and Sean Scullion.

Mike's M.O. is to use personal attacks and insults to provoke anger, and then to claim the mantle of the innocent victim. When confronted with this, he demands that one cite evidence. When evidence is cited, however, he dismisses what is "plainly observable" (to use one of his favorite phrases).

Bill Mulligan, Micha, Jerry, Sean, and most especially myself, got so angry with him that we began meeting his insults with our own. The result? Peter felt forced to shut down a thread. Mike declared that this proved it was we, and not he, that were the trolls.

Since then, we've begun ignoring Mike. Desperate for attention, he began looking for a new sparring partner. He picked the wrong guy -- Luigi Novi -- and got smacked down pretty hard. In about the space of a day, Luigi came to the conclusion that took me weeks to reach -- that it is best to ignore Mike.

Those of you who witnessed that meltdown, worry not. This is not going to escalate into another flame war. I've stopped reading Mike's posts.

But I've apologized profusely for contributing to the mess that led Peter to lock down the "A Smart Move" thread, while the one person who is most to blame for that mess -- Mike -- has claimed that he was blameless. For all of my lapses and mistakes, I think I've demonstrated here a willingness to admit to my failings and to correct them. Mike has not done the same. I therefore believe I am entitled to set the record straight on this issue.

I fully expect Mike to respond with accusations, taunts, and insults. Don't worry. I won't read them. If Mike wants to re-kindle our flame war, he'll find that it resembles the "sound of one hand clapping" because I will not participate.

"I have to agree with Bill Myers about SCOTUS and impeachment. There really is no provision for appealing an impeachment. If the Senate votes to remove a president from office, it's a done deal."

Ohhhh, I dunno. I can just see it: A lawsuit entitled Bush v. the United States asserting that the impeachment was unconstitutional, and it goes directly to SCOTUS.

NOW we've got a crisis.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at January 30, 2007 10:16 AM

Ohhhh, I dunno. I can just see it: A lawsuit entitled Bush v. the United States asserting that the impeachment was unconstitutional, and it goes directly to SCOTUS.

NOW we've got a crisis.

THAT is a scary-ass thought. Seriously.

Mike, did you even read the UCMJ info you cut and pasted? The Commander-in-Chief is not active duty military. He's a civilian. UCMJ does not apply.

Captain Naraht, why would Bush go out of his way to find someone the senate would agree with immediately? He would go for someone that would cause controversy and take a lot of time to either confirm or reject. By the time anything happens, Bush's term in office would be over anyway.

Mike, the president is not a member of any armed force. He's the commander of them all. Were he a memeber, upon his election he'd have to go through at least basic training.

The Founders explicitly rejected the idea that one had to be a member of the military to be president. Clearly they weren't against the idea that a military person be eligible, but they didn't make it a requirement.

Jeff in NC:
"Why would Bush go out of his way to find someone the senate would agree with immediately? He would go for someone that would cause controversy and take a lot of time to either confirm or reject."

You may be mistaken in assuming that a) You can't impeach the president and the vice-president at the same time. b) The foot dragging sceme wouldn't piss off the House and Senate and c) that even the most well laid plan meant to subvert a majority in the House, Senate and the Nation would not mean doom for the Republican Party.

a.) No law against impeachment at the same time. While unruly, it could happen.

b.) One thing stops him: Nanci Pelosi. If some Presidential footdragging plan caused gave anyone the idea that the President was stalling, that would just piss Congress off and the Speaker would become President. Google "Bella Abzug" NY(D) and "Watergate" and see how she wanted to impeach Nixon before Ford could replace Spiro Agnew-- thus making the Speaker President.

c.) I think you forget that there are a lot of Republicans that want to distance themselves from Bush without voting with the Dems. They would push the President for a Republican replacement (a Gerald Ford for the 21st Century) instead of letting it go to Pelosi

If it really got to the point of some minority in Congress and the President with some foot dragging plan or somehow getting SCOTUS involved (sorry Peter D., I don't think a Court majority would allow a Bush v. US scenario that you outline. Maybe Alito and Thomas tops, but I think even they would not touch it with a ten foot pole.) the VP/and Prez would be so unpopular as to be political poison to the Republicans in the Congress.

Republicans want this to be a Bush/Cheney thing not a Republican Party thing.

Otherwise this would mean overwhelming victory for the Democrats in 2008 and any Republican with the stink of GW/Cheney on them would be defeated in their own states and congressional districts.

Republicans are not THAT stupid.

--Captain Naraht
(President: Cutsy Monikers "r" Us)

Peter David Stated: "I can just see it: A lawsuit entitled Bush v. the United States asserting that the impeachment was unconstitutional, and it goes directly to SCOTUS."

To clarify my earlier post, SCOTUS reserves the right to not even hear a case. As conservative as some justices are, I think SCOTUS would bat that back like a hot potato. I think that is the most likly outcome for a potential Bush v. US.

--Capt Naraht

Posted by: Captain Naraht at January 30, 2007 11:25 AM

Republicans are not THAT stupid.

I never bet against the stupidity of politicians, whatever their party affiliation.

A quick note on impeachment, which is related to "undeclaring war". If Bush was impeached he would not have to sue congress. He would just ignore the impeachment. Congress would then have to sue Bush to have him forcibly removed (assuming the court ruled in their favor). SCOTUS may refuse to hear the case, but that does not mean the case would not be heard. The case would first be heard by a lower court which would make a ruling and then the appeals would begin.

That's why the process is so important here. The courts have consistently ruled for congresses legal. However, if congress does't dot all the eyes and cross all the t's the courts have also shown a willingness to dismiss cases.

Having served in the military, I would not dismiss the potential for any Commander in Chief (correctly used in this case) to ignore the courts order to step down and have the support of the military.

Loyalty to the chain of command runs *very* *very* deep in the military. Even if a soldier, marine, etc thought an order was wrong, they are, in my experience, likely to execute it anyway because they were ordered too.

My point about bringing the court into it was to saythat if congress, as some have suggested, just arbitarily impeached a president NOT for "high crimes and misdemeanors" but "becuae they don't like him" I could see the executive branch appealling to the supreme court on the grounds that the impeachment was unconstitutional.

In a case like that I think the Court might agree to hear the case quickly, without having to go through the usual channels.

I still say we are arguing about something so remote as to be on the level of fantasy.

Having served in the military, I would not dismiss the potential for any Commander in Chief (correctly used in this case) to ignore the courts order to step down and have the support of the military.

Loyalty to the chain of command runs *very* *very* deep in the military. Even if a soldier, marine, etc thought an order was wrong, they are, in my experience, likely to execute it anyway because they were ordered too.

I can't speak from experience but from the military folks I know there is no way they would support the overthrow of the government.

Again, I can only urge people to go back to 2000, read the far right websites claiming that Clinton was going to never ever ever relinquish power, especially to a Republican, marvel at the elaborate scenarios presented for how this coup would occur, and, hopefully, recognize how derange-o it all seems now. You can file this away along with other classics like "Bin Laden has been captured and will be released right beofre the 2002 election, I mean the 2004 elections, I mean the 2006 elections, I mean..." or "Karl Rove will use his control of diebold voting machines to ensure the Republicans keep control of both houses of congress".

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at January 30, 2007 12:41 PM

I still say we are arguing about something so remote as to be on the level of fantasy.

Well, a lot of us are comic-book readers... ;)

Well then make it a good fantasy! Let's do a version of A Christmas Carol where he gets visited by the ghost of Richard Nixon and then revisits his coke snorting youth, is shown the hardships of soldiers in Iraq and then ends up at his graffiti defaced tombstone. He emerges into the new day a Changed Man. Lame, sure, but at least as likely as some of these scenarios. Also, I firmly believe that EVERYTHING should have a version of A Christmas Carol attached to it. Everything. There should be a law that any show that lasts more than 4 seasons HAS to have a Very Special Christmas episode that is a takeoff of A Christmas Carol.

Pdog, just a point of contention...if Congress were to draw up lawful articles of impeachment, and the Senate were to conduct a trial on those articles...and the president just failed to respond...which seems to be beyond belief, but I won't put anything past Bush at this time...if all that were to happen, and the Senate decided to remove him from office, and the president just tried to ignore it...that wouldn't go before a lower court, if it went to a court at all. It'd go directly to the SCOTUS, as no lesser court could really be seen as having the proper authority to rule on it. What's more likely to happen is that the Congress would go about appointing a replacement for the remainder of the current presidential term, and have that person assume command over the Joint Chiefs, at which point the military would have to decide who to follow...the guy appointed by Congress after a lawful impeachment and removal of the previous president, or the buy sitting in the oval office trying to deny that anyone has any authority over him. And if the Joint Chiefs should split over that decision at all, we'd have a total cessation of our government while the military branches decided if they wanted to open fire on other US soldiers. In other words, a near total breakdown of our government. Not that whoever were left after the shooting stopped couldn't work to put everything back together again, but it sure would strain the credibility with the People.

Mike, did you even read the UCMJ info you cut and pasted? The Commander-in-Chief is not active duty military. He's a civilian. UCMJ does not apply.

Mike, the president is not a member of any armed force. He's the commander of them all. Were he a memeber, upon his election he'd have to go through at least basic training.

Both of you are wrong.

You do not have to be active duty to be subject to the UCMJ. "Uniform" does not mean the accused has to wear a uniform -- it's uniform as in the standards are uniform for all military.

As someone who received training in the UCMJ, it was pointed out to me -- for one thing -- that the section "volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces" says the UCMJ applies to someone once active duty begins, but no qualification is given for when that jurisdiction ends. In that sense alone, Bush is subject to it for his TANG service.

When you say the UCMJ only applies to active duty members, you are speaking from the ignorance of someone who has never gone through basic military training.

As worded, the reach of the UCMJ applies to the CinC.

The problem with actions is that they have consequences. In spite of the rationalizations offered on the surface, Clinton was impeached because Republicans didn't like his policies and hated the man. The people I've heard advocating Bush's impeachment have been offering rationales that pretty much amount to the same thing. Do we want to see farcical impeachment proceedings every four to eight years? I sure don't.

Your sheltering of a predator who arbitrarily sacrificed over 3,000 and counting of the best of their generation -- for the ivory-tower principle of preventing a presidential impeachment every 4-8 years -- is nauseating.

It isn't an issue of trading Bush's life for the many, or even of his mortgage hanging in the balance. To you sheltering the president's job is more important than the lives of 3,000 soldiers and their families. Vanity is the currency of your world.

In case you missed it, a little while back Mike picked a fight with me because I had the temerity to tell him that an analogy he offered was inflammatory and without substance. He took it as a personal attack and then unleashed invective at me.

Almost all of my comments cite the comments they are referring to. Unlike you, I have no purely antagonistic comments, which you have plenty of archived on this site.

Mike's M.O. is to use personal attacks and insults to provoke anger, and then to claim the mantle of the innocent victim. When confronted with this, he demands that one cite evidence. When evidence is cited, however, he dismisses what is "plainly observable" (to use one of his favorite phrases).

I'd like to see any plainly observable comment I've made that said I'm innocent or a victim.

I've said previously that you abandoned any moral ground, but I don't have to be a saint for that to be true. If you don't want to be called a moral cretin, don't shelter a president who sacrificed the lives of 3,000 soldiers over the ivory-tower principle of thwarting impeachment.

Since then, we've begun ignoring Mike. Desperate for attention, he began looking for a new sparring partner. He picked the wrong guy -- Luigi Novi -- and got smacked down pretty hard. In about the space of a day, Luigi came to the conclusion that took me weeks to reach -- that it is best to ignore Mike.

Luigi accused me of lying, I asked him to cite one lie from me, and he walked like someone who wrote a check with his mouth his butt couldn't cash.

You are all welcome to help Luigi find my lie. You Can Be First.™

But I've apologized profusely for contributing to the mess that led Peter to lock down the "A Smart Move" thread, while the one person who is most to blame for that mess -- Mike -- has claimed that he was blameless. For all of my lapses and mistakes, I think I've demonstrated here a willingness to admit to my failings and to correct them. Mike has not done the same. I therefore believe I am entitled to set the record straight on this issue.

I didn't say I was blameless.

I said for a thread discourse so outrageous, a writer who raises money for the CBLDF (and is also a boardmember) shut it down out of disgust, I had only responded to comments directed to me 3 times in the last 3 days -- and my last post to that thread was barely 24 hours old when he shut it down.

To characterize me as "most to blame" is transparently an attempt to mitigate your credentials as a troll. That isn't contrite at all.

I have to agree with Bill Mulligan -- we're tossing around a lot of scenarios that will happen only when pigs fly out of all of our butts. Our nation has experienced peaceful transitions of power for more than two centuries. For all of its flaws, our system of governance has a good track record and is quite stable.

I'm far more worried about what Bush will do in Iraq over the next two years; and about whether Congress will attempt to do something substantive to force Bush to correct course, or opt for something stupid like an unwarranted impeachment.

Mike, the UCMJ doesn't apply to the president because he's not a member of the military. He's the commander, yes, through the constitution, but he's not a member, period. Not active, not a volunteer, not anything that's subject to the UCMJ. He's a Federal Employee, pretty much the same as me, only I didn't have to get voted into my job. He's a civilian, and the UCMJ only applies to members of the military.

Just because you received training on the UCMJ as a member doesn't make you an expert on the issue of it's jurisdiction. Unless you'd care to post a link to a teaching manual on the UCMJ where it states explicitly that the office of the president is subject to the jurisdiction of the UCMJ.

Not to question Pdog's experience with the military, but to bring this scenario back to Bush himself, if the reports that a lot of active duty generals are dissatisfied with Bush, then really, respect for the chain of command is the only thing that is keeping them from revolt now.

But, once Bush's term is up, then he is no longer the commander-in-chief and therefore, he would be out of the chain of command they would have no obligation to obey his orders any more.

I still don't believe that he'll refuse to step down for the reasons outlined above: 1) he's so unpopular now that he'd lose the last shred of support he has within his own party, 2) the "future presidents" in the Senate won't stand for him gumming up their destiny, 3) I think he is genuinely tired of the job and wants to go back to permanent vacation, and 4) The PNAC can always find a new stooge to replace him.

Pdog is right as far as the military goes. They support the war. Even the generals that are in disagreement support. What the military doesn't support is how the war is being fought.
Someone mentioned Korea. The similarities between this Iraq and Korea are closer than Vietnam and Iraq. In Korea, China's influence is what turned the war. That and the idiocy of MacArthur. Anyone know he tried a coup. In Iraq, Iran's influence is what is really killing us. We have more to fear from Iran because of Operation Iraqi Freedom than what we felt right after 9/11. We cannot invade Iran, but I bet you there are plans.
As far as impeachment, is it a criminal court that charges a president or the Senate? The Bush Administration's refusal to follow the law could be at issue. Why have a secret court if you do not use it?
Flash Fact: Could be open to debate, though. By putting terror suspects on U.S. soil gives them right to a fair trial. Case in point. Illegal kills someone. Are they held indefinitely? No they go to trial.

Mike, the UCMJ doesn't apply to the president because he's not a member of the military. He's the commander, yes, through the constitution, but he's not a member, period. Not active, not a volunteer, not anything that's subject to the UCMJ. He's a Federal Employee, pretty much the same as me, only I didn't have to get voted into my job. He's a civilian, and the UCMJ only applies to members of the military.

Your interpretation that the UCMJ refers exclusively to active duty military is plainly wrong:

A.10. In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

The above doesn't say "active duty serving with or accompanying..." it says "persons serving with or accompanying..." and nowhere does it say that "persons" refers exclusively to active duty military. Were you to accompany an armed force in the field during wartime, the UCMJ would apply to you.

The first qualification listed in the UCMJ is "Members of a regular component of the armed forces..." The CinC is a regular component of the US military. Without orders from the CinC, everyone in Iraq can come home.

I'm not asking you to take my word on anything. You insist we take your word over the plainly worded qualifications of the UCMJ. Pull your head out of your ass.

Oh, gods, not plainly worded dictionary definitions again.

Someone call the jukebox repairman, the record is stuck....

Mike~

As a former member of the armed services who's head is not in his ass I can state categorically the UCMJ des not apply to anyone. The UCMJ applies only to those who have agreed to wave their constitutional rights, as every member of the armed services has for the duration of their enlistment and cannot supercede the constitution.

The term "person" is used because various branches of the military refer to their, well, persons differently and it avoids technical issues. Just as, in theory, The President is only commander in chief of the Army and Navy, and not the Air Force since it isn't explicitly called out.

Although it does not address the issue of War Powers conclusively, Glenn Greenwald (can you tell i like him yet) has a post touching on the debate within congress itself and is probaly a preude to multiple posts.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

I meant *anyone accompanying ...." not anyone in general. That would be wrong since it does apply to Members of the Armed Forces.

Mike~

Re: Bush being subject to UCMJ due to his previous service.

I don't have the court case in question in front but there have been a couple recent cases that have affirmed that once your inactive term is up you no longer have any obligation to the military. The cases specifically dealt with attempts to recall former military personel to active duty well after they had completed the terms of thier enlistment (including completing thier inactive reserve duty).

If there are other cases that found differently please cite.

I am going to use the same lame excuse I used with Bill.. baby pressure is severely hampering my ability to really do the research I want here or write our articulate posts. That said here's another way of phrasing it:

The UCMJ can say whatever it likes, but are there any examples were the Supreme Court or any lower courts have affirmed the military's right to extend to civilians and/or to former military personel who have been fully discharged (excepting non-citizens who do not reside in the US, they are a different legal animal altogether)?

Den~

I think you are actually agreeing with my statement, so I am not sure how that questions my military experience.

I also want to be clear, I am not saying that the military would definitely do X or Y. I am just suggesting that we may not want to find out becuase the probability that the answer is not one we will like is significant. Maybe not 50 or 60%, but not 0 either.

I think once Bush's term expires, there wouldn't be an issue. The military's loyalty would be tested if Congress were to impeach Bush and he refused to step down. His line of defense would be that Congress doesn't have the power to do that. The military would then have to decide who had the greater legal authority. I am not positive that the the military wouldn't take the path of least moral anguish and do what their Commander in Chief told them to do. Following orders and all that. They may disagree privately, but not take action. I am not saying that is what would happen. I just am not so sure anymore after Abu Graib, Gitmo, et al. These are all situations that I was very specifically trained to deal with and very specifically instructed in how to stop. As an officer, I was told that it was my moral obligation to ignore such orders. My particular unit was the one that was charged with preventing these things. Yet, when push came to shove, everyone just said "I object" but deferred to the Chain of Command. If years of post-vietnam training didn't work there, I am not sure where the current officer corps point of taking the so-called "hard right" occurs.

Pdog, as someone with some experience in these kind of discussion, I can tell you that you can't really win, since it does not really say anywhere explicitly that the president is NOT subject to the UCMJ. So, as far as Mike is concerned, it all depends on his interpretation of the text he quotes from the UCMJ, i.e. the "plainly worded definition." If you could find somewhere a legal text stating explicitly that the president is subject to civilian laws, that should help, but it probably won't, even if you found such a text. I wonder if someone ever felt the need to put that in writing?
I assume you, and the others who think that the president is not subject to the UCMJ, base their assumpton on a combination of geveral knowledge and common sense, and not on a familiarity with any specific quote from a text. But you will find such knowledge useless in this case. That is not how such discussions work.

As a former member of the armed services who's head is not in his ass I can state categorically the UCMJ des not apply to anyone.

I didn't say the UCMJ applies to anyone. I said the assertion that one must be active duty for the UCMJ to apply is wrong. I cite the UCMJ:

A. 10. In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

...

The term "person" is used because various branches of the military refer to their, well, persons differently and it avoids technical issues.

Look at the first line:

A. The following persons are subject to [the UCMJ]: 1. Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

"Persons" literally means "persons." Then they begin to qualify who is subject to the UCMJ. There is no ambiguity.

Re: Bush being subject to UCMJ due to his previous service.

I don't have the court case in question in front but there have been a couple recent cases that have affirmed that once your inactive term is up you no longer have any obligation to the military.

If there are other cases that found differently please cite.

I never said Bush was subject to a recall due exclusively to having served. I said, having served, he is open to presecution for violating the UCMJ. I cite the UCMJ:

A. 1. Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

No expiration for jurisdiction of the UCMJ is given.

If you bring me strawmen, I have no reservation against burning them.

If you could find somewhere a legal text stating explicitly that the president is subject to civilian laws, that should help, but it probably won't, even if you found such a text.

The UCMJ and civilian laws are not mutually exclusive, just as anyone who watches "Law & Order" (Donk-Donk!) knows that citizens must abide both federal and state laws.

If you could find somewhere a legal text stating explicitly that the president is subject to civilian laws, that should help, but it probably won't, even if you found such a text. I wonder if someone ever felt the need to put that in writing?

Jesus Christ, heaven-fucking-forbid the President of the United States be held to as high a standard of law as a shaven-headed high school graduate (is that even a qualification any more?) receiving instruction how to fold his goddamn underwear in basic training.

The idea of the government of the US or Britain (in V for Vendetta for example) -- two countries with a long democratic tradition -- being replaced in a coup with a tyranny seems to be a recurring theme in sci-fi and sometimes even political discussions. I find that interesting. Maybe people are looking at their democracies, and then looking at other countries that live or have lived under tyranny, and they ask themselves how come it didn't happen to us?

His line of defense would be that Congress doesn't have the power to do that.

Given that the Constitution very explicitly grants Congress the power to impeach the president, Alberto Gonzales would definitely earn his pay if he could sell that line of defense. If the House impeaches and 2/3 of the Senate votes for removal, that's it, game over, the president is removed from office. There is no appeal to such a vote in the Constitution. I would be shocked if the military brass would even want to insert themselves into such a mess by backing a clear violation of the language of the Constitution.

I am not positive that the the military wouldn't take the path of least moral anguish and do what their Commander in Chief told them to do. Following orders and all that.

But how would instituting a coup, betraying their country, and, in all liklihood, condemning themselves to infamy, jail and quite possibly execution possibly be the path of least moral anguish?

It would be interesting though, to actually have a real idea of what the troops actually on the ground feel. Not about coups--just on the war in general. For that matter, it surprises me that one does not often see major polls on military members--everyone else gets polled up teh wazoo but can anyone give me an actual scientific poll that measured how troops voted in teh last presidential election?

The idea of the government of the US or Britain (in V for Vendetta for example) -- two countries with a long democratic tradition -- being replaced in a coup with a tyranny seems to be a recurring theme in sci-fi and sometimes even political discussions. I find that interesting. Maybe people are looking at their democracies, and then looking at other countries that live or have lived under tyranny, and they ask themselves how come it didn't happen to us?

I honestly don't think most--most--of the people who say stuff like that as though it is going to happen actually believe it. Actions speak louder than words. If I thought there qwas a reasonable chance of a military dictatorship or civil war or zombie attack I'd be preparing for it. When people tell me they fully expect to hear the sound of jackbooted gestapo theocrats pounding on their doors after the Great Coup of 2008....and then tell me how great their 401 K plan is doing...I dunno, seems kind of contradictary.

Though keeping a ready supply of duct tape on hand for possible zombie outbreaks seems prudent.

The idea of the government of the US or Britain (in V for Vendetta for example) -- two countries with a long democratic tradition -- being replaced in a coup with a tyranny seems to be a recurring theme in sci-fi and sometimes even political discussions.

When people tell me they fully expect to hear the sound of jackbooted gestapo theocrats pounding on their doors after the Great Coup of 2008....and then tell me how great their 401 K plan is doing...I dunno, seems kind of contradictary.

Mussolini felt free to use the terms fascism and corporatism interchangeably. Where does it say fascism and profits are mutually exclusive? Where is the contradiction?

And there was no coup in V for Vendetta. After a nuclear war, the people embraced fascism to restore order. In Moore's introduction to the US editions of V for Vendetta, he said in the time since he started writing it, he'd become convinced a nuclear war wasn't necessary for a democracy to turn to fascism.

Micha and Mike~
I am not basing my statement on my personal reading of lines of the text. It doesn't matter how any of *us* read this text. We aren't the ones who interprit what it means. It matters what the *courts* interprit it to mean.

And to my knowledge (i.e. court cases which are readily available for revue), the courts have interprited the word *person* to refer *soley* to those who are members of the armed forces. For example, the UMCJ not imbedded reporters.

If you can find an example of a reporter or civilian contracter being subjected to the UCMJ then that would be evidence that my understanding is incorrect.

Mike~ I think I may be confused as to what you mean. You said:

"The above doesn't say "active duty serving with or accompanying..." it says "persons serving with or accompanying..." and nowhere does it say that "persons" refers exclusively to active duty military. Were you to accompany an armed force in the field during wartime, the UCMJ would apply to you."

While you started by specifying Active Duty, you ended by using the word "you". I interprited you as being a synonym for anyone, meaning anyone accompanying an armed force in the field during wartime would be subject to the UCMJ regardless of whether they were members of the armed forces.

Your next quote from the UCMJ
"A. The following persons are subject to [the UCMJ]: 1. Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it."

quote actually conmfirms my statement, which is that *you* have to be in the armed forces to be subject to the military code of justice, and that it doesn't apply to someone who has been discharged or has not joined.

I guess the question I have is, by you/persons did you mean "anyone in the armed forces, regardless of status" or "anyone accompanying an armed force in the field during wartime"

If the former I think we agree. If the latter then we don't.

Micha/Mike~
Also, I think the pertinent *legal* question isn't does it say that the President has to abide by the law. The pertinent question is does it say he doesn't have to?

Hamden v Bush, the NSA Wiretap ruling, et al have explicitly stated that the president is bound by the law. The problem, as I see it, isn't whether it's the law. It's whether Bush will abide by the rulings or just decide the executive doesn't have to listen to the courts. Gonzales is on record as saying the the Executive is the primary branch and the judiciary is simply advisory.

Bill~
There were polls done for the election and IIRC it was something like 60%-40% Bush - Kerry. The interesting part (again, IIRC) was that the breakdown of issues was significantly not pro-Bush. So there was a disconnect. Also, I believe the poll found that enlisted personell were significantly more pro-Bush than the Officer Corp. I think the Officer Corp was still slightly pro-Bush but may have actually been pro-Kerry.

I would not be surprised if even now, most would vote for Bush again. I also would not be surprised if a poll was done that found that voting paterns changed after military personel returned to civilian life. IOW, I wouldn't be surprised if a person who is currently in Iraq serving would vote for Bush, but once discharged would vote for Kerry. That is conjecture, but again loyatly to the Chain of Command runs very deep and I *suspect* a significant portion of enlisted men and women vote for the Commander in Chief regardless of who it is.

I'd be interested to see a comparison of military voting patterns from Clinton and Bush. I don't think Clinton cultivated the image as Commander in Chief. At least in my Battalian, we thought of him as the President, not the Commander in Chief and I can't remember his people pushing the Militay Leader thing like Bush does.

Again, that's all memory and conjecture and subject to being completely wrong.

Bill~

But how would instituting a coup, betraying their country, and, in all liklihood, condemning themselves to infamy, jail and quite possibly execution possibly be the path of least moral anguish?

I would see it that way sure. Heck, I would have seen it that way when I was still in the Army. And I used to believe that most of the military would too. I still hope they would. But, I just am not 100% sure anymore. Many of the incidents we've seen, specifically Abu graib and Gitmo are also incidents were the officers in charge should have stood up and stopped the torture from happening. This was not a grey area. For example, if I felt a Soldier was about to kill or torture a non-combatant I was trained to disable and disarm him or her immediately with force. Think about that. It was a big deal. It was a big enough deal I was required to take immediate action unless I felt it would endanger my own life. Yet, when push came to shove what happened? The officers in charge simply objected and requested reassignment so they could be replaced with Officers who would look the other way. It was easier than to risk their careers by refusing to obey orders that were illegal and taking action.

Bill Mulligan,

"There should be a law that any show that lasts more than 4 seasons HAS to have a Very Special Christmas episode that is a takeoff of A Christmas Carol."

See, I go the other way on that argument. I think that there should be a law that says that you can only do one of those shows if you can do it better then the last guy. Man, do I get tired of the annual parade of cliché stories based on A Christmas Carol that just suck year old eggnog.

Bobb Alfred, Pdog, Den, etc.,

I haven't been reading Mikes posts, but I have been catching everybody else's in response to Mike. Nice debate, but, for the anti-Bush crowd, pointless.

Anybody who wants to actually read the UCMJ can see it at:

www.constitution.org/mil/ucmj19970615.htm

Look for 802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

Everything in there seems to me to exclude the president.

I would also point out that we have at least one recent historical point that showed that the authority of the UCMJ does not automatically cover the President. Clinton wanted to use the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act back during the Lewinski garbage. He was told that, should he try and invoke or claim military status for himself as the ranking CiC (as he did not actually or automatically have it) as cover for himself that he would then end up making himself subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which would be far less kindly disposed to his predicament.

Moreover:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20050815.html

"Still, the notion that adultery bespeaks a general lack of trustworthiness is open to question. Certainly, those who argued that President Clinton should not have been impeached for dishonesty relating to an extra-marital affair thought otherwise: Clinton's misdeeds, they argued, were of a private rather than a public nature. (Clinton, though Commander in Chief, was not subject to military law, but note that even if he had been, he would not have been guilty of adultery, because he "did not have sex," i.e., sexual intercourse, "with that woman.")"

That's part of an article written by Michael C. Dorf, the Isidor & Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia University School of Law. I think he knows his stuff better then anybody posting here.

PDog,

"There were polls done for the election and IIRC it was something like 60%-40% Bush - Kerry. The interesting part (again, IIRC) was that the breakdown of issues was significantly not pro-Bush. So there was a disconnect. Also, I believe the poll found that enlisted personell were significantly more pro-Bush than the Officer Corp. I think the Officer Corp was still slightly pro-Bush but may have actually been pro-Kerry."

I'd love it if you could post a link to some of the military personnel. We were talking about that shortly after the election and NONE of us could find more then one poorly done poll of the military to look at. It's come up several other times outside of the blog and all I've been able to find is a Fox Non-News poll that looked as iffy as the first.

"But how would instituting a coup, betraying their country, and, in all likelihood, condemning themselves to infamy, jail and quite possibly execution possibly be the path of least moral anguish?"

"I would see it that way sure. Heck, I would have seen it that way when I was still in the Army. And I used to believe that most of the military would too. I still hope they would. But, I just am not 100% sure anymore. Many of the incidents we've seen, specifically Abu graib and Gitmo are also incidents were the officers in charge should have stood up and stopped the torture from happening."

See, I kinda think that the whacko theories about the military backing Bush (or Clinton) in a coup to take control of the U.S. is just too far fetched to be worth any lengthy debate. I also think that it sells short the integrity of the majority of the soldiers out there.

I've got too many soldier friends to think that the military would just turn its guns on their own friends, family and countrymen for Bush. And your examples kinda fall down here because those weren't atrocities inflicted on fellow Americans, they weren't as widespread and across the board as a full coup would have to be and they were done while already in an active war. It's easier to get someone to abuse an enemy that you've been fighting or that has attacked your friends, family or homeland then it is to go from zero to coup.

Besides, even Bush and his handlers would be smart enough to not go that route. Even they could see that a coup would likely split the military in half as a new American Civil War broke out. The devastation caused by the military and civilian combat wouldn't leave a whole lot to rule. And after that fight, there would be more then a few vultures waiting in the wings to try and finish the job that the loser of the Civil War started.

Great speculative fiction novel, but not very realistic.

"A. 1. Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.
No expiration for jurisdiction of the UCMJ is given."

You're wrong. The stated limitation you're seeking is right in the first sentence: "including those awaiting discharge after expiration." Implicit in that is the concept that, once you ARE discharged, military justice no longer applies. They wouldn't have had to spell it out in the first sentence if it weren't understood that "expiration" includes the end of one's being subject to those laws.

It's absurd on the face of it to think that one is indefinitely subject to military law even after one has been mustered out. It's like saying a woman is pregnant even after she's given birth.

Bush is not subject to military justice because he not in the military, period.

PAD

Bill Mulligan, it was not my intention to claim that most American actually fear an imminent coup. My (not really that important) point was to ask what does the recurrence of the theme of a the fall of democracy to tyranny tell us about American/Western culture and mass psychology. It's more a question of cultural and literary interpretation than politics. We could similarly ask what do zombie movies tell us of American culture, considering nobody expects a zombie outbreak (the blind fools)?

PDog, please don't conflate my opinons with Mike's. I certainly was not trying to support Mike's opinions on this subject -- I know too little on military law and too much about Mike -- only to tell you that discussions with Mike follow a different set of rules than you're used to. If you do not adjust -- and even if you do -- you will probably end up going around in circles. Jerry has done a better job. He found a text saying explicitly that the president is not subject to the UCMJ. It won't work either, but it is a better strategy.

On the issue of a miltary coup. It is quite true that the military mindset of blind obedience to the chain of command and deference toward authority, combined with the psychological circumstances of war and peer pressure, cause normal people to do in the military things that they would consider unthinkable in civilian life. It is also true that tyrannies have made use of that mindset in the past. History is full of examples. However, this is only one necessary ingredient for a miltary coup to occcur. I also would like to think that there are sufficient qualities of the American mindset that would stand in the way of the military mindset taking over completely in a case of a coup. But this is the question that has troubled people, and in my opinion the reason why the replacement of democracy with tyranny is such a recurrent theme in literature. But maybe the fact that people ask themselves this question is a good sign?

By the way, have there been cases of enlisted soldiers refusing to serve in Iraq for conscientious reasons? Israel has seen a movement of conscientious objection from the left and then from the right (during the withdrawl from Gaza), but the more moderates tended to continue supporting the government even when they strongly objected to its policies. During the withdrawl from Gaza I was in a car with an old Commie (literaly) whose grandson has spent some time in Jail for consientious objection, and he had some mixed feelings about the right-wing conscientious objection, since he naturally was inclined to oppose the establishment.

an Den: "Given that the Constitution very explicitly grants Congress the power to impeach the president, Alberto Gonzales would definitely earn his pay if he could sell that line of defense. If the House impeaches and 2/3 of the Senate votes for removal, that's it, game over, the president is removed from office. "

Absolutely correct.

Bill Myers: "I'm far more worried about what Bush will do in Iraq over the next two years; and about whether Congress will attempt to do something substantive to force Bush to correct course, or opt for something stupid like an unwarranted impeachment."

To quote Admiral Kirk in the first movie, "What do you view as unwarranted?" I think a situation like a President conducting a war in a way without the consent of the people and Congress is EXACTLY what they had in mind when they wrote the impeachment rules. Without the threat of unappealable impeachment, what's to stop any President from doing anything they want? Congress and the people may want to win in Iraq, but if Bush keeps ignoring their will he does it at his peril.

Jerry Chandler: "See, I kinda think that the whacko theories about the military backing Bush (or Clinton) in a coup to take control of the U.S. is just too far fetched to be worth any lengthy debate. I also think that it sells short the integrity of the majority of the soldiers out there. I've got too many soldier friends to think that the military would just turn its guns on their own friends, family and countrymen for Bush. "

On this I agree as well. For 230 years the military has fought under 43 CiCs they agree with and disagree with. I find it hard to swallow that somehow the military would regard THIS PARTICULAR President so highly as to throw away civilian control of the military.

I also think that it is highly unlikely that the military would ever think to install itself as ruler. What General would be in command? How long until that General is assasinated by a "crazy Colonel"?

Thing about democracy vs. dictatorship is that in a democracy transition from power (whether through impeachment or the ballot) doesn't end in bloodshed. I think the military would like to keep it that way.

--Captain Naraht
(Cutsy Monikers: Not just for Pikachu anymore)

We could similarly ask what do zombie movies tell us of American culture, considering nobody expects a zombie outbreak (the blind fools)?

Don't get me started.

By the way, have there been cases of enlisted soldiers refusing to serve in Iraq for conscientious reasons?
A few, though they haven't had much of an outpouring of sympathy--unlike Israel this is a purely volunteer army. Joining to get some nice student loans and other benefits and trying to bail when you ar actually expected to DO something is not likely to gain massive public support.

"Without the threat of unappealable impeachment, what's to stop any President from doing anything they want?"

Isn't it more appropriate for Congess to use the other tool at its disposal, namely cutting the funding, before it goes for impeachment?

A. 1. Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

No expiration for jurisdiction of the UCMJ is given.

You're wrong. The stated limitation you're seeking is right in the first sentence: "including those awaiting discharge after expiration." Implicit in that is the concept that, once you ARE discharged, military justice no longer applies. They wouldn't have had to spell it out in the first sentence if it weren't understood that "expiration" includes the end of one's being subject to those laws.

It's absurd on the face of it to think that one is indefinitely subject to military law even after one has been mustered out. It's like saying a woman is pregnant even after she's given birth.

Bush is not subject to military justice because he not in the military, period.

"...after expiration of their terms of enlistment," which can mean anything -- but ok. An expiration after military service is unambiguously addressed. Thank you.

Since Bush was reserve -- and numerous conditions are established to subject reservists to the UCMJ -- his being subject to the UCMJ for his having served at all is wrong regardless of this issue (which is not to say he can't be called to answer for desertion, for which there is no statute of limitation).

But if you are saying "he [is] not in the military, period" based on "including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment," from the wording, "those" doesn't necessarily include all "Members of a regular component of the armed forces..."

A corrupt e-1 enlistee can't cause anywhere near as much damage as a corrupt CinC. I'd like to hear where it says the first is held to a higher standard of law than the second (and why that should be would be nice to hear too).

And to my knowledge (i.e. court cases which are readily available for revue), the courts have interprited the word *person* to refer *soley* to those who are members of the armed forces. For example, the UMCJ not imbedded reporters.

When A. opens "The following persons are subject to [the UCMJ]" and uses such language as "A. 10. In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field," yes, I am saying an embedded reporter enjoying any protection from the US military must abide by the UCMJ. From the wording, if he's guilty as a saboteur for the Iranians, bullshit charges against adultery can be piled on. I don't think that's a bad thing (and I'm not advocating the bullshit conviction of such).

Posted by: Captain Naraht at January 31, 2007 09:13 AM

I think a situation like a President conducting a war in a way without the consent of the people and Congress is EXACTLY what they had in mind when they wrote the impeachment rules.

Congress did give consent when it passed Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502, also known as the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. The U.S. Constitution delegates the power to declare war to the Congress, but clearly gives the president the authority to determine how that war should be waged.

And no, this is decidedly not the sort of thing the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. Founding Father George Mason had argued that "maladministration" should be included in the list of impeachable offenses, but James Madison, who favored reserving impeachment for criminal behavior, won the issue.

What the president is doing is unwise, and perhaps immoral. It is, however, not criminal. And it would be unwise to use impeachment as a tool for shaping policy. To do so would open up a Pandora's Box that would hamper the ability of future presidents to lead.

Look, I am as appalled as anyone by the war in Iraq. But unless someone can find evidence that Bush's decision to invade Iraq constitutes a crime, impeachment is not the correct tool for bringing him to heel.

"A corrupt e-1 enlistee can't cause anywhere near as much damage as a corrupt CinC. I'd like to hear where it says the first is held to a higher standard of law than the second (and why that should be would be nice to hear too)."

The president is subject to civilian laws because he is a civilian. Period.

There are court cases that deal unequivocally with the issue. Here is a link to an article that discusses them:

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/13-commander-of-armed-forces.html

Micha: Isn't it more appropriate for Congess to use the other tool at its disposal, namely cutting the funding, before it goes for impeachment?

Yes. That's the whole point, whether its cutting funding or some other appropriate tool (Comprehensive Sumit, anyone?). Order the President to do the will of Congress, whatever that may be. But if cutting funding was the ONLY means to stop the war, and the President just ordered various Departments to divert funds to the war, what then?

Bill Myers: "...this is decidedly not the sort of thing the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. Founding Father George Mason had argued that "maladministration" should be included in the list of impeachable offenses, but James Madison, who favored reserving impeachment for criminal behavior, won the issue."

Impeachment should not be used frivolously and should have specific charges behind it. It would be too easy to mix the apples and oranges rules of Parlamentary vs Bi-Cameral/separate Executive. Impeachment would become a vote of confidence (as used in a Parlamentary form of government) with the word "maladministration" in the language .

Madison was looking to make a "difficult but not impossible" way to remove the President in this new non-Parlamentary government. I believe that is what Madison meant by "criminal", as well as the 2/3rds needed to impeach fits this intent. (It's not easy to get 2/3rds of the Senate agree on anything.)

--Captain Naraht
(Again with the Cutsy Monikers!)

Mike, get over yourself.

Here, you want to pull rank? I'll pull rank. So, you've had some military exposure. Service, training, whatever, I don't know and I don't care. Let me ask you this: Were you a JAG? That's Judge Advocate General for those that don't watch TV. It's the military's legal branch, the lawyers with guns. I know a bit about it because I considered applying some years ago, before I came to my senses and realized they were serious when they say that you're a soldier first, and a lawyer second. I didn't like the implications of that statement.

Saying you're an expert in the UCMJ because you were once subject to it is like saying you can brew beer because you were drunk on Miller once.

Mike, are you a lawyer? 'Cause I am. I'm trained and experienced in reading legal text an interpreting it. And let me tell you, the UCMJ is legal text. I don't have to have had training in it, be subject to it, or even have read it prior to this debate to tell you, unequivocably, the office of the president is not subject to the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. Have you ever had a basic course on the Constitution, or basic American history? The last thing the founders wanted was a military running the country. Most of the founders didn't even want a Federal armed forces. Yes, the president is the CinC, but he's not a part of the armed forces. He's not required to be trained as a soldier, he's not required to have any kind of service record or training whatsoever. He's a civilian employee of the government. And I'm pretty certain that, much like my job, any active member of the military is prohibited from running for any Federal elected office.

While I'm certain there are many things I "have my head up my ass" about, I can assure you this isn't one of them. But you can happily take your attitude and shove it up yours.

Saying you're an expert in the UCMJ because you were once subject to it is like saying you can brew beer because you were drunk on Miller once.

Line of the day.

Guys, I've been trying to keep silent about, and towards, Mike Leung. I regret having given him more attention with an unneeded attempt to vindicate myself. After all, my actions following the closure of the "A Smart Move" thread demonstrated that I am the better person.

In fact, 99 percent of the people on this board are better people than Mike. This is my final word about Mike Leung: he's beneath us, guys. He's not worth our anger, irritation, annoyance, whatever.

Suggestion? If he makes a factual error you'd like to correct, correct it without acknowledging him. He's acted poorly, and deserves to be shunned. Ignored. Forgotten about.

I generally try to ignore Mike. He's made the occasional good point. He's made more bad arguments and inflamatory comments. He may be the nicest guy in the world to hang out with, but his on-line persona is 98% jerk. But when he starts stating things that are not supported by fact, and he presents them as something he not only knows for certain, but the rest of us are idiots for questioning him, I have a hard time letting that lie. I'm not much for bullies, and when one opens up the opportunity to knock him down a peg or two, it's hard for me to resist.

Bill Myers, tthanks for the link. Very informative regardless of the circumstances.

Bob~
Well said.

I don't read him any more. It can be tempting, like when you notice that his replies come almost immediately after a posting, filling you with curiosity as to whether he is STILL demanding responses from people who have clearly stated they are uninterested in anything he has to say. I just assume that if, like the proverbial blind sqirrel, he makes a good comment, others will repeat it and it'll get out that way. Similarly, while I'm curious as to whether he had the poor judgement to tell PAD to pull his head out of his ass for having the temerity to call him wrong on his misreading of the USMJ, I know that if he did others will call him on it and I'll hear about it then.

Ignoring him clearly doesn't make him go away but it also makes it unnecessary for him to do so. Who gave me that suggestion? Sean? Thanks, bro.

Though even this much attention will only feed the neediness that is his affliction.

Here's the latest from the Decisionator:

"President Bush took aim Wednesday at lavish salaries and bonuses for corporate executives, standing on Wall Street to issue a sharp warning for corporate boards to "step up to their responsibilities" and tie compensation packages to performance."

I need to go laugh now. I'll be back some time next week.

Awww, darn. When Bush said he wanted the government to run more like a business, I was looking forward to maybe getting a managerial position where I could totally fail in my assignments, and then get a big raise and a promotion. Now he's going to ask businesses to tie pay to performance? Lying bastard..... ;)

Actually, Bill Mulligan, it was Jerry who gave you the suggestion.

And yes, I've found that even if Mike doesn't disappear, if I don't read his posts he's like a tree that falls in the woods when I'm not around to hear it. :)

It must be stated for the record that Mike did not tell PAD to to pull his head out of his ass. He told Bob. He also accepted PAD's corrections of his reading of the UCMJ when PAD wrote them. Now, personaly I think it is equally wrong to address Bob in this way, and that the opinions of Bob and PDog and the others who have addressed Mike deserve to be regarded with the same respect. But that's only my opinion.

--------------------
Back to our regularly scheduled programs:

Captain Naharat wrote:
"That's the whole point, whether its cutting funding or some other appropriate tool (Comprehensive Sumit, anyone?). Order the President to do the will of Congress, whatever that may be. But if cutting funding was the ONLY means to stop the war, and the President just ordered various Departments to divert funds to the war, what then?"

It seems to me that the questions here are:
1) If impeachment is a legitimate constitutional tool of the Congress to deal with a president whose policies they oppose?
I think Bill Myers made a good case that it isn't.

2) Is there a legitimate legal basis to impeach Bush?
I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.

3) What are the tools the constitution provides the Congress to deal with a president who follows policies they disagree with, and are those tools sufficient?
I don't know the answer to this question either. It would seem that if Bush found a way to continue with his policies despite the Congress having used all the methods at its disposal that are not impeachment, this would mean that he either (a) was bahaving badly but according to the limits of his job as outlined by the constitution; or (b) was exceeding the limits of his job as defined by the constitution, which would make it a legal and constitutional crisis.

4) Has the Congress used all the tools at its disposal to force Bush to change his policies, and if not, why?
It would seem that the Congress itself is hesitating for its own reasons to employ a more aggressive course against Bush's policies. Does that mean that the Congress is not that strongly opposed to Bush's policies? Are they afraid of public opinion were they to take more aggressive measures, or are they ignoring the will of the people who elected them as a result of other political considerations? In this case the people should direct their anger also toward the congress, as their representative.

5) What is the opinion of the people concerning Bush's policies, and what are the tools of the people to show their disapproval and to affect Bush and/or the Congress?

Micha, I knew he told someone else to do the head removal, based on what other comments said. I just wondered if he would dare use the same insult when PAD corrected him--actually, I sort of knew he wouldn't. He's arrogant to everyone else but he's smart enough to not honk off the Big Guy, one hopes.

A corrupt e-1 enlistee can't cause anywhere near as much damage as a corrupt CinC. I'd like to hear where it says the first is held to a higher standard of law than the second (and why that should be would be nice to hear too).

The president is subject to civilian laws because he is a civilian. Period.

I never said he wasn't a civilian. I cited qualifications in the UCMJ that are not exclusively military.

Sadly for you, your link does not mention the UCMJ.

Saying you're an expert in the UCMJ because you were once subject to it is like saying you can brew beer because you were drunk on Miller once.

Line of the day.

I never said I was an expert in the UCMJ, and I'm not asking anyone to take my word on anything.

Obviously the person who has to get over himself is the Lawyer™ who denies the plain English put in front of him.

I don't read him any more....

Similarly, while I'm curious as to whether he had the poor judgement to tell PAD to pull his head out of his ass for having the temerity to call him wrong on his misreading of the USMJ...

If you aren't reading me, how would you know I told anyone to "pull" his head out of his ass?

That's Totally Normal Psychology.™

"President Bush took aim Wednesday at lavish salaries and bonuses for corporate executives, standing on Wall Street to issue a sharp warning for corporate boards to "step up to their responsibilities" and tie compensation packages to performance."

Man, if the president of United States was subject to that, he'd owe us money by now!

Posted by: Micha at January 31, 2007 01:45 PM

It would seem that the Congress itself is hesitating for its own reasons to employ a more aggressive course against Bush's policies. Does that mean that the Congress is not that strongly opposed to Bush's policies? Are they afraid of public opinion were they to take more aggressive measures, or are they ignoring the will of the people who elected them as a result of other political considerations?

I think the answer is "a little from Column A, a little from Column B."

I think Congress prefers to point fingers at Bush rather than try to do anything substantive to force him to change course in Iraq. To do the latter would expose Democrats to criticism and provide political ammunition to the Republicans, and I think they want to avoid that as they gear up for the 2008 presidential race.

Second, I think there is something of a reluctance to engage in a true tug-of-war with the president while our troops are fighting overseas. I reject the idea that "supporting the troops" means refraining from criticizing the president. But a true leadership struggle between the president and Congress could leave our troops with even less of a clear direction than they have now at a time when they need a rock-solid strategy because their lives depend on it.

That said, I'm starting to believe Congress needs to engage in a power struggle with the president, even knowing the potential consequences. His actions in Iraq have left this nation less secure, have caused great suffering for the Iraqi people, and have destabilized an already unstable region of the world. I believe it is time that Congress draws its own "line in the sand."

The idea of a military coup in the US is pretty far-fetched under the current situation. We have literally thousands of generals and even among the joint chiefs, there's a lot of inter-force rivalry going on. It doesn't seem likely that a single general could command enough of the military to succeed in a take over, especially given that, as Pdog noted, respect for orders given by the commander-in-chief is deeply ingrained in the culture.

So, given that, I'd say that, hypothetically speaking, if Bush were impeached and removed from office and her refused to step down, the reaction from the military brass would be, "Call us when the VP-now-president is ready to give us our orders."

"If he makes a factual error you'd like to correct, correct it without acknowledging him. "

Yeah, sorta threw my two cents in while making it clear that I don't read Mike's posts anymore to make clear that I wouldn't be going round and round with him. Thing is, on this topic, I won't be going round and round with anybody. Civilian and Military legal scholars were dragged out of the woodwork when Clinton was in office because half the rightwing radio and TV nuts were claiming that Clinton could and should be impeached for violations of the UCMJ. They all said that the President of the United States is a civilian post and in no way falls under the UCMJ at any time. We were bombing another country during part of this debate. Some of the best minds from the civilian law schools and the military's own legal people all said the exact same thing.

These guys know more about it then likely anyone on this board will ever know. Case closed.

But thanks for the whack on the head. It's a bit like an AA meeting I suppose.

***********************************
Now for the wild breaking news of the day.
***********************************

I'm typing the above and the XM station I'm listening to (God, I love this thing) had a news report about the Libby trial. I'd already heard that there was a note that was likely in the VP's handwriting. No bombshell there. But has anyone else heard a report that court testimony today involved reading a note that was in Cheney's handwriting and clearly said that this whole Plame fiasco was at the request of Bush himself? I've gotta see how this plays out in the next two or three days. It may not matter if some moderates haven't wanted to see Bush impeached or not if this is true. If this case reveals that Bush himself ordered this, thus committing a 100% verifiable federal crime, there will be a firestorm of demands for impeachment.

Gonna be a fun February.

I'm typing the above and the XM station I'm listening to (God, I love this thing)

Somehow when I read that it came off as "I'm typing the above and the XM station I'm listening to (God,) (I love this thing)" and I thought, well, yeah, being able to hear God is well worth the $15 a month. Then I thought "maybe he means Howard Stern" but he's Sirius.

I'm looking around at the usual sources and see nothing about any bombshells at the Libby trial. On the other hand, the Aqua Teen Hunger Force almost brought Boston to its knees. http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-01-31T231338Z_01_N31216023_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-BOSTON.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Civilian and Military legal scholars were dragged out of the woodwork when Clinton was in office because half the rightwing radio and TV nuts were claiming that Clinton could and should be impeached for violations of the UCMJ.

What violation of the UCMJ would Clinton have been charged with? It seems the wingnuttery would have been grounded in charging Clinton with something there was no evidence for.

They all said that the President of the United States is a civilian post and in no way falls under the UCMJ at any time.

I never denied the president was a civilian. The UCMJ is plainly worded to not exclude civilians. What text was cited to exclude the CinC from the UCMJ?

What is this drive to deny plainly-worded English? What is this drive to keep the CinC from being held to as high a standard of law as an underwear-folding basic trainee?

One of the reasons the Senate, and not the Supreme Court, is charged with judging impeachment trials is because removing a sitting President is a political act, not a criminal one. The Constitution explicitly says that a person so removed may still be put on trial in the regular court system. That's why Ford's pardon of Nixon was controversial.

Here's a real good read on "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" from C-SPAN: http://www.c-span.org/questions/week119.htm
Some is quoted below:

Lawyers and historians are still arguing about the exact meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors," dividing into three schools of thought about the appropriate definition: (1) serious criminality evidenced by breaking existing law; (2) an abuse of office, and (3) the Alexander Hamilton standard (Federalist 65) of "violation of public trust."

The Committee further stated that historically, Congress had issued Articles of Impeachment in three broad categories: (1) exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office; (2) behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and (3) employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

"On the other hand, the Aqua Teen Hunger Force almost brought Boston to its knees."

Yeah, that's funny and scary at the same time. It's kind of nice to know that Boston PD has it together enough to deal with a citywide threat that well. It gets a little "better late then never" scary when, as they were just saying on Hardball, that Turner people have said that the things have been up for two weeks now.

"I'm looking around at the usual sources and see nothing about any bombshells at the Libby trial."

Yeah, so far since posting that I've seen lots of fun bits about the trial today, but nothing on that topic. Either I heard it wrong or the newsreader read it wrong.

Ok, maybe not.

I've been playing with various key words in the google search and I finally got two hits. One doesn't matter as it's just a link to the second.

www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml

That's the only thing I've found that's close to a news source and I've never heard of truthout.com before. I have heard of one of the writers before. Nothing bad, so I just don't know yet.

That's the only thing I've found that's close to a news source and I've never heard of truthout.com before. I have heard of one of the writers before. Nothing bad, so I just don't know yet.

The fact that one of the writers is Jason Leopold does not fill me with much confidence. I think he STILL claims that Karl Rove was indicted.

Him I hadn't really followed enough to remember. When I checked him out, amongst other places, here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Leopold

I'm pretty much dropping that bit of info into the Black Hole. Between him and that Marc Ash fellow, that's not really a rock solid type of record.

Damn.

Molly Ivins passed away a few hours ago. Partisan? Caustic? Yeah. But often funny nonetheless.

Yeah, that's too bad. I disagreed with her more often than not but she knew the value of humor.

Between her and Deb Orin I'm surprised at how some folks are able to keep working right up to the end and not give any indication of how bad things are. I knew Ivins was on her third bout with cancer but it wasn't reflected in her writing.

RIP.

Well, we have another example of watching a democracy descend into a dictatorship: Venezuela.

Chavez has basically been handed free reign to do whatever he wants. And, worse still, his people seem to be supporting it.

So, it's ridiculous to say that the same could *never* happen here. Unlikely, yes.

As for the Aqua Teen Hunger Force stuff, a picture somebody took of one of those things is now my avatar on a number of forums (when I've never used avatars before; I love that show).

But for all the stuff coming from Boston about how they're going to go after whomever is responsible, they look awfully silly when it's been said that those things have been around for a couple of weeks in TEN cities around the country, and apparently nobody thought anything of them until today.

In looking for a CinC exception to the UCMJ, I found a majority of Supreme Court Justices going on record saying Bush approved an illegal war trial, and that the illegal war trial constituted a war crime under the Geneva Convention:

4. The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.

C. Because UCMJ Article 36 has not been complied with here, the rules specified for Hamdan’s commission trial are illegal. The procedures governing such trials historically have been the same as those governing courts-martial. Although this uniformity principle is not inflexible and does not preclude all departures from courts-martial procedures, any such departure must be tailored to the exigency that necessitates it. That understanding is reflected in Art. 36(b), which provides that the procedural rules the President promulgates for courts-martial and military commissions alike must be "uniform insofar as practicable," 10 U. S. C. §836(b). The "practicability" determination the President has made is insufficient to justify variances from the procedures governing courts-martial. The President here has determined, pursuant to the requirement of Art. 36(a), that it is impracticable to apply the rules and principles of law that govern "the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts" to Hamdan’s commission. The President has not, however, made a similar official determination that it is impracticable to apply the rules for courts-martial.

Just so you know, UCMJ Article 36 is titled "PRESIDENT MAY PRESCRIBE RULES."

As far as I can tell, 36.B. says trials must be uniform and reported to congress, 36.A. was given as the president's excuse for violating 36.B., and the court rejected this excuse.

The District Court granted habeas relief and stayed the commission’s proceedings, concluding that the President’s authority to establish military commissions extends only to offenders or offenses triable by such a commission under the law of war; that such law includes the Third Geneva Convention; that Hamdan is entitled to that Convention’s full protections until adjudged, under it, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified a prisoner of war, the commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq., and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear. The D. C. Circuit reversed. Although it declined the Government’s invitation to abstain from considering Hamdan’s challenge, cf. Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738 , the appeals court ruled, on the merits, that Hamdan was not entitled to relief because the Geneva Conventions are not judicially enforceable. The court also concluded that Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1 , foreclosed any separation-of-powers objection to the military commission’s jurisdiction, and that Hamdan’s trial before the commission would violate neither the UCMJ nor Armed Forces regulations implementing the Geneva Conventions.

You are qualified for Geneva Convention protection until proven otherwise.

Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12,1949, [1955 ] 6 U..S.T.3316,3318, T.I.A.S.No.3364. The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law...

By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered 'war crimes,' punishable as federal offenses, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel. See 18 U.S.C. §2441. There should be no doubt, then, that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war as that term is used in §821.
--Anthony Kennedy

It isn't as right as holding Bush responsible for the invasion, but for those of you saying a broken law should be cited before considering Bush impeachable, you've got 2 Supreme Court Justices saying a war crime was committed in violating UCMJ Art 36 -- which is a presidential responsibility.

Also, the Washington Post (15Jan07) agrees civilians are not inherently exempt from the UCMJ:

Previously, civilians could be tried under the UCMJ only during a declared war.

This is a more restrained application of the UCMJ on civilians than I thought, since the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq don't seem to apply -- but the assertion that civilians are never subject to the UCMJ is wrong (and I still haven't found that CinC exemption).

The news story covers the expanded civilian scope of the UCMJ -- to include Afghanistan and Iraq -- written into a spending bill.

In looking for a CinC exception to the UCMJ, I found a majority of Supreme Court Justices going on record saying Bush approved an illegal war trial, and that the illegal war trial constituted a war crime under the Geneva Convention:

4. The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.

C. Because UCMJ Article 36 has not been complied with here, the rules specified for Hamdan’s commission trial are illegal. The procedures governing such trials historically have been the same as those governing courts-martial. Although this uniformity principle is not inflexible and does not preclude all departures from courts-martial procedures, any such departure must be tailored to the exigency that necessitates it. That understanding is reflected in Art. 36(b), which provides that the procedural rules the President promulgates for courts-martial and military commissions alike must be "uniform insofar as practicable," 10 U. S. C. §836(b). The "practicability" determination the President has made is insufficient to justify variances from the procedures governing courts-martial. The President here has determined, pursuant to the requirement of Art. 36(a), that it is impracticable to apply the rules and principles of law that govern "the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts" to Hamdan’s commission. The President has not, however, made a similar official determination that it is impracticable to apply the rules for courts-martial.

Just so you know, UCMJ Article 36 is titled "PRESIDENT MAY PRESCRIBE RULES."

As far as I can tell, 36.B. says trials must be uniform and reported to congress, 36.A. was given as the president's excuse for violating 36.B., and the court rejected this excuse.

The District Court granted habeas relief and stayed the commission’s proceedings, concluding that the President’s authority to establish military commissions extends only to offenders or offenses triable by such a commission under the law of war; that such law includes the Third Geneva Convention; that Hamdan is entitled to that Convention’s full protections until adjudged, under it, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified a prisoner of war, the commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq., and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear. The D. C. Circuit reversed. Although it declined the Government’s invitation to abstain from considering Hamdan’s challenge, cf. Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, the appeals court ruled, on the merits, that Hamdan was not entitled to relief because the Geneva Conventions are not judicially enforceable. The court also concluded that Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1 , foreclosed any separation-of-powers objection to the military commission’s jurisdiction, and that Hamdan’s trial before the commission would violate neither the UCMJ nor Armed Forces regulations implementing the Geneva Conventions.

You are qualified for Geneva Convention protection until proven otherwise.

Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12,1949, [1955 ] 6 U..S.T.3316,3318, T.I.A.S.No.3364. The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law...

By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered 'war crimes,' punishable as federal offenses, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel. See 18 U.S.C. §2441. There should be no doubt, then, that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war as that term is used in §821.
--Anthony Kennedy

It isn't as right as holding Bush responsible for the invasion, but for those of you saying a broken law should be cited before considering Bush impeachable, you've got 2 Supreme Court Justices saying a war crime was committed in violating UCMJ Art 36 -- which is a presidential responsibility.

Also, the Washington Post (15Jan07) agrees civilians are not inherently exempt from the UCMJ:

Previously, civilians could be tried under the UCMJ only during a declared war.

This is a more restrained application of the UCMJ on civilians than I thought, since the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq don't seem to apply -- but the assertion that civilians are never subject to the UCMJ is wrong (and I still haven't found that CinC exemption).

The news story covers the expanded civilian scope of the UCMJ -- to include Afghanistan and Iraq -- written into a spending bill.

The Aqua Teen Hunger Force thing is just plain bizarre. I can't believe that a major media corporation would authorize such a promotion without clearing it with the city government first. That's just stupid any time, but particularly in the post-9/11 era.

I got Sirius for Christmas last month.

NPR is excerpting Aqua Teen.

It's good to know the occupation of Iraq has narrowed Osama bin Laden's window of opportunity to bomb the bridges of every major US city down to a measely couple of weeks.

"Obviously the person who has to get over himself is the Lawyer™ who denies the plain English put in front of him."

Heh, I'm still laughing at that one. Legal reformers have been trying for decades to get laws writting in plain English. So far as I know...and judging from all the recent statues and regulations I've seen enacted over the past 10 years, it hasn't taken.

Word of advice. Never mention the "plain English" interpretation of a law to a lawyer again. Well, then again, if it's an elderly, portly lawyer, and you with to kill him, go ahead. The fit of laughter he'll be caught in just might do him in.

I don't know that anyone's every claimed that the CinC, or any civilian, are always exempt from the UCMJ...just that there's nothing about the office of president that makes the person holding that office inherantly subject to the UCMJ. As I read it, the intent of such provisions, like the on about people accompanying the military, is to make those people serving alongside the military subject to the UCMJ. I don't think it litteraly means accompanying. Just by traveling along with a platoon doesn't mean you're subject to the UCMJ. If you take up arms and actually serve alongside them, then I'd say the UCMJ applies to you.

Essentially, the president isn't subject to the UCMJ just because he visits a base, or a carrier. Technically speaking, and by a "plain English" application, he's accompanying them when he does these things. But not under the terms and spirit of the UCMJ.

Now, when Bill Pullman's president gets in an F-18 and flies off to fight aliens in Independance Day, he and all those other civilian pilots are taking military action alongside active members of the military. All those folks would be subject to the UCMJ.

That's just stupid any time, but particularly in the post-9/11 era.

Probably, but the reaction out of Boston is just insane, talking about throwing everybody they can in jail and all that nonsense.

10 cities had these things, and nobody reacted save in Boston. Makes you wonder if it's something in the water or what.

Either way, their stupidity with their reaction to this has given ATHF far more publicity than their actual ad campaign. What a surprise.

True, but given how paranoid most major US city governments have become after 9/11, it was entirely predictable that at least one city would overreact the way that Boston did. That makes this decisions by Turner/TimeWarner all the more baffling. You'd think the world's largest media conglomerate would have a legion of high-priced lawyers on staff to warn against stupid things like this.

Don't most cities have ordinances about advertizing displays?

I agree that Boston has only itself to blame for this. Advertising goes up all the time. Recently, in our patrolled, gated parking lot exclusivey for Federal employees, someone walked in an put flyers on everyone's car for some phone psychic. Security totally missed it.

But no one freaked out and demanded her arrest, either. I don't think there are any "no tresspassing" signs anywhere, but there are warnings that you're entering a Federal facility, subject to search, etc.

If Boston has some permitting requirements that were violated, fine the folks responsible. But to arrest people because the police freaked out? Or to present them with a bill for the OT? Please. If the terrorists have us seeing bombs in every ashcan, traschcan, mailbox, or new sign, and then arresting the people who put those things there, then the terrorists have well and truly beaten us.

He's a civilian, and the UCMJ only applies to members of the military....

I don't have to have had training in it, be subject to it, or even have read it prior to this debate to tell you, unequivocably, the office of the president is not subject to the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. Have you ever had a basic course on the Constitution, or basic American history?

...the Washington Post (15Jan07) agrees civilians are not inherently exempt from the UCMJ:

Previously, civilians could be tried under the UCMJ only during a declared war.

I don't know that anyone's [ever] claimed that the CinC, or any civilian, are always exempt from the UCMJ...

How well has that "A" in Basic American History™ served you, Counselorr?

Almost, Mike, but no dice. Context is critical. My comment was in response to your assertion that the CinC was subject as a normal matter of course to the UCMJ. I don't say he's "never" subject to it. Just that he's "not" subject to it in the context of our conversation.

Under very specific facts, which I've already provided one fictional example of, the president, or any other civilian, can be subject to the UCMJ. Essentially when they are voluntarily serving a military function alongside active military units.

I do wonder, however, how you justify your statements to the effect that the UCMJ is a higher standard than civilian criminal and civil law. I'll admit I don't know much about the UCMJ, or the military courts overall. What I do know is that they are different courts, not better, not worse, not universally more strict, nor universally more lenient, than public courts. You've repeatedly suggested that the private courts the president is normally subject to are held to a lower standard than the UCMJ. Is that just an opinion?

By the way, I never had basic American history outside of what you get before you reach high school. I placed out of that requirement. I did, however, rate an A in Government, which studied the foundations of the Constitution. Oh, and there's the whole Constitutional Law thing, which you can't really do with any sense of meaning unless you study the founding of the country.

"You'd think the world's largest media conglomerate would have a legion of high-priced lawyers on staff to warn against stupid things like this."

Yeah, especially since this isn't the first time this has happened in the last year. Didn't we do this with an MI:3 add campaign on some magazine or newspaper vending machines? That should have popped up in their brains while they were mapping out this ad campaign. And wasn't there also something with a subway station in the last couple of years?

They also should have marked the things somehow. This may have been only the first part of an ad campaign so it may deserve a little benefit of the doubt, but, even having seen a few episodes of ATHF, was that really a good ad piece as-is? I mean, the first picture I saw of one of these ad pieces was Space Invaders. Yeah, I'm showing my age.

Just a little extra something added to the front design of these things or a printed ownership tag by Turner on the front (not lit up so as not to interfere with the display itself) may have gone a long way towards avoiding this.

Still, while nice to see what BPD can do in a crunch if needed, the overreaction was foolish. And the desire to jam up the two guys hired to put the things up with planting hoax devices (basically saying that they put up fake bombs with the intent to terrify) is just stupid. Fine them for the ads they placed in areas where you're prohibited from posting such things, but, other then that, chill out.

Bobb Alfred,

I offer you the greatest gift I ever gave myself and then passed on to Bill Mulligan before you. It's the Planet M shield. When you use it, if you use it, you acquire the ability to skip entire blog segments that start with:

Posted by Mike at...

and begin reading again at...

Posted by (anyone else) at....

You'll find that you get less frustrated here and that the absence of knowledge of such posts will cause your faith in the overall intelligence of mankind as a species to slowly begin to regain its strength.

Up to you.

I agree that the BPD and the city government had overreacted to this case. But, as you noted this is not the first time someone had overreacted to a guerrilla marketing campaign. I can't imagine that while they were coming up with this plan, no one in the marketing department raised a hand and said, "Can anyone just hang something from a bridge? Maybe we should check to see if you need a permit."

Den, I'm sure that person was laughed at, and made to buy the next round of coffee and donuts.

Mike, the UCMJ doesn't apply to the president because he's not a member of the military. He's the commander, yes, through the constitution, but he's not a member, period. Not active, not a volunteer, not anything that's subject to the UCMJ. He's a Federal Employee, pretty much the same as me, only I didn't have to get voted into my job. He's a civilian, and the UCMJ only applies to members of the military....

Mike, are you a lawyer? 'Cause I am. I'm trained and experienced in reading legal text an interpreting it. And let me tell you, the UCMJ is legal text. I don't have to have had training in it, be subject to it, or even have read it prior to this debate to tell you, unequivocably, the office of the president is not subject to the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. Have you ever had a basic course on the Constitution, or basic American history?

Almost, Mike, but no dice. Context is critical. My comment was in response to your assertion that the CinC was subject as a normal matter of course to the UCMJ. I don't say he's "never" subject to it. Just that he's "not" subject to it in the context of our conversation.

only, adj.

1. unquestionably the best : PEERLESS
2. • alone in a class or category : SOLE <the only one left> <the only known species>
   • having no brother or sister <an only child>
3. FEW <one of the only areas not yet explored>

unequivocal, adj.

1. leaving no doubt : CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS
2. UNQUESTIONABLE

You used words that allowed for no exceptions, and you said for yourself you made up your mind without reading any of the UCMJ the president was exempt from it.

If we aren't supposed to go by anything you say -- what are you doing here?

But when he starts stating things that are not supported by fact, and he presents them as something he not only knows [unequivocally], but the rest of us are idiots for questioning him, I have a hard time letting that lie. I'm not much for bullies, and when one opens up the opportunity to knock him down a peg or two, it's hard for me to resist.

I'm not asking anyone to take my word for anything.

Who's the bully, the guy not asking you to take his word for anything, or the guy denying he posted what we can all plainly see he posted?

Hey, I can play that way, too.

"I'm not asking anyone to take my word for anything."

Mike, the text of the UCMJ doesn't support your view. In the absence of textual or factual support for your opinion, all we're left with is your word.

I'll grant you this, plainly read my words did leave no room for exceptions. But I'll stick to the meaning of my words. Unless you're a member of the military, however that association is created, the UCMJ does not apply to you. Even the section you site, Section 802 Article 2 a(10), supports me, and not you. That section reads "(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field." Persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field are defacto members of the military. Maybe you don't get that from a "plain English" reading of the UCMJ, but from the entire Section 802 Article 2, it's clear that the intent is for the UCMJ to extend only to members of the military, and those otherwise (such as prisoners) subject to the jurisdiction of the UCMJ.

Just for clarification, I didn't reach this conclusion without reading the UCMJ. What I said was that I hadn't read it prior to this debate. In fact, I did read the entire Section 802 Article 2 prior to making a post about this.

Look, Mike, it's sometimes fun to spar with you, but at some point it just loses its appeal. If this were being scored as a debate, the judges would have called it on account of the Mercy Rule. I've refuted your contention that the president is subjec to the UCMJ. While you haven't really continued to press that point, you've not conceeded, either. At best, the closest you have come to winning any issues is pinning me as saying that the UCMJ doesn't apply to civilians, ever. For the record, I didn't say that, and I would say that anyone subject to the UCMJ is a defacto member of the military anyway, just that the provisions had to be drafted so broadly to ensure that they covered any contingency for how any individual wound up serving with the military.

"I can't imagine that while they were coming up with this plan, no one in the marketing department raised a hand..."

Yeah, I didn't write it as clearly as I could have. I was talking about the marketing people when I pointed out that the past oopsy should have popped into somebody's brain while coming up with this.

Those guys should get a bigger pop upside the head the the two guys in Boston.

Here, I'll prove how paranoid I am...for those that don't already know.

Seeing as how these things were sitting around for two weeks, and no one seemed to notice or car...I bet you it was the Ad folk themselves that called the police, in order to generate some free publicity. They probably called up and said "I think I saw a bomb."

Mike, the text of the UCMJ doesn't support your view. In the absence of textual or factual support for your opinion, all we're left with is your word.

A. The following persons are subject to [the UCMJ]: 1. Members of a regular component of the armed forces...

As far as the president is a person, and congress gives the president command over all military, yes, UCMJ qualification A.1. includes the president.

Then I found the WaPo article and took it at its word:

Previously, civilians could be tried under the UCMJ only during a declared war.

We aren't in a declared war as understood by this statement. And I'm not going to presume the changes in applying the UCMJ mentioned in the article make the president more vulnerable to prosecution.

See? I'm not asking anyone to take my word for anything.

I've refuted your contention that the president is subjec to the UCMJ.

You did no such thing. You said, "He's a civilian, and the UCMJ only applies to members of the military." According to the WaPo quote, you were Wrong,™ and Wrong™ doesn't refute anything.

Here's a new question:

Is the Decisionator still trying to get a woodie over Iran?

Here's a better question - Why, given the amount of comics-related subjects to comment about on this site currently, do you choose to find a thread that petered out two weeks ago and make such an immature statement about a situation that is serious? What flavor of Kool-Aid is your favorite?

Why, given the amount of comics-related subjects to comment about on this site currently, do you choose to find a thread that petered out two weeks ago and make such an immature statement about a situation that is serious

Because I didn't want to post something unrelated to those topics in those threads?

Considering how often threads are posted here about Bush and his policies, actions, etc, it seemed totally appropriate to at least post it in a Bush-related thread.

It's too bad you have a problem with that.

But if you like, next time I'll just post it in the first available thread.

Bush is an idiot, and he's trying to start ANOTHER war. Yet, you get pissy over my supposed immaturity.

Maybe you should take it out on the Chimp in Chief, instead of those offering valid criticism.

The war in Iraq is a total failure. So what does Bush do? He goes on and on about Iran.

Brilliant. Bloody fucking brilliant.

What flavor of Kool-Aid is your favorite?

Take the rod that's shoved up your ass and give it a good yank. It's obviously interfering with your higher brain functions.