Warriors Expect Congress To Lead
Supporting the troops means giving warriors a new Commander in Chief.
If Congress views political disputes in Iraq should be solved with combat forces, the world's foreign fighters may heed the leadership of Congress and impose a military solution to America's failed political process.
Members of Congress must comprehend their leadership failure, in refusing to legally remove from office an incompetent President, reasonably inspires foreign fighters to wage war. Members of Congress, by refusing to confront the President, are creating conditions which increases the prospect that America is not protected.
This foreseeable outcome is contrary to the oath of office and the basis to lawfully prosecute Members of Congress for defying their oath of office.
The Commander in Chief has failed. He is not competent.
The oath of office requires the Constitution be protected and preserved, which means ensuring the Constitution remains in a superior position, not in an inferior one.
___ If Members of Congress, who have freely taken an oath to protect the Constitution, refuse to ensure the Constitution remains the superior document, why should the troops support the Constitution?
The troops, like Congress, took an oath, not to the President, but to the Constitution. They are not required, and are prohibited from, following illegal orders.
If members of Congress do not impose discipline on the Commander in Chief, the troops will get the wrong message: That the Congress does not take the Constitution seriously.
Warriors expect the leadership to competently lead. When the leadership fails, the warriors are not obligated to obey reckless commanders, whether they are actively incompetent through recklessness; or whether they refuse to credibly impose discipline on the President.
Members of Congress took an oath to do their job. the oath is there to bind them to do what they would otherwise not voluntarily do: Something that is inconvenient, difficult, or not easy to do.
Congress must do what is difficult: Lawfully remove the President from power; and give warriors a leader, not an incompetent.
Leadership means accountability. This means holding civilian and military leaders accountable for war crimes and illegal warfare. Warriors expect members of Congress to be held to the same standard as the Commander in Chief: Do they, or do they not fully assert their oath to Protect the Constitution.
Warriors take an oath to the Constitution, not to a party, leader, or branch of the service. It is legally irrelevant whether their personal loyalty lies with their unit, service, or their peers in combat. The oath to the Constitution must be above all things.
I would prefer for the Senate to invite the DoD General Counsel to discuss at an open hearing the status of the 5100.77 Laws of war Program, and outline the training of troops on their oath of office.
The message to the troops is simple: Congress will compel the DoD General Counsel to the carpet to explain why the Department of Defense appears to have a problem understanding their oath does not lie with the President, only with following his lawful orders.
The test will be whether Congress does or does not compel the Department of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to recommit to their oath to the Constitution; or whether their loyalty lies to something else.
The burden of proof is on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all Combatant Commanders to prove they remain loyal to the Constitution first, and all other loyalties are secondary. After they've demonstrated their commitment to the Constitution, we might have a discussion about what their combat objectives might or might not be in Iraq.
The Senior Flag Officers in the Pentagon have a problem. It is clear they have failed. They have been reporting non-sense.
Consider the following lines of evidence, showing that the reports from Iraq are not consistent with reality:
RefWe have an Air Force Brigadier General telling, not asking, American civilians to embrace a generation of warfare. Incorrect General, we tell you; you do not tell us.
Ref We have a new ground commander in Iraq, Lt. General Patreaus, who is riding on an illusory success story. the truth is the Iraqi troops are not able to fully do the job at the levels required. The General is not qualified nor trained to wage combat in a civil war.
Ref We have a General whose son lost his limb in combat making absurd forecasts about Iraq which are not supported.
Ref We have a Marine Captain making e-mails who tell us the issues on the ground are not what we've been led to believe.
Ref We have Member of Congress how have known about illegal warfare, but did nothing about the gaps in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports.
Ref We have members of Congress who have been arguably complicit with war crimes in failing to prevent funding to illegal activity.
Ref Ref NeoCons have gone into denial mode about the use of force to impose a foreign system of governance.
Ref The President has brought into the nexus a former Verizon lobbyist because the NSA legal violations could warrant the President's removal.
Another Presidential Smokescreen: Evidence of Incompetence
Each of the above indictes the President is creating a false picture of what is or is not working; and whether the changes in leadership are or are not going to work. There is no change in approach: It's the same defective approach to a non-military solution.
The President is doing more of the same. Congress fails to challenge this reality, and pretends that something new might be happening. There is nothing new: The same incompetent Commander in Chief is creating more non-sense, and smokescreens. Ref This is not leadership, but a legal defense.
The Congress needs to let the President wage his legal defense elsewhere. Either the President is going to squarely face responsibitily for what he has done; or he's going to spend his time defending himself.
Either way, the President is not able to do his job -- he has neither the time, competence, nor expertise to successfully continue his work as Chief Executive or Commander in Chief. This has nothign to do with a Congressional distraction, but a long string of abuses which the President must be challenged.
Big Picture
Now for the bad news. The Commander in Chief is unfit to command. The way forward is for Congress to remove this President. The troops have no reason to maintain any confidence in this President.
This nation entered Iraq on the basis of false pretenses. The military leadership failed. We no longer have a problem that can be solved using the profession of arms.
Warriors are led into battle to engage and defeat enemies. They are not there to contain civil wars. Civil wars are not a military problem for US combat forces to resolve.
The problems for the US military to have solved never existed. The US did not legally enter Iraq; and their mission was never lawful.
This late in the game, the president may not lawfully come to the Congress or American public, hat in hand, asking for more confidence or supp9ort. His leadership is the problem. Changing his subordinate commanders is not the solution.
Warriors expect to be led competently in battle. This Commander in Chief is incompetent, there is no battle, and the warriors are not being led. They are being abused.
American warriors have exercised restraint. Arguably, there might have been a coup to lawfully remove the President, and bring about new competent civilian leadership. This has not happened.
The way forward is for Members of Congress to digest the problem: The problem is in the White House. Iraq is not the problem, but a symptom.
Before going into details of what warriors should reasonably expect, it deserves comment what Members of Congress can reasonably expect if the needed change in the White House is not forthcoming.
Members of Congress have a decision: Are they going to fully assert their oath, and ensure the Constitution is the first thing on all agendas; or will they, by inaction, accept that they are part of the problem, and can no longer justify confidence of the American people.
The resolution to this problem is not 2008. The resolution is for Members of Congress to decide whether they will assert their oath; or whether they will or will not be lawfully prosecuted for 5 USC 3331 violations -- not doing their moral best to put the Constitution first.
Succinctly, there are legal options to resolve this issue.
Congress must find a new commander in Chief for the Armed Forces. Without action, Congress may be lawfully destroyed as an institution through a New Constitution, and transformed into something which removes discretion where there is an obligation: To protect the Constitution.
The existing oath is clear. The lack of clarity is only in the mind of the individual member of Congress: Will they do or not do what they should to preserve the Constitution, and ensure it remains the number one priority in the minds of all warriors. Congress has no power to let the Constitution decay or take second seat to an incompetent Commander in Chief.
The superiority of the Constitution takes first seat over all commanders in Chief; the placement issue does not change, only becomes more pronounced when the superior Constitution is contrasted with the self-evidently inferior President.
Warriors can reasonably expect the American population, working in concert with fact finders, to competently target for lawful removal all Members of Congress who fail to compel the Commander in Chief to be accountable for his incompetence.
Members of Congress, until they fully assert their oath, and find a new commander in Chief, shall be reasonably presumed to be in an unlawful rebellion and insurrection against the Constitution. This does not mean that the warriors in Americas fighting units have a duty to wage war against Congress; rather, it means the warriors can reasonably be expected to make a similar choice: Are they or are they not fully supporting the Constitution; or are they joining Congress in this illegal rebellion against the Constitution.
The line in the sand is the US Constitution. There is no debate. The American people and the Constitution are on one side of that line.
On the other side of the line is the US government -- Congress, the President, and warriors.
This is not a call for warriors to take up arms and engage in a coup; nor a call for them to violently overthrow or destroy Congress. Rather, combatant commanders must comprehend the American people and Constitution expect you to fully assert your oath and defend either this Constitution or a New One.
Once the New Constitution is approved, you shall be required to swear your oath to that New Constitution. We the People shall not give you a choice whether you support the old one or the New one; your only requirement is that you renew your commitment to the New Constitution.
If you would prefer something that will not work, or his not enforced, then you are free to make your choice: Implicitly arguing that you be called what you are -- An enemy of the US Constitution.
We the People are not allowed to engage in insurrection, rebellion, or violent revolution. But we can lawfully delegate to others the power to enforce the Geneva Conventions. Members of Congress, warriors, and the commander in Chief -- when they refuse to honor the Geneva Conventions -- may be lawfully targeted by foreign fighters under the principle of reciprocity.
We the People have the power to lawfully wage war against the American Government through proxies. Warriors must decide whether you will continue attempting what is not possible -- using force and military power to solve a problem that is not solvable -- or whether you will voluntarily stay in your barracks to permit We the People to lawfully compel a resolution.
Succinctly, warriors you have no role to play in these domestic issues. Should you take up arms to defend the President against accountability; or protect Members of Congress for lawful consequences for their failure to assert their oath; or in any way obstruct lawful investigation into the President's failures, you may be legally targeted under the laws of war through our proxies.
This is not a threat, nor is it a promise of violence. It is a guarantee that unless you fully assert your oath, you shall be legally targeted by foreign fighters in open combat. We the People may legally delegate this power to any proxy we choose.
Your choice is between this Constitution or a New Constitution. Warriors have no final say whether the President or Members of Congress do or do not give you infinite weapons; or whether they cut your funding. Your job is to obey Our Will as expressed through Congress.
You may not lawfully engage in continued combat operations when the Congress shuts down funding; and you may not lawfully use non-appropriated funds to wage war not intended to be waged. You may not legally rely on any precedent from the Iran-Contra Affair permitting you to wage war outside what Congress permits.
___ Who in Congress is talking about the Article IV Section 4 guarantee to the States of a Republican form of government?
Where the guarantee is not fulfilled, there is no preservation. The role of warriors is not to enforce the Constitution on Members of Congress; but to ensure Members of Congress know there is lawful force behind the Judicial Power lawfully delegated through 5 USC 3331: The oath shall be asserted, not explained away.
Congressional inaction on removal of the President is a catalyst for a New Constitution and a transformation of the US government. Members of Congress can lawfully prosecuted by State Attorney Generals for not preserving the state's right to an enforcement mechanism, Article IV Section 4.
Malfeasance and inaction on issues of war crimes can be prosecuted. Members of Congress can be prosecuted for failing to enforce Title 28 and Title 50.
It is a defiance of one's oath for Members of Congress to permit an incompetent to remain in office; or for refusing to find a new leader.
DoJ, the US Attorneys, the Executive Branch, the President, and Members of Congress have refused to assert their oath, and enforce the law. The States' Attorney Generals have a power and duty to litigate against US government officials for this Constitutional violation.
It is meaningless for the President to suggest these military questions are new. What is new is the US government, despite the lessons of fighting insurgencies in Vietnam, the Revolutionary War, and in the Spanish-American war, have incompetently applied the lessons of insurgencies to an insurgency.
Today's problem in 2007 is that we no longer have an insurgency in Iraq, but a civil war. Whether the US applies WWII methods of combat using conventional forces, or insurgency tactics is irrelevant: Both approach are not suited to issues military forces are not designed to remedy: Internal political issues.
The error was for the US military combatant commanders to permit military force to be used illegally; then not resigning when military force was illegally applied to an internal political issue.
The way forward is not to embrace more flawed plans from the incompetent leader, but to find a new leader. This leader has denied the States of their guarantee to a republican form of government; refused to enforce the laws against Members of Congress; and has refused to assent to the needed changes in his leadership.
There are consequences for the troops if they do not get a new Commander in Chief. Warriors expect a clear answer:
___ Why was the NSA being illegally used to violate the Constitution before Sept 2001?
___ What information did the Commander in Chief have, that he did not share with his troops prior to Sept 2001, that made it a requirement to violate the Constitution?
___ How can the Commander in Chief credibly argue that 9-11 "changed everything," when the illegal activity started prior to Sept 2001?
This President has no plans to provide answers to the warriors. It is reasonable for warriors to presume that the Congress and President do not respect the Constitution, and that the warriors are being given a poor example.
This is not appropriate.
____ Why did Negroponte not want to support expanded White House NSA illegal activity?
Warriors have a reasonable basis to ask what legal issues the civilian leadership had not resolved; otherwise, they run the risk of following illegal orders. Warriors have a duty to find out, question, and demand an answer: What illegal activity are they being asked to support without being given the full information.
Warriors do not have an oath to obey illegal orders, especially when it is openly clear that the orders are not lawful; and there is well known disagreement related to the legality of those orders.
Members of Congress have a duty to resolve this legal issue. The answer is not to compromise on the rule of law; but to impose the rule of law.
Until Members of Congress legally remove this Commander in Chief, warriors will have a poor example and an understandable contempt for Congress and the US Constitution. IN the mind of the warriors, Congress is putting the warrior in an untenable position -- a mission without the support.
Warriors need to be educated that their leadership is giving them a false choice. The President is telling American citizens that unless they support the President, they aren't supporting the troops.
All warriors and Members of Congress must make a distinction between these separate issues:
Your mission is not to obey illegal orders; nor is it to support unlawful activities. Warriors may not put their loyalty to an illegal mission before their loyalty to the Constitution.
Whether the Commander in Chief is or is not supported has no bearing on whether the mission is or is not fulfilled. The warriors cannot be told that their mission hinges on the American public's support of the President.
Rather, the American public support is only with the Constitution; whether the warriors are with or against that Constitution is a legal issue, one which they have no legal discretion to choose, but have freely chosen to make with the oath.
The Importance of the Distinctions
Let's review the distinctions which Members of Congress have unreasonably mixed.
(1) Illegal warfare is question of law and a legal issue.
(2) Troops are tools which require management.
(3) The President has a responsibility and position to assert his oath.
(4) Impeachment is a legal consequence.
Supporting the troops means challenging the management, ensuring it is ably leading warriors on legal missions.
The President, by getting Congress to parrot "support the troops" is getting Congress to argue, "If we are going to support the troops, we must support their leader."
Incorrect.
Failing to change the President sends the incorrect signal to warriors -- that they do not have to do the right thing, and that they do not have the right management; rather, it incorrectly sends the signal that we are going to force the warriors to assent to the wrong leadership for the illegal mission.
Supporting the troops means giving warriors leaders who are competent, not those who make excuses. Until the troops see that Congress is willing to impose discipline, the troops can reasonably conclude the Constitution is in a secondary position to that the warriors have incorrectly placed at a higher position: Their loyalty to support their peers in an illegal, unwinnable deployment in a non-military-related issue: Internal civil war.
Warriors cannot be confused about their mission; nor can they be confused about their loyalty. The Congress has the responsibility to lead, find new leadership for warriors, and clarify the leadership.
Removing Rumsfeld only changed the person who was speaking the wrong message; the correct approach is to find a new President who will speak the correct message: The rule of law shall be first.
Laws exist as boundaries. They are not there to be ignored. had the rules of evidence been applied to the 2002-pre-Iraq invasion debates, the answer would have been simple: There is no credible basis for using combat forces in Iraq against targets which have not been precisely determined to be an imminent threat.
The laws of war requiring an imminent threat creates two things: A high barrier to using force; and a legal justification and defense for that use of force.
When the laws are ignored to justify illegal force, the issue is not only whether the force was or was not legally used, but what else wasn't done.
The law exists not as a barrier to leadership, but as a hurdle for leadership to demonstrate that the appropriate action is to use force, and end non-combat options.
Similarly, this Commander in Chief ignored the laws on warrants, and has illegally detained American civilians without getting warrants or offering them, as required, access to counsel.
The speed to fight an enemy has led some warriors to believe that the President can ignore the law; and that the Congress should remain silent so that the warriors can do their work. This is muddled thinking. The Judge Advocates have let down American's warriors.
The correct thinking is to review the legal issue: When did the Combatant commanders learn there was no WMD; and when they knew the invasion was illegal, why did they not refuse to obey illegal orders?
The burden is on the Congress to explain why it has not impeached Military Commanders for having defied their oath, waged illegal warfare, and mislead America's warriors.
It is contrary to the oath to permit the Constitution to take a second seat or an inferior secondary position.
When Members of Congress show no regard for the Constitution, there is no reason any warrior should do what Congress refuses to do -- assert their oath; nor should warriors believe that they should or should not do something that Congress will not do.
yet, this is incorrect thinking. The problem is the poor example of Members of Congress: The refusal to assert their oath and find a new leader who is competent. Until Congress asserts their oath, Members of Congress should not be confused why warriors refused to assert theirs.
The decision not to assert one's oath, as they related to matters of war crimes, could be adjudicated to be a subsequent war crime.
Because of the poor example of Congress, warriors are put in an illegal, unwinnable mission before the prudence of that mission; and before the accountability for the failure which belongs on the back of the President. Rewarding him with more troops in a non-military issue is not the solution; the way forward is to give the warriors a new leader, and leave the non-military problems to non-warriors.
Congress may not permit the Constitution to be inferior. By taking the oath, Congress agrees to be bound to do things that it might not voluntarily want to do. This is why an oath is taken: To compel action that some would otherwise not do.
if Congress is not willing to be bound by their oath, and fully assert all lawful options to keep the Constitution in its superior position, then Members of Congress are defying their oath, and could be prosecuted under 5 USC 3331.
US Attorneys do not have sole power over whether the law is or is not enforced. Rather, the way forward is for warriors to contact their State Attorney Generals and encourage the legal authorities to lawfully target for prosecution Members of Congress who refuse to assert their oath.
America has a Constitution. If Americans and warriors want the Constitution, you must work to protect that document by asserting the powers of the Constitution.
Warriors have no choice. We the People have a choice -- We can silently permit this Constitution to decay; or we can create a New Constitution to replace it. The way forward is to assert this Constitution, and compel all Americans to stand up for it, and confront the President.
Congress says there is no infinite horizon for US support for Iraq. Similarly, there cannot be an infinite horizon for support of this President. We are not required to wait until 2009 to get a new President; nor is Congress required to wait until 2009 to get a change in Iraq. Change means changing now.
America does not have infinite time to waste on whether the President will or will not support Congress; or whether he will or will not assent to the Constitution. Change means giving the warriors of America new leadership now, not waiting until the calendar changes.
Supporting the troops means removing an incompetent President. Iraq is a symptom of
A. a failure of Congress to impose discipline on the President;
B. an incompetent President.
The way forward is to remind the world: Congress is either with accountability, or it is not. Until the President is lawfully removed from office, all warriors can reasonably expect more enabling of this incompetent Commander in Chief.
Warriors need to see consequences and discipline.
Professional warriors win battles. Unprofessional warriors lose battles. Leaders put warriors into battle and support them to win. Incompetent leaders refuse to expose warriors to problems unique to the military.
The US military has been illegally rewarded with an incompetent Commander in Chief. Where there was no imminent threat, the President removed a head of state. America's leadership in Congress should lawfully remove this head of state.
Congress has let down the troops. Rather than removing them from an illegal objective, the insurgency has spiraled into a civil war -- something American warriors have no place.
The situation in Iraq is not a military issue, but an issue of civil society. The US need s to go to all regional actors, preferably at the UN, and put aside differences, and ask for support of the Iraqis. This means inviting the Russians, Chinese, Syrians, and Iranians in to the discussions. Congress should not do what the Russians and Chinese refuse to do -- solve the Iraqi problem. The world is not in a position to respond, nor required to bail out the Untied States.
What Warriors Need
Warriors need to hear and understand:
(1) The President, as Commander in Chief, is not competent and should be replaced
(2) Warriors need leaders to end deployment of troops in an unwinnable situation;
(3) The way forward is to punish those who obeyed illegal orders and design a system that will prevent this from happening
Warriors need to know:
(4) There is plan to mange the President now in January 2007; not give him a free ride until 2009;
(5) Supporting the troops means lawfully removing a defective Commander in Chief who should not be President;
(6) It is not reasonable to put political goals of 2009 before the needed leadership changes in 2007.
Discipline means respecting the law, even if we disagree with that law; and imposing consequences on the President, even during wartime.
Congress must be seen as taking action to oversee and impose discipline; or Congress will be seen as part of the problem.
Congressional oversight means demonstrating competence and responsibility. Consequences, accountability, and leadership requires enforcing the boundaries outlined in the Constitution.
The law is a boundary and must be enforced; oversight means asking questions, not writing a blank check to let the President muddle around until 2009.
Consequences mean imposing credible solutions. The non-sense leadership must be challenged, and the reckless goals changed, especially when they compel warriors to follow an incompetent. Funding should be shut off to the President. There can be no blank checks. He may be the Commander in Chief, but he does not have the discretion to argue that, in supporting the troops, he, as commander in Chief, should be given anything. He should be shown the door, not given any more checks.
Example for Warriors
Congress is enabling the inappropriate actions. It is not appropriate for Congress to redefine the boundaries to accommodate illegal activity. Congress is not setting an appropriate example.
Had the law, as a boundary been respected:
- US troops would not have been given direction that accommodated war crimes;
- US forces would not have treated prisoners as to inspire insurgents
Facts and evidence, not assertions, would have been behind the decision to use force. By ignoring the law, and not enforcing it, Congress has not legally permitted a new standard; but abused its power: Not doing what should be done; and letting other abuses go unchecked, despite a legal duty under their oath to lawfully ensure the Constitution remains it is superior position.
The commander in Chief misunderstands his relationship with Congress. Congress is not a cabinet for the President.
The President needs to take responsibility for his choices, non-choices, inaction, denial, and failed leadership
This President has no self-discipline to do what he should. Events have overtaken him.
This President is not going to be a lame duck. He either flies, or we find another duck.
It is disrespectful to warriors when American civilian leadership:
- Fail to respect the law and Constitution;
- Fail to impose consequences;
- Remove legal options and consequences without imposing punishment
- Enable inappropriate behavior
- Put speculative legislative goals before certain Constitutional requirements.
If Congress is serious about supporting the troops, they need to immediately give warriors a new Commander in Chief; and remove the warriors from a problem the warriors have not been trained, nor were they designed, to solve: An internal political dispute.
If it is the position that warriors should be involved in internal political disputes, then under the laws of war, foreign fighters may legally do the same to American: Lawfully enter, under the principle of reciprocity, combat forces to compel discipline that should appropriately be left to the political and judicial systems.
The world is watching whether Congress is serious about leadership, setting the example, and imposing consequences.
Unless Congress leads, foreign fighters may lawfully enter the United States and bring the like military solutions this Congress has deemed fit should be applied to internal political battles.
Warriors need Congress to lead and give them a new leader. Without a change, Members of Congress should reasonably expect foreign fighters to heed the example of Congress and impose combat solutions on American political disputes.
posted by Constant @ 11:41 AM
<< Home