My bad. Goldwater v. Carter in 1978 declared that the president can abrogate a treaty without consent from Congress.
I’d be happy to be make a bet on this. My bet is that it is illegal.
[QUOTE=treis]
Why not? The President has the power to make treaties why does he not have the power to declare them void?
[quote]
I guess the President can abrogate treaties but I don’t think the procedure to do that is to have the military start violating an existing treaty without any prior notice.
The UCMJ governs all acts of members of the military. Even in war no officer including the Commander in Chief can legally issue an illegal command, for example ordering that prisoners be summarily shot. Or an order to mistreat prisoners as was the case at Abu Graihb (sp?) The UCMJ also incorporates the rules for land warfare as determined by various treaties. I think there are no special regulations for when soldiers are in rear areas as distinct from when they are actually engaged in combat.
Great balls of fire. Let me straighten out that codng.
I guess the President can abrogate treaties but I don’t think the procedure to do that is to have the military start violating an existing treaty without any prior notice.
The UCMJ governs all acts of members of the military. Even in war no officer including the Commander in Chief can legally issue an illegal command, for example ordering that prisoners be summarily shot. Or an order to mistreat prisoners as was the case at Abu Graihb The UCMJ also incorporates the rules for warfare as determined by various treaties. I think there are no special regulations for when soldiers are in rear areas as distinct from when they are actually engaged in combat.
Who does he have to give notice to?
Yes I agree that Congress has that power but it doesn’t have the power to make laws regarding how the military can conduct a war.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10538136/
The cracks begin to widen.
Beats the shit out of me, sir, but I would think that secretly ordering the military to start shooting all prisoners because he had secretly decided to no longer follow the rules of the Geneva Convention would cause a bit of a stir.
By the way, that “sir” wasn’t to be a smart ass. I was just taken back to the only three permissible answers for an Aviation Cadet.
“Yes, sir.”
“No, sir.”
“Beats the shit out of me, sir.”
But it does regulate their detailed activities in implementing the President’s instructions. He cannot, repeat cannot, legally order them to perform acts in violation of the UCMJ in the conduct of that war. Ergo his freedom to conduct a war in any way he wants doesn’t exist. And that’s what started this chain of posts.
Of course it would. Nonetheless, my reading of the constitution is that the President can ignore treaties especially in regards to military matters.
I think so too.
For a more general example of Congress power than battlefield behavior. In WWI the British and French wanted US troops to be incorporated into their formations and be made of part of their military. Pershing refused and kept the US Army separate and under an independent command subject only to consultation with our allies on operations… I believe that had it chosen to do so Congress could have ordered the President to order Pershing to place himself and his army at the disposal of the British and French commanders and to carry out their orders without regard to Pershing’s or Wilson’s ideas on how to conduct the war.
Enough. We have a Forum for cheap shots and this is not it.
(And it wasn’t sufficiently funny the first time much less double-posting it)
[ /moderator mode ]
apologies for the double post…
It wasn’t bad.
And while we’re on the subject,
“this bug’s for you” IS funny, dammit.
I have previously remarked that this is a tough room–you guys are GRIM
This is about the most damning thing you could ask for. Surely this judge is quite well aware of the legality of Bush’s actions and for him to resign in protest speaks volumes of the seriousness of the charges. The comparison between this and the Elliot Richardson resignation of October 1973 is unavoidable.
Your reading of 11 words – “commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States” – somehow gives you the impression that the President can ignore the law of the land? Which words, exactly, lead you to that conclusion?
Does this mean you believe that it would be legal for the President of the United States to commit genocide? As in, “Those Iraqis have become too much of a problem. I’m simply going to slaughter them all.” Are you stating that the Constitution gives the President the lawful authority to order our troops begin mass executions?
It seems that purely domestic conversations were captured. This suggests strongly that the capturing took place within these United States.
Well, that’s clearly a violation of the President’s order, and appears to have been completely accidental. So no crime there.
Upon what authority do you rely in saying this isn’t a specific intent crime? The lack of a scienter requirement in the statute means nothing. Show me any authority for the proposition.
Actually, although I no longer practice law, I was a public defender. I did HUNDREDS of criminal trials, thankyouverymuch.
Nice talk for GD.
No. Richardson, a Republican, was being ordered to do illegal things by a Republican president. He resigned from his job in protest, a serious action.
This judge, a Clinton appointee, has had no direct contact with the actions at issue. He resigned from his appointment to the FISA court, but continues in his JOB as a district court judge. His action is certainyl comment on his strong disapproval of the program, and how its existence weakens the role of the FISA court, but it’s not definitvely a comment on the program’s legality.
Wasn’t the point, Bricker. Someone was suggesting that the calls were being monitored on the far end. The accidental domestic to domestic surveilance suggests it took place over here.
It may still be a crime, just not one to pin on Bush… I’m not sure about the hapless agent. I doubt he’d be charged, though.
I agree it probably took place here.