PDA

View Full Version : An Army Bro Is Suing Barack Obama For Going To War With ISIS



Rusty Jones
05-05-2016, 01:28 PM
http://brobible.com/life/article/army-captain-sue-obama-isis/


The last time the United States formerly declared war on an adversary was all the way back in 1942. Since then, America has been involved in an astounding number of conflicts of varying lengths, all without ever officially being at war with anyone.

In our current system, the president has the ability to deploy forces around the world without anyone’s consent. That way, he (or she) is not hamstrung if an emergency occurs. But the president is required to receive approval from Congress for conflicts lasting longer than 60 days.

The U.S. has been at war with ISIS for nearly two years, without official approval from Congress. Obama believes the resolutions passed after September 11th to fight terrorism allow him to do this.

An Army captain doesn’t see it that way, and now he is suing Obama in federal court.

From The New York Times:


The plaintiff, Capt. Nathan Michael Smith, an intelligence officer stationed in Kuwait, voiced strong support for fighting the Islamic State but, citing his “conscience” and his vow to uphold the Constitution, he said he believed that the conflict lacked proper authorization from Congress.

“To honor my oath, I am asking the court to tell the president that he must get proper authority from Congress, under the War Powers Resolution, to wage the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria,” he wrote.

The Pentagon’s top lawyers disagree with the stance, considering ISIS to be an offshoot of Al Qaeda.


Mr. Obama has argued that he already has the authority he needs to wage the conflict against the Islamic State under the authorization to fight the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, enacted by Congress shortly after the attacks.

That argument is controversial because the Islamic State is at odds with the current leadership of Al Qaeda and its affiliate in Syria, the Nusra Front. Critics contend that the administration is stretching the Sept. 11 authorization too far by applying it to an organization that did not exist in 2001 and that operates far from Afghanistan.

The administration has countered that its position is legitimate because the Islamic State used to be a Qaeda affiliate in Iraq during the Iraq war. In an April 2015 speech, Stephen Preston, then the top Pentagon lawyer, argued that the fact that Al Qaeda splintered after the death of Osama Bin Laden did not mean that the authority to keep fighting each successor faction came to an end.

Congress, ever since the beginning of the conflict, has steadfastly refused to vote on an authorization of force, despite Obama’s repeated requests they do.

What do you think, Bros? Is this conflict legal?


Yeah... gotta love it when people interpret the law their own way, and think that shit's gonna fly.

That dude just ended his career. If he was enlisted, he'd be in jail right now.

WILDJOKER5
05-05-2016, 02:01 PM
http://brobible.com/life/article/army-captain-sue-obama-isis/



Yeah... gotta love it when people interpret the law their own way, and think that shit's gonna fly.

That dude just ended his career. If he was enlisted, he'd be in jail right now.

But since he's part of the Officer elite nobility, he will get walking papers. Then he'll sue for retribution.

But seriously, Obama has bombed more countries, killed more civilians, than any other Nobel peace prize recipient in history. Talk about being honored just for the color of your skin and not the content of your character. He has "Black privilege".

sandsjames
05-05-2016, 02:08 PM
http://brobible.com/life/article/army-captain-sue-obama-isis/



Yeah... gotta love it when people interpret the law their own way, and think that shit's gonna fly.

That dude just ended his career. If he was enlisted, he'd be in jail right now.

This sounds like something PYB would have done...and not surprisingly (just checked his page after mentioning his name) he writes about it on his blog in typical PYB style.
http://www.pickyourbattles.net/

sandsjames
05-05-2016, 02:10 PM
But since he's part of the Officer elite nobility, he will get walking papers. Then he'll sue for retribution.

But seriously, Obama has bombed more countries, killed more civilians, than any other Nobel peace prize recipient in history. Talk about being honored just for the color of your skin and not the content of your character. He has "Black privilege".

Can you make it through one thread without trying to impose your agenda? At least attempt to keep your comments slightly relevant to the main point of the thread which, I'm sure you skipped passed, wasn't about the race of the President but about the legality of the wars.

WILDJOKER5
05-05-2016, 02:24 PM
Can you make it through one thread without trying to impose your agenda? At least attempt to keep your comments slightly relevant to the main point of the thread which, I'm sure you skipped passed, wasn't about the race of the President but about the legality of the wars.

Just a pot shot, not really going to comment more on this really. Read it earlier and I wasn't to impressed by what the officer is doing. I bet there might have been a few lawsuits against Bush and the invasion of Iraq, but they just didn't make the news.

sandsjames
05-05-2016, 02:31 PM
Just a pot shot, not really going to comment more on this really. Read it earlier and I wasn't to impressed by what the officer is doing. I bet there might have been a few lawsuits against Bush and the invasion of Iraq, but they just didn't make the news.

Yeah, it strikes me as the same thing that happened with Bush, except this was started in a huge national newspaper. I'm ok with people questioning stuff but this officer jumped the shark with this one. So many better ways he could have went about it if he really wanted to pursue it.

Rusty Jones
05-05-2016, 02:32 PM
I bet there might have been a few lawsuits against Bush and the invasion of Iraq, but they just didn't make the news.

From military personnel?

WILDJOKER5
05-05-2016, 02:48 PM
From military personnel?

Maybe, I don't know. Usually if its being done once, its been done before.

sparks82
05-05-2016, 04:26 PM
I suppose I'll delete my post in the "In the News" forum as it's the same topic. Or can an admin delete it?

Rusty Jones
05-05-2016, 04:40 PM
Maybe, I don't know. Usually if its being done once, its been done before.



It it's making the news without reference to a previous similar incident, then not likely. The closest you're going to get are lawsuits for Agent Orange and shit like that. Not for actually going to war.

Rainmaker
05-05-2016, 04:53 PM
This clown sounds like another potential Private Bergdahl or Manning waiting to happen . He should probably be snatched out of his tent at Camp Arifjan, in the middle of the night, with a burlap sack over his head and cargo strapped to the floor of a waiting C-130 for transport to Gtmo, were he can be waterboarded and force fed indefinitely or until he decides to get with the program (whichever comes first)

sparks82
05-05-2016, 05:03 PM
So it sounds like he has no issues fighting Daesh (aka ISIS) but he just feels that the resolution used to authorize fighting them is not valid. That they need to have Congress sign a new resolution to authorize force. Which is something the SECDEF has asked for and the President has sent a new resolution for use of force specifically against this group.

It doesn't sound like he's trying to get out of a fight. He just feels that it's an "illegal" use of forces.

sparks82
05-05-2016, 05:04 PM
This clown sounds like another potential Private Bergdahl or Manning waiting to happen . He should probably be snatched out of his tent at Camp Arifjan, in the middle of the night, with a burlap sack over his head and cargo strapped to the floor of a waiting C-130 for transport to Gtmo, were he can be waterboarded and force fed indefinitely or until he decides to get with the program (whichever comes first)

I don't think he's on that level of idiocy. He says in Army Times article he has no issue with going after them. He just thinks the resolution is outdated and not applicable to the current conflict.

Rainmaker
05-05-2016, 05:13 PM
I don't think he's on that level of idiocy. He says in Army Times article he has no issue with going after them. He just thinks the resolution is outdated and not applicable to the current conflict.

I don't disagree with his premise. But, it's not a CGO's cross to bear.... He don't make policy, he executes policy.

Rusty Jones
05-05-2016, 05:30 PM
I have no problem with people taking a stand against the system. Believe me, I'm the last person who would. What I DO have a problem with is the method in question - i.e., people knowing fully well what the official interpretation of the system is, but acting in accordance with their own interpretation and thinking that they can't or shouldn't be touched. I take good pleasure in watching people like that get put down.

garhkal
05-05-2016, 06:29 PM
http://brobible.com/life/article/army-captain-sue-obama-isis/



Yeah... gotta love it when people interpret the law their own way, and think that shit's gonna fly.

That dude just ended his career. If he was enlisted, he'd be in jail right now.

So His interpretation of the law is wrong and should get him canned for doing what HE sees as right under his oath. BUT obama's massive stretch of the rules to interpret it the way he did, is ok??


So it sounds like he has no issues fighting Daesh (aka ISIS) but he just feels that the resolution used to authorize fighting them is not valid. That they need to have Congress sign a new resolution to authorize force. Which is something the SECDEF has asked for and the President has sent a new resolution for use of force specifically against this group.

It doesn't sound like he's trying to get out of a fight. He just feels that it's an "illegal" use of forces.

That's how i read it too.. He just wants what they are doing to be above board, not an illegal use of force.

Rusty Jones
05-05-2016, 06:45 PM
So His interpretation of the law is wrong and should get him canned for doing what HE sees as right under his oath. BUT obama's massive stretch of the rules to interpret it the way he did, is ok??

Yup.

He knew what the official interpretation of the law was. And, unless you're a supreme court justice in the applicable jurisdiction, it's not your place to act out of accordance with the official interpretation. You don't have that right. Obama may violate YOUR interpretation, but if he violated the official interpretation, then SCOTUS steps in.

WILDJOKER5
05-05-2016, 07:14 PM
Yup.

He knew what the official interpretation of the law was. And, unless you're a supreme court justice in the applicable jurisdiction, it's not your place to act out of accordance with the official interpretation. You don't have that right. Obama may violate YOUR interpretation, but if he violated the official interpretation, then SCOTUS steps in.

Only if someone sues. SCOTUS doesn't just take up cases with no previous litigation put forward.

Rusty Jones
05-05-2016, 07:24 PM
Only if someone sues. SCOTUS doesn't just take up cases with no previous litigation put forward.

With a Republican controlled Congress that has been trying to take Obama down from day one, there's no way that this wouldn't happen if they truly believed that he was violating the law in this case.

WILDJOKER5
05-05-2016, 07:28 PM
With a Republican controlled Congress that has been trying to take Obama down from day one, there's no way that this wouldn't happen if they truly believed that he was violating the law in this case.

Right, but still, someone would have to sue before the SCOTUS heard the case.

Rusty Jones
05-05-2016, 07:31 PM
In any case, dude's a fucking barracks lawyer.

garhkal
05-05-2016, 10:51 PM
Yup.

He knew what the official interpretation of the law was. And, unless you're a supreme court justice in the applicable jurisdiction, it's not your place to act out of accordance with the official interpretation. You don't have that right. Obama may violate YOUR interpretation, but if he violated the official interpretation, then SCOTUS steps in.

But are we not ordered to question illegal/immoral orders in the UCMJ?

WILDJOKER5
05-06-2016, 12:59 PM
But are we not ordered to question illegal/immoral orders in the UCMJ?

Oaths of enlistment/commissioning.

Mjölnir
05-06-2016, 01:18 PM
So His interpretation of the law is wrong and should get him canned for doing what HE sees as right under his oath. BUT obama's massive stretch of the rules to interpret it the way he did, is ok??

He can interpret the law all he wants, disobeying orders that the DoD have determined are legal but that he does not would get him in trouble. I would note that the plaintiff in the case has not refused to deploy (I think I read that he is currently deployed), but he is questioning the legality of the counter ISIL effort. I think he is wrong, I respect his conviction and willingness to make himself the lightning rod for the effort. I would bet he has likely already decided on a career outside of being in uniform.



Oaths of enlistment/commissioning.

The oaths are different for enlisted personnel and commissioned officers.

Enlisted service members swear to support and defend the constitution and to obey the orders of the President Constitution.

Officers swear allegiance only to the Constitution, but not specifically to obey orders (of the President or otherwise -- but this does not make us exempt from obeying legal orders) – some see this as a safeguard against unconstitutional actions.

WILDJOKER5
05-06-2016, 02:00 PM
The oaths are different for enlisted personnel and commissioned officers.

Enlisted service members swear to support and defend the constitution and to obey the orders of the President Constitution.

Officers swear allegiance only to the Constitution, but not specifically to obey orders (of the President or otherwise -- but this does not make us exempt from obeying legal orders) – some see this as a safeguard against unconstitutional actions.

I know they are different, but first and foremost is the pledge of upholding the constitution over any one person in elected office.

Mjölnir
05-06-2016, 02:19 PM
I know they are different, but first and foremost is the pledge of upholding the constitution over any one person in elected office.

True ... but a semantic point in the enlisted oath is that the verbiage is not "support and defend the constitution or obey the orders of the President" ... it is AND. Now, if the two are not in agreement, what to do? Obey the constitution because it is first in the oath? Obey the President?

A big part of established precedent and historically speaking ... it is that very, VERY rare that individual members of the military won in court when they disobeyed orders based on their personal interpretation of law absent of a pre established understanding that the law is unconstitutional. It is one thing to refuse to commit a violation of the law of war as ordered by your platoon commander; it is entirely different to decide that the President has exceeded his authority under the War Powers Act which requires the President notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force or a declaration of war by the United States. While congress has not declared war formally, Congress has both authorized counter ISIS efforts (via the NDAA) and funded the actions (via the FY16 Appropriations Bill).

I am not a lawyer, but the way the War Powers Act reads, I think the President is good on this one.

WILDJOKER5
05-06-2016, 02:30 PM
True ... but a semantic point in the enlisted oath is that the verbiage is not "support and defend the constitution or obey the orders of the President" ... it is AND. Now, if the two are not in agreement, what to do? Obey the constitution because it is first in the oath? Obey the President? Constitution. POTUS says, "Kill those people because 'reasons' on American soil", yes, its my duty and obligation to deny those orders even if I am killed for my beliefs.


A big part of established precedent and historically speaking ... it is that very, VERY rare that individual members of the military won in court when they disobeyed orders based on their personal interpretation of law absent of a pre established understanding that the law is unconstitutional. It is one thing to refuse to commit a violation of the law of war as ordered by your platoon commander; it is entirely different to decide that the President has exceeded his authority under the War Powers Act which requires the President notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force or a declaration of war by the United States. While congress has not declared war formally, Congress has both authorized counter ISIS efforts (via the NDAA) and funded the actions (via the FY16 Appropriations Bill).

I am not a lawyer, but the way the War Powers Act reads, I think the President is good on this one.
We are not, and should not be subjugated to the whims of one man. We as military service members need to know the constitution so that way if a POTUS decides to enact marshal law and expel congress, we know that we should say "NO!!!" I am sure any military member in any state that became ruled by a dictator was saying "that could never happen here".

Mjölnir
05-06-2016, 02:58 PM
Constitution. POTUS says, "Kill those people because 'reasons' on American soil", yes, its my duty and obligation to deny those orders even if I am killed for my beliefs.

Under the Posse Comitatus Act, that is correct ... however ... the FY2007 NDAA authorized the use of US Forces and force on US soil for the restoration of order in national emergency, disaster epidemic etc. Also the FY12 NDAA authorized the use of US Forces for counter terrorism efforts beyond the scope of law enforcement. So, there are exceptions, that are legal. It would be situationally dependent.



We are not, and should not be subjugated to the whims of one man. We as military service members need to know the constitution so that way if a POTUS decides to enact marshal law and expel congress, we know that we should say "NO!!!" I am sure any military member in any state that became ruled by a dictator was saying "that could never happen here".

Concur. But, we should not oppose orders because we don't like the President. Like the President or not, the one we have now was legally elected and holds the authority of the Commander and Chief.

WILDJOKER5
05-06-2016, 03:15 PM
Concur. But, we should not oppose orders because we don't like the President. Like the President or not, the one we have now was legally elected and holds the authority of the Commander and Chief.
I didn't say it was cause of the man, but the orders they may give.

Mjölnir
05-06-2016, 03:24 PM
I didn't say it was cause of the man, but the orders they may give.

Gotcha ... I didn't necessarily mean you specifically.

Interesting story about lawful / unlawful orders: Gen Peter Pace tells a good story of how in Vietnam when one of his men was killed by a sniper & he (in a fit of anger and frustration) ordered an artillery strike on the village where the sniper fired from. His platoon sergeant instantly conveyed that the order was (morally / ethically) wrong; the artillery strike was called off and when the Marines swept the village they found a lot of women and children that would have been killed. That platoon sergeant was not "just a platoon sergeant."

garhkal
05-06-2016, 07:02 PM
Oaths of enlistment/commissioning.

Which i counter with

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

Since our oaths of enlistment do state "I will follow the lawful orders of those appointed over me" it clearly makes it seem like we are NOT under any obligations to follow an unlawful order..

Mjölnir
05-06-2016, 07:16 PM
Since our oaths of enlistment do state "I will follow the lawful orders of those appointed over me" it clearly makes it seem like we are NOT under any obligations to follow an unlawful order..

Actually, the exact verbiage of the oath of enlistment per Title 10 doesn't specify "lawful orders":


"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

garhkal
12-27-2018, 05:35 AM
Looks like we have yet another spammer.