See other Ron Paul Articles
Title: Congressional Critics Dream of Confiscating Trump's Military Powers
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://nationalinterest.org/feature ... iscating-trumps-military-23019
Published: Nov 3, 2017
Author: Curt Mills
Post Date: 2017-11-03 07:20:28 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 2295
Comments: 69
Sen. Chris Murphy is leading the charge to prevent a first strike on North Korea, while others are renewing the call for a fresh charter on Trump’s ability to conduct war in the Middle East. Sen. Chris Murphy and allies appeared in front of the Capitol on Thursday to push legislation that would hamstring President Donald Trump’s ability to unilaterally first-strike North Korea without Congressional authorization. Appearing with Murphy were a gathering of anti-war protestors, including Code Pink activists, and colleagues Sen. Ed Markey, the war hero Sen. Tammy Duckworth, and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a star of Trump-era politics, among others. Co-sponsoring the Senate bill with Murphy is Sen. Cory Booker; both Murphy and Booker are widely believed to have future designs on the White House-- and Sen. Bernie Sanders is on the bill, as well. The legislation “will make it very clear that, absent an attack or an imminent threat, the president has to come to Congress for prior authorization” to launch a strike on the Kim regime, Murphy told reporters on a call earlier this week. “I think that if we were able to get this very simple resolution on the floor of the Senate, it would pass. … I worry that the president’s enthusiasm will not be checked by the advisors around him.” Matthew Bunn at Harvard tells me: “Basically, there are no formal procedures to prevent the President from using nuclear weapons. In principle, he has sole power to order a nuclear attack,” but notes: “There are, however, a number of human beings in the command chain who would have to implement such an order.” An advisor to the U.S. Navy says: “The secretary of Defense has to concur for a launch to happen but can’t outright veto it. So, the president can fire the secretary in the case of nonconcurrence and keep firing people until an acting secretary concurs.” Secretary of Defense Sebastian Gorka, anyone? An advisor to the U.S. Army tells me such a situation -- a Pentagon Saturday night massacre -- would be “unprecedented.” But Thomas J. Brynne, president of the Korea Society, isn’t that worried, recent presidential bluster aside. “The Democratic Senators and Congressmen seem to be in line with Secretary James Mattis and the South Korean Defense Minister, Song Young-Moo,” based on language the two issued last week in Seoul that was “clearly defensive, deterrent and diplomatic,” Brynne told me, writing en route to Beijing. “I don’t think it’s likely,” Anthony Ruggiero of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a think tank well-connected with the administration, says of a U.S. first strike. Ruggiero tells me: “I think that would be a hard argument to make, including South Korea, whose made it very clear any preemptive or preventive military strike would have to be done with their approval.” Byrne and others see politics at play. “It seems to me the Democratic lawmakers are political posturing,” Byrnne tells me. “Will never pass. Pointless. It’s showboat politics,” a senior fellow at a national security think tank remarks to me. An aide to a prominent Democratic senator singles out Cory Booker’s involvement: “Most things Booker gets on are automatically not serious.” Says the U.S. Navy advisor: “I’m still convinced this stuff is posturing on both sides. Trump is echoing Nixon’s madman theory.” But others are worried. “I think there is broad concern about the danger of war,” says Harvard’s Bunn. “President Trump’s warlike rhetoric, undermining of diplomatic approaches -- ‘[Secretary of State Rex] Tillerson is ‘wasting his time’ -- and general unpredictability have got people rattled. I’ve had people in California call me and ask if they should get their family out of the city.” Harry Kazianis of the Center for the National Interest isn’t attempting to read the president’s mind, but points out the folly of any hypothetical first strike. “Pentagon sources I have spoken to have been clear--we don't know where all of North Korea's nuclear weapons and missiles are,” Kazianis tells me. “If we were to launch even the most devastating military strike, the chances are high we would have left at least a few nuclear weapons behind.” And Kim Jong Un would have every incentive to use them for revenge: Seoul, Tokyo, Guam, Los Angeles. But FDD’S Ruggiero thinks Murphy’s legislation could compromise U.S. national security interests. Ruggiero hones in on the legislation’s language -- prohibiting a strike “absent an imminent threat to the United States.” “That does not cover our allies,” Ruggiero says. “So, if there was an imminent threat to South Korea or Japan. Under this authority, would the president have to get congressional approval?” Could this even pass? Murphy says if this can get a floor vote in Mitch McConnell’s chamber, it would even get some Republican support to push it over the top. Sens. Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, the foreign relations chair, have openly called into question the president’s fitness in recent weeks. Requests for comment into their offices went unanswered. But universal Democratic support isn’t assured, either, despite the president’s pariah status on the left. “It would set a dangerous president if this was passed,” an aide to one of the most hawkish Democratic senators tells me, noting the member is undecided, but that lawmaker “has always been on the side that president shouldn’t be handicapped when it comes to military force.” There are other efforts underway to curtail the military authority of the president, as well. Markey and Rep. Ted Lieu have legislation that would prohibit the president from using nuclear weapons unless it was authorized by Congress, or if a nuclear attack on the United States or its allies was actually underway. Says Bunn: “Most Presidents would argue that this is contrary to their power as Commander in Chief. Like the North Korea legislation, this is not likely to become law in the current environment – though there’s a strong case to be made that it’s the right direction to go.” And on Monday night, Mattis and Tillerson appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to defend the existing Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF), in effect the president’s charter for continued war against extremism in the Middle East. Tillerson noted that while they would welcome a renewed statement of support for their efforts, it is not necessary, and that a new AUMF that curtailed their autonomy would be potentially calamitous. But the status quo is not going to cut it for Democrats and even some in the president’s own party who view him as reckless, to put it mildly. And Murphy doesn’t trust Tillerson, oft-hailed by the president’s critics as “one of the adults in the room.” Murphy told me earlier this year that the former Exxon chief seeks to “neuter” his own department. “I think he took this job knowing that he was going to oversee the dramatic weakening of this department … he's been fairly enthusiastic in that endeavor.” Critics of the president are clearly disturbed by many of the messages coming out of this White House. But absent a Democratic takeover of Congress in 2018, are their efforts to assert greater authority anything more than political statements-- or auditions to take on Trump in 2020? Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on Twitter: @CurtMills.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-29) not displayed.
.
.
.
#30. To: BTP Holdings (#23)
What will PROBABLY happen is the NK Politburo will meet and name his closest blood relative male the new President for Life. Then again,his closest blood relative might run for his life at the first whisper of this happening,or their Chinese Masters might order them to hold an actual election with the Chinese pick winning. They could even be allowed to join with SK to unite the country again,but I can't imagine that happening anytime soon. It would disturb the balance of power in Asia too much. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
We tried but had to settle for a cease fire. The conspiracy theory here has been developed by the US, i.e., that NK plans to nuke another country. No evidence at all to support.
And no way does China want one million NK refugees crossing their border to escape .
I pick and choose which conspiracy theories to support. As do you.
Will Russia take them???
I think any NK refugees would head toward the Chinese border. In any event, one million refugees to too much for any nation to absorb.
I doubt it. There are 10 million illegal Chinese in eastern Russia and they can do nothing about it. Where would they put the North Koreans? ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
China Russia NK all communists. Take a look at their common border.
We tried but had to settle for a cease fire. Where the HELL did you "learn" this stuff? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
That doesn't worry the Chinese at all. They would just gun them down and not worry about it. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The difference is the ones I support are more fact than theory. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Not true. Only NK is still a communist nation. The others have evolved to being fascist nations,with Russia teetering on maybe being fascist,and maybe being mostly free. She could still go either way. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Even if that were so, so what? Even if they were all open-border libertarians, they would balk at that figure. As it is, China has a problem with Koreans sneaking over their border. However, I haven't read of any such problem with the Russian border but maybe no one has reported it.
LOL!!! Well at least you had 2 out of 3 correct. Unless you've been in a coma for the past 26 years, you should know that Russia is now a constitutional democracy. The USSR ceased to exist back in 1991. China is still communist.
Belief, not fact. You believe the government handouts.
Still socialist and perhaps becoming more so.
Ever hear of the Korean War?
The Communist Party of China still runs the show..
True. When I wrote that China was becoming more socialist, I meant that contrary to certain beliefs, China was not turning capitalist. Looks like they tried it for a while but found it wanting.
Only technically. They are now fascists in reality. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Hands out what? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Yeah. I had a lot of friends and relatives that fought in it. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Communist Party of China They can call themselves unicorns if they want,but they are fascists. There is no comparison of the Chinese government of today,and the Chinese government of the 50's and 60's,other than the uniforms and the flags. The North Korea of today is VERY close to the China of the 60's and earlier. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
A very nasty war, almost forgotten today. We didn't win.
Yeah,we did. We just didn't demand the enemy surrender and form a new government. We punked out right at the end,due to the Communists in the WH,Congress,and the US Senate. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Just like we "won" in Vietnam. After all, we won every battle :-) Perhaps, though, you are saying that we cudda/shudda won if we had nuked the Chinese.
You really are a professional fool,aren't you? We beat the communists by any and all definitions. In fact,they admitted after the war was over that they were losing so badly they were considering giving up,and then the US congress saved them. We lost right at 28,000 troops. The Communists lost over a million. YOU do the math. Perhaps, though, you are saying that we cudda/shudda won if we had nuked the Chinese. We could have if it had came to that,but it wouldn't have. The Chinese would have backed off if we had told them we were going to nuke them until they glowed if they tried to give us any grief, Truman and the DNC had no balls,and the truth is half the DNC wanted a communist victory. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
We lost right at 28,000 troops. The Communists lost over a million. YOU do the math. Perhaps, though, you are saying that we cudda/shudda won if we had nuked the Chinese. We could have if it had came to that,but it wouldn't have. The Chinese would have backed off if we had told them we were going to nuke them until they glowed if they tried to give us any grief, Truman and the DNC had no balls,and the truth is half the DNC wanted a communist victory. Only definition that counts is who is now in control of both NK and the whole of Vietnam. Harry Truman sent US troops to Korea without a declaration of war which set a horrible precedent. We do not know how China would have reacted to being nuked but the same HST that committed troops did not want to nuke a second Asian country because it wouldn't look good.
Your dogma is chewing your ass off. Using your "logic" we have never won a war because the English still control England,the Germans control Germany,the Italians,etc,etc,etc. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
We did throw the English out of the colonies, so we won that war. Germany et al. surrendered, but you can't claim the same for NK and Vietnam. In fact, the Vietnamese kicked us out.
You don't get to make up "facts" to support your fantasies. Your Dim and RINO communist pals in Congress and the US Senate are the ones that "kicked us out of V",and they did it to avoid a formal communist defeat. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
See freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=211272
So what? Another asshole with a theory that was never there,never heard a shot fired in his life,and doesn't have a freaking clue about what was done there. Yeah,the conventional army and USMC in VN fought a conventional war. I suppose that might come as a surprise to someone that doesn't know anything about the military,but was surely no shock to those of us who served. Are you so blind to reality that you think that was all that was going on? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The author, Major Danny Sjursen, is a U.S. Army officer and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. A little young for Vietnam, true, but most likely he has seen combat.
So,he was never in Viet Nam,was never in a unconventional warfare unit,and his only duty was as a teacher at West Point and an officer assigned,most likely to a staff position,to an armored unit in a conventional armor assault in a desert,and THIS qualifies him to comment as an authority on guerilla warfare in the jungle,and how well the army conducted those operations in a jungle environment? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
He's an historian and not, like you, an historical revisionist. He could be wrong but he is qualified to tell the woods from the trees. Like all wars Vietnam was started diplomatically and ended the same way There was no way to win it unless we were willing to invade North Vietnam which we were not willing to do.
Oh,well! That makes all the difference them,doesn't it? After all if you can't trust the people who write the history books for you,who can you trust? Obviously not someone who was there and doing the job. What the hell would I know about it,right? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Those on the ground sometimes fail to see the whole picture. My son was on the ground in Iraq but there was a lot of things he did not see.
You just refuse to let facts and experience impose upon your favorite brain fart,don't you? I'm done with you. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Interesting to say the least. What happens if Kim is knocked off and there is no one in line to succeed him? ;)
#31. To: sneakypete (#29)
(Edited)
Then why didn't we do it before they had nukes?
#32. To: sneakypete (#28)
#33. To: sneakypete (#26)
Right. Which one of us has never lived in Asia,and which one of us is a conspiracy freak?
#34. To: Ada (#32)
And no way does China want one million NK refugees crossing their border to escape .
#35. To: Cynicom (#34)
Will Russia take them???
#36. To: Cynicom (#34)
Will Russia take them???
#37. To: Ada (#35)
I think any NK refugees would head toward the Chinese border. In any event, one million refugees to too much for any nation to absorb.
#38. To: Ada (#31)
Then why didn't we do it before they had nukes?
#39. To: Ada (#32)
And no way does China want one million NK refugees crossing their border to escape .
#40. To: Ada (#33)
I pick and choose which conspiracy theories to support. As do you.
#41. To: Cynicom (#37)
China Russia NK all communists.
#42. To: Cynicom (#37)
China Russia NK all communists.
#43. To: Cynicom (#37)
China Russia NK all communists.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination 
#44. To: sneakypete (#41)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#45. To: sneakypete (#40)
The difference is the ones I support are more fact than theory.
#46. To: FormerLurker (#44)
China is still communist.
#47. To: sneakypete (#38)
#48. To: Ada (#46)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#49. To: FormerLurker (#48)
The Communist Party of China still runs the show..
#50. To: FormerLurker (#44)
China is still communist.
#51. To: Ada (#45)
You believe the government handouts.
#52. To: Ada (#47)
Ever hear of the Korean War?
#53. To: FormerLurker (#48)
The Communist Party of China still runs the show..
#54. To: sneakypete (#52)
#55. To: Ada (#54)
We didn't win
#56. To: sneakypete (#55)
Yeah,we did.
#57. To: Ada (#56)
Just like we "won" in Vietnam. After all, we won every battle :-)
#58. To: sneakypete (#57)
You really are a professional fool,aren't you? We beat the communists by any and all definitions. In fact,they admitted after the war was over that they were losing so badly they were considering giving up,and then the US congress saved them.
#59. To: Ada (#58)
Only definition that counts is who is now in control of both NK and the whole of Vietnam.
#60. To: sneakypete (#59)
Your dogma is chewing your ass off. Using your "logic" we have never won a war because the English still control England,the Germans control Germany,the Italians,etc,etc,etc.
#61. To: Ada (#60)
In fact, the Vietnamese kicked us out.
#62. To: sneakypete (#61)
#63. To: Ada (#62)
freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=211272
#64. To: sneakypete (#63)
(Edited)
So what? Another asshole with a theory that was never there,never heard a shot fired in his life,and doesn't have a freaking clue about what was done there
#65. To: Ada (#64)
The author, Major Danny Sjursen, is a U.S. Army officer and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan.
#66. To: sneakypete (#65)
#67. To: Ada (#66)
He's an historian and not, like you, an historical revisionist.
#68. To: sneakypete (#67)
#69. To: Ada (#68)
Those on the ground sometimes fail to see the whole picture. My son was on the ground in Iraq but there was a lot of things he did not see.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest