-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
The end of NATO?
- Thread starter Waveoff
- Start date
Any military action against a NATO ally is not a lawful order unless 2/3s of the senate votes to remove us from NATO.
I pointed this out is a different post.
Military officers should take note.
Ahh yes, the ubiquitous ”Senior Advisor” position, which probably means GS-13/14. I may not describe that as cashing in, but at least he’ll be able to afford his child support and alimony payments now. Wonder if he’s required to submit his weekly “what did I do at work last week” email.
While I remain skeptical of the notion that our LTs will need to adjudicate the lawfulness of their tasking, senior officers must certainly serve as the circuit breakers. Alex Vindman understood his duty, and while he payed a relatively modest price, the outcome was substantial and exposed wrongdoing.
Even General Kelly understood this. "He did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave. He went and told his boss what he just heard",
On the surface that does make sense, but I am not a lawyer or constitutional scholar. It is clearly a complex and ambiguous constitutional issue that would be fleshed out by the Supreme Court. In the modern era, what the constitution appears to say plainly, and what federal laws simply say, cannot be relied on until it has been reviewed by the Supreme Court. Moreover, like @Brett327 alluded to, junior officers have no need to stress over this
Anyone who thinks they are going to wake up tomorrow morning and find the US at war with Denmark or Marines storming the beaches of Greenland without legal challenge, worldwide public protest, and political debate is naive. No Air Force captain is ever going to have to worry whether or not his orders to bomb the Greenland Customs House, no matter how tragically insane, are legal. It will be understood well before then.
Its an easy way to counter some of the bullshit rhetoric that is going around. "We're going to attack Greenland."
"Not without pulling from NATO, which requires..."
And I'm not sure why anyone thinks the NATO treaty is constitutionally suspect. Article II section 2 is pretty damn clear.
I agree.
Even if it weren’t clear, saying things like “It’s a complex issue and not clearly illegal” is hardly justification for treating our allies this way.
Apologism at its finest. What the hell has happened to decency?
It would have been naive to think the current POTUS would tariff the planet (minus Russia, by the way) to include applying tariffs to uninhabited islands (other than penguins, I shit you not) taking us to the absolute brink of a planet-wide economic meltdown.
Short of aerial attack, could you picture the CIA being given the green light to find Greenlanders who want to join the USA (there have to be some) and supporting their message while denigrating our NATO ally’s? Foment some serious unrest? Stir in some fake news? Send his social media minions to the attack?
It’s what POTUS wants. Why would he not give the order?
Last edited:
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Because treaty termination isn't explicitly covered by the Constitution.
I'm not saying Trump should unilaterally leave NATO. I'm saying that there's no clear Constitutional clause that tells him he can or can't and SCOTUS has punted on the issue. Ergo, if Trump were to just terminate the treaty, it basically challenges whether the existing legislation requiring a 2/3 Senate vote is constitutional.
As for people giving credibility to attacking Greenland... perhaps that's why the founding fathers didn't want a standing military. The Constitutional guidelines were all written under the assumption that the President wouldn't ordinarily have an Army to command. By creating a standing military without Constitutional amendments, we have short circuited the process by which Congress has to pass legislation to raise one before the President can use it.
Last edited:
I don’t think anybody truly has a good understanding of the mental processes POTUS engages in, other than his closest inner circle. And I think even they can still be very surprised. I don’t even think Trump always knows what Trump is going to do.
I can still think of plenty of reasons he would not give the order. I also would agree there is plenty of precedent of him essentially just seeming to say “fuck it” and doing whatever crazy thing he wants. And even when he does, may or may not be a game of theatric brinkmanship.
His unpredictability is part of his “charm.”
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Not to parrot the Weekly Show again ...
Jon Stewart had Chris Christie on about a month ago. Caught my attention because I always like listening when people on the left / right side of the spectrum can conduct a mature interview. It was a very insightful view into Trump's way of thinking.
One anecdote that Chris Christie recalled is visiting the White House while governor. Trump pointed to the desk Lincoln used to sign the Emancipation Proclamation and boasted "Hey, look at that desk! That's where Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address!" to which Christie responded "Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address on a train... that's where he signed the Emancipation Proclamation." Trump scoffed and said "Chris, don't argue with me on these kinds of things, that's where the Gettysburg Address was written."
Lol.
Perfect example of the Donald just saying it is what he says it is.
Until someone not Chris Christie tells him that no really, that’s not where it was written, and here are maybe some reason you don’t want to be saying that which you might actually care about.
And then he might or might not change his mind.
May as well toss a fucking coin.