The end of NATO?

[CommodoreMid]

Wonder how that all worked out for him? Does his grift endure, or like Kyle Rittenhouse, who appears to be working at a local gun shop, was he discarded by the right wing punditry after the novelty wore off?

Pretty well apparently

https://x.com/stuartscheller/status/1881325436619153694

 

[Swanee]

The treaty with NATO was ratified by the Senate and is now enforceable law within the United States, as per the Constitution. The idea of threatening our treaty partner with violence in order to grab their land…in accordance with the NATO treaty if they are attacked we are bound by our laws to come to their defense.

Why isn’t this a bigger WTF moment?

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.

 

[Brett327]

Pretty well apparently

https://x.com/stuartscheller/status/1881325436619153694

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.

 

[Brett327]

Military officers should take note.

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.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

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",

 

[wink]

Because there's Constitional ambiguity about enforcing said treaty.

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.

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.

 

[Swanee]

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.

 

[sevenhelmet]

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?

 

[taxi1]

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.

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 olanet-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?

 

[Spekkio]

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?

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.

The President’s exercise of treaty termination authority has not generated opposition from the Legislative Branch in most cases, but there have been occasions in which Members of Congress sought to block unilateral presidential action. In 1978, a group of Members filed suit in Goldwater v. Carter seeking to prevent President Jimmy Carter from terminating a mutual defense treaty with the government of Taiwan as part of the United States’ recognition of the government of mainland China. A divided Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the litigation should be dismissed, but it did so without reaching the merits of the constitutional question and with no majority opinion. Citing a lack of clear guidance in the Constitution’s text and a reluctance to settle a dispute between coequal branches of our Government each of which has resources available to protect and assert its interests[,] four Justices concluded that the case presented a nonjusticiable political question. This four-Justice opinion, written by Justice William Rehnquist, has proven influential since Goldwater, and federal district courts have invoked the political question doctrine as a basis to dismiss challenges to unilateral treaty terminations by President Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush.

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.