The most important act of the "Resistance" so far / and now the 2d-most important act
peaceinourtime said:
what about the war powers act?
60 day window makes it irrelevant to this discussion.
yeah, that's not really true, unless the US and Russia all of a sudden decide to launch every missile they have.
a "nuclear strike", for which I assume you mean a single bomb, will do no such thing.
peaceinourtime said:
...
I hope you realize, after a nuclear strike, there is no human society left to do any impeaching!
Jackson_Fusion said:
OK, so you think nuclear weapons only should be controlled by congress, or should congress generally control military usage and strategy? How would that work? Public debate on, for example, on the place and time of Operation Overlord? Or more narrowly, should Congress been brought in to discussion on “tube alloys” and their eventual use? Should they have legislated for and passed the Quebec Agreement?
I am interested in how all of this may work. Thanks.
I absolutely believe that the 1st strike use of nuclear weapons when war has not been formally declared should be controlled by Congress. The Constitution clearly reserves the right to declare war to Congress and the 1st strike use of nuclear weapons can not be interpreted as anything short of a declaration of war.
As things stand now, I believe that, according to the Constitution, in the course of a declared war, for better or worse, power over the use of nuclear weapons resides with the Commander in Chief.
It is my sincere hope that Congress will use the powers granted them by Article II Section 4 of the Constitution to provide our country with a new Commander in Chief long before any of this becomes relevant to our nation.
That said, the clock is ticking and the lives of billions hang in the balance. Should we really be entrusting the nation's nuclear arsenal to a man we wouldn't trust to babysit our daughters?
Klinker said:
Jackson_Fusion said:
OK, so you think nuclear weapons only should be controlled by congress, or should congress generally control military usage and strategy? How would that work? Public debate on, for example, on the place and time of Operation Overlord? Or more narrowly, should Congress been brought in to discussion on “tube alloys” and their eventual use? Should they have legislated for and passed the Quebec Agreement?
I am interested in how all of this may work. Thanks.
I absolutely believe that the 1st strike use of nuclear weapons when war has not been formally declared should be controlled by Congress. The Constitution clearly reserves the right to declare war to Congress and the 1st strike use of nuclear weapons can not be interpreted as anything short of a declaration of war.
As things stand now, I believe that, according to the Constitution, in the course of a declared war, for better or worse, power over the use of nuclear weapons resides with the Commander in Chief.
Well, as I imagine you’re aware, only the Chinese have disclaimed a first strike policy....and let’s not kid ourselves. That’s window dressing, and they certainly have hyper-centralized power. Xi says go, they’re going.
The US has a policy of not using its nuclear weapons against countries that do not possess weapons of mass destruction. The reason for not disclaiming their use against nuclear powers first should be obvious. What policy would you suggest for managing a potential conflict with nuclear belligerents? I know it can’t be “wait till they nuke us first”. Would the President be able to act if a defector told of an imminent strike ? If signals intelligence intercepted an order? if weapons were being moved into position? Would the obligation for congressional debate be overridden if the missiles were erected on their mobile launchers, ala North Korea? On report of heat signatures? On visual identification? On impact?
What if that power knew of our policies for legislative action and decided they could degrade our capabilities badly enough with the first strike that they could absorb the eventual retaliatatory strike (they LIKELY couldn’t....thank heaven for submarines. Big gamble with the lives of 300mm plus)?
Tough decisonss. I’d be interested in your view.
Jackson_Fusion said:
Klinker said:
Jackson_Fusion said:
OK, so you think nuclear weapons only should be controlled by congress, or should congress generally control military usage and strategy? How would that work? Public debate on, for example, on the place and time of Operation Overlord? Or more narrowly, should Congress been brought in to discussion on “tube alloys” and their eventual use? Should they have legislated for and passed the Quebec Agreement?
I am interested in how all of this may work. Thanks.
I absolutely believe that the 1st strike use of nuclear weapons when war has not been formally declared should be controlled by Congress. The Constitution clearly reserves the right to declare war to Congress and the 1st strike use of nuclear weapons can not be interpreted as anything short of a declaration of war.
As things stand now, I believe that, according to the Constitution, in the course of a declared war, for better or worse, power over the use of nuclear weapons resides with the Commander in Chief.
Well, as I imagine you’re aware, only the Chinese have disclaimed a first strike policy....and let’s not kid ourselves. That’s window dressing, and they certainly have hyper-centralized power. Xi says go, they’re going.
The US has a policy of not using its nuclear weapons against countries that do not possess weapons of mass destruction. The reason for not disclaiming their use against nuclear powers first should be obvious. What policy would you suggest for managing a potential conflict with nuclear belligerents? I know it can’t be “wait till they nuke us first”. Would the President be able to act if a defector told of an imminent strike ? If signals intelligence intercepted an order? if weapons were being moved into position? Would the obligation for congressional debate be overridden if the missiles were erected on their mobile launchers, ala North Korea? On report of heat signatures? On visual identification? On impact?
What if that power knew of our policies for legislative action and decided they could degrade our capabilities badly enough with the first strike that they could absorb the eventual retaliatatory strike (they LIKELY couldn’t....thank heaven for submarines. Big gamble with the lives of 300mm plus)?
Tough decisonss. I’d be interested in your view.
I'll say the same thing to you that I say to people who want to ban guns. If you don't like the Constitution, amend it. There is no Constitutional authority for the President to declare war and a nuclear strike is nothing if not a declaration of war.
Jackson_Fusion said:
Big gamble with the lives of 300mm plus)?
An interesting statement from someone who is apparently willing to entrust the lives of billions of people to the criminal mind of a short fingered madman. Me, I will trust in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers on this one.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:I'm boycotting the Trump Tower public bathrooms. They are some of Midtown's finest, especially with the marble and gold colored fixtures. I would also tell Trump what I thought of whatever stupid plan he would ask me to comment on, not that I'm in a position to be asked. I wouldn't assume he'd take that advice.
South_Mountaineer said:What actions of "Resistance" have you carried out?
So the general will "push back against President Trump" if he thinks the order is illegal.
The general says, "And if it's illegal, guess what's going to happen? I'm going to say, 'Mr. President, that's illegal.' And guess what he's going to do? He's going to say, 'What would be legal?' And we'll come up options, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that's the way it works. It's not that complicated."
So the President will listen to reason. That's optimism, not resistance.
Seriously, what kind of a response is "what are YOU doing?" Why don't you ask all those folks who DIDN'T vote for Hillary, so there wouldn't have to be a "Resistance" against Trump?
I thought that perhaps your dismissive attitude toward General Hyten's act of courage was based on personal acts of "resistance" on your part, but apparently there are none.
I didn't have a dismissive attitude toward General Hyten. The statements you quoted were that he'd persuade the President to give a different order. I'm glad he has that intent, I don't share his optimism.
You posted a link to legislation introduced to prevent the President from acting on his own to launch nuclear weapons. I assume that means that, right now, it is legal for the President to issue an order to launch, without any conditions on that. I am not saying that it's right, just that the law doesn't make it illegal (and that should be fixed).
It's too bad that General Hyten and others who are concerned, had to be put in that position. I see on other threads that you praise the Bernie delegates who booed Hillary Clinton all through the convention, and displayed signs against her, and basically protested her candidacy. They didn't seem to be concerned about the consequences of that, or care that they'd put people like General Hyten into the situations they are now. Maybe you should be concerned about their "dismissive attitude", instead of making things up about what I wrote and then thinking you made a point.
A question for those who blame the dissent in Philadelphia last year, at least in part, for Clinton’s defeat: Do the 1968 protests in Chicago deserve similar condemnation?
DaveSchmidt said:
A question for those who blame the dissent in Philadelphia last year, at least in part, for Clinton’s defeat: Do the 1968 protests in Chicago deserve similar condemnation?
No. I could elaborate but being old enough to have been there it's way past my bedtime.
LOST said:
DaveSchmidt said:No. I could elaborate but being old enough to have been there it's way past my bedtime.
A question for those who blame the dissent in Philadelphia last year, at least in part, for Clinton’s defeat: Do the 1968 protests in Chicago deserve similar condemnation?
Definitely not a question to lose any sleep over.
I think your analogy machine is on the fritz.
DaveSchmidt said:
A question for those who blame the dissent in Philadelphia last year, at least in part, for Clinton’s defeat: Do the 1968 protests in Chicago deserve similar condemnation?
I asked a question that I found interesting to consider in light of some of the comments about the protests in Philly. It’s not a Gotcha, nor the product of any machine. If it doesn’t give anybody else something to think about, that’s fine by me.
I would say that it's different situations in different times, with different ways people get information. The 1968 protests outside the convention were a symptom of a larger opposition to the incumbent's policies in Vietnam. I don't recall as big a "don't vote for the Democrat" movement at that time, at least not from the progressive side (George Wallace was another story entirely, so I guess got the "not Nixon, but not the Dems" vote, but not from progressives I assume).
In Philly the outside protests were one aspect, of the opposition going on inside the convention, which people saw on TV and the internet. In 2016, the public saw progressive voices, some who were involved with the party and in writing the party platform, bolt and say that the party candidate shouldn't get their votes. I don't think that helped the Democratic candidate.
DaveSchmidt said:
I asked a question that I found interesting to consider in light of some of the comments about the protests in Philly. It’s not a Gotcha, nor the product of any machine. If it doesn’t give anybody else something to think about, that’s fine by me.
South_Mountaineer said:
I would say that it's different situations in different times, with different ways people get information. The 1968 protests outside the convention were a symptom of a larger opposition to the incumbent's policies in Vietnam. I don't recall as big a "don't vote for the Democrat" movement at that time, at least not from the progressive side (George Wallace was another story entirely, so I guess got the "not Nixon, but not the Dems" vote, but not from progressives I assume).
What I don’t recall, even retrospectively, is much talk that the 1968 turmoil hurt the Democrats by undermining party unity or, say, reinforcing Nixon’s law-and-order appeal, possibly costing Humphrey an extremely close election. That kind of criticism seems to be overwhelmed by the idea, at least in certain quarters, that that summer in Chicago was a highlight of the good old days of important, meaningful protest.
Now I hear from those same quarters a backlash against disruptions that, despite the differences in time and situation, raised some of the same themes of war, class and representation. The extent to which an expectation of unity has taken precedence over leeway to give voice to such issues is striking to me.
I suppose some might argue that the pro-Sanders demonstrators did not have such lofty messages, that they were mainly just shouting sour grapes. And the “whole world’s watching” baby boomers were just out to get attention for themselves.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committe held a hearing last week on The Authority to Use Nuclear Weapons. Was there any coverage by major media?
If anyone can find a transcript, please post.
Here's the video:
and this took place a few days earlier:
paulsurovell said:
The Senate Foreign Relations Committe held a hearing last week on The Authority to Use Nuclear Weapons. Was there any coverage by major media?
If only there were a way to find out...
paulsurovell said:
If anyone can find a transcript, please post.
The transcript is nearly 20,000 words. Is there a specific segment you’d like to see posted?
ETA: I don’t think a link would work, because it’s a subscription service.
Yes, there was coverage. At least, according to the internet there was.
paulsurovell said:
The Senate Foreign Relations Committe held a hearing last week on The Authority to Use Nuclear Weapons. Was there any coverage by major media?
If anyone can find a transcript, please post.
Here's the video:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?437317-1/concerns-raised-presidents-stability-nuclear-weapons-authority-hearing&live=
Edited to add:
and this took place a few days earlier:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?436111-1/secretaries-tillerson-mattis-opposed-limits-new-war-authorization
DaveSchmidt said:
I suppose some might argue that the pro-Sanders demonstrators did not have such lofty messages, that they were mainly just shouting sour grapes. And the “whole world’s watching” baby boomers were just out to get attention for themselves.
Also, as I was only 4, I could simply be underestimating the Democratic hand-wringing at the time. Maybe blame was indeed cast in 1968 to a similar degree. Notably, though, the party took the protests seriously enough to change convention rules. (Not that those changes helped them much four years later.)
drift
Wasn't there a *lot* of dissension among Dems leading up to the 1968 convention, with Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy both challenging the "status quo" Humphrey (though HHH had an admirably progressive record; it was all about the war iirc)? I don't remember what disaffected people did, or said they did, in the actual election (I hope I voted for Humphrey). Seems likely there would have been a drop-off in Dem left/activist campaigning after Kennedy died and Humphrey was nominated? Long ago and far away, hard to remember, probably there are books about it. In any case, the convention had bad optics, as they say now, with Mayor Daley seeming to lord it over the show inside and what's been described as a "police riot" outside. Don't recall how much blame was cast on the protesters.
As for "the whole world is watching," my recollection is that that was about the Chicago police tactics, not so much about the convention itself. Though again, long ago and far away. I just remember a couple of people crying at the office the next day.
end drift
South_Mountaineer said:
I don't recall as big a "don't vote for the Democrat" movement at that time, at least not from the progressive side (George Wallace was another story entirely, so I guess got the "not Nixon, but not the Dems" vote, but not from progressives I assume).
Now I’m reminded of the Republican story in 1976, when Reagan refused to campaign for Ford.
Now that you mention it, that has a familiar ring.
DaveSchmidt said:
South_Mountaineer said:
I don't recall as big a "don't vote for the Democrat" movement at that time, at least not from the progressive side (George Wallace was another story entirely, so I guess got the "not Nixon, but not the Dems" vote, but not from progressives I assume).
Now I’m reminded of the Republican story in 1976, when Reagan refused to campaign for Ford.
mjc said:
drift
Wasn't there a *lot* of dissension among Dems leading up to the 1968 convention, with Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy both challenging the "status quo" Humphrey (though HHH had an admirably progressive record; it was all about the war iirc)? I don't remember what disaffected people did, or said they did, in the actual election (I hope I voted for Humphrey). Seems likely there would have been a drop-off in Dem left/activist campaigning after Kennedy died and Humphrey was nominated? Long ago and far away, hard to remember, probably there are books about it. In any case, the convention had bad optics, as they say now, with Mayor Daley seeming to lord it over the show inside and what's been described as a "police riot" outside. Don't recall how much blame was cast on the protesters.
As for "the whole world is watching," my recollection is that that was about the Chicago police tactics, not so much about the convention itself. Though again, long ago and far away. I just remember a couple of people crying at the office the next day.
end drift
The events of the Dem convention of 1968 led to the trial of the Chicago 7......originally 8 but Bobby Seele
was severed from the rest of the group. The Nixon administration with Mitchell as the Attorney General passed a bill broadly defining what was a conspiracy
Abbie Hoffman was at his finest...Dave Dellinger publisher of Liberation magazine one of the kindest and most gentle men I ever knew.....he was less a celebrity than the others but he published Liberation Magazine out of my office at 5 Beekman St in NYC. Tommy Hayden, a tenant organizer during his days in Newark....... Rennie Davis who I never really cared for took up a chair
Don't recall if it was a Jury trial or Judge Hoffman declared the sentence> Abbie used to taunt him in Yiddish
which would irk him no end. Anyway all were found guilty in a kangaroo court..............And sometime later the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional . Soon afterwards Nixon went back to wire tapping the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate Building. Eventually he was forced to resign from office His Attorney General, John Mitchell and other Nixon minions wen to jail
It was a good time to be young and able to dodge tear gas
South_Mountaineer said:
Now that you mention it, that has a familiar ring.
McGovern ’72. Reagan ’80. History can be a fickle teacher when it comes to down-the-road results of intraparty protest.
Would these be a good time to mention that in 2008 Hillary Clinton was an exception to what you're describing, in supporting Barack Obama after he won the nomination? Or will that just set some people off?
DaveSchmidt said:
South_Mountaineer said:
Now that you mention it, that has a familiar ring.
McGovern ’72. Reagan ’80. History can be a fickle teacher when it comes to down-the-road results of intraparty protest.
In the case of Ford and Reagan you had a conservative refusing to campaign for a moderate. Obama and Clinton were, more or less, from the same branch of the Democrat Party. Plus, Clinton needed something from Obama.
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
I thought I did answer it as well as could be done given it’s a hypothetical. The Nuremberg example may guide here- first, the Nuremberg defendants were tried by the allies, not by their nation. Second, by and large they were involved in slaughter of people who posed no military threat. Third, they knew what they were doing, had time to reflect on it, and participated.
These are broad statements because Nuremberg saw all sorts of defendants to the dock for actions thousands of miles apart.
You’re positing a situation where an entire congress is needed to make an ex post determination of criminality (and I don’t know exactly what criminal charges would be brought) of a President’s action and what the implications would be for Lt. Fusion if he pushed the button. Circumstances and mens rea would be, as they are in most criminal proceedings, of paramount importance. It’s sort of a silly exercise because there is no way to know unless we pretend a whole host of facts. Some would lead to condemnation, some to exoneration.
I can’t imagine too many situations where someone ignores a presidential order and doesn’t have a bad end to their career. As they should, in any reasonable case.