We need to jump on this. Patraeus does not understand the Constitution

[spudea]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jWr5Wl-mev0

Q: Does the president need authority from congress to attack Iran.

A: I don't know the answer to that question.



How does a 4 star general not understand the US CONSTITUTION!

We need this on every news station!

I find this so disturbing. An order from the president to attack Iran would GO THROUGH unopposed!! Even as it violates the constitution! IT IS THEIR DUTY AND OATH to uphold the US constitution! THEY DO NOT HAVE AN OATH TO THE PRESIDENT! Unless its a secret oath...

are we already under a dictatorship????

[nate895]

Constitutional Law is a required class at West Point. He must not have been a very good student.

[Danke]

General Michael Hayden, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, a position which made him "the highest-ranking military intelligence officer in the armed forces." He was director of the National Security Agency (NSA) from 1999–2005

He doesn't understand the 4th Amendment.

So why should we expect that of Patraeus?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1395744&postcount=11

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1395782&postcount=13

[JS4Pat]

DISGUSTING!

I lost all respect for that man with that answer!

I know there is a Private in the ranks that could enlighten the 4 Star on the FACT that according to the Constitution CONGRESS must authorize him to go to war!

[jbuttell]

What I don't understand is how/why these are even questions we must ask. Like - Is the Patriot Act Constitutional? Is the Iraq war Constitutional? Is it really that difficult to answer these questions? If they're not so difficult, why/how do the people breaking these laws maintain their position in office? If they're breaking the law - and according to the constitution they are - why are they allowed to remain free, instead of imprisoned as the criminals they are?

[Joseph Hart]

He shloud have answered ever question to the best of his knowledge... Im not sure if hes smart enough.

[Join The Paul Side]

He shloud have answered ever question to the best of his knowledge... Im not sure if hes smart enough.

Indeed. We have another dumbass running the war. What a shocker, eh? :rolleyes:

[Kludge]

We're not at war with any countries, we're at war with "terror".

[Bruno]

What I don't understand is how/why these are even questions we must ask. Like - Is the Patriot Act Constitutional? Is the Iraq war Constitutional? Is it really that difficult to answer these questions? If they're not so difficult, why/how do the people breaking these laws maintain their position in office? If they're breaking the law - and according to the constitution they are - why are they allowed to remain free, instead of imprisoned as the criminals they are?

Maybe because the Constituition provides as a solution that Congress police themselves. The Supreme Court is set up to judge the laws, not the lawmakers. The lawmakers judge themselves, and we all know how well that has worked lately.

We only have the option to not vote them back in. The rest of the strings are for them to pull.

[syborius]

What I don't understand is how/why these are even questions we must ask. Like - Is the Patriot Act Constitutional? Is the Iraq war Constitutional? Is it really that difficult to answer these questions? If they're not so difficult, why/how do the people breaking these laws maintain their position in office? If they're breaking the law - and according to the constitution they are - why are they allowed to remain free, instead of imprisoned as the criminals they are?

because too many weak minded fools went along with the criminal cabal to feed at the trough, once all of them feed, they become accessories after the fact (conspiracy, illegal war, profiteering, coverup, etc, etc), and then they will never ever go against the administration. That is why both parties have funded this war, and will continue to fund it, as long as money is to be made for these elitest fucks, things will continue as they are. The only way to change things is to elect individuals with principles, individuals that will obey the constitution, new people that have not been corrupted.

[tod evans]

We're not at war with any countries, we're at war with "terror".

scarry as it is john q. public actually believes this.

[nickcoons]

What I don't understand is how/why these are even questions we must ask. Like - Is the Patriot Act Constitutional? Is the Iraq war Constitutional? Is it really that difficult to answer these questions?

His seemingly uninformed answer was probably intentional. I'm sure he knows that a declaration of war by Congress is required. However, had he answered "yes" to the question, then how would he have been able to answer the follow-up question of "where does your authority in Iraq come from?" He wouldn't, and he probably saw that coming.

In short, I don't think his answer demonstrates a lack of knowledge, but rather it's a way for him to weasel out.

[Kludge]

scarry as it is john q. public actually believes this.

It is true, otherwise it'd be unconstitutional. We never warred with Iraq, just political dissenters, who we collectively called "terror/terrorists"

[ClayTrainor]

His seemingly uninformed answer was probably intentional. I'm sure he knows that a declaration of war by Congress is required. However, had he answered "yes" to the question, then how would he have been able to answer the follow-up question of "where does your authority in Iraq come from?" He wouldn't, and he probably saw that coming.

In short, I don't think his answer demonstrates a lack of knowledge, but rather it's a way for him to weasel out.

So really he played it smart eh?

So there's really only 2 possible conclusions you can draw from his response.

1. He has a complete lack of understanding of the constitution or...

2. He understands that he is violating the constitution and chooses not to comment.

...

Petraeus can only be a traitor or an idiot :(

[DriftWood]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jWr5Wl-mev0

Q: Does the president need authority from congress to attack Iran.

A: I don't know the answer to that question.



How does a 4 star general not understand the US CONSTITUTION!

We need this on every news station!

I find this so disturbing. An order from the president to attack Iran would GO THROUGH unopposed!! Even as it violates the constitution! IT IS THEIR DUTY AND OATH to uphold the US constitution! THEY DO NOT HAVE AN OATH TO THE PRESIDENT! Unless its a secret oath...

are we already under a dictatorship????

Yeah, the constitution stopped being relevant when US turned from a republic into a democracy.

[virgil47]

Well let's see here. The commander in chief HAS already sent us to war WITHOUT the consent of the congress. Hmmm, who does the good general work for? Oh yeah that would be the commander in chief. WTF was he supposed to say when his boss has already bypassed the constitution and gotten away with it. The general does NOT make the rules he follows them. He most likely believes that in order for the U.S. to go to war the congress SHOULD be the ones to declare it. I say SHOULD because he also knows as we do that we are ALREADY at war without the consent of congress. The question was a catch 22 type of question and he should have answered exactly as he did or he should have just ignored the question altogether. The congresspersons that did the questioning full well new that they had not done their duty and called foul on the war. They were simply looking for a scapegoat and most of you on this board fell for their little political ploy hook, line and sinker. Welcome to the big leagues folks.

[mczerone]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jWr5Wl-mev0

Q: Does the president need authority from congress to attack Iran.

A: I don't know the answer to that question.

Yes, we are already under a dictatorship. He knows what the answer Is, but he cannot go on record having said something contradictory to current policy, that says that answer is wrong.

Thus, he doesn't know the answer: In his Constitutional Law class, the answer was most evidently "No, unless there is a direct, verified security threat to the US mainland, citizens or active duty personnel.", but under the current administration the answer is "We'll see what we can do to make this look legal." He doesn't know what answer to give in a Congressional hearing!

[ItsTime]

Reality sucks.



Petraeus can only be a traitor or an idiot :(

[nickcoons]

So really he played it smart eh?

I don't know what's in his head, but that's my guess.


So there's really only 2 possible conclusions you can draw from his response.

1. He has a complete lack of understanding of the constitution or...

2. He understands that he is violating the constitution and chooses not to comment.

...

Petraeus can only be a traitor or an idiot :(

That's what it looks like.

[nickcoons]

Well let's see here. The commander in chief HAS already sent us to war WITHOUT the consent of the congress. Hmmm, who does the good general work for? Oh yeah that would be the commander in chief. WTF was he supposed to say when his boss has already bypassed the constitution and gotten away with it. The general does NOT make the rules he follows them.

The Constitution, and his oath to it, outranks any orders that he receives from the President. You're right that the general doesn't make the rules, but he apparently doesn't follow them either.


He most likely believes that in order for the U.S. to go to war the congress SHOULD be the ones to declare it. I say SHOULD because he also knows as we do that we are ALREADY at war without the consent of congress. The question was a catch 22 type of question and he should have answered exactly as he did or he should have just ignored the question altogether. The congresspersons that did the questioning full well new that they had not done their duty and called foul on the war. They were simply looking for a scapegoat and most of you on this board fell for their little political ploy hook, line and sinker. Welcome to the big leagues folks.

I hadn't read or seen the interview, article, or video in question in this thread.. I'm only responding to comments made. I don't know who asked the question (apparently it was members of Congress). But that really doesn't matter. If you are asked an objective question such as, "What is 2+2?", it really doesn't matter who's doing the asking, the answer is the same. As is the case here.

In addition, if the fault of not legally declaring war falls on the shoulders of the Congressmen asking the question, then the general missed an excellent opportunity to slam them for their lapse.

[Join The Paul Side]

So really he played it smart eh?

So there's really only 2 possible conclusions you can draw from his response.

1. He has a complete lack of understanding of the constitution or...

2. He understands that he is violating the constitution and chooses not to comment.

...

Petraeus can only be a traitor or an idiot :(


Exactly!

[virgil47]

Nick, I really wish you were around to advise Michael New when he got court martialed for following the constitution instead of following the orders of his superiors. I'm sure that the courts, our congress and the military would have just bowed down before your superior knowledge. My friend I'm afraid that you are living in a place where the reallity of the world never intrudes.

[hawks4ronpaul]

Nick, I really wish you were around to advise Michael New when he got court martialed for following the constitution instead of following the orders of his superiors. I'm sure that the courts, our congress and the military would have just bowed down before your superior knowledge. My friend I'm afraid that you are living in a place where the reallity of the world never intrudes.

Bush allegedly gave his concurring opinion, "The Constitution is just a G**d*** piece of paper."



http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[dirtyp]

I wrote a long time ago they have their own version.

[coyote_sprit]

We're not at war with any countries, we're at war with "terror".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-zwPgfDp0I

[nickcoons]

Nick, I really wish you were around to advise Michael New when he got court martialed for following the constitution instead of following the orders of his superiors. I'm sure that the courts, our congress and the military would have just bowed down before your superior knowledge. My friend I'm afraid that you are living in a place where the reallity of the world never intrudes.

You are quite mistaken, as we are now entering into a philosophical argument.

Every member of the military has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, as has the President. In addition, military personnel are under the command of the President. So a couple of questions present themselves.

- If the President breaks his oath of office, is he still qualified to give orders to military personnel that they are bound to follow?

- If an unconstitutional order is given to military personnel, are they bound to follow it, or are they bound to their oaths?

The consequences (i.e. court marshaling) are irrelevant. If I put a gun to your head and demand your wallet, and you refuse so I kill you, does that mean that I was right and you were wrong simply because the consequences of the event were worse for you than they were for me? If a panel of judges and peers convict a member of the military for not following an unconstitutional order that would have caused them to go against their highest oath, that does not make this person any more wrong just because there are numerous others who are against them, or because the consequences for this person are unfavorable.

In addition, just because the events of Michael New played out as you say they did, as there were undoubtedly many people involved who "do this for a living" does not lead any credence to your sarcastic comment about my "superior knowledge." The Constitution is clear in plain black and white, and standing alone in my interpretation that the federal government is bound to it does not make me any less right.

[TastyWheat]

There should be an organized strike in the military. Their loyalty to their country should come before the loyalty to their government (i.e. commander-in-chief). Troops should refuse to march into war when the "enemy" is not a clear threat to our national security and diplomatic options have been exhausted.