Did Obama seek an...

[vy65]

Actually, you're not quite getting it. The "US" isn't obligated to defend a NATO member; "NATO" is obligated. Since NATO is made up of numerous countries, they can determine how best to defend said country. The treaty doesn't require that EVERY country put in allocation of resources for EVERY defensive effort.

That's not right - the Article speaks in terms of "Parties" and not the en y "NATO."

You are right that the text doesn't require an immediate military retaliation. But I think that's the purpose of the Article, i.e., the reason an attack on one = an attack on all is to obligate each member nation to defend the attacked party.

[ElNono]

In the real world however, I hardly see the US turning their back to one of our NATO allies if they're attacked. I think the military support would be immediate.

What I do find terribly hypocritical is to justify unilateral military action on UN resolutions right after being voted down on a UN resolution seeking approval for said military action. To me that's basically saying "we'll do whatever we want, UN resolution or not", while at the same time claiming higher moral ground because you're supposedly upholding UN resolutions.

[LnGrrrR]

Article VI of the Cons ution makes treaties the supreme law of the land unless they conflict with a statute.

And if the US signs a treaty that conflicts with the Cons ution (ie. someone interpreting a UN treaty to mean that the POTUS doesn't have sole jurisdiction over our military), then it would be inherently uncons utional.

IOW, the President's power as CiC would trump any treaties that said otherwise.

[vy65]

And if the US signs a treaty that conflicts with the Cons ution (ie. someone interpreting a UN treaty to mean that the POTUS doesn't have sole jurisdiction over our military), then it would be inherently uncons utional.

IOW, the President's power as CiC would trump any treaties that said otherwise.

And I think that a treaty that contemplates 1) a US presence on its governing body and 2) a US vote on military affairs doesn't necessarily violate the commander-in-chief clause.

No one thinks that, as a result of ratifying the UN charter, any member nation has access to American B-52s for military operations. That would violate the CiC clause. I don't think that's the same as the US being obligated to contribute military assistance to a mandate that it voted for.

[LnGrrrR]

That's not right - the Article speaks in terms of "Parties" and not the en y "NATO."

You are right that the text doesn't require an immediate military retaliation. But I think that's the purpose of the Article, i.e., the reason an attack on one = an attack on all is to obligate each member nation to defend the attacked party.

By "the parties" they meanso collectively. The parties, as a whole. How dumb would it be that, for every defensive effort, they required at least one token force from every country? Do you have any idea how hard that would be to manage?

Let's break down the actual meaning of the treaty, cutting out the extra stuff.

"... each of them will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

So, if the US deems no action is necessary on their part, because a bunch of other nations have it locked up, then they don't necessarily need to help.

[LnGrrrR]

And I think that a treaty that contemplates 1) a US presence on its governing body and 2) a US vote on military affairs doesn't necessarily violate the commander-in-chief clause.

Anything that mandates action by our military by anyone outside of the Chain of Command is uncons utional.

No one thinks that, as a result of ratifying the UN charter, any member nation has access to American B-52s for military operations. That would violate the CiC clause. I don't think that's the same as the US being obligated to contribute military assistance to a mandate that it voted for.

Being obligated to defend another country requires the President giving up some control over the military, but the only possible exceptions for the Commander's control involve our own legislature (waging war/raising funding for armies) or our judiciary (for instance, if the Pres created a policy for military that was uncons utional).

[vy65]

By "the parties" they meanso collectively. The parties, as a whole. How dumb would it be that, for every defensive effort, they required at least one token force from every country? Do you have any idea how hard that would be to manage?

I don't think that's right. For purposes of the treaty, an attack on one Party cons utes an attack on all Parties. Per the terms of Art. 6, that means each Party is obligated to contribute military aid as necessary.

I don't know about the actual mechanics of military cooperation. That said, my understanding is that each nation contributes some military personnel, which act as a NATO troops. So, in reality, it seems like a token force from each country is sent to NATO as a NATO troop.

Let's break down the actual meaning of the treaty, cutting out the extra stuff.

"... each of them will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

So, if the US deems no action is necessary on their part, because a bunch of other nations have it locked up, then they don't necessarily need to help.

The problem with this interpretation is that it makes possible a scenario where every member states that its participation in collective defense efforts is not necessary. That would hollow out the whole treaty. The rules of statutory interpretation prohibit such a reading.

It also reads out the term "will assist;" i.e., how does a member "assist" another by doing nothing?

[vy65]

Anything that mandates action by our military by anyone outside of the Chain of Command is uncons utional.

Being obligated to defend another country requires the President giving up some control over the military, but the only possible exceptions for the Commander's control involve our own legislature (waging war/raising funding for armies) or our judiciary (for instance, if the Pres created a policy for military that was uncons utional).

I guess what I'm saying is that the structure of US involvement in those bodies ensures that there is no non-CiC control off the military. My other point is that when the executive deems it prudent to assent to UN operations, the US becomes legally obligated to provide whatever aid has been contemplated.

Plus I don't think the treaty requires defense of another country.

And, there's an argument that commitment to defend a Member state or police a no-fly zone, for example, wouldn't violate the CiC clause even if the President didn't want to commit US forces - you could argue that the CiC clause only contemplates Executive control over the military hierarchy - but does not contemplate decisions as to where and when to commmit forces. In other words, the clause would be violated when another country assumed control of specific units, battalions, etc... but would not be violated when the US become obligated to intervene.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't know about the actual mechanics of military cooperation. That said, my understanding is that each nation contributes some military personnel, which act as a NATO troops. So, in reality, it seems like a token force from each country is sent to NATO as a NATO troop.

I think this fact needs to be proven out one way or another. Research must be done...

The problem with this interpretation is that it makes possible a scenario where every member states that its participation in collective defense efforts is not necessary. That would hollow out the whole treaty. The rules of statutory interpretation prohibit such a reading.

So what's to stop every country from just sending one troop? That would justify the terms of the treaty, correct? But, of course, it wouldn't accomplish anything. Who contributes what, where and when is all a matter of politics.

It also reads out the term "will assist;" i.e., how does a member "assist" another by doing nothing?

As I said upthread, they could satisfy this clause with something ridiculously small, such as assigning an ambassador to look at the matter and advise, or something similar.

[LnGrrrR]

I guess what I'm saying is that the structure of US involvement in those bodies ensures that there is no non-CiC control off the military. My other point is that when the executive deems it prudent to assent to UN operations, the US becomes legally obligated to provide whatever aid has been contemplated.

Plus I don't think the treaty requires defense of another country.

Weren't you just saying the treaty required defense of another country by all parties to the treaty?

And, there's an argument that commitment to defend a Member state or police a no-fly zone, for example, wouldn't violate the CiC clause even if the President didn't want to commit US forces - you could argue that the CiC clause only contemplates Executive control over the military hierarchy - but does not contemplate decisions as to where and when to commmit forces. In other words, the clause would be violated when another country assumed control of specific units, battalions, etc... but would not be violated when the US become obligated to intervene.

If the US is obligated to intervene, it would mean the President didn't have complete control over the military, which is how the CiC position has been determined historically though legislature and court precedent.

Could you find me an example of any sort of interpretation of the CiC's power that would obligate him to give up even partial control of the military?

[vy65]

I think this fact needs to be proven out one way or another. Research must be done....

I found this: http://www.nato.int/issues/troop_con...ons/index.html

Basically, it seems like NATO sends out a "want ad," and member nations decide the extent of its contribution. There is no standing NATO force - other than the supreme commander - who, in the past at least, has been a US military official who I guess was "loaned" to the alliance.

That said, I don't think this blurb answers the question of when a member is attacked or under a threat of attack. Instead, it explains the mechanics of an operation - like Kosovo - where NATO undertakes peace keeping operations. I think the question of military cooperation when a member is attacked is different.

So what's to stop every country from just sending one troop? That would justify the terms of the treaty, correct? But, of course, it wouldn't accomplish anything. Who contributes what, where and when is all a matter of politics.

Besides being funny, I don't understand what you're getting at. Contributing one soldier probably won't be sufficient for any given military operation. Therefore, there's a strong argument that it wouldn't cons ute "assistance" as contemplated by the treaty.

[vy65]

Weren't you just saying the treaty required defense of another country by all parties to the treaty?

I had a different idea of the word "defense" in mind.

Could you find me an example of any sort of interpretation of the CiC's power that would obligate him to give up even partial control of the military?

Sure. The Supreme Court cases dealing with military tribunals. There is some precedent in the later cases where the Court says some article III review of detainee detention is cons utionally required, even at the expense of the CiC power.

[LnGrrrR]

I found this: http://www.nato.int/issues/troop_con...ons/index.html

Basically, it seems like NATO sends out a "want ad," and member nations decide the extent of its contribution. There is no standing NATO force - other than the supreme commander - who, in the past at least, has been a US military official who I guess was "loaned" to the alliance.

...which is nearly exactly what I described.

That said, I don't think this blurb answers the question of when a member is attacked or under a threat of attack. Instead, it explains the mechanics of an operation - like Kosovo - where NATO undertakes peace keeping operations. I think the question of military cooperation when a member is attacked is different.

Per your link:

The final decision on whether to contribute troops and equipment to a NATO-led operation or mission is taken by national capitals, who communicate continuously with NATO through their permanent diplomatic missions, national military representation, or partnership liaison teams.

IOW, whether a member nation decides to send troops is up to that member nation.

Besides being funny, I don't understand what you're getting at. Contributing one soldier probably won't be sufficient for any given military operation. Therefore, there's a strong argument that it wouldn't cons ute "assistance" as contemplated by the treaty.

And who gets to define what "assistance" is required from each member?

[LnGrrrR]

Sure. The Supreme Court cases dealing with military tribunals. There is some precedent in the later cases where the Court says some article III review of detainee detention is cons utionally required, even at the expense of the CiC power.

Fail. I already stated that there are some exceptions whereby the President's power is limited, and gave specific examples for legislative and judiciary checks.

Can you find precedent that says a treaty trumps the Cons ution, or any precedent where a foreign power determines military obligations?

[Yonivore]

Fail. I already stated that there are some exceptions whereby the President's power is limited, and gave specific examples for legislative and judiciary checks.

Can you find precedent that says a treaty trumps the Cons ution, or any precedent where a foreign power determines military obligations?

Give Ruth Bader Ginsburg some time and she'll come up with one.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Since this seems to be the official Libya thread, I have a question for everyone in case I'm wrong:

Does the US have to pay out of its own pocket (whatever that means these days, chinese money i guess) for each Cruise Missile fired in this operation?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Any treaty that obligates the US military to act is unenforceable and effectively uncons utional. That includes NATO.

You think that if France is attacked tomorrow we're obligated to defend them by law?

That's why the whole episode in Bosnia was the precedent setter. It shifted the paradigm further from US/UN war, to NATOcentric war. That's the bull we leaned upon to invade Iraq, and ironic that hawks are still using Bosnia as a historic example to be pro-war.

The Cons ution doesn't mean anymore. We are supposed to believe that since there is no countries that have the balls to declare war anymore, that what we're reading about in the news is not a war.

But it is.

Just one more step on the way to a one world government.

[Vici]

If I remember properly the Chinese only have a single missile ship in the Mediterranean while Russia has little to no presence. If Russia has a presence, it is limited to building that new port in Syria. I don't think they could have done much under the UN resolution even if they wanted to.

[vy65]

Fail. I already stated that there are some exceptions whereby the President's power is limited, and gave specific examples for legislative and judiciary checks.

Can you find precedent that says a treaty trumps the Cons ution, or any precedent where a foreign power determines military obligations?

Sure. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld applied the Geneva Convention to the treatment of detainees. The Court applied 1) an international treaty to 2) strike down the Executive's treatment of "POWs." The point being - an international treaty was applied by the court to curtail the president's CIC power - specifically - how military tribunals were able to treat detainees

Your post spins the issue in the wrong way. The issue is not whether there are checks and balances on the Executive's power under the cons ution. Nor is it a matter of whether a treaty trumps the Cons ution. Rather, the question is whether a treaty can place binding obligations on the Executive's CiC power. Hamdan shows that, in specific situations, this can occur. When the Court says that the President cannot conduct war in a particular manner under the Geneva Convention- i.e. indefinately detaining POWs without an Article III court's judicial review of the detention - you have a situation where international obligations trump the CiC power.

Here's a link the Hamdan. The relevant section is "D:" http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZO.html

[vy65]

Also - that link does not deal with the situation I've described. The NATO blurb deals with NATO-sponsored missions, i.e. those in Afghanistan or the Balkans. Those missions did not involve direct attacks on a NATO member nation. Explain to me why and how the information on those pages (dealing with missions not involving an attack on a "Party") is relevant to an attack on a NATO member nation - which is directly covered by Art. 6 of the treaty?

I don't know who gets to define "assistance." But you still haven't given me a reason why this is important much less relevant. Ultimately, I can concede a member nation can decide whaty type of troops to commit (i.e., air, ground, comm-support, etc...). However, that doesn't mean the question of whether to commit assistance in the first place is a matter of politics or discretion.

[boutons_deux]

When head was cons utionally violating checks-and-balances with his Unilateral Executive tactics, Repugs were silent or resoundingly approving.

Now, Repugs really don't like UE when an Dem Pres appears to be doing his own UE.

[coyotes_geek]

When head was cons utionally violating checks-and-balances with his Unilateral Executive tactics, Repugs were silent or resoundingly approving.

Now, Repugs really don't like UE when an Dem Pres appears to be doing his own UE.

republicans = like UE when it's their guy = don't like UE when it's the other guy = democrats

[vy65]

Can you find precedent that says a treaty trumps the Cons ution, or any precedent where a foreign power determines military obligations?

One last thing: can you find:

1. Any instance where the US refused to commit troops to NATO because the structure of the treaty violated the CiC clause - or any other part of the Cons ution?

2. Any judicial decision wherein a Court holds the North Atlantic Treaty violates Article 2 of the Cons ution?

3. Any case where NATO's military policy or a particular military operation was out of line, conflicted with or different from a US military policy or operation?

[DarrinS]

.

[LnGrrrR]

Sure. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld applied the Geneva Convention to the treatment of detainees. The Court applied 1) an international treaty to 2) strike down the Executive's treatment of "POWs." The point being - an international treaty was applied by the court to curtail the president's CIC power - specifically - how military tribunals were able to treat detainees.

Right, but in this case the court was dealing with PRISONERS of the military, not the military itself. The court case in no way said that the Geneva Conventions dictates how the CiC will deploy troops.

Now, there might be some argument in there that the US is bound to "lawful" warfare under the terms of the Geneva Convention. It's not quite the same as a foreign power dictating how our military will be deployed, but it does put some limits on what we as a military can do.

I'm guessing though that all limits set by said treaty also are reflected somewhere in US law.

Your post spins the issue in the wrong way. The issue is not whether there are checks and balances on the Executive's power under the cons ution. Nor is it a matter of whether a treaty trumps the Cons ution. Rather, the question is whether a treaty can place binding obligations on the Executive's CiC power. Hamdan shows that, in specific situations, this can occur. When the Court says that the President cannot conduct war in a particular manner under the Geneva Convention- i.e. indefinately detaining POWs without an Article III court's judicial review of the detention - you have a situation where international obligations trump the CiC power.

Yes, I'll give you that. The CiC can be limited by certain treaties. But I don't think "deployment of troops" is one of them. As pointed out in that NATO link, the ultimate decider of whether or not a nation gives up troops is up to that nation.

(Usually, it's in their best interest to contribute, otherwise NATO would be toothless.)