Military Support for Ron Paul Growing Fast - VETS SIGN UP!

Just joined. VietNam vet.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson

This is awesome! Having the military come out strong for Ron Paul really gives him the even higher moral high ground in my opinion.

Great work organizing this Tim, you rock.

----------------------------------------------------------------
More Ron Paul stats than you can shake a stick at!
http://ronpaulgraphs.com/

Heck, Dems and Ind for that matter, give them this:

http://files.meetup.com/724407/Republicans%20for%20Ron%20Pau...

Tim
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/1040/

On Tuesday, October 9th, CNBC hosted a debate for Republican presidential candidates in Detroit. The debate, typical of any major network debate, lacked any real substance, structure, or semblance of fairness. What really struck a chord with me (and others I'm sure) was a question posed by Mr. Matthews about whether the CIC needed congressional approval to launch a strategic attack on Iran (which stemmed from the legislation that was introduced in Congress that would require Bush to do so) and the fallout thereafter.

The fact that only three of the candidates answered in the affirmative should send chills up the spines of any American. With regards to military members, it should cause each of us to pause and question where we stand on our oaths to the Constitution, President, and UCMJ. The oaths that the President of the United States (POTUS) and we military members take are centered around one concept - supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America. In fact, that is the one and only thing that the POTUS takes an oath to do when he takes office.

Our oath goes a step further than that of the president. Our oath requires us to obey the orders of the POTUS and the UCMJ. But what if that oath required us to disobey the orders of the POTUS?

According to the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war. Bombing other countries and sending in troops is an act of war. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 authorizes the POTUS to send troops into areas where hostilities are imminent only when there is a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, and/or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

This leads me back to the question posed by Mr. Matthews. Does the CIC need authorization from Congress to attack strategic - not fleeting - targets in Iran? The answer, which should be obvious to anyone who has ever read the constitution or researched the laws of our country, is yes. He is not asking whether the POTUS needs authorization to defend the country from imminent or actual attack. He is asking whether the POTUS can plan and carry out an attack against a sovereign nation without authorization from the people through their representatives in Congress.

So, what if one of the candidates who felt that he did not need that authorization was elected as president? What if he planned and executed a strategic attack against Iran without or against the approval of Congress? What would our oaths require us to do in those circumstances? How many of us would simply obey the orders given to us, regardless of their legality (an unsuccessful argument used by Nazis at the Nuremberg Trials to defend their actions during WWII)? How many would refuse those orders? How many of those would be tried, convicted, and punished?

There were a great number of people who felt that the election of 2004 was one of the most important elections in history. The argument was that the election would be the deciding factor in whether the war, corruption, abuse of civil rights, and destruction of the economy (which, in my opinion was not entirely **** 's fault) would continue for another 4 years. Looking forward to 2008, I can't help but feel that we are now at a pivotal point in our history. Do we nominate, and possibly elect, a man who feels that he is above the law and can order the military around as he pleases, thereby turning us into a dictatorial nation, or do we nominate, and possibly elect, a man who at the very least has some semblance of respect for the very document that both he and we take oaths to support and defend? If a man of the former class is elected, what are our obligations as military members with respects to the oaths that we took?

For the sake of the future of the entire country, we military members need to start speaking out in support of the very document that made this country what it was and currently appears to be. When it was drafted, it was far from perfect. It still is today. But, it is still the only thing left between what is left of a free country and what could be a fascist country of the sort of Nazi Germany. Hopefully, more military members will demand accountability from our leaders before they thrust us into another undeclared and illegal war against an enemy that may or may not be a threat to our liberty.

Name Redacted Rate AT3
A Military Member

Tim
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/1040/