Digg

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Ron Paul vs. General David Petraeus watch!

youtube.com — Congressman Ron Paul asks Petraeus if the Bush Administration has the power to bomb Iran without further congressional approval, demanding a clear and constitutional answer.

Bury

StarWarsFan 222 days ago

108 diggs
digg it

81 Comments
Who Dugg It?

purplechoe, on 04/10/2008, -3/+23Go get them Ron! A statesman among politicians, and that includes Petraeus.
- Snyder81, on 04/11/2008, -3/+4Check out this story about Fallon and what he thinks of Petraus: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
  "Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little *****" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say."
Weiln, on 04/10/2008, -3/+21Ron's awesome. He drills right through all the BS and misdirection. I'd love to hear answers to each question.
Stryder81, on 04/10/2008, -4/+21The Lock * Question * 3:23 and the Key * Answer * 4:01

Ron Paul set them up for a simple question and they both failed miserably.
richonhill, on 04/10/2008, -3/+17like deer caught in the headlights.
cashman57, on 04/10/2008, -6/+12It is clear from the testimony of these two individuals that they are not seeing the writing on the wall.It is also clear that the strategy of propping up Maliki is not working. We have seen a reduction in violence but that was recently ended when Maliki sent troops in to battle the madman militia and thousands switched sides in the middle of it and abandoned the Iraqi military.
Five years we have been trying to make an Iraqi military force and the results are plain to see.
Time to cut our losses and get out before any more senseless bloodshed happens.
Of the announced presidential candidates one man dares to speak the truth and ask the right questions.
It just so happens he is also the only candidate with a plan for peace and prosperity.
LuaPron, on 04/10/2008, -6/+124 stars on his shoulder and a mile of ribbons on his chest and he can't even say he can't even declare his ignorance of or outright disrespect for the supreme law of the land without stumbling over his own words. Prime officer material there!

When military commanders say things like "I do not know the answer to that question and its not within my purview", they are really indicating their willingness to break the law on the word of the president - either by ignorance or by lack of respect. What we have is damn close to a military dictatorship masquerading as democracy, its only a matter of time before we elect a man who would say "I am the law".
- Hortnon, on 04/10/2008, -9/+10What do you want from him? His responsibility is not to speak for the administration, nor is it to speak on policy in Iran. His responsiblities do not include setting international policy.
  
  The military's job is to follow the orders of the President. That is all there is to it. Gray areas like military action against Iran are not up to the soldier to decide. If he ordered strikes against targets with no military benefit, then yes, that's illegal. Otherwise, it's up to Congress and the Supreme Court to decide.
  - pprovo1, on 04/10/2008, -5/+8What a pussy ass reason to not reply...A real man would be honest and truthful and give the right answer. Do you realize he has swore under oath to protect and uphold the constitution?? According to the constitution you cannot declare war WITHOUT congress. And look at where we are now. If he knew ANYTHING about the document he swore to, he would've answered NO. Instead of his pussy ass, "I'm not competent to answer that," *****.
    - Hortnon, on 04/10/2008, -10/+8Yes, I took the same oath. But you're ignorant of the legal issues surrounding this.
      
      He did NOT say "I'm not competant", idiot. Learn english, please.
      - pprovo1, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2Whats your point? He should be able to give a clear answer. I personally don't give a ***** what he EXACTLY said, because he didn't even say anything in the first place...he only implied that he wasn't going to answer it because 1) (his excuse) He doesn't deal with issues in Iran and 2) Because he doesn't wanna get his ass in deep water with a response that might come back and bite him in the ass. Obviously its all leading up to an attack in Iran...and I bet he already knows this. Personally I think hes a piece of *****.
  - LuaPron, on 04/10/2008, -5/+10He was asked a question based on a fairly straightforward reading of the constitution. I expect all men serving in an official capacity to understand at a basic level what the laws are, particularly, when said official is of a very high rank. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Though there are many disagreements over interpretation, some things are clearly stated and not open to such debates. Among them are explicit rules regarding the presidency.
    
    The laws which restrict the president's use of the military where intended to prevent something like a military dictatorship from arising. If the military simply goes along with the president's orders, then we don't have a democracy, we have a military dictatorship - its only a question of how long before we have a president and military willing to point the guns at Americans.
    
    Its the way this country is going - the expansion and centralization of power, the increasing potency of the military and the police, the pervasive surveillance, the warmongering, and various other ongoing changes - all of it taken together doesn't lead me to think we're headed for more freedom and sanity in government. These are trends that have historically been closely closely with tyrants and empire. If these trends continue without reversal, it may well come down to hoping some group of military commanders resort to insubordination - 535 Congressmen aren't about to take up arms against a rogue president, especially if the president places a few military units outside the White House.
    
    Furthermore, I've got a statement this general has probably made multiple times throughout his career on my side. It begins as such: "I, [name], do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC". Unless the General's constitution has had certain key elements redacted, it would suggest that he is bound by oath to disobey an order to fight an undeclared war. As evidenced by many current and past conflicts, that obligation is rarely fulfilled.
    - Hortnon, on 04/10/2008, -10/+7No, he was asked what the administration would do. That is not for the General to say. Further, Iran is not his responsiblity. It's pretty straightforward.
      - LuaPron, on 04/10/2008, -6/+9The question asked was "In your estimation, does the administration have the authority to bomb Iran without further Congressional approval?" I interpreted it as "Can the president start a war without Congressional approval?" (We aren't currently at war with Iran and bombing is an act of war)
        
        What I am suggesting that, since military commanders like General Petraeus are not clearly demonstrating knowledge of or respect for the constitution they have sworn to uphold, that they may very well one day be complicit in unconstitutional schemes, such as the "extreme" case I previously specified.
        
        If all commanders actually had a propensity to place the first line in their oaths ahead of career advancement, then [what should be] rhetorical questions like what Ron Paul asked would be answered with a "no", possibly with a reference to article I Section 8 of the constitution as well as the Oath of Office, rather than an evasive response.
      - kfed2, on 04/10/2008, -7/+7LuaPron - Stop wasting your time. Horton has been trolling for 6 hours straight.
        http://digg.com/users/Hortnon/history/comments/
        Look at the comments he leaves, he makes baseless emotional statements with no attempt at intelligent fact based dialog.
      - Hortnon, on 04/11/2008, -8/+9A General does not have the authority to decide on his own what the President can and cannot do. Chain of Command, I know you know what that is.
      - LuaPron, on 04/11/2008, -6/+7Of course a general does not have the authority do make such decisions. Thats not what I am trying to say.
        
        I am suggesting that, when a military general dodges even the most basic questions on the law, that that general might not either know the law, or more likely, has little, if any, respect for the law.
        
        The constitution is the supreme law of the land and the first law any member of the military swears to uphold. In order to uphold the law, you actually have to know the law and respect it.
        
        To have a GENERAL, responding to a simple constitutional question asked by a legitimately elected REPRESENTATIVE of the people, rather than regurgitating a short and simple textbook answer, say he doesn't even KNOW the answer to the question, says a lot about said general as well as the environment he is claims ignorance on the most significant law regarding war in the document he has sworn to uphold and defend.
        
        Ron Paul is still a Representative of the American people and as such, General Petraeus should have the respect and courtesy to answer the question honestly and truthfully, or at the very least, say he'll get back in touch after the conference after reviewing the constitution.
      - Hortnon, on 04/11/2008, -7/+8No, he said it was not within his purview. This is different than saying he does not know. It is an acceptable answer.
      - LuaPron, on 04/11/2008, -5/+63:38: "I do not know the answer to that question"
        
        The assertion that it is not within his purview is absurd. He took a damn oath several times, at least. He should understand what he is agreeing to defend and should be able to answer the question.
        
        The constitution says only Congress can declare a war. Dropping bombs is an act of war. The first line of the Oath of Office obligates him to defend the constitution. It is impossible to defend the law without knowing what the law is, therefore, as a military officer, the question is well within his "purview".
      - Hortnon, on 04/11/2008, -6/+8Wait, stop right there. Show me where in the Constitution it says dropping bombs is an act of war. Hell, show me their definition of 'act of war'. I'll be waiting.
      - vault, on 04/11/2008, -6/+7"Of course a general does not have the authority do make such decisions."
        
        If he doesn't have the authority to make a decision like that, then he also doesn't have the authority to answer questions about it. He's not a constitutional law attorney, he's not a congressman, and he's not the president. Those are the people qualified to answer a question like that and who should be expected to give an answer...not a general.
      - LuaPron, on 04/11/2008, -3/+5That General damn well has the authority to answer a simple question like that. First line of the oath. End of story. Unless, of course, you take on the attitude of the Bush administration, where "its only torture if we say its torture".
        
        The only reason there is any controversy over this is because the government is not respecting constitutional restrictions on power. If the Bush administration and Congress where acting in accordance with the law, then Ron Paul's question would have been a rhetorical one and the General would have said something to the effect of "The Constitution says the power to declare war is held by the Congress, without a declaration of war, the president has no authority to commit acts of war."
        
        The first line of the oath is there for a reason. If military commanders aren't supposed to think, what the hell do you think they are taking the oath for?
      - Hortnon, on 04/11/2008, -6/+8You didn't answer my question.
      - kfed2, on 04/11/2008, -3/+3"Wait, stop right there. Show me where in the Constitution it says dropping bombs is an act of war. Hell, show me their definition of 'act of war'. I'll be waiting."
        The Constitution gives reference and delegation to treaties, which clearly define an act of war.
        The whole reason why US military personnel take an oath to "support and defend the constitution," and to "obey all lawful orders..." is so that people in the military have their highest loyalty to the constitution, and can recognize any order contrary to the constitution as unlawful. It is a check against politicians who might try to use the military for unconstitutional purposes.
        "If he doesn't have the authority to make a decision like that, then he also doesn't have the authority to answer questions about it." Not true, if that were true PR people would not exist. That said, he can refuse to answer the question.
      - Hortnon, on 04/11/2008, -5/+5OK, so show me the treaty describing acts of war, and defining, in detail, when war should be declared.
      - kfed2, on 04/11/2008, -2/+3I do not feel like bothering to discuss the LOC (Law of Armed Conflict, sometimes referred to the Law of War). I am an Intelligence Officer in the reserves & had to study it in a class I took a few months ago, so I am certain on this one. It will be easy for you to find if you really want to. The point is that "act of war" is clearly defined and accepted by most countries. Even the soldiers in Iraq need to know the rules of engagement which are derived from it.
      - Hortnon, on 04/11/2008, -4/+6Now find the connection between act of war and requirement for declaration of war.
        
        Out of curiosity, Army or Air Force reserves?
      - kfed2, on 04/11/2008, -2/+3Here's a 1/2 way decent summary: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm
        Act of War definition: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00 ...
        According the the US Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war. According to LOAC (which is complicated), peacetime military action is unlawful unless done in 1. retaliation for an attack, or 2. To prevent an imminent attack. "Attack" has it's own definitions, and retaliation has several legal restrictions on it as well.
        ""In your estimation, does the administration have the authority to bomb Iran without further Congressional approval?" The General was professionally smart not to answer that question, but he was legally permitted to do so. Paul wanted to know his stance on the power of the Executive.
        I am in the Navy Reserves. That is why I am not in Iraq.
      - Hortnon, on 04/11/2008, -4/+4I have to go through the same training on LOAC that you do, trust me, I know it.
        
        I'm still wondering when you explain where the requirement to 'declare war' for certain actions is. Yes, Congress declares war. When is that required?
      - kfed2, on 04/11/2008, -1/+4According to LOAC, it is complicated, but the guidelines are in my last post. According to the US Constitution there are no restrictions, only the requirement that Congress declares war.
        If you know this, why are you asking me?
      - Hortnon, on 04/12/2008, -3/+2There is no requirement for when war should be declared. So, making the connection between LOAC and the Constitution like this is irrelevant. Yes, Congress declares war, but when is that required and when isn't it?
      - kfed2, on 04/12/2008, -1/+2LOAC allows countries to declare war under certain conditions, it never requires them to declare war - I agree, what is your point?
      - pprovo1, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2Horton...you've gone off on a tangent. Your last few posts seem mis-guided. The original topic of this discussion was about Patraeus's answer to Ron Paul's question.
        
        Obviously we see this situation differently. You see his response as a legitimate, where some (including me) believe it is lacking in any substance. He just brushed that question off as if it wasn't worth *****. I personally believe he didn't want to say anything that would bite him in the ass later on. But I guess you gotta do what you gotta do when you are in his ranking...it just seems like we don't have any honest and righteous people at the top anymore
      - LuaPron, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2Alright, I don't normally care for meta-topics, but for all the hot air being exchanged by both sides (including myself), you have not addressed a single point I've been trying to make about what the incident means. I'm arguing that the incident, taken in historical context, has some potentially terrible ramifications and your trying to argue over the fine points of the law and vaguely related treaties and regulations. We can argue all day over how which interpretation of what parts of the constitution applies or who is responsible or authorized to say what, for what reasons, but thats really peripheral to the issue.
        
        Then again, I might just be describing the typical political debate on digg.
      - kfed2, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1 pprovo1 & LuaPron, good point, but sometimes it is fun to go off topic.
      - Hortnon, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2My point is that it is a complicated legal issue, and that's why I've been going off on a tangent to show that. With that in mind, it is not right in any sense for the General to answer the question with a definite affirmative or negative. Remember, he didn't say 'Yes', either.
      - LuaPron, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2And I would contend that that evasiveness or willful ignorance, by the military, over issues like that will inevitably lead to military dictatorship (unless you have a perfect scheme for making sure someone like Bush never wins an election). It could just as easily have been a question about the meaning of Posse Comitatus that General Petraeus..
      - Hortnon, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1I think your comment got cut off
      - LuaPron, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2More or less, that if people like General Petraeus are ignorant of or unwilling to discuss pertinent laws, that they may be equally disinterested or incapable of complying with those laws. Though the fact that this has occurred over war issues should be of great concern to us, I think many will not understand the ramifications unless the same logic gets applied to Posse Comitatus, under a president as willing to commit abuses at home as Bush is abroad.
Hortnon, on 04/10/2008, -17/+12What? Why does everyone think this proves anything but that Paul is a career politician? He "asked" a bunch of questions - not because he expects answers, but because he wanted to make a ***** speech in an inappropriate setting. He even said it! Then he baits - and fails - Gen Petraeus with some nonsense about Iran, and stumbles trying to recover.

Absolutely pathetic display.
- brad3378, on 04/11/2008, -6/+8So you're telling me that he left his job as a Doctor to become a typical "Career Politician"?
  
  Are we talking about the same man? Are we talking about the man who returns a portion of his office budget every year to the taxpayers. Can you name just one other politician that does that?
  - Hortnon, on 04/11/2008, -6/+9The man who continues to accept donations for his Presidential campaign that is literally going nowhere? When was the last "Paul '08" ad on the radio you heard? When was the last speech outside of Texas he gave?
    
    Yes, I'm talking about that man. Because by returning part of his salary and budget, he can convince fools that he's the real deal while emptying their wallet. I envision a scene with him shaking your hand and smiling while his other hand is in your pocket.
    - rexblade, on 04/11/2008, -7/+5Hes always returned part of his salary/budget. How many times has he run for office? Ron Paul was the first time i ever donated to a presidential candidate 3 times actually and the only one who deserves it. Your daily mission of trolling is all the encouragement I need.
      - Hortnon, on 04/11/2008, -5/+63 times, and what did that get you? He wrote a book while campaigning. How dedicated to his campaign was he? Where's all that money going to go now?
    - billyjack1958, on 04/12/2008, -0/+3He's still campaigning. He has been in Pennsylvania, he's coming to Montana as well as other places. It's all right there on his campaign website. Just because his campaign is blacked out by the media doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9At-PejXNIw
BohicaTwentyTwo, on 04/10/2008, -18/+13Nice that Ron Paul cares so much about Iran, but doesn't give a damn about Tibet, Darfur or Burma.
- trackerbishop, on 04/10/2008, -6/+12youre a neocon. why should congress pass a hypocritical resolution about tibet, darfur, or burma when our govt is sanctioning and killing hundreds and thousands of iraqi civilians just so the govt there will keep using US$ and so we can secure their oil? its saber rattling and we have no place or right to do it. congress should be working on more important things.
- SleighBoy, on 04/10/2008, -4/+12It is not about caring about Iran, he cares about our constitution and not getting our soldiers killed in preemptive strikes that will only cause more backlash against us.
- brad3378, on 04/11/2008, -6/+7Are you implying that we need to start 3 more wars in order to prove that we give a damn?
- 00z003, on 04/11/2008, -5/+4you should book a flight to darfur and solve it yourself
  - jerger23, on 04/11/2008, -3/+5Typical response from someone who hasn't tried to solve a real problem outside of flaming someone online because their point of view differs.
    - 00z003, on 04/12/2008, -2/+2and you are doing something different? its a forum... why should the american people be forced to deal with the situation in darfur?
      - jerger23, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2I've done plenty different. I've traveled to two developing nations and delivered food, clothing, and medical supplies. I also currently provide monthly contribution to charities providing food and medical support to nations in the Horn of Africa.
        Why should American people be forced to deal with the situation in Dharfur? Why should people be selfish when they have some means to help someone who lives in fear of death from starvation, disease, or genocide? Our country and society was much better off when fewer people cared more about their own comfort than taking the time to make their world a better place.
    - billyjack1958, on 04/12/2008, -2/+1Actually jerger, that's a Constitutional reply. The Constitution says that Taxpayer money is not to be used for causes outside of our borders. If an American individual or company wishes to support a foreign cause, they are free to do so with their Own money, not taxpayer money. I support Tibet and it's not fair if you force me to support Darfur just because you think that cause is a needier one. We don't have that forced donating if we follow the Constitution. Not only that but foreign aid in the hands of government is nothing more than the transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. Not only that but we need that money here at home....it's the hard-earned money of Americans and it should be used to help Americans.
      - jerger23, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Where does it say that taxpayer money is not to be used for causes outside of our borders?
ssn697, on 04/10/2008, -19/+14I am surprised there wasn't a "buy my book if you have further questions" thrown in. What a huckster...
- trackerbishop, on 04/10/2008, -9/+10youre also a neocon. how is your centcom office today?
  - ssn697, on 04/10/2008, -11/+14Ooh, I got called a socialist AND a neo-con in the same day! Ron Paul buzzword rhetoric express!
    - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 04/10/2008, -2/+17What do you need to be called for the Trifecta? I'm going with SHEEPLE.
      - ssn697, on 04/10/2008, -6/+13commie shill government worker NWO CFR Bilderburg treasonous hater of freedom and liberty?
      - rexblade, on 04/11/2008, -7/+3Is that a confession?
    - jerger23, on 04/11/2008, -0/+7Thanks! I've filled my Ron Paul Buzzword Bingo card.
  - Hortnon, on 04/10/2008, -8/+12Do you even know what CENTCOM is for?
    - JohnReb, on 04/11/2008, -3/+11Don't tell them. The fact they so obviously have no idea is one of the few things about their posts that amuse me.
    - JessicaLF77, on 04/11/2008, -0/+6LMAO. I asked that once, and got no response. But it sounds ominous, doesn't it? ;)
    - jerger23, on 04/11/2008, -0/+4I tried to get phone service through CENT-COM, but AT&T gave me a much better rate.
- brad3378, on 04/11/2008, -5/+7Thanks for reminding me to add that to my shopping list.
- rexblade, on 04/11/2008, -5/+4So you guys do know that was no weapons of mass destruction or ties to the 9/11 hijackers right? There wasn't really Al-ciada there until after we were. So your gonna stand by your support of an illeagal immoral war that was justified by lies and is bankrupting the country and killing thousands? Sure seems like it.........
cyndezu, on 04/10/2008, -6/+14Ron set these two boobs up and shot 'em down

Ron Paul 2008 Our Hope For America
- Hortnon, on 04/10/2008, -9/+10Really? How? They weren't allowed the time to answer his speech.
  - SleighBoy, on 04/10/2008, -4/+9He acknowledged that all but his last question would not be answered, but just wanted to ask the last one about upholding the constitution. They both showed complete ignorance of the document that created this country and should be the last word on these matters. Their non-answers are CYA responses, more nothingness and avoiding any responsibility.
    - Hortnon, on 04/10/2008, -9/+8Kind of like how his 'questions' are nothingness. You seriously think his other questions were anything but political *****?
      - SleighBoy, on 04/11/2008, -4/+6He is posing questions for the record that those calling the shots are ignoring. He is just asking anybody to consider that fact that we're digging a hole we cannot get out of. As far as "political *****", I don't think asking serious questions about our intentions and authority in other nations is *****. Our government has never been above propping up a foreign cause for our own benefit before, you think this is our moment of virtue?
        
        When you say "I do not know the answer to that question, and it's not within my purview" .. That is a cop-out, because if you read article one, section of our constitution it states that the congress has the power "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water" while in article two section 2 it states "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States".
        
        So, knowing that, he could have said "no, the executive branch cannot carry out military actions on any nation without congressional approval as it states in our constitution".. instead we get "I do not know the answer to that question, and it's not within my purview" .. the second part is correct, it is not in his purview because he is not a congressman, but he should know the answer. Seems pretty clear to me.
      - Hortnon, on 04/11/2008, -7/+8He is not a lawyer, he is a General. What's so hard to understand?
pprovo1, on 04/10/2008, -5/+14He ***** owned that ***** haha. Go Ron. We need more people asking THE REAL questions in congress.
4Runner, on 04/10/2008, -5/+11Petraeus got Ron Paul'd.
ostm444, on 04/11/2008, -4/+4That was sweet. Kucinich also had a nice rant against the war on the house floor today. "What are we waiting for?"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sKWDwg60M6E
- vault, on 04/11/2008, -3/+6No one cares what Kucinich says except a small % of the far left. His rant will do literally nothing.
  - cyndezu, on 04/12/2008, -0/+3this attitude is whats killing America, wake-up
cyndezu, on 04/11/2008, -1/+4Ron Paul should have had more time, He used it wisely to make a point.
billyjack1958, on 04/12/2008, -0/+4 Ron Paul is our only hope to escape the status quo and there is no way, after having done the research, that my conscience would allow me to vote for anyone else.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Ron Paul vs. General David Petraeus watch!

Login or register to add a comment