MG (ret.) Paul Eaton apparently does not understand or accept the US Constitution

 
"“I would use the word mutinous,” said Eaton, whose long career includes training Iraqi forces from 2003 to 2004. He is now a senior adviser to VoteVets.org. “I do not believe these senators were trying to sell out America. I do believe they defied the chain of command in what could be construed as an illegal act.” Eaton certainly had stern words for Cotton.

“What Senator Cotton did is a gross breach of discipline, and especially as a veteran of the Army, he should know better,” Eaton told me. “I have no issue with Senator Cotton, or others, voicing their opinion in opposition to any deal to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. Speaking out on these issues is clearly part of his job. But to directly engage a foreign entity, in this way, undermining the strategy and work of our diplomats and our Commander in Chief, strains the very discipline and structure that our foreign relations depend on, to succeed.” The consequences of Cotton’s missive were plainly apparent to Eaton. “The breach of discipline is extremely dangerous, because undermining our diplomatic efforts, at this moment, brings us another step closer to a very costly and perilous war with Iran,” he said.'"   Jonathan Capehart

---------------

Having just implicitly praised Capehart, I now find it necessary to to take issue with this piece or at least with the expressed opinion of MG (ret.) Paul Eaton.  

Eaton does not seem to understand that POTUS is NOT commander in chief of the United States.  POTUS is commander in chief of the ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES.

Eaton does not seem to understand that POTUS is NOT the "boss" of the Congress any more than POTUS is the "boss" of the federal courts, or, for that matter of the states or the citizenry taken as a whole.

Eaton does not seem to understand that Senator Cotton's previous service with the US Army does not in any way require him in law or in honor to obey POTUS in anything or to follow the guidance of POTUS. In fact, his experience of the world in the context of his service obliges him to make informed independent judgments.

I have encountered a number of US general officers who express discomfort with the idea that the military chain of command and its responsibility to the commander of chief (POTUS) does not apply to the general obligations of citizens to follow their own judgment or conscience.

I remember a three star US Army general who told me that he could not accept the idea that he had any obligation at all to anyone or anything in the US Government other than POTUS.  He said that to contemplate mixed obligations would be "too difficult."  Such people are dangerous to the constitutional order.

I say that as someone who favors the idea of a nuclear agreement with Iran if a prudent arrangement can be made.  pl  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/13/tom-cotton-picked-apart-by-army-general-over-mutinous-iran-letter/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Eaton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution

Comments

[no one]

Referring to POTUS as "Commander in Chief" seems to be a fad since 9/11/2001. I'm 51 and I've tried to follow the "news" and be an informed citizen since I achieved voting age and I just can't remember the CinC title being regularly bandied about for Carter,Reagan, Bush1 or Clinton.

Actually, I think the ubiquitous use of CinC in some kind of neurolinguistic programming that is designed to get citizens to think of the US as a giant imperial military enterprise above all else. Dangerous thinking on the puppet masters part.

[kao_hsien_chih]

Enemies to the Constitution abounds, on both sides of the political divide.

[Charles I]

Remember pollster and spinmeister Frank Luntz?

http://www.luntzglobal.com/

[BabelFish]

IMO, this is the reduction of the constitution to " that document that makes POTUS our king". Surely the next steps lead to a praetorian guard mentality or, worse, "I was only following orders."

[Tyler]

BF,

Its been like that at least since FDR decided the US was fifty subjects with DC as king. LBJ's Great Society and the Warren Court inventing a right to abortion based on "penumbras and emanations" only doubled down on it.

[Will]

Warren was long gone by then, bro
" In the most controversial ruling of his term, Roe v. Wade (1973), Burger voted with the majority to recognize a broad right to privacy that prohibited states from banning abortions. However, Burger abandoned Roe v. Wade by the time of Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burger
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113#writing-USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS

[Cee]

All,

I questioned him at a World Affairs Counsel meeting years back. He looked at me like I was crazy and then some women jumped up and yelled for me to stop asking those kind of questions. LOL!

[Will]

Not our Charles I, but the English sovereign Charles I Stuart lost his head largely b/c of his misuse of the ship tax. Then there followed the commonwealth of Richard Cromwell who in effect was a dictator.

Charles II made the most interesting article for the restoration of the monarchy: that the king was indeed more circumscribed and restrained by the charters and custom than the dictator. And thus the monarchy came back to the unsceptered isle, chastened and sworn off interfering actively with religion.

Just throwing out an interesting tidbit to this discussion of the sharing and the restraint of state powers. Even though the Brits do not have a written constitution they have charters and customs.

[mike]

pl -

Off topic - At the Pentagon USD(Intel), Mike Vickers, is quitting. Does that seem strange after just a month under the new SecDef or am I reading too much into it?

[turcopolier]

mike

Don't know. pl

[BabelFish]

Interesting line of thoughts for another discussion, perhaps? Which POTUS first ignored the constitution? More importantly, why?

[Procopius]

I've been pretty uncomfortable with this mentality for many years. It's like the way I felt about the general whose remarks I read about: "We could beat these cowardly VietCong commies if they'd just come out and fight like men instead of sneaking around like the cowards they are." I wondered, "What planet do you spend most of your time on? Where did you learn about war? Didn't anybody ever tell you about the Minute Men and rangers?" Couldn't believe that guy was promoted higher than corporal. Anyway, when I enlisted I believe the oath I took required that I defend the constitution. It only required that I obey lawful orders and we knew in those days about Nuremberg. I find this guy Eaton a little less frightening than Gerry Boykin, but not much. How do these dingbats not get passed over when they're first lieutenants?

[turcopolier]

Babelfish

John Adams maybe for his attempt to suppress free speech in the "Alien and Sedition" laws? pl

[William R. Cumming]

No record is kept of written or oral ORDERS of the Command-In-Chief to the military chain of command.

[William R. Cumming]

Thomas Jefferson! IMO!

[William R. Cumming]

Non-uniformed warriors is the future of armed conflict IMO and in part designed to subvert the so-called LAW OF WAR developed originally by HUGO GROTIUS and others.

[BabelFish]

That was my thinking, Pat. Lincoln, for ordering a new Union Navy without Congressional budget authority?

[Hank Foresman]

MG Eaton was the first head of training the Iraq Army, from 2003 to 2004; he did such a bad job that he was sent to a dead end job at TRADOC and retired, his replacement was David Petraus.

[BabelFish]

WRC, the Louisiana Purchase?

[J]

Colonel, TTG,

On another note, seems a U.S. military convoy in Eastern Europe is making all the headlines:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-troops-drive-eastern-europe-show-defense-readiness-133453591.html

[Tyler]

Will,

I knew it was one or the other but cbf to look it up. Ah well. Thanks for the catch.

[KD]

So now that most of the details are out on this Iran deal, what is the general's thoughts now?

[turcopolier]

kd

I am not a general. You know that. I suppose this is a troll, but I will answer. IMO this is a good deal for everyone but Bibi and his crew and the American warhawk crazies intent on destroying Iran. Don't bother to try to debate me on your talking points. I will ignore you. pl