Executive Order Amendment allows Secretary of Defense to recall retired military personnel - Polidicks

[quote]EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223 By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and in furtherance of the objectives of Proclamation 7463 of September 14, 2001 (Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks), which declared a national emergency by reason of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in New York and Pennsylvania and against the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States, and in order to provide the Secretary of Defense additional authority to manage personnel requirements in a manner consistent with the authorization provided in Executive Order 13223 of September 14, 2001 (Ordering the Ready Reserve of the Armed Forces to Active Duty and Delegating Certain Authorities to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Transportation), it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Amendment to Executive Order 13223. Section 1 of Executive Order 13223 is amended by adding at the end: "[b]The authorities available for use during a national emergency under sections 688 and 690 of title 10, United States Code, are also invoked and made available, according to their terms, to the Secretary concerned, subject in the case of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, to the direction of the Secretary of Defense.[/b]" Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE, October 20, 2017.[/quote] [url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/20/presidential-executive-order-amending-executive-order-13223]Source: The White House[/url] Emphasis and headline mine. This is the full EO amendment, straight from the horse's mouth. What this EO amendment does is allow the Secretary of Defense to call [i]any[/i] recently retired member of the Regular US Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force back to active duty. Trump is granting the Secretary of Defense full power to recall anyone who has served and/or retired in the last 20 years. [b]Trump may be preparing us for war.[/b]

I wonder if this idiot would use the drafts its sad but under this guys command if we were in war there would be a huge list of deaths that he'll just ignore and pretend didn't happen

Not a fan of it, but doubt Trump is gonna start a war. He is certainly crazy and dumb enough to try it, but Congress has to approve it first, which (I'd hope) they won't do unless there's a very, very good reason for it.

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52802154]Not a fan of it, but doubt Trump is gonna start a war. He is certainly crazy and dumb enough to try it, but Congress has to approve it first, which (I'd hope) they won't do unless there's a very, very good reason for it.[/QUOTE] That raises the question of how far reaching Executive Orders can be. I can fully imagine him trying to start a war with one.

[QUOTE=Medevila;52802178]the draft should've been used every time we've gone to war, and we shouldn't have gone to 'war' a notable few times it shouldn't be this comfortable or easy to go to war, we've developed a warrior class that's isolated from the rest of the American public[/QUOTE] I get where you're coming from, but in Vietnam the overwhelming majority of combatants were volunteers rather than draftees, and despite public pressure we spent a decade in conflict. There are a lot of factors that have produced what you rightly identify as a disconnect between the public and the act of warfighting, the non-use of the draft is only a small part of it.

Britain has this already; retired armed services personnel go into the Regular Reserve and can be called up "in case of imminent national danger or great emergency". Makes sense to me, frankly. Trained soldiers are always useful if there's a war.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;52802241]Britain has this already; retired armed services personnel go into the Regular Reserve and can be called up [b]"in case of imminent national danger or great emergency"[/b]. Makes sense to me, frankly. Trained soldiers are always useful if there's a war.[/QUOTE] The scary thing is that I'm pretty sure we are still technically eligible for this to happen under the requirements in the original Bush EO this is amending. The deadline for the end of the period which the original EO applies to was extended - if I remember correctly - indefinitely. Trump could pull retired soldiers back [i]today[/i] if he wanted to.

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52802154]Not a fan of it, but doubt Trump is gonna start a war. He is certainly crazy and dumb enough to try it, but Congress has to approve it first, which (I'd hope) they won't do unless there's a very, very good reason for it.[/QUOTE] Congress has to approve any official act of war but America technically hasn't gone to war in decades.

[QUOTE=Van-man;52802175]That raises the question of how far reaching Executive Orders can be. I can fully imagine him trying to start a war with one.[/QUOTE] He might try, but he'll fail. That said, I do believe there is in fact a way for the President to declare war without Congressional approval first. How, I can't remember, sadly. But I bet ya Trump'll just do that.

[url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/20/air-force-recall-many-1-000-retired-pilots-address-serious-shortage/785344001/]Air Force will recall as many as 1,000 retired pilots to address serious shortage[/url]

[QUOTE=Snapster;52802296][url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/20/air-force-recall-many-1-000-retired-pilots-address-serious-shortage/785344001/]Air Force will recall as many as 1,000 retired pilots to address serious shortage[/url][/QUOTE] [quote]On Capitol Hill, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and a member of Armed Services Committee, said that the fight against Islamic State and al Qaeda linked terrorists will be expanding. He made remarks to reporters while speaking about the four U.S. soldiers killed Oct. 4 in Niger. Counter-terrorism rules under President Obama had been too restrictive and ineffective, Graham said. “The war is morphing," Graham said. "[b]You’re going to see more actions in Africa, not less. You’re going to see more aggression by the United States toward our enemies, not less. You’re going to have decisions made not in the White House but out in the field.[/b] And I support that entire construct.”[/quote] I don't feel good about this.

Am I crazy in thinking that this was done so that if any retired military personnel was criticizing the president, they are called back into service so that they can be silenced?

I mean recalling personnel isn't entirely unheard of. After the 1st Gulf War, my dad was given the opportunity to return to service and act as an instructor for the nuclear submarine fleet, despite him having been retired for 10~ years. Granted, in that case it was voluntary, and this appears to be otherwise.

When you kill civilians, you create more terrorists and Trump is going to create more terrorists

[QUOTE=Snapster;52802296][URL="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/20/air-force-recall-many-1-000-retired-pilots-address-serious-shortage/785344001/"]Air Force will recall as many as 1,000 retired pilots to address serious shortage[/URL][/QUOTE] This makes sense because they've been offering HUGE bonuses to current pilots for reenlistments. It's tough trying to maintain an experienced force as opposed to the near constant supply of new recruits and inexperience. I saw it in the Marine Corps: The "experienced" NCO's and Senior Enlisted move on for whatever their reasons and now you need to find a way to compensate for the loss of that valuable experience. I went in 2012 and every year after that more and more Iraq and Afghanistan veterans that saw combat got out. A whole other generation of "peace time" Marine Corps started and rightfully, our Platoon in particular was pretty green. The "experienced" ones left (my peer group) hadn't actually seen combat unlike those before us so we had to only pass experience on as we were taught without true practical application or appreciation for it during the real deal.

I left to avoid the incoming mess. No way are they pulling me back in. I did my time. I'm done. They probably should try to figure out why everyone is leaving instead of not letting them leave. You want low morale? This is how you get low morale.

[QUOTE=choco cookie;52802704]I left to avoid the incoming mess. No way are they pulling me back in. I did my time. I'm done. They probably should try to figure out why everyone is leaving instead of not letting them leave. You want low morale? This is how you get low morale.[/QUOTE] You can either yell it at the MPs while they drag you away or find a way to leave the country before the order's sent. Your opinion isn't considered in this.

"America first.. ...By doing more overseas war efforts."

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52802278]He might try, but he'll fail. That said, I do believe there is in fact a way for the President to declare war without Congressional approval first. How, I can't remember, sadly. But I bet ya Trump'll just do that.[/QUOTE] The military can be sent to fight for something like 40 days before a declaration of war is needed to continue.

If war starts to look more likely, America needs to ask itself one question: Should the commander in chief of America's military be a man who denies his failures, denies things he's done and problems that have arisen because of his actions, not only denies them but fervently believes those denials? Should the commander in chief be a man of unsound mind, a self-absorbed sociopathic narcissist without the slightest understanding of anything beyond reality TV? And if the answer to those questions is no, then the question becomes: How do we avoid this disaster-in-the-making?

[QUOTE=archangel125;52802898]If war starts to look more likely, America needs to ask itself one question: Should the commander in chief of America's military be a man who denies his failures, denies things he's done and problems that have arisen because of his actions, not only denies them but fervently believes those denials? Should the commander in chief be a man of unsound mind, a self-absorbed sociopathic narcissist without the slightest understanding of anything beyond reality TV? And if the answer to those questions is no, then the question becomes: How do we avoid this disaster-in-the-making?[/QUOTE] People won't care because of "liberal tears" and Republicans don't have a good track record of holding Trump accountable. So, I don't think we could effectively prevent Trump from causing total havoc.

[QUOTE=Aredbomb;52802861]The military can be sent to fight for something like 40 days before a declaration of war is needed to continue.[/QUOTE] If our armed forces were able to utterly destroy the North Korean regime's power and liberate the citizens within that many days, would Trump be able to start and win a war without Congressional approval?

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52802154]Not a fan of it, but doubt Trump is gonna start a war. He is certainly crazy and dumb enough to try it, but Congress has to approve it first, which (I'd hope) they won't do unless there's a very, very good reason for it.[/QUOTE] He doesn't need congressional approval. All he needs to start a war with pretty much any belligerent nation on this planet is access to his iPhone, the twitter handles of the world leaders in question, and a 24 hour long Infowars marathon. [editline]20th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52802278]He might try, but he'll fail. That said, I do believe there is in fact a way for the President to declare war without Congressional approval first. How, I can't remember, sadly. But I bet ya Trump'll just do that.[/QUOTE] Provoke the other party into declaring first, is how one would do it. It'd be as obvious as the morning sunrise what he was trying to do but it'd get around that little requirement.

[QUOTE=TestECull;52803089]He doesn't need congressional approval. [/quote] yes he does [quote] Provoke the other party into declaring first, is how one would do it. It'd be as obvious as the morning sunrise what he was trying to do but it'd get around that little requirement.[/QUOTE] Then he wouldnt be starting the war

[QUOTE=Flicky;52802309]I don't feel good about this.[/QUOTE] I am NOT okay about this. Not even one year into the term and this country is already dangerously close to implosion.

Mad Dog Mattis gets the gang back together for one more romp.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52802212]Go ahead and try it dorito man. I'll be out of the country before you can even send out the notices.[/QUOTE] Why bother. I'll just take inspiration from Daddy Trump and have bone spur problems to get a nice nice deferment.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52802947]If a single notice is delivered, itll end up in the media. If it does im sure canada would be more than willing to take in a few "objectors".[/QUOTE] good luck with that hahahaha [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Novangel))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;52802241]Britain has this already; retired armed services personnel go into the Regular Reserve and can be called up "in case of imminent national danger or great emergency". Makes sense to me, frankly. Trained soldiers are always useful if there's a war.[/QUOTE] at least in the uk reserve you're still paid + its really easy to get an army pension. in the US the state seems to treat its vets like trash [editline]21st October 2017[/editline] also why is trump/his sinister cabal doing this? it sounds like something you'd do during a war or something

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52802154]Not a fan of it, but doubt Trump is gonna start a war. He is certainly crazy and dumb enough to try it, but Congress has to approve it first, which (I'd hope) they won't do unless there's a very, very good reason for it.[/QUOTE] Congress doesn't have to approve shit. He's the commander in chief, if he wants to order a full scale attack into North Korean territory, he can do that. He just needs congress' approval by 60 days, and if he doesn't have it, has to withdraw forces by the 90th day. And if you're 60 days into a full out war with a sovereign nation like North Korea, do you think Congress won't approve it? Bush already amassed a huge troop build up in the region well before Congress gave the go ahead with Iraq. Clinton was involved in Kosovo without congressional approval, and also did strikes in several countries, as well as Reagan with Libya. Hell, Vietnam never got a formal declaration of war by congress Only congress has the power to officially declare war, but the USA hasn't declared war since WW2. After Vietnam, it became law that the president must have congressional approval by 90 days of introducing troops to hostilities This doesn't mean it wouldn't have repercussions with the UN, NATO, or even at home, though