• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

From where did Cheney get his command authority?

Hell, the President could call me and direct me to pass on his orders to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and those orders would be legal. The military might not believe that what I am passing on to them are, in fact, the President's orders, and thus not carry them out, but it would not impact the legality of those orders.
 
beachnut said:
Explain to me why the VP can not pass on the command from the President to shoot down aircraft if needed on 911 to those who can pass it on in an emergency?

Explain to me why I can't take action without orders based on my commission to defend the United States.

Then explain how Passengers on Flight 93 can take action against terrorist without a Presidential order or any chain of command.


Why can't the VP in an emergency tell the guys sitting around some command post in the "dark" the President has authorized what Passengers on Flight 93 figured out all by themselves without a "chain of command".

There is no question here, there is bio delusions of the fourth order.

bio posted Cheney passed on the President's order - there is no question because he answered the dumb question in his OP.

This does not change the chain of command, it is called Communication. Communication. bio answers his OP with the OP because he can't fathom communication or some comprehension problem...


Did the President tell the VP not to tell anyone of the order? Why is 911 truth so dense?

The President, it is called delegation, and communication.
Click to expand...

If you read my posts 30 and 57, you will see that you don't need to convince me, I already am convinced.

However, since bio is hard to convince, I propose we separate the topic into two very distinct question:

1. Did the VP have any military command authority whatsoever?
Answer is: NO.
We can concede that without adding any word salad.
Agreed?




Then let's breath a while

sip a beer

Be happy that we agree with bio: Indeed, the VP did not have authority to issue any order to anyone.










then we can move on to a very different question:

2. Did the VP do the right thing when he apparently told some people to shoot down any other hijacked airliner before they smash into town?
Answer: YES!
Reasons: Plenty! For example:
a. He knew that this was what the Commander in Chief wanted; he was only a medium to communicate the Presidential order. Much like a bell hop carrying a note from tycoon to manager.
b. Extraordinary events sometimes require extraordinary action, even outside the legal framework
c. Brave men sometimes do the right thing even if it means formally breaking a law. Cowards hide behind formalities to avoid tough choices
d. (etc.)
Alternative answer: NO! because
e. Not even the president had the authority to order the killing of American civilians, so he should not habe relayed any such order
f. Since no one in the military can be relied upon to act on orders given or relayed by someone outside the chain of command, it was a bad idea to try that route
g. Cheney is a Dick
h. (etc.)


Maybe we agree or disagree on the second question.
What I don't understand is: What point is bio trying to make? Suppose we agree that it wasn't a good idea for Cheney to relay these orders, for whatever reasons. Then what? The orders in question had no consequence. It seems to be a purely academical task to ponder that question.
 
Oh boo hoo, the VPotUS and numerous other people ignored the written up chain of command to make sure that things happened in a timely manner when dealing with a quickly progressing incident that people had to react too instantly. Sheeze, if they had all followed the instruction manual they'd still be waiting for orders. How is people shortcutting the system when the system was obviously failing a bad thing?
 
Our very own Cheap Shot took a shortcut that morning that, I believe, got those fighters in the air faster than they would have been if he had followed proper procedure.
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Our very own Cheap Shot took a shortcut that morning that, I believe, got those fighters in the air faster than they would have been if he had followed proper procedure.
Click to expand...

He did? Good!

But in the end, we all can be glad that none of the fighters reached UA93 in time to be able to shoot it down.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Oh boo hoo, the VPotUS and numerous other people ignored the written up chain of command to make sure that things happened in a timely manner when dealing with a quickly progressing incident that people had to react too instantly. Sheeze, if they had all followed the instruction manual they'd still be waiting for orders. How is people shortcutting the system when the system was obviously failing a bad thing?
Click to expand...

There is an old saying in the US Army: If the Army was ran exactly as the Manuals say it should be ran, it would fall apart and cease to function in about five minutes.
 
I know for a fact that at least one squadron started to surge out all of its seaworthy boats before their immediate superiors told them to. It wasn't because the boats were going to be able to do anything useful in that situation, it was because they were a potential target (nuclear reactors and all of that). They were given their operation areas on their way out to sea and many had skeleton crews, they came back in within a day or two, after the situation was under control.
 
Is the President allowed to communicate orders in written form? If so, where in the Constitution does it say that pieces of paper with lines on them can have Command Authority?

Is the President allowed to communicate orders by telephone? If so, where in the Constitution does it say that a few electronic components connected to a cheap handset speaker can have Command Authority?

Is the President allowed to communicate orders by shouting across the room? If so, where in the Constitution does it say that a bunch of vibrating air molecules can have Command Authority?

Is the President allowed to communicate orders by giving a verbal message to a courier, such as a staffer, page, or VP? If so, where in the Constitution does it say that a staffer, page, or VP can have Command Authority?

Those are all equally silly questions, don't you agree, bio? All of them show the same fundamental failure to make a clear distinction between the source of an order, and the means of communicating said order.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
Is the President allowed to communicate orders in written form? If so, where in the Constitution does it say that pieces of paper with lines on them can have Command Authority?

Is the President allowed to communicate orders by telephone? If so, where in the Constitution does it say that a few electronic components connected to a cheap handset speaker can have Command Authority?

Is the President allowed to communicate orders by shouting across the room? If so, where in the Constitution does it say that a bunch of vibrating air molecules can have Command Authority?

Is the President allowed to communicate orders by giving a verbal message to a courier, such as a staffer, page, or VP? If so, where in the Constitution does it say that a staffer, page, or VP can have Command Authority?

Those are all equally silly questions, don't you agree, bio? All of them show the same fundamental failure to make a clear distinction between the source of an order, and the means of communicating said order.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Well I'm not usually a big believer in anything Karl Rove claims, but according to him Bush gave the order. Cheney should have passed it on. I really don't understand what the problem there would be? I mean if the president had given the order to a military flunky who answered the phone who then passed it on to a General then what's the difference?

Now I'm not positive about the timing but I think when this is claimed to have occurred there were still two hijacked planes in the air. So if the order was given when Bush first got in the air then why weren't any planes intercepted? And not just the ones we now know were hijacked. Why weren't any of the ones that were still feared hijacked intercepted? I mean when the last one crashed who could know it was over and there weren't anymore planes hijacked?
 
bio said:
do you know the constitution better than John Adams?
Click to expand...

The role of the Vice President has changed several times since John Adams' time. And in all cases, including back then, the President can choose to delegate additional authority to the Vice President.
 
Yes, the constitution delineates the minimum duties of the Vice President. That doesn't preclude him from taking on additional duties as assigned to him by the president. Bush put many extra duties on Cheneys plate before and especially after 9/11. Other presidents in the past have done this to varying degrees as well.
 
Profanz said:
Now I'm not positive about the timing but I think when this is claimed to have occurred there were still two hijacked planes in the air. So if the order was given when Bush first got in the air then why weren't any planes intercepted? And not just the ones we now know were hijacked. Why weren't any of the ones that were still feared hijacked intercepted? I mean when the last one crashed who could know it was over and there weren't anymore planes hijacked?
Click to expand...


If I cared about these questions, I'd be reading a thread in which they were on topic.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Newtons Bit said:
The role of the Vice President has changed several times since John Adams' time. And in all cases, including back then, the President can choose to delegate additional authority to the Vice President.
Click to expand...

Isn't it true that the Constitution does not mention any administration posts other than President and VP? The executive power is vested in the President, period.

If delegation of that power was unconstitutional, there would be no administration.
 
Profanz said:
Now I'm not positive about the timing but I think when this is claimed to have occurred there were still two hijacked planes in the air. So if the order was given when Bush first got in the air then why weren't any planes intercepted? And not just the ones we now know were hijacked. Why weren't any of the ones that were still feared hijacked intercepted? I mean when the last one crashed who could know it was over and there weren't anymore planes hijacked?
Click to expand...

You would be wrong.
 
Profanz said:
Well I'm not usually a big believer in anything Karl Rove claims, but according to him Bush gave the order. Cheney should have passed it on. I really don't understand what the problem there would be? I mean if the president had given the order to a military flunky who answered the phone who then passed it on to a General then what's the difference?
Click to expand...

So you agree with a debunker position. According to the logic you're displaying in another thread, that means you no longer believe 9/11 was an inside job, right? Because, by your tortured logic,we can't agree with you that the search for victims' remains wasn't good enough, because that would make us truthers; so if you agree that Bush originated the shoot-down order, that makes you a debunker.

Your rules. Thanks for playing.

Dave
 
thank you for so many posts, but your argumentation could not convince me.

interesting piece, Commissioner Roemer pressed Leidig from the NMCC, why he did not communicate with the President. This was possibly, because the Air Force One had a direct line to the NMCC. Leidig could not recall, why he was in contact with the white house, presumably Cheney, instead.

LEIDIG: Sir, I can't speak to the connectivity with Air Force One. I was connected to the White House. And my understanding is Air Force One was in contact with the White House situation room. I was not in contact with Air Force One.

ROEMER: So you have no knowledge of that?

LEIDIG: No, sir.

(UNKNOWN): Is there no NMCC protocol to connect directly with Air Force One?

LEIDIG: Yes, sir, there is a capability to do that. On that day, we were connected with the White House.

ROEMER: Why weren't you using that other capability?

LEIDIG: I don't recall, sir.

source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49429-2004Jun17_5.html
 
Last edited:
bio said:
thank you for so many posts, but your argumentation could not convince me.
Click to expand...


Your stalwart resistance to being convinced by rational arguments and evidence is duly noted.

In the churches I frequent, that's called faith and is held in high regard. (Though I'm not sure why, since as feats go, not being convinced of something you don't want to believe is about as difficult as not painting the garage.)

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom