What I haven't seen, perhaps because they've quickly scrolled away into obscurity, are diaries dedicated to discussing the following questions:
- What might happen immediately after Bush issues an order to attack?
- What legal (and, possibly, extra-legal) actions might be taken to prevent this order from being executed? And by whom?
And, here's the thing: I don't have a fucking clue and I'd bet most Kossacks don't either. So, this is a "call to keyboards" for those Kossacks who DO have a clue about the constitutional and legal issues raised to discuss/debate this and answer dumb/clever questions posed by the rest of us.
To kick this off, I'll make myself the first target for derisive snark by offering a couple of ideas:
1) Any attack order issued by Bush as C-in-C would likely be based on White House interpretation of congressional assent to pursue the "War on Terror" and to invade Iraq, a murky legal question at best. Could a member (or members) of the Joint Cheifs, to whom the order would presumably be given, then approach Congress and/or SCOTUS questioning the legality of such an order? Are they legally/constitutionally OBLIGATED to verify the legality of such an order?
2) WOULD/could any member/members of the JC do such a thing? Claims have been made in comments to various diaries that there is no consensus among the JC for or against attacking Iran, with a couple postulating that some military branches are "gung-ho" while others are vigorously resisting. I would not like to see this devolve into speculation about who might for and who might be against. I would rather start from the assumption that succesful military action (as remote as that possibility might be depending on how one defines "success") against Iran would require all services to be acting together. More crucial to this discussion is the question, "Would successful RESISTANCE to such an order require unanimous consent of all branches of the military?"
3) Could Congress stop the excution of such an order merely by stating that such an action is not authorized? Not "would they" but "COULD they"? How would this happen? What would be the mechanism? This is THE important constraint that I'd like potential commenters to impose on themselves. I'm personally not interested in debating (again) whether or not a Rethuglican-controlled Congress WOULD oppose the President.
4) And, of course, what can WE, the people, do?
The scenario, then, is this:
Bush issues the order. We, the people, don't want it executed; the military doesn't want to do it and Congress doesn't want it to be carried out. What happens next?