Isn't it illegal for the military to be deployed to the benefit of a political party?



Video: CNN

Grav!ty wrote:

Isn't it illegal for the military to be deployed to the benefit of a political party?

Nope.

Since the 18th century at least, but especially the 19th century onwards, national armies have always been deployed to support the regimes of friendly Nations. Anyway, I don't think it's any party they were supporting, but rather that government. Had a different party been in power but in the same situation, unless it were an anti-US party, then similar support may easily have ben deployed for the same international political reasons.

If it were illegal to do this, then the Western Allies acted illegally during WWII to assist the occupied Nations of Europe, various mutual assistance pacts and organisations such as NATO and the UN are illegal, et cetera.

Hope this helps

I don't think those examples are the same though. I mean look at it more simplistically...if the US military was used to campaign and electioneer for say the Democrats, that would surely be out of order and illegal right?

In this instance, the military have been used to further the interests of a specific party candidate and that I doubt very much is permitted by the US constitution and justice system.

This is basically how we took over what is now the state of HI. Our "civilians" went to an area and essentially seized control of the government and demanded the military protect them as Americans. The military did what they were supposed to, but the loop hole is obviously a huge issue.

Grav!ty wrote:

I don't think those examples are the same though. I mean look at it more simplistically...if the US military was used to campaign and electioneer for say the Democrats, that would surely be out of order and illegal right?

Well certainly there would be cases where intervetionism could be illegal, yes -- particularly in homeland electoral issues in democratic countries.

I'm just saying that the ability of the great Powers to exercise their power in smaller and less powerful Nations is simply a matter of fact -- and I'll go further by saying that such interventionism isn't illegal, because the international laws controlling these actions are controlled in turn by the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

John and you make an interesting point though, that the actions of the US government and military, whilst not practically subject to International Law, are in fact subject to US Law.

Isn't this essentially what the US military has been doing for decades in Latin America (Cuba, Sandinistas, etc.)?

When we have sent troops in support of or trained rebel forces against their own governments aren't we supporting a political party?

Isn't this essentially what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan as well?

We regularly use our military to help overthrow regimes.

*tongue in cheek* But we're spreading 'peaceful' democracy.

kanaloa wrote:

*tongue in cheek* But we're spreading 'peaceful' democracy.

Not to mention that we're helping to stabilize these regions.

And don't forget that we're putting terrorists out of business.