scholarly journals The Commander in Chief: The Fateful Decision of an American President

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emilio Iodice
Keyword(s):  
American President ◽  
Commander In Chief

Award documents of the CheKa functionary E. G. Evdokimov as a source on the history of All-Ukrainian Extraordinary Commission and Red Terror in Crimea in 1920–1921

2018 ◽  
pp. 201-214
Author(s):  
Andrei Ganin
Keyword(s):  
Armed Forces ◽  
History Of ◽  
Commander In Chief

The article analyzes the award documents of the head of the Special Department of all-Ukrainian CheKa E. G. Evdokimov as a source on the history of Red Terror in Crimea in 1920–1921 and in relation to the activities of Ukrainian CheKa officers. To date, these materials are the only known departmental evidence of the scale of the Crimean executions. In addition, of interest is the perception of these events by the commander-in-chief of all armed forces of Ukraine and Crimea M.V. Frunze, who left two resolutions on the documents.

“In Fact, We Do Not Have a Regular Army Yet…” A Letter of the Commander of Kiev Region Armed Forces General A.M. Dragomirov to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of South Russia General A.I. Denikin. 12 (25) December 1919

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 245-264
Author(s):  
Andrey Ganin
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Stanford University ◽  
The South ◽  
Moral Improvement ◽  
Policy And Strategy ◽  
Red Army ◽  
Regular Army ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Commander In Chief

The document published is a letter from the commander of the Kiev Region General Abram M. Dragomirov to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in the South of Russia General Anton I. Denikin of December, 1919. The source covers the events of the Civil War in Ukraine and the views of the leadership of the White Movement in the South of Russia on a number of issues of policy and strategy in Ukraine. The letter was found in the Hoover Archives of Stanford University in the USA in the collection of Lieutenant General Pavel A. Kusonsky. The document refers to the period when the white armies of the South of Russia after the bright success of the summer-autumn “March on Moscow” in 1919 were stopped by the Red Army and were forced to retreat. On the pages of the letter, Dragomirov describes in detail the depressing picture of the collapse of the white camp in the South of Russia and talks about how to improve the situation. Dragomirov saw the reasons for the failure of the White Movement such as, first of all, the lack of regular troops, the weakness of the officers, the lack of discipline and, as a consequence, the looting and pogroms. In this regard, Dragomirov was particularly concerned about the issue of moral improvement of the army. Part of the letter is devoted to the issues of the civil administration in the territories occupied by the White Army. Dragomirov offers both rational and frankly utopian measures. However, the thoughts of one of the closest Denikin’s companions about the reasons what had happened are interesting for understanding the essence of the Civil War and the worldview of the leadership of the anti-Bolshevik Camp.

The Use of Lethal Force by Military Forces on Law Enforcement Operations — is There a ‘Lawful Authority’?

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob McLaughlin
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Difficult Situation ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Military Forces ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
The Law ◽  
Commander In Chief ◽  
Peace Officer

Now a person, whether a magistrate, or a peace-officer, who has the duty of suppressing a riot, is placed in a very difficult situation, for if, by his acts, he causes death, he is liable to be indicted for murder or manslaughter, and if he does not act, he is liable to an indictment on an information for neglect; he is, therefore, bound to hit the precise line of his duty: and how difficult it is to hit that precise line, will be a matter for your consideration, but that, difficult as it may be, he is bound to do. R v Pinney (1832) 5 Car & P [254], [270] (Littledale J). A soldier is bound to obey any lawful order which he receives from his military superior. But a soldier cannot any more than a civilian avoid responsibility for breach of the law by pleading that he broke the law in bona fide obedience to the orders (say) of the commander-in-chief. Hence the position of a soldier is in theory and may be in practice a difficult one. He may, as it has been well said, be liable to be shot by a court-martial if he disobeys an order, and to be hanged by a judge and jury if he obeys it. A V Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of Constitution (10th ed, 1959) 303.

Gridlock, Crisis, and Obama

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John L. Campbell
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
African American ◽  
Financial Crisis ◽  
Great Recession ◽  
Political Polarization ◽  
2008 Financial Crisis ◽  
Executive Orders ◽  
National Health Care ◽  
American President ◽  
The 2008 Financial Crisis

Chapter 7 explains that the financial crisis and Barack Obama’s presidency pushed political polarization into extreme political gridlock in Washington. Americans became disgusted. The 2008 financial crisis exacerbated America’s economic woes and made people angry. The fact that Obama was America’s first African American president made things worse. So did his moves to handle the financial crisis and Great Recession, and reform the national health care system. Trump tapped the public’s anger, turning it to his electoral advantage. He promised that because as a billionaire he wasn’t beholden to anyone, he would unify the country and cut through the gridlock by “draining the swamp” in Washington. And if Congress didn’t cooperate, he said that he would move unilaterally by issuing executive orders that would get the job done. It worked and he was elected president.

Portraits of courage: Caught in the sovereign’s gaze

2021 ◽  
pp. 136754942098584
Author(s):  
Robin Wagner-Pacifici
Keyword(s):  
Normal Vector ◽  
Us Veterans ◽  
Commander In Chief ◽  
Ongoing Project

Reversing the normal vector of sovereign representation, former US President George W. Bush is engaged in an ongoing project of painting his former subjects, hundreds of portraits of wounded US veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This article explores what it means to have a sovereign observe and render in oil the very subjects he sent to war. It will track the politically vexed communicative exchanges of deference, recognition, power, and identity in such portrait making. Furthermore, assessing the meaning of the invitation to wounded veterans to be painted by one’s former Commander in Chief, the article raises complex issues of victimhood and responsibility. Asking the questions, ‘Who gets to look at whom?’ and ‘Who gets to render whom?’, the article takes as its model Foucault’s analysis of the troubled ‘reciprocal visibility’ in Velazquez’s painting, Las Meninas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document