NationStates Jolt Archive

But ad hominems make for a much more convincing arguement, at least from the point of view of an arguer w/o any support.
His ad hominem begat an ad hominem, and judging by your reply that begat yet antoher ad hominem. But feel free to defend the deserters.

Wow, even arammanammanamar showed up. Somebody likes me...

You know, when I first mentioned an illegal order, I didn't really mean that the fact that the order was illegal was running through the star of the article's head the whole time. I was simply pointing out part of the delimna he was in. What he said for the article was that he didn't want to kill innocents. He also said that the car's offense was simply driving too near his platoon. I don't believe he mentioned speed.

It is a sensible precaution that his commanders were taking. If they didn't take it, as I said, many more American soldiers would die, as they have from attacks that looked very similar to this innocent case. It was still, in this case, an illegal order for him to carry out, since he had neither real danger, nor a perception of danger, to justify shooting civilians. For most of those there, it would have been a legal order, on the grounds that they had a perception of threat, if not a real one.

Do you notice, however, the catch 22 he was in? That many of our soldiers are in right now? Play it safe and you kill innocents, don't play it safe and you eventually die.

Of course, there is also the option of just disobeying orders and not fighting, and taking their punishment for it. One word for that is mutiny. Guess what the penalty for THAT is, particularly in the face of the enemy? And no, you don't actually need to have allies to be charged with mutiny, but in this case there are thousands like him. A volunteer army can afford to tolerate desertion, but it can never afford to tolerate mutiny.

Sttevens, do you even know what a mutiny is?

A mutiny is a rebellion against your superior officers in which you move to oust them by force of arms.

You just said it yourself and proved a point:

I didn't really mean that the fact that the order was illegal was running through the star of the article's head the whole time.

Are you saying now that it wasn't an illegal order? Then if you are then you just ultimently destroyed your arguement.

You can't tolerate desertion, and you can't tolerate mutiny.
Either are violations of the UCMJ.

By choosing to run away to Canada for ostensibly moral and ethical reasons, whatever they may be, is an ethical and moral choice. Hooray for him.

But it's a legal matter now. The court will not consider those moral and ethical objections to be relevant unless he can prove that the orders were illegal.

Civilian cars and trucks are commonly used as car bombs. Civilians with bombs under their clothing are used as suicide bombers.

You have to walk the line between possible killing an unarmed person and possibly getting killed.

Rules of engagement these days are often vetted by JAG lawyers so that we won't have politically unacceptable results - and soldiers are expected to use some judgment. I would doubt that the orders say, "kill every man, woman, and child that you see without warning", and I doubt that the orders say, "blow up every vehicle that comes within 100 yards".

Vehicles that run roadblocks, rush towards your convoy and leave the traffic lanes at high speed, or those that ignore signals to stop or keep their distance are probably within the rules of engagement. Since we're not hearing about hundreds of people killed and tens of vehicles blown up at random every time a convoy moves down the road (and there are hundreds of convoys every day), I am assuming that people are using their judgment.

The fact that there is sentiment among convoy drivers that the roads are "unsafe" means that they probably have to err on the side of "I get killed" rather than "kill them first". If we could go up and down the road lighting up the whole country and blowing up everything in sight, I bet the drivers would feel very, very safe.

If he feels so strongly about deserting, he could just refuse the orders to go to Iraq (or wherever) and I'm sure they would just put him in jail. If he believes strongly enough in his cause and himself, he would do that.

I didn't see Nelson Mandela running away from South Africa and living in Canada when he believed in something.

And, if you're right, eventually they let you out of prison.

We're talking about two different things in this thread. To clarify:

1. There is a lot of discussion about what the legal ramifications of this soldier/deserters actions can be, ought to be, and/or are.

2. There is also a lot of discussion about the moral and ethical aspects of why this soldier deserted, and what people think about that.

To the first point: There is no question, under US federal law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) the soldier deserted. This is not Absent Without Leave (AWOL) - that implies intent to return. Desertion does NOT have to be during a war or conflict. A soldier assigned to a unit at a military post in the United States, who leaves without authority and before he or she is properly discharged with no intent to return is a deserter. There would have to be a Court Martial, of course, to determine guilt or innocence, and that would be handled by the Military under provisions of the UCMJ. Punishment could include demotion in rank, dishonorable discharge, time in a federal prison, and in extreme cases death by firing squad. The last would normally only be considered in the case of desertion under fire. The last time a soldier was executed by the US Army for desertion under fire was during World War II. If this soldier's unit is/was in Iraq when he decided not to return, as I believe is the case, that is a circumstance that the Court Martial would consider.

Note - those of you who have never experienced military law, and/or a military court, don't confuse it with the experience you may have with laws and courts outside the military. While there are similarities, there are also major differences.

There is also the question of whether or not the current war in Iraq is "legal" or not. Did the United States have legal authority to invade a sovereign nation? Under US Law? Under International Law? Under Iraqi Law? Under the Charter of the United Nations?

To the second point: The issue gets to why the hell is the United States Army in Iraq? Should it be there? Should there have been more effort/time put into diplomacy before an invasion was launched? Do the actions taken by the United States fall within the authority provided by the UN, or outside that authority? Does the US care about that last? Did the Congress abrogate it's constitutional responsibilites? Can it be allowed to do so, if in fact it did? Did the President actually have the authority to launch this military action? Or, did he only think so? Does a soldier have a moral right to refuse to fight in a war he/she believes is unjust or wrong? Even after he/she signed and swore an oath? Does the soldier's moral/ethical responsibility to himself/herself and the world take precedence over following orders, or not? Under the UCMJ soldiers are required to disobey illegal orders - this is why the defense "I was just following orders" does not work. Are the orders soldiers are receiving to go to Iraq legal, or illegal?

Ahem - these points both need to be debated, and many good points have been raised and discussed here. But we have to keep in mind as we continue this discussion that there are really two different discussions going on, and not confuse the two. It would be valid to discuss/argue that the moral and ethical aspects ought to have an effect on the legal issues - but we still have to maintain separation.

Finally - Even after I tried to keep the legal and moral/ethical aspects separate in this post, in the end I had to mix them a bit. It's very hard to keep the moral/ethical aspects out, because we all want laws to be based on moral/ethical values. Specifically, our own moral and ethical values.

His ad hominem begat an ad hominem, and judging by your reply that begat yet antoher ad hominem. But feel free to defend the deserters.

I think I was misunderstood. I was ad homineminginginging Heikoku for attacking Gen. and ignoring anything else. Not you.

I do NOT defend this individual. Bad enough he went to Canada abandoning his fellow soldiers, but he abandonded his daughter as well.

The only 'defense' I'll give is that others who have returned and refuse to go back need serious counseling/evaluation before being prosecuted to establish their mental condition (they may have snapped) and to prevent future casualties. Those who just refuse to go initially (the "I don't support this war BS) should be thrown to the wolves.

I guess we'll wait and see if he'll get his trial and let the evidence speak for itself.

If the officer who gave the order is not under charges already, you can bet that the order WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED ILLEGAL by the current court.

I thought this bit was rich:
Cliff Cornell, 24, came to Toronto Jan. 8. The Arkansas resident was stationed in Georgia. His platoon was to be deployed to Iraq just after this past Christmas. He did not want to go.
He joined the army for a chance at an education but when he saw and heard what was happening in Iraq he made his decision.
He joined the army so as to get out of paying for his education, then gets upset when he finds out that the mean nasty army might actually want him to contribute to their organisation? The poor boy.

If the officer who gave the order is not under charges already, you can bet that the order WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED ILLEGAL by the current court.

I agree however, we're only getting one side of the story here. That is a problem when your in a heated discussion like this.

So far, I've seen no evidence that the order was illegal!

To add something to the mix:

The US has not fought a "declared" war - that is, a war declared in the manner described in the Constitution - since World War II.

The Congress has abdicated its responsibilities, and given up a huge power, by granting the President the power to use the armed forces as he might at certain times by passing "resolutions".

Theoretically, and Constitutionally, only the Congress has the power to declare war.

But it has not been working this way. I believe that this is because Congress doesn't want to have to take the blame in case anything goes wrong in a political sense - and only one man has to take the blame.

If we really held ourselves to getting into wars that had to be "declared", we would probably do fewer of them.

It's also surprising that no one - not even the most rabidly anti-republican democrats - have brought this up and sued in court.

Maybe it's because it was originally their idea - and they've done it several times themselves, and find it politically expedient.

I thought this bit was rich:

He joined the army so as to get out of paying for his education, then gets upset when he finds out that the mean nasty army might actually want him to contribute to their organisation? The poor boy.

Poor boy my ass! They tell you upfront that you might be deployed if you go into the service. And that is for the Reserves, National Guard, and all branches of the Service. You may have signed up to get an education, but you also signed up to defend your country. He failed to do that and fled the country, deserting his unit and his country. Frankly, I say he should be shot but that is my opinion.

To add something to the mix:

The US has not fought a "declared" war - that is, a war declared in the manner described in the Constitution - since World War II.

The Congress has abdicated its responsibilities, and given up a huge power, by granting the President the power to use the armed forces as he might at certain times by passing "resolutions".

Theoretically, and Constitutionally, only the Congress has the power to declare war.

But it has not been working this way. I believe that this is because Congress doesn't want to have to take the blame in case anything goes wrong in a political sense - and only one man has to take the blame.

If we really held ourselves to getting into wars that had to be "declared", we would probably do fewer of them.

It's also surprising that no one - not even the most rabidly anti-republican democrats - have brought this up and sued in court.

Maybe it's because it was originally their idea - and they've done it several times themselves, and find it politically expedient.The point you make that Congress doesn't want to take the blame - that is why I said (hope I did - meant to) they abrogated their responsibility, instead of abdicated it.

Abdicate implies deciding not to continue to hold an office or responsibility any longer, and through a defined process hand that office or responsibility legally over to someone else.

Abrogate means to abolish, repeal, annul or cancel and implies abandonment rather than legitimate transfer.

I agree completely with your assessment. Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was, I believe, the first time. The Korean War was a United Nations action, that the United States took (a major) part in.

Poor boy my ass! They tell you upfront that you might be deployed if you go into the service. And that is for the Reserves, National Guard, and all branches of the Service. You may have signed up to get an education, but you also signed up to defend your country. He failed to do that and fled the country, deserting his unit and his country. Frankly, I say he should be shot but that is my opinion.You're right, to a point. He signed up to defend his country...not to invade someone else's country.

You're right, to a point. He signed up to defend his country...not to invade someone else's country.

I, ___________________________________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Ah, so I am swearing that I will obey...

You know, you not only take this oath out loud and sign it in the presence of witnesses, you also sign another document in the presence of witnesses that you have read and understand the oath completely.

It's not like it was a secret...

As far as I understand the situation (and I'm not American, nor do I know the Uniformed Code of Military Justice mentioned earlier):

He has two options:

1. Don't shoot on the car and risk getting court-marshalled for disobeying a direct order

2. Shoot and risk getting court-marshalled for murder of innocent civilians (I presume that murder is a part of the mentioned UCMJ..)

=====

Also, I saw someone mention both torture and that the only thing the US have to live by is the Constitution earlier on. The constitution of the United States clearly say that torture is not allowed.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

In my dictionary "cruel and unusual punishment" means torture. And we've all seen the pictures from Abu-Graib and elsewhere where American servicemen and -women have tortured civilians, having been ordered to do so by their superiors. Therefor, this is a clear violation of the Constitution. One of many in Iraq and elsewhere. Do something about it, ok?

=====

Just out of curiosity General. Are you/have you been a member of the United States Army/Navy/Marine Corps/Air Force? You seem very informed of the position of the US military..

I, ___________________________________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Ah, so I am swearing that I will obey...

You know, you not only take this oath out loud and sign it in the presence of witnesses, you also sign another document in the presence of witnesses that you have read and understand the oath completely.

It's not like it was a secret...Yeah, I know. I first did it on July 1st, 1969. And enough times thereafter to wind up with 28 years 6 months of service in the United States Army.

Soldiers are required to DISBOBY illegal orders. For instance, "shoot those two unarmed civilians over there." The point I'm making is that it CAN be argued that the orders to soldiers to take part at all in the Iraq War are illegal orders.

;)

The point I'm making is that it CAN be argued that the orders to soldiers to take part at all in the Iraq War are illegal orders.
;)

No it can't. That's silly.

As far as I understand the situation (and I'm not American, nor do I know the Uniformed Code of Military Justice mentioned earlier):

He has two options:

1. Don't shoot on the car and risk getting court-marshalled for disobeying a direct order

Yes, that's a possibility. But you're missing the possibility that this is potentially an oncoming car bomb. He might end up dead in the next few seconds.

2. Shoot and risk getting court-marshalled for murder of innocent civilians (I presume that murder is a part of the mentioned UCMJ..)


To be convicted or even charged under the UCMJ for murder, he would
a) have to violate the rules of engagement, which, as we see, allow shooting at speeding, oncoming vehicles
b) have to know that the people in the car were unarmed, and that their car was not a bomb.

There's no way he could violate the rules of engagement here - he's now free to shoot at the speeding, oncoming vehicle.
There's no way he knows if the car contains a bomb or not.


Also, I saw someone mention both torture and that the only thing the US have to live by is the Constitution earlier on. The constitution of the United States clearly say that torture is not allowed.

Nope. The word doesn't exist in the Constitution.

In my dictionary "cruel and unusual punishment" means torture. And we've all seen the pictures from Abu-Graib and elsewhere where American servicemen and -women have tortured civilians, having been ordered to do so by their superiors. Therefor, this is a clear violation of the Constitution. One of many in Iraq and elsewhere. Do something about it, ok?

Torture is not punishment. Punishment is something handed out after a trial in retribution for the act committed. You have to look at the United States Code concerning torture and its definition - a definition that comes directly from the UN Convention Against Torture (a document signed by the US), and to determine if detainees fall into certain categories and can be protected by law, you have to read the Geneva Conventions.

Technically, very little of what happened at Guantanamo could be considered torture by the UNCAT, and especially not under US laws that are intended to support compliance with UNCAT. Additionally, while Abu Gharaib is a violation (and punished as such), the detainees in Guantanamo are not guaranteed any protection under the Geneva Conventions (even Human Rights Watch agrees). See Convention I, Article 2.


Just out of curiosity General. Are you/have you been a member of the United States Army/Navy/Marine Corps/Air Force? You seem very informed of the position of the US military..

The other guy may be a General. But I'm a lawyer.

No it can't. That's silly.Yes, it can, and it's not silly. If the United States is in Iraq legally, then you're right. But, if the United States is in Iraq illegally, then ordering soldiers there would be an illegal order.

I would NOT recommend a soldier decide to make an issue of this as an illegal order - because he/she will be crucified. I've spent quite a bit of time counseling soldiers to be VERY, VERY sure that an order is illegal before they refuse to obey it.

But I believe that there is PLENTY of room for discussion on whether or not there is/was sufficient legal grounds for the United States to invade Iraq.

Yes, it can, and it's not silly. If the United States is in Iraq legally, then you're right. But, if the United States is in Iraq illegally, then ordering soldiers there would be an illegal order.

I would NOT recommend a soldier decide to make an issue of this as an illegal order - because he/she will be crucified. I've spent quite a bit of time counseling soldiers to be VERY, VERY sure that an order is illegal before they refuse to obey it.

But I believe that there is PLENTY of room for discussion on whether or not there is/was sufficient legal grounds for the United States to invade Iraq.

From the point of view of a soldier, he is constrained by oath to obey all lawful orders given to him/her from the President on down.

That being said, legal authority to act (on the President's part) is given to the President by Congress, who in yet another stultifying act of abdication of power, granted the President (yet another President since the end of WW II) the power to act in Iraq.

Not that a war has been "declared" in the Constitutional sense, but it's perfectly legal, now that the President was granted that power.

International sense of what is a "legal" war has no legal bearing in a soldier's attempt to say that the war was illegal. The administration will merely trot out the authorization bill from Congress - and that will be the end of it.

There is a THIRD way a soldier could wind up in trouble with the UCMJ for firing on a car as ordered by a superior officer (or non-com). If the soldier fires, and the incident later becomes part of a Court Martial proceeding, and it is determined the order to fire was an illegal order (that is, did NOT fall within the "Rules of Engagement" - when can soldiers open fire, and when not), then the soldier could be held accountable for following an illegal order and anything that ensues from his/her failure to disobey an illegal order.

Far fetched? Not really. Ask any number of German Officers and soldiers convicted of war crimes after WWII.

However, I believe the Board of Officers who would constitute the Court would take into consideration as a mitigating circumstance that the soldier was following an order from a superior in a difficult situation where an instant decision was necessary.

As far as I understand the situation (and I'm not American, nor do I know the Uniformed Code of Military Justice mentioned earlier):

He has two options:

1. Don't shoot on the car and risk getting court-marshalled for disobeying a direct order

2. Shoot and risk getting court-marshalled for murder of innocent civilians (I presume that murder is a part of the mentioned UCMJ..)

=====

Also, I saw someone mention both torture and that the only thing the US have to live by is the Constitution earlier on. The constitution of the United States clearly say that torture is not allowed.



In my dictionary "cruel and unusual punishment" means torture. And we've all seen the pictures from Abu-Graib and elsewhere where American servicemen and -women have tortured civilians, having been ordered to do so by their superiors. Therefor, this is a clear violation of the Constitution. One of many in Iraq and elsewhere. Do something about it, ok?

=====

Just out of curiosity General. Are you/have you been a member of the United States Army/Navy/Marine Corps/Air Force? You seem very informed of the position of the US military..
He would not have gotten court marshalled for the civilians unless he knew they were civilians. That was the point, the oncoming car was an unknown, pssibly hostile vehicle.


Which superiors, do you mean the immediate superiors which are being prosecuted for their involvement, or do you mean the mythical higher ups that supposedly ordered this?

Yes, it can, and it's not silly. If the United States is in Iraq legally, then you're right. But, if the United States is in Iraq illegally, then ordering soldiers there would be an illegal order.

I would NOT recommend a soldier decide to make an issue of this as an illegal order - because he/she will be crucified. I've spent quite a bit of time counseling soldiers to be VERY, VERY sure that an order is illegal before they refuse to obey it.

But I believe that there is PLENTY of room for discussion on whether or not there is/was sufficient legal grounds for the United States to invade Iraq.

This is absolute sea-lawyering at its worst. There are no reasonable circumstances under which deployment order will be judged illegal, and you know it.

In fact, you can "legally" send personel where they have no "legal" right to be. It happens all the time; or are you suggesting that we go arrest Gary Francis Powers for following illegal orders?

You are lucky the general's not here. His head would explode.

You're right, to a point. He signed up to defend his country...not to invade someone else's country.

He's part of the military. He'll do as he is told unless it is conclusively proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt that an order is illegal and therefore, that order can be ignored and he would've notified the proper military authorities.

The point I'm making is that it CAN be argued that the orders to soldiers to take part at all in the Iraq War are illegal orders.

Dude! This line really insulted me. As a son whose father is deployed overseas to help in this operation, I demand an immediate apology.

Dude! This line really insulted me. As a son whose father is deployed overseas to help in this operation, I demand an immediate apology.

I agree with you about that. I wouldn't hold your breath though, I don't think Snub is playing with a full deck on this issue. I also doubt the twenty some odd years of millitary experience that he claims.

Yes, it can, and it's not silly. If the United States is in Iraq legally, then you're right. But, if the United States is in Iraq illegally, then ordering soldiers there would be an illegal order.

Snub, your really starting to piss me off and that is not good right now. The Iraq War is 100% LEGAL!!! It was AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESSS ASSHOLE!!!

I would NOT recommend a soldier decide to make an issue of this as an illegal order - because he/she will be crucified. I've spent quite a bit of time counseling soldiers to be VERY, VERY sure that an order is illegal before they refuse to obey it.

You have to be sure. However, if you violate an order that is WITHIN THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, then you have disobeyed a direct order (and punishable under the UCMJ by itself)

But I believe that there is PLENTY of room for discussion on whether or not there is/was sufficient legal grounds for the United States to invade Iraq.

We did have sufficient grounds! Human rights for one, violation of UN Resolutions for a second, violating a cease fire for a third.

You are lucky the general's not here. His head would explode.

Mine did because of his talk of soldiers that are following orders to go to Iraq and to serve are falling an illegal order when in fact they are not.

I agree with you about that. I wouldn't hold your breath though, I don't think Snub is playing with a full deck on this issue. I also doubt the twenty some odd years of millitary experience that he claims.

I can believe it but my dad has over THIRTY YEARS and my mom has six years of her own. Not to mention that half of my family has served in the service.

I think that Snub believes somehow that there is a world government to which the US is held accountable.

NOT!

The US, like every other country on the planet, is a sovereign nation.
Congress gave the President authorization to invade Iraq. So within the US, it is completely legal.
Outside the US, it is IRRELEVANT from a legal standpoint.

Do you see a world wide economic embargo against the US?

Do you see an EU embargo against the US?

Do you see an international UN force trying to invade the US?

Didn't think so.

We did have sufficient grounds! Human rights for one, violation of UN Resolutions for a second, violating a cease fire for a third.

Who violated the sieze-fire? The Iraqis or the US/UK?

Who violated the sieze-fire? The Iraqis or the US/UK?

Saddam Hussein violated the friggin ceasefire! Since it was violated by him, we had full right to kick his ass right out of Iraq.

Who violated the sieze-fire? The Iraqis or the US/UK?

During the whole 10 year enforcement period of the No-Fly Zone (which was authorized by the UN), the Iraqis violated the ceasefire hundreds of times by firing at UN-authorized aircraft.

Saddam even publicly announced a bounty for anyone who could shoot down a UN authorized aircraft.

Most of the time, the US and UK aircraft involved did not shoot back. It wasn't until near the start of the second war that the US planes started firing in return at surface to air missile radars.

Saddam Hussein violated the friggin ceasefire! Since it was violated by him, we had full right to kick his ass right out of Iraq.

Oh. So the continued US/UK air raids during the 90's had nothing to do with it? I see..............................

Oh. So the continued US/UK air raids during the 90's had nothing to do with it? I see..............................

There were no air raids until just before the invasion.
There was enforcement of the No Fly Zone in accordance with UN resolutions.
We fly over Iraq to make sure they don't fly any combat aircraft.
They shot at us all the time with missiles.
Most of the time, we didn't shoot back at all.
When we did shoot back, it was with missiles that home in on the radars.
So there were NO AIR RAIDS!

Oh. So the continued US/UK air raids during the 90's had nothing to do with it? I see..............................

Since the Iraqis fired at us, under the rules of engagement, we had full authority to fire back. So no it had nothing to do with it.

The no-fly zones were imposed by the Western powers after the 1991 Gulf War to stop Iraqi attacks on Shiite Muslim and Kurdish minorities but are not explicitly covered by any UN resolution.

U.S., British Planes Attack Iraqi Targets - Reuters - 16.02.2001 (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0216-03.htm)

According to this quote, the air raids (read the article and you will find out why I keep calling it air raids) were not covered by any UN resolution.

This is absolute sea-lawyering at its worst. There are no reasonable circumstances under which deployment order will be judged illegal, and you know it.

In fact, you can "legally" send personel where they have no "legal" right to be. It happens all the time; or are you suggesting that we go arrest Gary Francis Powers for following illegal orders?

You are lucky the general's not here. His head would explode.Would LOVE to see that ;)

Read the end of the article:

The United States and Britain launched a four-day bombing campaign in 1998 to punish Iraq for expelling U.N. arms inspectors charged with eliminating the country's weapons of mass destruction.

This sounds like more of the same. So it's covered by UN resolutions.

But, it's easy enough to say that within a few weeks of the end of the first Gulf War, when the UN started the No Fly Zone to which the Iraqis had agreed, they were the ones to fire first.

You might remember UN Resolution 949, where they admonish Iraq for firing on UN forces in 1994. Which, despite protests to the contrary, only reinforces the authorizations behind Resolution 688.

If 688 had not really been intended to authorize force, then 949 would never had been passed.

I think that Snub believes somehow that there is a world government to which the US is held accountable.

NOT!

The US, like every other country on the planet, is a sovereign nation.
Congress gave the President authorization to invade Iraq. So within the US, it is completely legal.
Outside the US, it is IRRELEVANT from a legal standpoint.

Do you see a world wide economic embargo against the US?

Do you see an EU embargo against the US?

Do you see an international UN force trying to invade the US?

Didn't think so.Snub believes in morals, and ethics. Snub believe this war is illegal, immoral, and unethical. Snub believes that there should have been a LOT more done in the realm of diplomacy before starting a damned shooting war where people get killed. Snub believes that had we had a little patience, we would have had a LOT more backing when/if we finally had to have the war.

Snub believes in supporting the soldiers who are there, and go there, and Snub is actively doing just that. Not because the war is right, but because the soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen(women) DESERVE that support.

But the war is wrong.

Corneliu, I respect your father and his decision to go as ordered. I take NOTHING away from that.

As to whether or not some/all of you choose to believe what I said about my time in the military - believe what you want, it doesn't change how I spent my life.

Corneliu, I respect your father and his decision to go as ordered. I take NOTHING away from that.

Then take back your comments about soldiers who go to Iraq are following an illegal order. Until you apologize and recant your words, this statement means nothing.

Snub believes in morals, and ethics. Snub believe this war is illegal, immoral, and unethical. Snub believes that there should have been a LOT more done in the realm of diplomacy before starting a damned shooting war where people get killed. Snub believes that had we had a little patience, we would have had a LOT more backing when/if we finally had to have the war.


But it is an impossible leap to go from the reasonable - although contentious - position that US actions in Iraq are unethical, that it must therefore be illegal, and thus orders to deploy there are themselves illegal.

To begin with, I don't think a valid case can be made that even if deployment orders are given in contravention of international law, a case can be made that all else being equal they would be illegal per se. Although there is no clear definition of what exactly constitutes and illegal order, it is hard to see how any such order could be catagorized as such, as it neither impinges upon the human rights of others, or is destructive of millitary discpline. (Contrary to respect etc.) As I pointed out, that interpretation would subject almost all the millitary personal involved in activities such as the U2 program subject to sanction for following illegal orders.

Secondly, I think it is fairly clear that the US actions are perfectly legal under both US domestic and International law - despite condemnation from other nations. I have yet to see any persuasive evidence to the contrary.

Protesting Iraq is one thing, labelling orders to go there illegal is another.

Snub believes in morals, and ethics. Snub believe this war is illegal, immoral, and unethical. Snub believes that there should have been a LOT more done in the realm of diplomacy before starting a damned shooting war where people get killed. Snub believes that had we had a little patience, we would have had a LOT more backing when/if we finally had to have the war.

Snub believes in supporting the soldiers who are there, and go there, and Snub is actively doing just that. Not because the war is right, but because the soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen(women) DESERVE that support.

But the war is wrong.

Corneliu, I respect your father and his decision to go as ordered. I take NOTHING away from that.

As to whether or not some/all of you choose to believe what I said about my time in the military - believe what you want, it doesn't change how I spent my life.

Snub, Germany, France, and Russia have all said that there is NOTHING that would have changed their mind about going to war in Iraq. Even if WMD WERE present - even if Saddam admitted it - they would not have gone to war. So we would have never gotten what you claim by waiting.

They say even now that they aren't willing to help. They said that even if Kerry had been elected, they would not help. France says that the most they will do is train a few Iraqi police - if we ship them to France.

So I don't expect anything from Europe - because they don't want to use force - ever. They don't care what people do in the Middle East - they'll sell them gas centrifuges that they KNOW will be used to make nuclear weapons - AFTER the sanctions are in place.

France and Russia will sell them weapons and radars and China will sell them air defense network equipment - after the imposition of sanctions - because they don't care - all they care about is money. Hell, they don't even care if the stuff they sell is any good - if the Americans blow it up, they'll just sell more useless crap.

It really makes you wonder what your so-called friends are thinking when they do this. Imagine if I was selling machineguns to your crazy neighbor, even though he told me what he would be doing with them. Would you be upset at him, or at me, when he opens fire on your house? What would you do if the crazy guy had been ordered by the police to turn in all his weapons, and I kept selling them to him under the table? Would you call me on it?

And what if I told you that you were just being paranoid, and that as long as you don't attack him, he won't be a problem?

Snub, Germany, France, and Russia have all said that there is NOTHING that would have changed their mind about going to war in Iraq. Even if WMD WERE present - even if Saddam admitted it - they would not have gone to war. So we would have never gotten what you claim by waiting.

They say even now that they aren't willing to help. They said that even if Kerry had been elected, they would not help. France says that the most they will do is train a few Iraqi police - if we ship them to France.

So I don't expect anything from Europe - because they don't want to use force - ever. They don't care what people do in the Middle East - they'll sell them gas centrifuges that they KNOW will be used to make nuclear weapons - AFTER the sanctions are in place.

France and Russia will sell them weapons and radars and China will sell them air defense network equipment - after the imposition of sanctions - because they don't care - all they care about is money. Hell, they don't even care if the stuff they sell is any good - if the Americans blow it up, they'll just sell more useless crap.

It really makes you wonder what your so-called friends are thinking when they do this. Imagine if I was selling machineguns to your crazy neighbor, even though he told me what he would be doing with them. Would you be upset at him, or at me, when he opens fire on your house? What would you do if the crazy guy had been ordered by the police to turn in all his weapons, and I kept selling them to him under the table? Would you call me on it?

And what if I told you that you were just being paranoid, and that as long as you don't attack him, he won't be a problem?

Countries shouldnt think of their own ecomonic well being?

Also, America is not a neighbor to Iraq so your argument is invalid. This is a case of several neighbors sellign their crazy neibor weapons. If they aren't worried about their neighbor, then why shoudl you be?

Besides... you went in and kidnapped their neighbor and looked for all these supposed weapons but didnt find any. So now you just say its for his own good and the good of his neighbors even though they were never in any danger in the first place.

Countries shouldnt think of their own ecomonic well being?

Also, America is not a neighbor to Iraq so your argument is invalid. This is a case of several neighbors sellign their crazy neibor weapons. If they aren't worried about their neighbor, then why shoudl you be?

Besides... you went in and kidnapped their neighbor and looked for all these supposed weapons but didnt find any. So now you just say its for his own good and the good of his neighbors even though they were never in any danger in the first place.

We found the centrifuges. It just means that we got there before he could make them. The Germans have admitted selling the centrifuges.

The centrifuges can only be used for ONE thing - making nuclear weapons.

It's more like someone selling your neighbor the precursors to smokeless powder and machine tools that are meant for making machineguns.

Also, in this world, everyone is your neighbor. You must be living in the 19th century if you believe that just because a country has advanced weapons doesn't mean that they constitute a threat to anyone except their immediate geographical neighbors.

Also, if you want to wait until
a) some country actually tries to develop a nuclear weapon, and
b) actually uses it on another country of their choosing
before you do something, then you're a complete idiot.

Do you actually think that the party in power in ANY country would remain in power after such an event if it was proven that they KNEW that someone was trying to do something like that?

Imagine if someone had proven that we KNEW that 9-11 was going to happen. That we KNEW the date. That we KNEW the names. That we KNEW where they had organized and recruited. That we KNEW the planes and flights they would board.

Now imagine how long Bush would have been President after that.

Now imagine another President - Democrat or Republican.

Imagine that they get word that someone is "working" on anything related to a terror plot in the US - or anything related to WMD.

Imagine that they just continue to "watch" and "wait for more evidence".

Imagine that the people working on the plot (or the WMD) carry out their plan.

Now imagine that it comes out that the President (Democrat or Republican) knew in advance of such a program - but doubted its authenticity.

They would be President for about five more seconds. Their party would be in power only until the election - at which time they would be wiped from the pages of history.

Do you see why the US went in on flimsy evidence? When they could see that even the Germans were helping them try to acquire WMD?

Well, we got there before anyone could finish. So there were no WMD. Do you honestly prefer a situation where we wait for a nuclear 9-11?

If you do, then I suggest that you leave the United States as soon as possible, because you are wishing the most horrible possible fate on the American people.

Then why haven't you done the same thing with Iran or North Korea? They are both in the prosess of attempting to create WMDs (nukes)....

Then why haven't you done the same thing with Iran or North Korea? They are both in the prosess of attempting to create WMDs (nukes)....Old Chinese proverb (or, Confucious, if you prefer) say, "Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it."

Then why haven't you done the same thing with Iran or North Korea? They are both in the prosess of attempting to create WMDs (nukes)....

North Korea, if you want to believe them, has nukes. However, if he uses them, he'll know that we'll be firing ours at him. North Korea will not survive a nuclear attack and neither would South Korea for that matter.

Iran? Europe is dealing with it but I wouldn't put much stock into European Agreements. Frankly, I say take them out since Iran is surrounded on all sides. However, we need to make sure that they disarm their nuclear program since it is in violation of the Proliferation Treaty that they signed.

I too worry about nuclear wepons. Especially when the guys with their fingers on the button tend to be those conservative neo-christian types who tend to believe that the world will end in an engulfment of fire. Its so reassuring.

But it is an impossible leap to go from the reasonable - although contentious - position that US actions in Iraq are unethical, that it must therefore be illegal, and thus orders to deploy there are themselves illegal.

To begin with, I don't think a valid case can be made that even if deployment orders are given in contravention of international law, a case can be made that all else being equal they would be illegal per se. Although there is no clear definition of what exactly constitutes and illegal order, it is hard to see how any such order could be catagorized as such, as it neither impinges upon the human rights of others, or is destructive of millitary discpline. (Contrary to respect etc.) As I pointed out, that interpretation would subject almost all the millitary personal involved in activities such as the U2 program subject to sanction for following illegal orders.

Secondly, I think it is fairly clear that the US actions are perfectly legal under both US domestic and International law - despite condemnation from other nations. I have yet to see any persuasive evidence to the contrary.

Protesting Iraq is one thing, labelling orders to go there illegal is another.Y'all need to go back and read a post I made a couple of pages ago. There are two issues being discussed here.

One - the legal issue
Two - the moral/ethical issue

I'm trying to keep them separate. The soldier deserted - that's all there is to the legal issue.

Why did he desert - that's where the moral/ethical issue starts

Unfortunatley, it's very hard to dicuss these without starting to "cross-polinate"

THIS POST

We're talking about two different things in this thread. To clarify:

1. There is a lot of discussion about what the legal ramifications of this soldier/deserters actions can be, ought to be, and/or are.

2. There is also a lot of discussion about the moral and ethical aspects of why this soldier deserted, and what people think about that.

To the first point: There is no question, under US federal law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) the soldier deserted. This is not Absent Without Leave (AWOL) - that implies intent to return. Desertion does NOT have to be during a war or conflict. A soldier assigned to a unit at a military post in the United States, who leaves without authority and before he or she is properly discharged with no intent to return is a deserter. There would have to be a Court Martial, of course, to determine guilt or innocence, and that would be handled by the Military under provisions of the UCMJ. Punishment could include demotion in rank, dishonorable discharge, time in a federal prison, and in extreme cases death by firing squad. The last would normally only be considered in the case of desertion under fire. The last time a soldier was executed by the US Army for desertion under fire was during World War II. If this soldier's unit is/was in Iraq when he decided not to return, as I believe is the case, that is a circumstance that the Court Martial would consider.

Note - those of you who have never experienced military law, and/or a military court, don't confuse it with the experience you may have with laws and courts outside the military. While there are similarities, there are also major differences.

There is also the question of whether or not the current war in Iraq is "legal" or not. Did the United States have legal authority to invade a sovereign nation? Under US Law? Under International Law? Under Iraqi Law? Under the Charter of the United Nations?

To the second point: The issue gets to why the hell is the United States Army in Iraq? Should it be there? Should there have been more effort/time put into diplomacy before an invasion was launched? Do the actions taken by the United States fall within the authority provided by the UN, or outside that authority? Does the US care about that last? Did the Congress abrogate it's constitutional responsibilites? Can it be allowed to do so, if in fact it did? Did the President actually have the authority to launch this military action? Or, did he only think so? Does a soldier have a moral right to refuse to fight in a war he/she believes is unjust or wrong? Even after he/she signed and swore an oath? Does the soldier's moral/ethical responsibility to himself/herself and the world take precedence over following orders, or not? Under the UCMJ soldiers are required to disobey illegal orders - this is why the defense "I was just following orders" does not work. Are the orders soldiers are receiving to go to Iraq legal, or illegal?

Ahem - these points both need to be debated, and many good points have been raised and discussed here. But we have to keep in mind as we continue this discussion that there are really two different discussions going on, and not confuse the two. It would be valid to discuss/argue that the moral and ethical aspects ought to have an effect on the legal issues - but we still have to maintain separation.

Finally - Even after I tried to keep the legal and moral/ethical aspects separate in this post, in the end I had to mix them a bit. It's very hard to keep the moral/ethical aspects out, because we all want laws to be based on moral/ethical values. Specifically, our own moral and ethical values.

Then take back your comments about soldiers who go to Iraq are following an illegal order. Until you apologize and recant your words, this statement means nothing.Re-read what I wrote.

The point I'm making is that it CAN be argued that the orders to soldiers to take part at all in the Iraq War are illegal orders.

I said that there was PLENTY of room for discussion about whether or not those orders are legal. I can't apologize for that, because I believe it.

Then why haven't you done the same thing with Iran or North Korea? They are both in the prosess of attempting to create WMDs (nukes)....

Iran, if you haven't noticed when Condi speaks, is next.

The official plan for North Korea, laid out by Clinton himself, is to immediately use a large number of nuclear weapons all at once on North Korea. This is also the immediate response to any conventional North Korean attack.

Reassuring, no? The plan for North Korea has been rehearsed. It's also the main reason that most US troops have been moved back from the DMZ to points further south on the peninsula. That's so the nuclear weapons can be permitted to burst on North Korean units right on the border in the first few minutes of the war.

Re-read what I wrote.



I said that there was PLENTY of room for discussion about whether or not those orders are legal. I can't apologize for that, because I believe it.

There is no room for discussion. WHen the President says go, you go! No ifs and or buts. If you truely did serve in the military, then you would understand it. Therefore, all your apologies to me are crap. The only way you can rectify the situation is to apologize directly.

All soldiers that follow the order to go to Iraq are following LEGAL ORDERS! That is the absolute truth.

There is no room for discussion. WHen the President says go, you go! No ifs and or buts. If you truely did serve in the military, then you would understand it. Therefore, all your apologies to me are crap. The only way you can rectify the situation is to apologize directly.

All soldiers that follow the order to go to Iraq are following LEGAL ORDERS! That is the absolute truth.Have a nice day.

I said that there was PLENTY of room for discussion about whether or not those orders are legal. I can't apologize for that, because I believe it.

No there isn't.

And you are not even trying. You could at least explain why you think they are illegal - or could be - instead of just repeating that you think they may be.

There are many, many, posts on this thread explaining in detail the legality of the situation, and you haven't addressed a single one.

God help the men you counseled about illegal orders.

There is no room for discussion. WHen the President says go, you go! No ifs and or buts.

And someone in my class wonder why Americans are dying in Iraq in their hundreds....

Have a nice day.

Then you sir, have just betrayed everything you served your country for. My father has served with distinction for over thirty years. Fought in the 1st Gulf War, Bosnia, 2nd Gulf War and now your telling me because he went over there on orders, that he is following an illegal order? I am asking for an apology that was all I was asking.

Your right. Have a nice day.

And someone in my class wonder why Americans are dying in Iraq in their hundreds....

Insurgency and terror attacks. That is the answer.

No there isn't.

And you are not even trying. You could at least explain why you think they are illegal - or could be - instead of just repeating that you think they may be.

There are many, many, posts on this thread explaining in detail the legality of the situation, and you haven't addressed a single one.

God help the men you counseled about illegal orders.

Give him hell Lacadaemon. He deserves it! Hopefully, he'll be going there really soon.

And someone in my class wonder why Americans are dying in Iraq in their hundreds....

It's how the millitary has to function. The range of circumstances wherein orders are illegal is extremely small. Indeed, orders can be unfair, but are still perfectly legal, and must therefore be followed.

But it wouldn't work as a coherent force otherwise. What is more, most - in fact probably virtually all - professional service personel respect the need for such a system and understand that the benefits far outweigh any negative aspects.

The other aspect is that professional soldiers rightly pride themselves on the honor, discipline and esprit de corp that such a system creates. The men and women who willing serve should be respected and honored for their commitment and dedication to a system that has made the American millitary one of the most respected fighting forces in history.

Disagree with the political direction of the war all you wish, that is your right and duty, but this constant mischaracterization of our troops as "robots" blindly following illegal orders is disgraceful and mean spirited.

They are in fact brave men and women, who are honoring their obligations by sacrificing a tremendous amount and willingly following the lawful orders of their superiors. If you cannot honor them for that, then all this talk "about supporting the troops" is self serving rubbish; as is this puerile need to wring hands over the fate and feelings of a single deserter.

Insurgency and terror attacks. That is the answer.

Which leads us to the core of the problem. Why are the insurgents attacking American, British, Norwegian (yes, I know, I'm ashamed that the Norwegians have 120 Engineers there in aid of Bush when more then 80% of the population is against the war), and Australian troops, just to mention a few..

Could it have something to do with the American and British neglect to learn local customs, shooting innocents, torturing everyone (both physically and with their mere presence)? Perhaps the fact that there are 170 000+ heavily armed Americans walking the streets of Baghdad, Najaf and other Iraqi cities?

Perhaps. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad you got Saddam out of his spiderhole, but you shouldn't have invaded without the support of the world community. For instance, in the first Bush-war (Gulf War 1 - 1991), you had almost 200 nations backing you up in beating Saddam. In the third Bush-war (Bush-war 1 - Gulf War 1, Bush-war 2 - Afghanistan, Bush-war 3 - Gulf War 2, Bush-war 4 - Iran or North Korea?), you didn't ever have 40 nations supporting you. How do you know that some nations won't introduce a penalty tax on American goods sold in their countries as a response to the invasion?

Please keep in mind that most of the refugees from those countries you invade come to the European nations. In effect, you invade and cause misery, we take the hordes of refugees that need food, water, clothing, somewhere to live, employment and education. Do us Europeans a favor. Think about that the next time you invade someone, OK?

As a Marine I can tell you these ppl are cowards and should be executed. When you join the military You have full knowledge that you might kill someone. Hell that's the military's job to kill. If you join and don't want to kill your cheating the american ppl out of tax money. They didn't hire you to get girls in your pretty little uniform. They hired you to be a killer. Why would you join the military and not want to kill. I'll tell you why. Because you want the prestige of membership and a garaunteed check. Ppl like that do not deserve to live because they give moral equivalancy to those who Rape, torture and murder by not giving them justice. And by doing so they are a party to their evil by allowing them to continue. Many of you will ask "who am I to judge." I am a thinking rational person. God gave me my life to do with as I choose and any one who tries to take that most precious thing or who allows other to do so deserves death. By devalueing life they have accepted their fate. By killing them I am celebrating life because I am preserving it.

There is no doubt in my mind, that if the reverse situtation was true, the US would quickly return any and all deserters to Canada.

Yes, because we turned Elian Gonzales right back to Cuba when his father wanted him...

lol Dhara I don't think anyone wants you to help argue their side for them.

By not wanting to kill these deserters are devaluing life? And by killing someone you are preserving life? Thinking rational person? The?

Yes, because we turned Elian Gonzales right back to Cuba when his father wanted him...
Um, a different situation entirely. Now quit the trolling.

lol Dhara I don't think anyone wants you to help argue their side for them.

By not wanting to kill these deserters are devaluing life? And by killing someone you are preserving life? Thinking rational person? The?

You can see that he's a Marine....

You can see that he's a Marine....
Yep, and if we use your logic we can see you're a cheese eating surrender monkey, which contrary to popular opinion is a mindset and not a nationality.

Well I wouldnt go that far. I actually have very good friends who are marines and I look up to them. Plus one of them is sexy and really good in the sack *wink wink*

I don't think that it's wrong or dumb to join the military or that all people in the military are somehow idiots or mindless robots. I just think that our military should be used for good reasons, which I don't see Iraq as being a good reason to send our brothers and sisters off to die for. Especially when the administration lied to get us over there... and now they are changing their story and acting as if it was to liberate the Iraqi people all along. Total and complete BS but all we can do now is hope for the best and insist on better leaders for our future.

I somehow doubt this Dhara guy is any older than 12 by the way he speaks.

Yes, because we turned Elian Gonzales right back to Cuba when his father wanted him...

His father but most of his family in America wanted him to stay. Besides that, Clinton's attorney general violated half a dozen laws as well as the Constitution in that fiasco.

Yep, and if we use your logic we can see you're a cheese eating surrender monkey, which contrary to popular opinion is a mindset and not a nationality.

Oh, are we down on the "calling-each-other-names"-level now? Sorry, I didn't know. In that case, I'll just use my superior intellect (sp?) and not reply to your obvious Bushist propaganda anymore. Have a nice day.

Oh, are we down on the "calling-each-other-names"-level now? Sorry, I didn't know. In that case, I'll just use my superior intellect (sp?) and not reply to your obvious Bushist propaganda anymore. Have a nice day.
Because you weren't using the word marine derogatorily at all. And of course, given your comments there's the question of the assumed superiority of your high and mighty intellect.

Because you weren't using the word marine derogatorily at all. And of course, given your comments there's the question of the assumed superiority of your high and mighty intellect.

I'm 17. I'm European, not American. I'm not that good at English, ok? Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I'm just voicing my opinion like everyone else.

Then you sir, have just betrayed everything you served your country for. My father has served with distinction for over thirty years. Fought in the 1st Gulf War, Bosnia, 2nd Gulf War and now your telling me because he went over there on orders, that he is following an illegal order? I am asking for an apology that was all I was asking.

Your right. Have a nice day.FIRST - CONTINUE TO BE PROUD OF YOUR FATHER

Once again, you aren't listening, just mouthing off. I''ve explained a number of times what I said. Read it. Take it to your English teacher and have him or her explain the big words.

I followed every damn order I was ever given in the United States Army. Every one. Because they were all LAWFUL orders.

IF I had been given an unlawful order, I would not have followed it.

IF the assholes in Congress think they can pass some pathetic resolution and hand over their constitutional power to decide when we go to war, they are wrong. The Constitution separate powers between the branches of government for a reason.

IF President idiot face decided to order up a war because he was impatient, well what can we expect - this is what we elected. Thank God I can say I never voted for the idiot.

I continue to believe that, because Congress does not have the authority to abrogate their constitutional responsibility of power to declare war and make treaties, the could not authorize the President to start a war in any way except to declare it themselves. Yes, this does make the entire Vietnam War, in my opinion, a war that we entered illegally.

I continue to assert and believe that, because Congress could NOT give that power to the president, there is PLENTY of room to debate the legality of the war (regardless of what Whispering Legs says). Lawyer or not, in a court of law there are always at least 2 lawyers - and they always have exactly the opposite opinion and argue it well, based on points of law. Imagine that.

And there is nothing in the oath I swore, or the document I signed, that said I give up the right to think during a period of service in the United States Military. As long as a service member continues to follow LEGAL orders, he or she can continue to think what they like. The do NOT have to agree with the President. They do NOT have to think he (or she) is anything but a moronic jerk. They do not have to agree with ANYTHING the dolt says - as long as they follow lawful orders.

I'm 17. I'm European, not American. I'm not that good at English, ok? Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I'm just voicing my opinion like everyone else.

Voicing is fine, just get your facts from other sources and not what teachers are feeding you. I'm 22 yo college student and have gone against what my professors have been teaching about Iraq and the military and the President in general.

As for being european, what part of Europe and what nation?

Gee, that's real nice. The general suggests punishing INNOCENT FAMILIES for the desertions of OTHER PEOPLE, and everyone seems to go "awww shucks" when I point out what he suggested.

Republicans...

Voicing is fine, just get your facts from other sources and not what teachers are feeding you. I'm 22 yo college student and have gone against what my professors have been teaching about Iraq and the military and the President in general.

As for being european, what part of Europe and what nation?

Scandinavia. Norway to be more presise. Bush claims that we are a part of the occupation force (thanks a lot Dubya for saying that crap) because we have approx. 120 Army Engineers there to aid the civilian population (digging waterwells, clearing streets for mine and other ordinance, etc.). They were sent dispite of the Norwegian people's hate for the war (it not being ratified by the UN) just because the current Prime Minister wanted to lick Bush's a**...

I just hope I don't get sent to Iraq when I get drafted in two years.. :(

FIRST - CONTINUE TO BE PROUD OF YOUR FATHER

Always proud of him no matter what morons like you say.

Once again, you aren't listening, just mouthing off. I''ve explained a number of times what I said. Read it. Take it to your English teacher and have him or her explain the big words.

I hate english and I don't have an english class. I've already finished that requirement. I am stating exactly what you were stating. You were stating that anyone that goes to Iraq is following an illegal order. I can dig through the thread and find it for you if your memory is lapsing! Are you experiencing Amnesia?

I followed every damn order I was ever given in the United States Army. Every one. Because they were all LAWFUL orders.

Just like my dad did when he got his orders to go overseas to help in Operation Iraqi Freedom. That is a legal order.

IF I had been given an unlawful order, I would not have followed it.

Good!

IF the assholes in Congress think they can pass some pathetic resolution and hand over their constitutional power to decide when we go to war, they are wrong. The Constitution separate powers between the branches of government for a reason.

The president could very well have said screw Congress and gone into Iraq anyway. He has a ninety day window to do that you know. Did he? NO! He went through Congress and got the resolution to use force. Therefore, Congress made this war legal. I agree with you though that the people in Congress are assholes! At least some of them are.

IF President idiot face decided to order up a war because he was impatient, well what can we expect - this is what we elected. Thank God I can say I never voted for the idiot.

Was the bolded words a slam against Bush? Thank God your out of the military buddy otherwise, I would give the JAG office this post and let them deal with you. And judging by your last line, you are talking about Bush. My point still stands though.

I continue to believe that, because Congress does not have the authority to abrogate their constitutional responsibility of power to declare war and make treaties, the could not authorize the President to start a war in any way except to declare it themselves. Yes, this does make the entire Vietnam War, in my opinion, a war that we entered illegally.

Actually, they do have the power to Authorize the use of Force. As for Vietnam, considering we won every military engagement.... I wn't go there because then I would have to slam LBJ and I dont' want to do that.

I continue to assert and believe that, because Congress could NOT give that power to the president, there is PLENTY of room to debate the legality of the war (regardless of what Whispering Legs says). Lawyer or not, in a court of law there are always at least 2 lawyers - and they always have exactly the opposite opinion and argue it well, based on points of law. Imagine that.

Congress has the power to do so. Its called the law. Under law, they can give the president the authorization to use force. The President could've also sent in our troops but after 90 days, has to report it to Congress for approval. If not, then the troops have to return home. That is the law.

And there is nothing in the oath I swore, or the document I signed, that said I give up the right to think during a period of service in the United States Military. As long as a service member continues to follow LEGAL orders, he or she can continue to think what they like. The do NOT have to agree with the President. They do NOT have to think he (or she) is anything but a moronic jerk. They do not have to agree with ANYTHING the dolt says - as long as they follow lawful orders.

Your right about the first sentence. You do have the right to think. As for your comments in the rest of the post, your lucky your out of the military or I'll forward this to my dad to notify the proper military authorities to track you down. And yes I would do it too.

I'll ask you this one more time, Do you or do you not consider following order to go to Iraq a Legal Order?

Scandinavia. Norway to be more presise. Bush claims that we are a part of the occupation force (thanks a lot Dubya for saying that crap) because we have approx. 120 Army Engineers there to aid the civilian population (digging waterwells, clearing streets for mine and other ordinance, etc.). They were sent dispite of the Norwegian people's hate for the war (it not being ratified by the UN) just because the current Prime Minister wanted to lick Bush's a**...

I just hope I don't get sent to Iraq when I get drafted in two years.. :(

They are engineers helping in the rebuilding of a nation that went into the toilet because of Saddam Hussein. THey are helping innocent Iraqis! That is something to be proud of.

As for you getting drafted, thank God I'm in America because we don't have a military draft. I doubt though you'll be sent to Iraq.

As for you getting drafted, thank God I'm in America because we don't have a military draft. I doubt though you'll be sent to Iraq.

Yeah, I'll probably get shipped up north to the russian border...

Yeah, I'll probably get shipped up north to the russian border...

Have your parka handy. I hear it gets really cold at night and even colder during winter.

Have your parka handy. I hear it gets really cold at night and even colder during winter.

No kiddin' Sherlock. I wear it daily in winter. It's freezing here in the North, you know. But we manage well. We've adapted to the cold really well too, and we have enough power to heat the country. Thank God for the North Sea Oil. Best country to live in according to the UN.

We also ship most of the retired people to Costa del Sol in Spain. We have a small colony there by now. Population consists mainly of people over 60, but there are enough people for the political parties to campaign there...

Snub, Germany, France, and Russia have all said that there is NOTHING that would have changed their mind about going to war in Iraq. Even if WMD WERE present - even if Saddam admitted it - they would not have gone to war. So we would have never gotten what you claim by waiting.

They say even now that they aren't willing to help. They said that even if Kerry had been elected, they would not help. France says that the most they will do is train a few Iraqi police - if we ship them to France.

So I don't expect anything from Europe - because they don't want to use force - ever. They don't care what people do in the Middle East - they'll sell them gas centrifuges that they KNOW will be used to make nuclear weapons - AFTER the sanctions are in place.

France and Russia will sell them weapons and radars and China will sell them air defense network equipment - after the imposition of sanctions - because they don't care - all they care about is money. Hell, they don't even care if the stuff they sell is any good - if the Americans blow it up, they'll just sell more useless crap.

It really makes you wonder what your so-called friends are thinking when they do this. Imagine if I was selling machineguns to your crazy neighbor, even though he told me what he would be doing with them. Would you be upset at him, or at me, when he opens fire on your house? What would you do if the crazy guy had been ordered by the police to turn in all his weapons, and I kept selling them to him under the table? Would you call me on it?

And what if I told you that you were just being paranoid, and that as long as you don't attack him, he won't be a problem?

Just a little bit of science. Just a little bit, and you would know that there are multiple uses for a centrifuge. Most of them have nothing t do with warfare. And the tubes Bush quoted before the war, and were found, coud not be used to craft nuclear weapons, for various materials reasons. In fact, that was known before Bush ever mentioned them. The most the US ever found in Iraw was some very minimal equipment for surviving someone elses attack, and British hot air balloons.

No kiddin' Sherlock. I wear it daily in winter. It's freezing here in the North, you know. But we manage well. We've adapted to the cold really well too, and we have enough power to heat the country. Thank God for the North Sea Oil. Best country to live in according to the UN.

We also ship most of the retired people to Costa del Sol in Spain. We have a small colony there by now. Population consists mainly of people over 60, but there are enough people for the political parties to campaign there...


Damm fins and swedes taking canada's rightfull number one spot on that list, lol

No kiddin' Sherlock. I wear it daily in winter. It's freezing here in the North, you know. But we manage well. We've adapted to the cold really well too, and we have enough power to heat the country. Thank God for the North Sea Oil. Best country to live in according to the UN.

You drill in the North Sea? Oh no what about the native wildlife? your ruining their habitat! LOL!!! Sorry about that! I couldn't resist to act like an environmentalist there for a moment! *Snaps back into reality*

I am glad though that you adapted. Stay safe if you do go there. :)

We also ship most of the retired people to Costa del Sol in Spain. We have a small colony there by now. Population consists mainly of people over 60, but there are enough people for the political parties to campaign there...

very nice. Most of our retirees go either to Pittburgh, Pennsylvania (for some reason that I don't know about), and down in Florida!

FIRST - CONTINUE TO BE PROUD OF YOUR FATHER

Once again, you aren't listening, just mouthing off. I''ve explained a number of times what I said. Read it. Take it to your English teacher and have him or her explain the big words.

I followed every damn order I was ever given in the United States Army. Every one. Because they were all LAWFUL orders.

IF I had been given an unlawful order, I would not have followed it.

IF the assholes in Congress think they can pass some pathetic resolution and hand over their constitutional power to decide when we go to war, they are wrong. The Constitution separate powers between the branches of government for a reason.

IF President idiot face decided to order up a war because he was impatient, well what can we expect - this is what we elected. Thank God I can say I never voted for the idiot.

I continue to believe that, because Congress does not have the authority to abrogate their constitutional responsibility of power to declare war and make treaties, the could not authorize the President to start a war in any way except to declare it themselves. Yes, this does make the entire Vietnam War, in my opinion, a war that we entered illegally.

I continue to assert and believe that, because Congress could NOT give that power to the president, there is PLENTY of room to debate the legality of the war (regardless of what Whispering Legs says). Lawyer or not, in a court of law there are always at least 2 lawyers - and they always have exactly the opposite opinion and argue it well, based on points of law. Imagine that.

And there is nothing in the oath I swore, or the document I signed, that said I give up the right to think during a period of service in the United States Military. As long as a service member continues to follow LEGAL orders, he or she can continue to think what they like. The do NOT have to agree with the President. They do NOT have to think he (or she) is anything but a moronic jerk. They do not have to agree with ANYTHING the dolt says - as long as they follow lawful orders.

You simply cannot make a legal case here. Essentially you are saying that said orders are illegal because they may originate from a chain of command that lacks the requiste consitutional authority because congress never declared war on Iraq.

The deployment orders are direct and issued from a properly constituted chain of command. The fact that a troop may believe that the president does not have the requiste consitutional authority to instruct the millitary to make these deployments can in no way make the order to deploy, in of itself, illegal. What consitutes and illegal order - though there is no exact definition - is something different entirely from the question of constitutional authority. As you should well understand, as long as an order comes from a properly constituted command structure - and implicitly assumed here is with civillian oversight which is unquestionably present in this case - and does not require that human rights be violated, or that actions be taken to the contrary of the dignity, respect and authority of fellow servicemen, then all else being equal the order is lawful.

Deployment orders, in the instant case meet all these requirements.

Your formulation would make a mockery of the entire command structure. Say for example there is a question as to whether or not a General commanding was properly confirmed by congress. Does that mean the entire division could refuse to follow all orders until the matter was cleared up, because the head of the command structure lacked legal authority. Of course not, because those orders would still be lawful.

The second aspect is you assertion that congress somehow abrogated it's legal authority. Again, this has no support, legally or historically.

Historically, the executive branch has deployed troops in many other cases than vietnam, and no-one has seriously contested the constitutionality of those actions. I turn your attention to punitive expiditions into mexico.

Apart from that, there is no question that the executive has the power to deploy troops into active service without congressional authority. Now, this does not, of course render the war power of congress superfluous, although I can see how you are confused. The point you are stuck on is not that the war power grants the authority to deploy troops and conduct offensive operations as this is always inherent in the position of commander in chief, e.g. the whisky rebellion, but rather a declaration of war grants the executive branch a host of whole other powers in addition to those of commander in cheif. Under wartime conditions the governments powers expand enormously, giving it greater control over the economy private property the criminal justice system and the rest. Simply because congress did not choose to grant this at this time does not make the millitary effort in Iraq illegitimate or an usurpation of authority.

(In any case, you could say the same about afganistan)

Basically however, all orders came from a proper chain of command under civillian oversight, and did not involve anything that was facially illegal. That is all you have to know to know that they are lawful.

Like I said, I pity the men you counselled about this. Frankly, you talk like a mutineer.

Just a little bit of science. Just a little bit, and you would know that there are multiple uses for a centrifuge. Most of them have nothing t do with warfare. And the tubes Bush quoted before the war, and were found, coud not be used to craft nuclear weapons, for various materials reasons. In fact, that was known before Bush ever mentioned them. The most the US ever found in Iraw was some very minimal equipment for surviving someone elses attack, and British hot air balloons.
And various chemical agents that were scattered as if remnants of larger stockpiles.

And various chemical agents that were scattered as if remnants of larger stockpiles.

The government you suck up to has already admitted there were no WMDs. Face it, you lost. And now there are lots of military scum there killing and getting killed. For no reason whatsoever. Yay US. Well, there's an up-side to every war. Soldiers die.

And various chemical agents that were scattered as if remnants of larger stockpiles.
Or misplaced remants of a destroyed one.

You drill in the North Sea? Oh no what about the native wildlife? your ruining their habitat! LOL!!! Sorry about that! I couldn't resist to act like an environmentalist there for a moment! *Snaps back into reality*

I am glad though that you adapted. Stay safe if you do go there. :)

Yeah, well, we just send the coast guard after the enviromentalsts. It can get very, very, very messy. Imagine 30 draftees and some officers with MP-5s in zodiacs vs a bunch of environment idiots in weat suits. Who will win?

Thanks. I'll try. At least if I go up there I get to shoot anything that move after I scream out halt in russian...

very nice. Most of our retirees go either to Pittburgh, Pennsylvania (for some reason that I don't know about), and down in Florida!

Nice.

The government you suck up to has already admitted there were no WMDs. Face it, you lost. And now there are lots of military scum there killing and getting killed. For no reason whatsoever. Yay US. Well, there's an up-side to every war. Soldiers die.

Are you capable of nothing but spewing hateful rhetoric and baseless invective?

I will pray for you to have less malice in your heart.

The government you suck up to has already admitted there were no WMDs. Face it, you lost. And now there are lots of military scum there killing and getting killed. For no reason whatsoever. Yay US. Well, there's an up-side to every war. Soldiers die.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A5102-2004Jan9&notFound=true

Doesn't sound like we admitted anything.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A5102-2004Jan9&notFound=true

Doesn't sound like we admitted anything.
Jan 10th 2004.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm
US gives up search for Iraq WMD

Last Updated: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005, 18:59 GMT

Jan 10th 2004.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm
US gives up search for Iraq WMD

Last Updated: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005, 18:59 GMT

A hundred thousand thank yous, CSW.

Jan 10th 2004.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm
US gives up search for Iraq WMD

Last Updated: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005, 18:59 GMT
Asked if the ISG had stopped actively searching for WMD, Mr McClellan said: "That's my understanding... A lot of their mission is focused elsewhere now."


The ISG is not the entire US gov. Can the ISG run over to Syria, no. So if the weapons were stashed there then it's pretty useless to keep the ISG looking for them in Iraq, isn't it?

You know, there is this burning question that perhaps you could answer for me. If Saddam HAD WMDs, why did he not, when he was losing the war so badly that he was literally dig out of a hole in the ground, USE them? If he ever intended to use them, why did he not use them to keep from being conquered?

You know, there is this burning question that perhaps you could answer for me. If Saddam HAD WMDs, why did he not, when he was losing the war so badly that he was literally dig out of a hole in the ground, USE them? If he ever intended to use them, why did he not use them to keep from being conquered?
Because if he used them at all against US forces he NEVER would have gotten his country back. In theory he probably thought that he could keep hiding out and that the "insurgency" could drive out the US at which point he could reassume control. I mean, the French did offer him amnesty before the war.

I'm back! Looks like a missed afair bit.

Apoligies for the previous post - my teenage son. He will be spoken to.

Any way, i think we've fully established that the war was legal (whether it was right is another question) and that the orders given were probably legal. This makes the guy a full-fledged deserter. No question about it.

What remains is what should be done with him? The ideal situation would be that he takes it like a man and gives himself up. Takes some responsibility for his actions. If he was running scared, then he shouldn't have been in the military in the first place.

Will Canada give him up? I hope so. If not, their gonna open up a whole can of worms.

What should happen to him? From what I understand the situation to be, he should be dishonourably discharged. Like I stated before, if your going to join the military, think long and hard about what your doing. Its not just a pretty uniform and a regular pay packet. You are expected to kill. And if your in the slightest uncomfortable with that thought, then you don't belong in uniform, because you can't do the job.

Because if he used them at all against US forces he NEVER would have gotten his country back. In theory he probably thought that he could keep hiding out and that the "insurgency" could drive out the US at which point he could reassume control. I mean, the French did offer him amnesty before the war.

A thought that hadn't occured to me. You could be right, but I doubt it. For one thing, Saddam was in absolutely no position to order the use of WMDs when he was on the run. Secondly, from what we get on our media most of the insurgents are religious fanatics from outside Iraq.

Study the logic there. He would lose out by using WMDs, and he knew it. That hasn't changed in the past years. Why would he develope something whose posession would cost him power, and whose use would cost him more?

Saddam was in a use it or lose it situation. Any major weapon not used would be lost. I repeat, if in his greatest time of need he did not use WMDs, what makes you think he had them? You don't waste vast quantities of cash for nothing, (unless you are the US government) you intend to get a return out of it.

So what situation could ever occur where he needed WMDs more than he did when he was toppled from control of Iraq?

Those poltroons should be shot. No two ways about it. Also their families should be kicked out of the country as a warning to others with like minded cowardly ideas.

In the event that Canada does not surrender these traitors to us, we should send millitary forces to capture them and return them to US soil, where they can be shot.
right after i shoot you...then move to canada ^_^

Study the logic there. He would lose out by using WMDs, and he knew it. That hasn't changed in the past years. Why would he develope something whose posession would cost him power, and whose use would cost him more?

Saddam was in a use it or lose it situation. Any major weapon not used would be lost. I repeat, if in his greatest time of need he did not use WMDs, what makes you think he had them? You don't waste vast quantities of cash for nothing, (unless you are the US government) you intend to get a return out of it.

So what situation could ever occur where he needed WMDs more than he did when he was toppled from control of Iraq?

I was just trying to answer the comment. Personnally, i don't believe he did have any. He didn't need them. He just had to threaten to use them. the whole basis of Saddams power in Iraq was fear, and he used the same methods on his neighnours and the rest of the world. He didn't need to actually have any WMDs, he just had to convoce the world that he did and that he was prepared to use them
If you are trying to infer that he didn't use them because they didn't exist, then I'm in total agreement with you.

The ISG is not the entire US gov. Can the ISG run over to Syria, no. So if the weapons were stashed there then it's pretty useless to keep the ISG looking for them in Iraq, isn't it?
*rolleyes*

ISG is responsible for looking for Iraq's wmd. I shall quote:
"Mr Duelfer reported last year that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons at the time of the US-led invasion nearly two years ago."

"Mr Duelfer reported last year that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons at the time of the US-led invasion nearly two years ago."

"Mr Duelfer reported last year that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons at the time of the US-led invasion nearly two years ago."

None :)

I was just trying to answer the comment. Personnally, i don't believe he did have any. He didn't need them. He just had to threaten to use them. the whole basis of Saddams power in Iraq was fear, and he used the same methods on his neighnours and the rest of the world. He didn't need to actually have any WMDs, he just had to convoce the world that he did and that he was prepared to use them
If you are trying to infer that he didn't use them because they didn't exist, then I'm in total agreement with you.

Eh, sorry. I was aiming my rhetoric to the guy who posted before you.

I'm back! Looks like a missed afair bit.

Apoligies for the previous post - my teenage son. He will be spoken to.

Any way, i think we've fully established that the war was legal (whether it was right is another question) and that the orders given were probably legal. This makes the guy a full-fledged deserter. No question about it.

What remains is what should be done with him? The ideal situation would be that he takes it like a man and gives himself up. Takes some responsibility for his actions. If he was running scared, then he shouldn't have been in the military in the first place.

Will Canada give him up? I hope so. If not, their gonna open up a whole can of worms.

What should happen to him? From what I understand the situation to be, he should be dishonourably discharged. Like I stated before, if your going to join the military, think long and hard about what your doing. Its not just a pretty uniform and a regular pay packet. You are expected to kill. And if your in the slightest uncomfortable with that thought, then you don't belong in uniform, because you can't do the job.

In all honesty I hope canada does give him up. I am concerned however that an immigration tribunal will not be the right place to decide this. For one thing, he will be able to say whatever he wants, and the US government won't be there to refute his claims (or at least probably not).

As to what should happen to him when he gets back. The probably shouldn't shoot him, but on the face of it he is not only a deserter he has publicly implied that his fellow troops are criminals &ct. So I feel just giving him a dishonorable discharge would be too lienient, and may badly effect moral for the rest of the ranks and rates. (By seeing him get away with such behavior). so he should probably get some jail time as well.

Study the logic there. He would lose out by using WMDs, and he knew it. That hasn't changed in the past years. Why would he develope something whose posession would cost him power, and whose use would cost him more?

Saddam was in a use it or lose it situation. Any major weapon not used would be lost. I repeat, if in his greatest time of need he did not use WMDs, what makes you think he had them? You don't waste vast quantities of cash for nothing, (unless you are the US government) you intend to get a return out of it.

So what situation could ever occur where he needed WMDs more than he did when he was toppled from control of Iraq?
Against the US he would have been in deep shit. But against sayyy ,Iran? If Iran had for some reason attacked Iraq, would the US have come down completely enough to remove him from power? I don't know. Chances are actually pretty good we wouldn't have.

hmmmmm....I wonder why these soldiers are choosing to come to Canada....

Maybe because it kicks serious ass!!!!

Yo, any deserters out there, come to Canada, as long as you swear alleigance to the red and white, we'll give you a free six-pack of REAL beer (i.e NOT coors or bud light), a toque, doughnuts, and free tickets to the nearest minor hockey game. Consider yourselves true Canucks!!

American gung-ho crazies wanting to prosecute these guys can take their manifest destiny crap and back down...there our citizens now....and you wouldn't be crazy enough to take on Canada, would you?

Cuz if you thought the world hates you now, wait till you attack a peaceful, socially-responsible democray....whooooo boy. Prepare to get a can of UN whoop-ass laid upon you.

Against the US he would have been in deep shit. But against sayyy ,Iran? If Iran had for some reason attacked Iraq, would the US have come down completely enough to remove him from power? I don't know. Chances are actually pretty good we wouldn't have.
Especially when we gave the weapons to him for that purpose.

hmmmmm....I wonder why these soldiers are choosing to come to Canada....

Maybe because it kicks serious ass!!!!

Yo, any deserters out there, come to Canada, as long as you swear alleigance to the red and white, we'll give you a free six-pack of REAL beer (i.e NOT coors or bud light), a toque, doughnuts, and free tickets to the nearest minor hockey game. Consider yourselves true Canucks!!

American gung-ho crazies wanting to prosecute these guys can take their manifest destiny crap and back down...there our citizens now....and you wouldn't be crazy enough to take on Canada, would you?

Cuz if you thought the world hates you now, wait till you attack a peaceful, socially-responsible democray....whooooo boy. Prepare to get a can of UN whoop-ass laid upon you.
Throw in some back bacon and you got a deal!