NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's try this again, this time as more than a spam thread, shall we? Commentary below and poll incoming.

Open Letter to the Government from an AWOL Soldier
http://afterdowningstreet.org/circello

By James Circello, Iraq Veterans Against The War

To those Businessmen and women
holding seats in Congress,
To the Highest Court of America,
To every Department within the U.S. government,
To the President's Cabinet,
To the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
To the Vice President and President
of the United States of America:

My name is James Circello. I am sure some of you
already know who I am now that wiretaps and spying on
American citizens has been approved.

Or maybe you've heard of me when you saw my name on a
comprehensive list of Anti-War activists.

Or maybe you just know of me because I was a Sergeant
in the United States Army and served as an Airborne
Infantryman for six years, went to Iraq in March 2003
and served until March 2004, remained in the Army a
little longer before refusing to take part in the
Occupation of the Middle East and went AWOL.

I am writing you today, not asking for forgiveness for
what I decided to do, but to give you an idea of what
brought me to that decision to leave the Army and
speak out against the Occupation. Though some will
claim I left for other reasons and will try to force
the discussion away from the facts and at the same
time attempt to assassinate my character with half
truths and out right lies, these are the facts. If
later we wish to get into more of my personal life, we
can do that: I have no fear of it.

I will first like to say that I am no longer a member
of the United States Armed Forces. When I left the
military on Easter morning, April 2007, I have
officially resigned from service to that military.
There are no ties between myself and an oppressive
military regime set on occupying groups of
impoverished indigenous people.

I am no longer a Sergeant or a paratrooper.

I will not respect an organization that can and does,
at its own will, change entire enlistment contracts
for the purpose of extending soldiers;

Gives quarterly sexual harassment courses and still
allows roughly 30% of women to be sexually assaulted
in some way, shape or form;

Openly discriminates against people based on
homosexuality, race, gender and ethnic background;

Allows crimes against humanity and peace to occur and
covers them up with internal
investigations;

Actively recruits young boys and girls from low level
income high schools and communities with false
promises of health care, school and job experience and
fails on all accounts;

Refuses to recognize conscientious objectors (C.O.),
and when individuals apply for C.O. status that are
administratively "punished" by their chain of command;

I refuse to be a part of a military and Administration
that continue to abuse and torture, doesn't recognize
the rights of detainees and allows them to be shipped
to secret detention facilities for "National Security"
purposes; a military that is illegally, based on all
U.S. as well as International Law, inside of Iraq; a
military that is over extended, under funded in a war
with no foreseeable end (because time tables give our
enemy a "sense of victory", but how can the enemy have
victory when "Mission Accomplished" has been
declared?); a military that watches billions of
government contracts given to private military
outfits, while they run through the streets of Iraq
unchecked, and allows soldiers to be poorly equipped
and the V.A. poorly funded.; the No Child Left Behind
Act and it's policy of making it mandatory for schools
to send out the information of all students attending
the school to military recruiters, or they are
threatened with being cut off from Federal funding (I
thought school was a place of
learning, not a place of turning our youth into the:
"(insert Arabic country name here) Veterans Against
The War".

This and many other reasons are why I tell you today,
I do not recognize any of the warrants that may have
been placed upon me. These warrants are merely a way
to silence any opposition to this criminal war. I do
not support the United States foreign policy and will
not be the fool that enforces it.
The United States has a history of using the poor of
this country to massacre and oppress the poor of other
countries and I say to everyone that is able to read
this - I am no longer a member of the United States
Armed Forces.

I also say, this by no way makes me Un-American. I
love this country and feel very strongly that it can
be saved and that it must be saved.

I say this without a growing ego, but my acts as of
now are what the Founding Fathers envisioned and wrote
about. This is what Democracy looks like.

Dissent isn't Un-American, it is what Patriotism
means.
Patriotism is not blindly following a Flag waver, it
is Direct Action.

I joined the Army after the towers of New York fell.
Swept up in the fervor, I left college to enlist. My
country was attacked - I, like many, wanted to defend
it.

But here is where a majority of Americans, as well as
Politicians have made their largest mistake: Defending
your country does not mean destroying other Nations
out of and/or for Revenge. But the People bought into
the outcry that we must kill to feel better, and the
Politicians sang their songs and danced their dances,
in an attempt to show who was the most Patriotic of
them all!

America stayed fixed to the lies from Fox News (can it
really be called "News"?) and we watched the towers
fall so many thousands of times until we were all
ready to go kill and die for the Eagle and Red, White
and Blue.

Though, I will admit, I was angry and young but it
didn't take me too long to see that this wasn't about
defending America, but creating an entirely new enemy.

It was all there.
It was almost too perfect.

They are of different color.
They speak a different language.
They are a people that have been made to be poor - not
a people that are poor; there is a difference.
They follow a strange religion that Americans don't
understand! A religion so very similar to
Christianity, that - get this - it recognizes almost
the same individuals as being Prophets that the Bible
does.
They "hate us (you) for our (your) freedom".
They will come here and kill our women and children if
we do not go there and kill their women and children
first.

The Administration and all of Its men and women sold
it and America bought it.

How many people got chills when the American flag was
placed there at Ground Zero? Remember when there were
so many flags outside of houses, and flag stores ran
out of them?

So I went to Iraq and I saw their faces. People that I
thought wanted to kill me, and hated me because I was
free, brought me into their homes, offered me food and
something to drink.

Was the food poisoned? No.

Was it a poor family that could barely afford the food
they were offering, but offered it to me without
charge or regret? You bet.

I was quickly disillusioned by the military. Senators
and Representatives from Congress would come to visit
us - and we would be told to get everything clean for
the Dog and Pony Show.

We would up the security levels, to make everything
look ship-shape. When it was time for the questions
and answers portion, we would never be without a
question, because the chain of command was always
there for us - and thankfully they had come up with
the questions we were allowed to ask our
Representatives. This is what happens every time
someone from D.C. came for a little sight seeing
visit. I can only imagine what kinds of shows they put
on now.

Long story short, I left Iraq feeling really
uncomfortable with America's position in this entire
conflict. It didn't feel right. It didn't look right.
And after much soul searching and researching, I
discovered that it plain out just wasn't right.

It took me a while to finally decide to leave. I
wanted to leave prior to invading Iraq, while
witnessing the illegal "Shock and Awe" that killed so
many innocent people and destroying the infrastructure
of the country that we hadn't destroyed from the first
bombings in the Gulf War and what wasn't antiquated
and useless from the illegal sanctions held over the
heads of the every day Iraqi citizen.

I fell for the trap of "don't let your buddies down".
And what a well spun web it is. I can not control the
conscience of another man. I can only follow mine. And
after deciding what I believe in is not consistent
with the United States military and learning that
"don't let your buddies down" is just a form of
domination through guilt, I left my post in Italy to
return to America. I began speaking out against this
Occupation. I do not fear arrest. I do not stay
hidden. I go to all national events and travel the
country at my own leisure.

I say this to you Congressional Democrats: you have
failed us. I delayed my AWOL, because when I learned
both Houses of the Congress were controlled by
Democrats I was confident that the war was finally
over. You ran on the platform of ending the war. I
told all of my friends to just hang on, it will be
over very soon. You funded the war and you continue to
fund it. By no means is my hostility solely directed
towards the Republican bench of the government. You
lied to the American people, and more so, you failed
the American people. We are finally awake and more and
more are realizing that we don't have a two party
system in America, we have a single party that is not
representing the will of the People.

The People say end the war. Stop funding the
Occupation. The Soldiers want to come home. The insane
idea of we must stay in Iraq and Afghanistan so that
these thousands of soldiers will not have died in vain
should never be said again! We tried saying that in
Vietnam! The Iraqi people are strong and can defend
themselves. They also want us out.

It took years for a G.I. Resistance to begin within
the Military during Vietnam, but I am telling you
right now - the feeling of resentment is there. The
feeling that Politicians and Businesses are profiting
off of this Occupation while we suffer through
extended tours and battle Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, depleted uranium, losing friends and family,
losing our lives through wounds.

We come home and barely have time to adjust to being
home before we begin training to leave again.

Families are falling apart.
Iraqis are dying.
For what?
A red, white and blue flag that says, "I'm a Patriot"?
Dissent is Patriotic.

Open discussion is Patriotic (this to Speaker of the
House Pelosi who refuses to have an open forum with
the people of her district. I believe it is going on
just over 2 Years now.)

And I say to you dissent is filling the ranks of the
military and it doesn't even need a charismatic
figurehead to come forth and say "Dissent; Desert!".
They are doing it and will keep doing it.

And the military's attempt to censor free speech will
not contain it. Blogs, Youtube, Myspace: these sights,
and others, weren't blocked for any reason other than
these are the most popular places to find out that the
G.I. Resistance Movement is growing daily.

So proud Patriots of America, I ask you today for
nothing. You are my Employee, never forget that. My
tax dollars pay your salary, never forget that.

I do however have demands for you:

-End the Occupation Now. Not tomorrow.

-Bring home all American troops. Replace them with a
true international coalition designed specifically for
peace keeping operations, NOT military operations.

-Remove all U.S. contractors from the Middle East that
continue to benefit off of the death of the Iraqi and
Afghan people and the destruction of their countries.

-Allow the Afghan and Iraq governments the freedom to
decide what kind of country they want to be in, not
what kind of country we want them to have.

-Allow the Afghan and Iraq governments freedom to
choose who is given reconstruction contracts - which
none should be American companies, for obvious
reasons.

-Fund in full all reconstruction projects in
Afghanistan and Iraq: We destroyed their countries, by
International Law we must pay. By Moral virtue we must
pay.

-Support the Troops means take care of them when they
come home, not blindly fund their continued existence
in a war zone - Completely fund the V.A. Department!

-Fund the Levees; Do NOT allow another Hurricane
Katrina or Rita.

-Oversight on Gulf Region reconstruction (where is
it?) - I was just in New Orleans, it is still a
disaster area two years later. Fix it now.

-Open Diplomatic negotiations with Iran - Do not allow
another war to take place. We have Diplomats that are
paid by taxpayers to do just that: to Talk and
Discuss. Use Diplomats not Depleted Uranium and Cruise
Missiles.

I also want to say this before I close, I wrote it in
a letter, just yesterday, to the people of Italy that
stand up and actively oppose more U.S. military bases
in their country. And it says:

The Iraq war is a War of Aggression, led by a cry of
"We Will Never Forget"; the famous quote from
September 11, 2001. Well, I have something to say for
the people of the World and to the People of this
Administration, as well as to the members of the U.S.
Congress.

We WILL never forget.

We will never forget that the men who hijacked those
aircraft on September 11, 2001 were not Iraqi.

We will never forget that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass
Destruction (W.M.D) when we invaded.

We will never forget that the W.M.D's that Iraq did
have years before, were sold to them by the U.S.
Government.

We will never forget the millions of Iraqi men, women
and children who have suffered through the
Dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, The Iraq-Iran War, The
Gulf War, Depleted Uranium, Years of Illegal
Sanctions, Shock and Awe, "Liberation" from a Tyrant
only to find a new Tyrant take his place.

We will never forget the 2 million of Iraqi men, women
and children who are now displaced refugees within
their own country.

We will never forget the 1.5 million refugees in
Syria, the 775,000 refugees in Jordan and the nearly
200,000 refugees in Egypt.

We will never forget the 1 million dead Iraqi men,
women and children since March 2003.

We will never forget that nearly 100,000 Iraqis flee
the country each month since 2003.

We will never forget the widows, widowers and orphans
of those dead.

We will never forget the effects of depleted uranium
in American ammunition that litters the countries of
the Middle East.

We will never forget the increased infant mortality
rate. The sewage on the streets. The sectarian
violence that was never in the streets of Iraq until
we installed a Pro-U.S. Government.

We will never forget the destruction of Shock and Awe
that destroyed Iraq's entire infrastructure.

We will never forget Abu Ghraib.

We will never forget the Lost men and women of
Guantanamo Bay and other Secret U.S. Detention
facilities.

We will never forget the every day Iraqi that is
gunned down at a Traffic Control Point by a tired
American teenager.

We will never forget the sounds of Improvised
Explosive Devices (I.E.D) directed not at the American
soldier, but at American Policy.

We will never forget the Women and Children gunned
down at random after an I.E.D. explodes, because they
were working the vegetable fields and were frightened
and began to run.

We will never forget that War is, in fact, Terrorism.
And America is the largest State Sponsor of Terrorism.

We will never forget that the Men, Women and Children
of the Middle East may be of the same color as Saddam
Hussein, but they do not have his face. They are not
him. They do not deserve what they have been made to
endure.

And we will never forget that corporations are
profiting off of the death and destruction.

We will never forget that Blackwater and other private
armies, which are in themselves illegal, are running
around the Middle East killing at will - and are left
unchecked.

We will never forget amazing photo opportunities with
the soldiers, whether its walking through a market in
Iraq with security all around you and Apaches in the
air, or sitting on the deck of a ship under a "Mission
Accomplished" banner.

We will never forget that a majority of the American
population want the Occupations to end and we will
keep repeating it until you do what you are paid to do
- and that is, Listen to the People.

The People are United and I know that attempts will be
made to have me appear a fool and soon you will have
my grade school photographs, my coloring books, a list
of every library book I have ever checked out, and
whatever other records these incredibly large and
over-funded Secret Agencies compile on Activists in
America, but I do not fear you.

You have no moral authority over me.
Or any authority at all.
I do not fear you.
Any of you.

We The People,
United within The Struggle,

James Circello
Iraq Veterans Against The War

There isn't much I have to say about this, as Mr. Circello has made the point about the Iraq War very well leaving me little to add except my agreement. But I'm sure some of you out there have some better responses, so please, what do you have to say about this piece? Is it absolutely true? Is it absolute BS? How do you think the American people would respond if this was made public? And add any other relevant commentary on the Iraq War, the War on Terror, etc. Poll incoming.

He's AWOL? Hopefully the MPs find him and throw his carcus into the slammer for disobeying lawful orders. That's all I have to say on this.

im fine with mr. circello writing any letter he wants to anyone he wants to write it to.

he should be court marshalled for going awol and serve whatever sentence is appropriate for that.

He's AWOL? Hopefully the MPs find him and throw his carcus into the slammer for disobeying lawful orders. That's all I have to say on this.

im fine with mr. circello writing any letter he wants to anyone he wants to write it to.

he should be court marshalled for going awol and serve whatever sentence is appropriate for that.

Yes, my poll seems to neglect that part, except in the treasonist option. Mea culpa

Yes, my poll seems to neglect that part, except in the treasonist option. Mea culpa

Going AWOL is not treason so that leaves that option out.

Yes, my poll seems to neglect that part, except in the treasonist option. Mea culpa

treason doesnt seem to me to be an appropriate charge.

Well he can leave the military if he wants, I don't really mind at all.

However, it seems to me that he is just a puppet for some anti-war agenda™.

Going AWOL is not treason so that leaves that option out.

treason doesnt seem to me to be an appropriate charge.

True, but it's a reference to punishment, inflated of course to be the parody hyper-reactionary option.

A USA soldier trying to do the right thing? I guess there are some things that are new under the Sun, after all. Kudos.

He's AWOL? Hopefully the MPs find him and throw his carcus into the slammer for disobeying lawful orders. That's all I have to say on this.

im fine with mr. circello writing any letter he wants to anyone he wants to write it to.

he should be court marshalled for going awol and serve whatever sentence is appropriate for that.

I'm in absolute agreement here. When you join the military, you sign a contract. He violated that, not to mention the promises and trust made between a Sgt. and the men/women under his command. He took an oath, and he broke his word by going AWOL.

(But I'm also just angry because I would willingly join the military and they won't have me, and he just gives it up)

Somebody get this man a Nobel prize.

Somebody get this man a Nobel prize.

That went to Al Gore.

If you're conned into signing a contract, is it still binding?
If you're under contract to engage in criminal activity, is the contract still binding?

Nevermind, I don't give a shit. To resist is our duty when injustice is law. I'd suggest he forgets about the flag wanking, for his own sanity's sake, and seek political asylum in a foreign nation, to try to make a bit of an international incident out of it.

That went to Al Gore.

D'oh!

Still, you gotta admit. That man's a true American.

That dude better run for Mexico... They say Justice is blind, and they'll have him sentenced for going AWOL...

Sad how true his statements are though.

D'oh!

Still, you gotta admit. That man's a true American.

Is he? I disagree.

That dude better run for Mexico... They say Justice is blind, and they'll have him sentenced for going AWOL...

And he should be jailed for going AWOL!

I suspect if someone wants to leave the US army without desertion, they are going be stalled because they aren't enough people replacing the amount of people leaving due to the Iraq war being viewed as unpopular like Vietnam. There will be more people like this around as this war drags on.

He is a courageous individual for these statements. I support all conscietious objectors.

My highest hopes that he remains safe and free.

And he should be jailed for going AWOL!

You don't want him jailed for going AWOL, you want him jailed for disagreeing with you about the clusterfuck.

And he should be jailed for going AWOL!Why?

Doesn't punishment, especially when carried out by an entire society, require any sort of moral justification in your opinion?

You don't want him jailed for going AWOL, you want him jailed for disagreeing with you about the clusterfuck.

Um no. That is bull. He violated the UCMJ by going AWOL. He should be thrown in jail with a dishonorable discharge for such.

Let's try this again, this time as more than a spam thread, shall we? Commentary below and poll incoming.



There isn't much I have to say about this, as Mr. Circello has made the point about the Iraq War very well leaving me little to add except my agreement. But I'm sure some of you out there have some better responses, so please, what do you have to say about this piece? Is it absolutely true? Is it absolute BS? How do you think the American people would respond if this was made public? And add any other relevant commentary on the Iraq War, the War on Terror, etc. Poll incoming.

I agree with the guy, but I don't agree with the AWOL.

Um no. That is bull. He violated the UCMJ by going AWOL. He should be thrown in jail with a dishonorable discharge for such.

Assume he deserves that. Assume he deserves even death if you want.

But discuss his text for itself. Not for "he went AWOL" or anything else. For the text.

Assume he deserves that. Assume he deserves even death if you want.

But discuss his text for itself. Not for "he went AWOL" or anything else. For the text.

Um the fact that he went AWOL can also be discussed. He went AWOL. That gives him very little credibility to me.

Um no. That is bull. He violated the UCMJ by going AWOL. He should be thrown in jail with a dishonorable discharge for such.

And if he had tendered his resignation on the spot rather than just not turn up?

Unless you're already in the middle of serving a tour of duty, I find it doubtful that the legal contract has a clause that forces you to serve as long as they like with them holding the power to change it however they like.

And if it does, then as an employment contract, it sucks.

Um the fact that he went AWOL can also be discussed. He went AWOL. That gives him very little credibility to me.
But that's an ad hominem argument.

By the way, what are the rules for conscientous objection in the US military?

Um the fact that he went AWOL can also be discussed. He went AWOL. That gives him very little credibility to me.

***I will not need a scalpel to dissect this poor dead argument***

***Dissection***

Let me dissect this argument you just used.

One ad hominem in a poor attempt to shut up someone you already disagree with.

Pretending his going AWOL should be discussed, as opposed to only his text, in order to dodge the argument ABOUT the text, one you know you'd lose.

***Cause of death***

Ad hominem fallacy and attempt to mislead the argument as a way to escape defeat.

You don't want him jailed for going AWOL, you want him jailed for disagreeing with you about the clusterfuck.

gee you know corny better than he knows himself. maybe you should start posting for him so he doesnt make any mistakes.

and what is MY reason for thinking he should face judgement for going awol? i dont support the war and never have.

During the Nuremburg Tribunal it was decided that regardless of nationality, every human in the world had certain obligations towards standards of decency that were higher then any state or military, and the defense of "following orders" would not excuse someone for being complicit in war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity.

This man's AWOL should be applauded. On his convictions, backed by international law that binds every nation, he decided of his own free will that he'd rather face a court-martial than continue being complicit in a war crime. If you have any decency as a human being, given the stark naked truth of America's occupation of Iraq, you cannot condemn this man's actions. If you do, then you are no different than Adolf Eichmann, who also followed orders because it was "his country, right or wrong."

gee you know corny better than he knows himself. maybe you should start posting for him so he doesnt make any mistakes.

I don't need to, a computer with enough pattern repetition capability could.

While I respect his opinion, I do not agree that he went AWOL and I think that he should be punished for going AWOL and not fullfilling his contract.

I don't need to, a computer with enough pattern repetition capability could.

i find it just a tad hypocritical of you to lecture someone on his logic when you violated the rules of debate in the first post you addressed to him.

i find it just a tad hypocritical of you to lecture someone on his logic when you violated the rules of debate in the first post you addressed to him.

You mean the Right doesn't have a history of trying to silence its opponents? Okie-dokie then.

While I respect his opinion, I do not agree that he went AWOL and I think that he should be punished for going AWOL and not fullfilling his contract.Again: why?

You're talking about taking away a man's freedom, because even the threat of doing just that wasn't enough to cower him into continue to commit crimes. How do you rationalize such a thing?

You mean the Right doesn't have a history of trying to silence its opponents? Okie-dokie then.

no i mean that its bad form to declare that you know what the poster really meant instead of waiting for him to reveal his motive.

You're talking about taking away a man's freedom, because even the threat of doing just that wasn't enough to cower him into continue to commit crimes. How do you rationalize such a thing?

Because in the USA, when you enter into any kind of contract, you are obligated to fulfill it unless you find legal means to exit the contract, this man, signed a contract with the US Military that he would serve for X amount of years, and that the military would train him, house him, basically take care of him for his time. By going AWOL, he is not fulfilling his end of the contract and thus appropriate action and punishment should be taken.

no i mean that its bad form to declare that you know what the poster really meant instead of waiting for him to reveal his motive.

Bad form or not, Corny soon after revealed his motives when he tried to discredit the soldier for having gone AWOL, thus proving me right about his reasons, is it not?

Because in the USA, when you enter into any kind of contract, you are obligated to fulfill it unless you find legal means to exit the contract, this man, signed a contract with the US Military that he would serve for X amount of years, and that the military would train him, house him, basically take care of him for his time. By going AWOL, he is not fulfilling his end of the contract and thus appropriate action and punishment should be taken.

Actually, he fulfilled that contract... The general problem is that in recent years the US gov't has been getting in this habit of taking the pains to extend peoples contracts... By this, I mean, they inform you that you will be serving longer (without the need for your signature).... He fulfilled his contract... The US didn't fulfill their end of it (not to mention the other problems)... They haven't been for years... Even us pre-Iraq vets are not getting the benefits promised to us... The US government is slowly setting itself up for a military coup.

Because in the USA...The law must be obeyed, even when it involves punishing a man for doing the right thing?

Shit mate, I wish I hadn't asked. Better yet, I wish that kind of blind worship of authority didn't exist. Always makes me feel like pulling a Smunk & say: "Human, me? No fucking way. I have nothing in common with those idiot critters".

He's a criminal and coward. He obviously didn't feel that way when he enlisted...I guess he decided to abandon his unit and his responsibility and cover it up as being some kind of moral crusade conveniently when the time came for him to actually live up to his responsibilities. His unit put their lives on the line for him during their deployment and what did he do? Run away.

Let him rot in jail.

He's a criminal and coward. Let him rot in jail.

He's a more moral human being than yourself, one whose arguments you have yet to refute without hiding behind an ad hominem smokescreen. Furthermore, I bet he spent more time in combat than you or the president you try to force us to fellate ever will.

He's a more moral human being than yourself, one whose arguments you have yet to refute without hiding behind an ad hominem smokescreen.

Who says I disagree with his arguments? That's not the point of my criticism.

He abandoned his unit and tried to hide it behind a variety of legitimate criticisms of the US military. If he was really so brave and moral, he'd work to change it rather than run away and abandon his fellow soldiers, his commitment to his country and his unit. He violated the trust his unit put in him and allowed them to risk their lives while he gave nothing in return. That is cowardice of the highest level and deserves nothing but scorn and condescension.

Who says I disagree with his arguments? That's not the point of my criticism.

He abandoned his unit and tried to hide it behind a variety of legitimate criticisms of the US military. If he was really so brave and moral, he'd work to change it rather than run away and abandon his fellow soldiers, his commitment to his country and his unit. He violated the trust his unit put in him and allowed them to risk their lives while he gave nothing in return. That is cowardice of the highest level and deserves nothing but scorn and condescension.

Precisely. I don't support the war, I don't support Bush. However, when you take an oath to your country and your fellow soldiers, you'd better uphold it. Had he stayed in, but then disobeyed an unlawful order, I'd be first in line to defend him. But no - he ran.

He abandoned his unit and tries to hide it behind a variety of criticisms of the US military. If he was really so brave and moral, he'd work to change it rather than run away and abandon his fellow soldiers, his commitment to his country and his unit. He violated the trust his unit put in him and allowed them to risk their lives while he gave nothing in return. That is cowardice of the highest level and deserves nothing but scorn and condescension.

He IS working to change it. The text you fear to address is an example.

As for "giving something in return", have YOU?

And as for "commitment to his country", don't make me laugh. This accursed bloodshed is nothing more than Bush wanting to drink the blood of other people. It has nothing to do with protecting your country.

The law must be obeyed, even when it involves punishing a man for doing the right thing?

Shit mate, I wish I hadn't asked. Better yet, I wish that kind of blind worship of authority didn't exist. Always makes me feel like pulling a Smunk & say: "Human, me? No fucking way. I have nothing in common with those idiot critters".

If you want the laws changed, then there are legal ways of doing so. You can't disobey a law just because you don't "agree" with it. If you don't agree with a law, but decide to break it anyways, then hey, you deserve the punishment that comes with breaking with the law. I mean I'm free not to pay my taxes, but the government is free to punish me for not paying my taxes. See how that works?

If you want the laws changed, then there are legal ways of doing so.

The war itself was illegal.

So, you're right, let the sanctions against the US and punishments against its soldiers begin.

If you want to play Lawful Neutral, put your money where your mouth is.

The war itself was illegal.

Illegal according to who? International law? Good luck getting the US to listen to what the rest of the world says...especially when the entire government is guilty.

That doesn't change the fact that he broke US law and deserted his fellow soldiers.

The war itself was illegal.

So, you're right, let the sanctions against the US and punishments against its soldiers begin.

If you want to play Lawful Neutral, put your money where your mouth is.

I'd love to see sanctions against the US for the Iraq war. Would teach our government that they can't go around doing whatever they please.

Punishments for common soldiers, not so much. Leaders yes.

Apparently AWOL soldiers have a lot of time on their hands.
That was a dang long letter...

Illegal according to who? International law? Good luck getting the US to listen to what the rest of the world says...especially when the entire government is guilty.

In which case, by Wilgrove's oh-so-Lawful approach, the soldiers should be attacked by the UN forces as war criminals that they, yes, became.

I'd love to see sanctions against the US for the Iraq war. Would teach our government that they can't go around doing whatever they please.

Punishments for common soldiers, not so much. Leaders yes.

I'm pointing out to Wilgrove that if he wants to apply the ENTIRE law, he should be prepared for its ENTIRE application.

If you want the laws changed, then there are legal ways of doing so. You can't disobey a law just because you don't "agree" with it. If you don't agree with a law, but decide to break it anyways, then hey, you deserve the punishment that comes with breaking with the law. I mean I'm free not to pay my taxes, but the government is free to punish me for not paying my taxes. See how that works?

So Martin Luther King Jr. deserved that time in the Birmingham jail?

Civil disobedience is a valid means of objecting to a law.

I'm pointing out to Wilgrove that if he wants to apply the ENTIRE law, he should be prepared for its ENTIRE application.

Eh go ahead, I have no problems.

Civil disobedience is a valid means of objecting to a law.

The 'civil' doesn't detract from the 'disobedient'. ;)

So Martin Luther King Jr. deserved that time in the Birmingham jail?

Civil disobedience is a valid means of objecting to a law.

As Maddox once said "Civil disobedience is still disobedience."

Eh go ahead, I have no problems.

Sanctions against the US, attacks by the other countries on the coalition forces... On it goes, really.

As Maddox once said "Civil disobedience is still disobedience."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_%28Star_Trek%29

Sanctions against the US, attacks by the other countries on the coalition forces... On it goes, really.

Be my guest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_%28Star_Trek%29

Umm ok....not really sure what you meant to do with that link....but whatever...

If you want the laws changed, then there are legal ways of doing so. You can't disobey a law just because you don't "agree" with it. If you don't agree with a law, but decide to break it anyways, then hey, you deserve the punishment that comes with breaking with the law. I mean I'm free not to pay my taxes, but the government is free to punish me for not paying my taxes. See how that works?

What is the legal way of changing the UMCJ that an average solider can partake in anyways?

(Honest question I have no idea)

As Maddox once said "Civil disobedience is still disobedience."

As Oscar Wilde once said, "Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion."

TL;DR

'Nuff said.

As Oscar Wilde once said, "Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion."

Yes, but I believe that as a society, we have now come to a point where almost anything and everything can be delt with through legal channels, courts, legislation, etc.

Because in the USA, when you enter into any kind of contract, you are obligated to fulfill it unless you find legal means to exit the contract, this man, signed a contract with the US Military that he would serve for X amount of years, and that the military would train him, house him, basically take care of him for his time. By going AWOL, he is not fulfilling his end of the contract and thus appropriate action and punishment should be taken.

Like I said in my post above (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13156992&postcount=30), international law has declared that each individual has higher obligations to humanity than any state or military. The US's war crimes in Iraq voided any contractual obligation he'd had in the military. If the military is committing these heinous crimes, than mutiny is a legitimate response.

Like I said in my post above (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13156992&postcount=30), international law has declared that each individual has higher obligations to humanity than any state or military. The US's war crimes in Iraq voided any contractual obligation he'd had in the military. If the military is committing these heinous crimes, than mutiny is a legitimate response.

and on what basis are we calling Iraq a "war crime"? I agree that it's an unjust war, I agree that it's a war that shouldn't has happen. But a war crime? It's not like the United States government is sprouting up Concentration and Death Camps over there and killing off the people who live in Iraq.

What is the legal way of changing the UMCJ that an average solider can partake in anyways?

(Honest question I have no idea)

"Fragging" his commanding officers.

Yes, but I believe that as a society, we have now come to a point where almost anything and everything can be delt with through legal channels, courts, legislation, etc.

Those legal channels are wholly controlled by the very administration that committed this crime in the first place. There is no immediate legal recourse to this problem. Either we wait for the government to be voted out, or we take direct action. Direct action is the way to go.

"Fragging" his commanding officers.

1. That's not legal in any way, shape or form.

2. If you're willing to go that far, we might as well go the next level and have a full scale military mutiny.

and on what basis are we calling Iraq a "war crime"? I agree that it's an unjust war, I agree that it's a war that shouldn't has happen. But a war crime? It's not like the United States government is sprouting up Concentration and Death Camps over there and killing off the people who live in Iraq.

Aggression itself is a war crime, as have been the numerous cases of the indiscriminate use of military weapons on civilian infrastructure.

Concentration camps and genocide fall under another seperate but closely related concept: crimes against humanity.

Aggression itself is a war crime, as have been the numerous cases of the indiscriminate use of military weapons on civilian infrastructure.

Concentration camps and genocide fall under another seperate but closely related concept: crimes against humanity.

Yea....I'm still not seeing any citation on whether or not the Iraq War would actually be considered a war crime in International Law.

1. That's not legal in any way, shape or form.

2. If you're willing to go that far, we might as well go the next level and have a full scale military mutiny.

I was joking about the hopelessness that the common soldier faces in the...face of legally changing the UMCJ.
Perhaps I should have made that clear with a: ;)

As Maddox once said "Civil disobedience is still disobedience."

So is that a yes that MLK deserved to be jailed? Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Gandhi deserved it too I suppose?


Yes, but I believe that as a society, we have now come to a point where almost anything and everything can be delt with through legal channels, courts, legislation, etc.

"Direct action is not a substitute for work in the courts and the halls of government. Bringing about passage of a new and broad law by a city council, state legislature, or the Congress, or pleading cases before the courts of the land, does not eliminate the necessity for bringing about the mass dramatization of injustice in front of city hall. Indeed, direct action and legal action complement one another; when skillfully employed, each becomes more effective." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Yea....I'm still not seeing any citation on whether or not the Iraq War would actually be considered a war crime in International Law.

Put two and two together. The US invaded Iraq without a Security Council resolution, which is the only way to legally attack another country under international law. It was all established in the Nuremberg Charter, and subsequently reinforced by the UN Charter.

Yes, but I believe that as a society, we have now come to a point where almost anything and everything can be delt with through legal channels, courts, legislation, etc.

Maybe to a larger extent the civilian side of things but what about the military side which is where this guy is operating?

Put two and two together. The US invaded Iraq without a Security Council resolution, which is the only way to legally attack another country under international law. It was all established in the Nuremberg Charter, and subsequently reinforced by the UN Charter.But your Honour, how was I supposed to know it'd be a crime to kill little Timmy? I never read any laws specifically mentioning little Timmies. This is so not fair...

I was joking about the hopelessness that the common soldier faces in the...face of legally changing the UMCJ.
Perhaps I should have made that clear with a: ;)

Sorry, but seeing all the bullshit in this world has burned out the "funny" circuits in my brain. I should read less radical literature and watch more Monty Python, I suppose.

But your Honour, how was I supposed to know it'd be a crime to kill little Timmy? I never read any laws specifically mentioning little Timmies. This is so not fair...

Reminds me of Men In Black

May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?

During the Nuremburg Tribunal it was decided that regardless of nationality, every human in the world had certain obligations towards standards of decency that were higher then any state or military, and the defense of "following orders" would not excuse someone for being complicit in war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity.

As the orders were lawful, the only way out of it was to declare conscientious objector status and be discharged. Going AWOL was not the right decision.

This man's AWOL should be applauded. On his convictions, backed by international law that binds every nation, he decided of his own free will that he'd rather face a court-martial than continue being complicit in a war crime.

You have a problem. The orders were 100% lawful and not a violation of any law or treaty. ergo, he had no choice but to follow them or he should have declared conscientious objector and leave the military.

If you have any decency as a human being, given the stark naked truth of America's occupation of Iraq, you cannot condemn this man's actions. If you do, then you are no different than Adolf Eichmann, who also followed orders because it was "his country, right or wrong."

I condemn it and I am a very decent human being.

You mean the Right doesn't have a history of trying to silence its opponents? Okie-dokie then.

Care to point out where I tried to silence him? Oh wait...I haven't. All I did was condemn him for going awol and hopes he gets punished. How is that trying to silence opponets? oh wait. It does not.

He's a criminal and coward. He obviously didn't feel that way when he enlisted...I guess he decided to abandon his unit and his responsibility and cover it up as being some kind of moral crusade conveniently when the time came for him to actually live up to his responsibilities. His unit put their lives on the line for him during their deployment and what did he do? Run away.

Let him rot in jail.

I agree 100%.

Precisely. I don't support the war, I don't support Bush. However, when you take an oath to your country and your fellow soldiers, you'd better uphold it. Had he stayed in, but then disobeyed an unlawful order, I'd be first in line to defend him. But no - he ran.

If he disobeyed an unlawful order, I would be defending him as well.

disobeying unlawful orders.
way to go!!!


no soldier is under any obligation whatsoever to obey unlawful orders.
in fact, have an obligation to DISobey unlawful orders.

Way to pay attention to what is going on Mr C


Soldier, We Love You
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7iMusPYq83g

The war itself was illegal.

Um yea ok whatever you want to believe.

So, you're right, let the sanctions against the US and punishments against its soldiers begin.

Good luck with that Heikoku.

So Martin Luther King Jr. deserved that time in the Birmingham jail?

Civil disobedience is a valid means of objecting to a law.

Theres a difference between civil disobedience and disobeying lawful orders from proper chain of command.

disobeying unlawful orders.
way to go!!!

If the orders were unlawful, I agree. As the orders WERE NOT unlawful, he deserves to be punished.

no soldier is under any obligation whatsoever to obey unlawful orders.
in fact, have an obligation to DISobey unlawful orders.

Agreed.

Way to pay attention to what is going on Mr C

Hopefully, he'll be punished.

Theres a difference between civil disobedience and disobeying lawful orders from proper chain of command.

cept he disobeyed unlawful orders,

the war is illegal under international law (and thus unconstitutional under the US constitution because 'all treaties signed become the law of the land'),
as well as unconstitutional.
no war was declared by the congress.
the congress has no authority whatsoever to give away their sole constitutional ability to declare war.
only if the us is actually attacked, can war making happen without immediately going to congress. this did not happen.


disobeying unlawful orders.
way to pay attention to what is giong on former soldier

Disagreeing with the war and doing something about it: Go him.
That something being going AWOL: Eh, not the brightest move.
<snip>
So, are you going to even think about considering his objections to the war, or are you just going to ad hominem ad nauseum?

cept he disobeyed unlawful orders,

the war is illegal under international law (and thus unconstitutional under the US constitution because 'all

Actually no it is not against the US Constitution nor against International Law. The orders were 100% legal under the UCMJ which governs all US Forces. Therefor, going AWOL is a crime and he should be punished.

treaties signed become the law of the land'),
as well as unconstitutional.

What treaty did we sign? And the UN Charter is not the correct response.

no war was declared by the congress.

Actually, they authorized the Use of Military Force against Iraq. That is technically a declaration of war. Remember. The US Constitution says nothing about actually formally declaring war.

the congress has no authority whatsoever to give away their sole constitutional ability to declare war.

Did they though?

only if the us is actually attacked, can war making happen without immediately going to congress. this did not happen.

You forgot that the US and Iraq were still legally at war in 2003.

disobeying unlawful orders.
way to pay attention to what is giong on former soldier

Sorry but what he did was 100% illegal under the UCMJ. He deserves to be punished.

Disagreeing with the war and doing something about it: Go him.
That something being going AWOL: Eh, not the brightest move.

So, are you going to even think about considering his objections to the war, or are you just going to ad hominem ad nauseum?

I particularly could care less what he thinks in truth. He has the right to say whatever he wants. I'll defend his right to say it but I do not have to agree with it.

I particularly could care less what he thinks in truth.
So you have no opinion on his objections to the whole thing in Iraq? Really? That whole war and insurgency and all that, just a non-issue for you?
He has the right to say whatever he wants. I'll defend his right to say it but I do not have to agree with it.

:)

So you have no opinion on his objections to the whole thing in Iraq? Really? That whole war and insurgency and all that, just a non-issue for you?

Oh its an issue. I just do not listen to AWOL soldiers. I hold them in contempt. Was the war mismanaged? Yes. Are things getting better? Slowly but not to my satisfaction. Not enough is being done and I hold the admin responsible for that. However, we should stay there till the job is done and not cut and run as people are advocating that we do just that.

:)

*bows*

Oh its an issue. I just do not listen to AWOL soldiers. I hold them in contempt.

Well at least you're not in denial.

I've been wondering for some time, when exactly after my time in the military expired; was "lawful" repealed from the UCMJ so that disobeying ANY order suddenly became a violation... I remember the WEPS on my boat drilled into us the concept that if he were to come up and tell us to shoot such-n-such person over there who was merely walking by; it was our duty to disobey his order... At present it seems that we've turned our military personnel into drones who are expected to carryout any order given by anyone higher in command then they are without question... This is a lot different than the military I left about a decade ago.

So is that a yes that MLK deserved to be jailed? Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Gandhi deserved it too I suppose?



of course they did. thats the POINT of civil disobedience isnt it? to put your ass on the line to demonstrate just how wrong certain laws or regimes are?

if they didnt go to jail for breaking the law, their protests would not have been as strong. all they would have shown is that the law has no balls not that it is so wrong that they were willing to suffer its punishments in order to convince everyone that it needed to be changed.

This man is not committing himself to a campaign of civil disobedience. Let's get that straight first: There is absolutely nothing civil about his actions, civil disobedience requires that a civilian act be undertaken, this is a military act. As a soldier he has sworn himself to an extraordinary oath, and in violating that oath, he has betrayed not only the trust of the people who have brought them into their employ, but also that of the other soldiers he had served with.

I have no use for his opinions, likely equivocations for his actions. They may all be true and accurate, but I don't give a damn for what he has to say. He is a traitor, and deserves to spend the rest of his life locked away in the basement of Leavenworth.

This man is not committing himself to a campaign of civil disobedience. Let's get that straight first: There is absolutely nothing civil about his actions, civil disobedience requires that a civilian act be undertaken, this is a military act. As a soldier he has sworn himself to an extraordinary oath, and in violating that oath, he has betrayed not only the trust of the people who have brought them into their employ, but also that of the other soldiers he had served with.

I have no use for his opinions, likely equivocations for his actions. They may all be true and accurate, but I don't give a damn for what he has to say. He is a traitor, and deserves to spend the rest of his life locked away in the basement of Leavenworth.

I was about to point out the big huge fallacy here, but I figure you already know about it and don't care.

This man is not committing himself to a campaign of civil disobedience. Let's get that straight first: There is absolutely nothing civil about his actions, civil disobedience requires that a civilian act be undertaken, this is a military act. As a soldier he has sworn himself to an extraordinary oath, and in violating that oath, he has betrayed not only the trust of the people who have brought them into their employ, but also that of the other soldiers he had served with.

I have no use for his opinions, likely equivocations for his actions. They may all be true and accurate, but I don't give a damn for what he has to say. He is a traitor, and deserves to spend the rest of his life locked away in the basement of Leavenworth.

I agree with nearly everything said.

What treaty did we sign? And the UN Charter is not the correct response.

One could argue that the Nuremberg Charter (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm) makes the war a crime against peace.

Backed up by the UN Charter, it seems that it is.

He is a traitor, and deserves to spend the rest of his life locked away in the basement of Leavenworth.

AWOL/UA is typically subject to NJP (Non-Judicial Punishment); so the most he is looking at is 30 days or less of confinement or extra-duty, a bust in rank and a forfeit of pay... Leavenworth is typically held for only serious offenses; like the sailor in caught in 1996 getting shipmates drunk and sexually assaulting them; or the nuke in 1995 who attempted to sell propulsion secrets to foreign agents for money.

Public execution for this so-called "Mr. Circello". As slow and painful as possible.

Public execution for this so-called "Mr. Circello". As slow and painful as possible.

:rolleyes: Whose puppet are you?

If some of you were in charge of military justice; we'd be up shits creek; there are an estimated 55,000 personnel who are presently AWOL/UA from various branches of the armed forces; you'ld have the military courts bogged down to the point it would not have time to handle SERIOUS crimes in its jurisdiction like murder, rape, espionage, etc.... Not to mention there is not enough military prisons to house them all for the multiple life sentences y'all want to carry out...

If some of you were in charge of military justice; we'd be up shits creek; there are an estimated 55,000 personnel who are presently AWOL/UA from various branches of the armed forces; you'ld have the military courts bogged down to the point it would not have time to handle SERIOUS crimes in its jurisdiction like murder, rape, espionage, etc.... Not to mention there is not enough military prisons to house them all for the multiple life sentences y'all want to carry out...

I know I do not want them to have life sentences. I want them punished sure and then dishonorably discharged with forfeiture of pension and pay.

I know I do not want them to have life sentences. I want them punished sure and then dishonorably discharged with forfeiture of pension and pay.

55,000 cases? The military courts would be bogged down; that is why AWOL/UA is typically handled by NJP (such as Captain's Mast in the US Navy), aka an Article 15... a Dishonorable Discharge requires action by a courts martial (article 16)... NJP's cannot carryout Dishonorable Discharges... So you will NEVER see it; we simply do not have the man power on the judicial side of things; we've got more important things these courts need to do; like process gitmo detainees; murders; rapes; assaults; spies; etc... Nope, he's looking at a maximum of 30 days confinement, possible bust in rank, a possible forfeit of pay or fine, and definite alteration of EAOS to reflect time lost while AWOL/UA.... Or he may merely be forfeited pay for 30 days while confined, and be subject to the harshest discharge an Article 15 can give; OTH (Other Than Honorable)... If he were tried for desertion (impossible if he does turn himself in; and unlikely even if he doesn't; as the military courts require the government to proove the person had no intention EVER of returning); a Big Chicken Dinner (BCD - officially known as a Bad Conduct Discharge).

If some of you were in charge of military justice; we'd be up shits creek; there are an estimated 55,000 personnel who are presently AWOL/UA from various branches of the armed forces; you'ld have the military courts bogged down to the point it would not have time to handle SERIOUS crimes in its jurisdiction like murder, rape, espionage, etc.... Not to mention there is not enough military prisons to house them all for the multiple life sentences y'all want to carry out...

and if others were in charge we'd also be up shit's creek. there are far more than 55,000 who are sick of being deployed and would love to walk away if there were no downside to doing it.

he has no good reason to go awol. he signed up voluntarily. he needs to face the music, turn himself in (as i think he has done or is intending to do) and take whatever punishment the court marshal hands out.

and if others were in charge we'd also be up shit's creek. there are far more than 55,000 who are sick of being deployed and would love to walk away if there were no downside to doing it.

he has no good reason to go awol. he signed up voluntarily. he needs to face the music, turn himself in (as i think he has done or is intending to do) and take whatever punishment the court marshal hands out.

I doubt he would be courts martialed; as I have stated; he would typically face a form of NJP by his commanding officer. AWOL is rarely (and what I mean by rarely, is that it is not seen) handled by courts martial.

He' under the stoploss system. He was volun-told (as my USMC buddies have been calling it)... No longer a volunteer; he's under a new contract that the military assigned him; as the one he signed was expiring. Normally someone is only under contract for 6 years (4 years active duty; 2 years reserve duty / 3 years active duty; 3 years reserve duty)... Where you can be activated for your reserve time.... Stoploss however has resulted in people being extended PAST the original contractual time (active+reserve) for up to 15 months (and then, after that for another 15, and another 15 after that); resulting in the military capability to keep someone in indefinitely PAST their contract... Most personnel simply re-enlist for their SRB rather than be obliserved in such a manner (and most who do are lucky if they DO see their SRB, which is why fewer and fewer keep taking it, and deal with the US governments breaking of contract, which is little, since the government does not listen to veterans anymore; or support us for that matter, as they used to).

As the orders were lawful, the only way out of it was to declare conscientious objector status and be discharged. Going AWOL was not the right decision.

But his orders were not lawful. I've already gone over the Iraq war. It was a clear violation of international law. It represents the crime of aggression: the unprovoked use of military force against another sovereign nation. We hanged people at Nuremberg for this crime alone. By no means is this man obligated to continue following orders.

You have a problem. The orders were 100% lawful and not a violation of any law or treaty. ergo, he had no choice but to follow them or he should have declared conscientious objector and leave the military.

How many ways do I have to say this: aggression is a War Crime! The US violated the Nuremberg Charter, the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention, all in one fell swoop. The illegal occupation of Iraq has also brought the wholesale destruction of Iraq's civilian infrastructure, and the unnescessary deaths of almost a million people. That is a war crime, very nearly a crime against humanity. He has no obligation to continue following orders even by your statist social outlook.

885. ART. 85. DESERTION
(a) Any member of the armed forces who--
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.
(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.
(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
866. ART. 86. ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE
Any member of the armed forces who, without authority--
(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;
(2) goes from that place; or
(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
887. ART. 87. MISSING MOVEMENT
Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


since he's still punishable under the UCMJ, he could also be brought on charges violating Art. 88. also, regardless of his feelings, he is a member of the US Armed Forces. his duty, plain and simple is to follow orders. a soldier lives to serve. as i am still a civilian, i can say what i want and refuse to join the armed forces, but in a few years, as an officer in th Navy, i will accept all lawful orders given to me by my Commander in Chief. what he did is treason, plain and simple.

what he did is treason, plain and simple.

I bet you're in one of those moments, right now, in which you wish you knew what treason actually means.

I was about to point out the big huge fallacy here, but I figure you already know about it and don't care.

Dead on.

I bet you're in one of those moments, right now, in which you wish you knew what treason actually means.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Provided for the benefit of discussion.

since he's still punishable under the UCMJ, he could also be brought on charges violating Art. 88

No he can't, as he's a noncommissioned officer, not a commissioned officer.

888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Provided for the benefit of discussion.

If you know what treason is, why did you call him a traitor when he clearly isn't committing treason?

If you know what treason is, why did you call him a traitor when he clearly isn't committing treason?

he didn't call him a traitor, that was someone else. He merely provided the definition.

I doubt he would be courts martialed; as I have stated; he would typically face a form of NJP by his commanding officer. AWOL is rarely (and what I mean by rarely, is that it is not seen) handled by courts martial.

He' under the stoploss system. He was volun-told (as my USMC buddies have been calling it)... No longer a volunteer; he's under a new contract that the military assigned him; as the one he signed was expiring. Normally someone is only under contract for 6 years (4 years active duty; 2 years reserve duty / 3 years active duty; 3 years reserve duty)... Where you can be activated for your reserve time.... Stoploss however has resulted in people being extended PAST the original contractual time (active+reserve) for up to 15 months (and then, after that for another 15, and another 15 after that); resulting in the military capability to keep someone in indefinitely PAST their contract... Most personnel simply re-enlist for their SRB rather than be obliserved in such a manner (and most who do are lucky if they DO see their SRB, which is why fewer and fewer keep taking it, and deal with the US governments breaking of contract, which is little, since the government does not listen to veterans anymore; or support us for that matter, as they used to).

i didnt say it doesnt suck.

but we need to get ALL our troops out of iraq. we dont need them leaving one at a time as they please.

he didn't call him a traitor, that was someone else. He merely provided the definition.

Actually, he did a page or two ago.

He is a traitor, and deserves to spend the rest of his life locked away in the basement of Leavenworth.

Actually, he did a page or two ago.

ah, I stand corrected.

since he's still punishable under the UCMJ, he could also be brought on charges violating Art. 88. also, regardless of his feelings, he is a member of the US Armed Forces. his duty, plain and simple is to follow orders. a soldier lives to serve. as i am still a civilian, i can say what i want and refuse to join the armed forces, but in a few years, as an officer in th Navy, i will accept all lawful orders given to me by my Commander in Chief. what he did is treason, plain and simple.

Let's say that you're end up being responsible for the gunnery on a US frigate that intercepts a boat full of Cuban refugees.

The captain orders you to open fire and sink the boat. Do you do it?

Anyone who thinks this man deserves to be punished is a traitor and is not a true American.

Let's say that you're end up being responsible for the gunnery on a US frigate that intercepts a boat full of Cuban refugees.

The captain orders you to open fire and sink the boat. Do you do it?

you know what you DONT do?

go awol.

Didn't they extend his deployments in a breach of his contract? Or does the fine print on the contract make it a non-breach? The people in the Defense Department are just con artists.


The man makes many good points and his having gone AWOL doesn't invalidate them.

The man deserves to be punished, but is he's not treasonous. He disobeyed a lawful order so he has to be punished under the UCMJ. Being a sergeant in the armed forces is a serious responsibility (although I've seen plenty who didn't treat it as such) and I'm more bothered that he abandoned his soldiers. Now someone else has to pick up the slack. In the bigger scope of things the Iraq War is illegal. Declaring war against a country simply because we think they have the capability to attack us is aggression. Best case scenario is that he goes to jail, comes out with a clear conscience and the knowledge that history will absolve him.

885. ART. 85. DESERTION
(a) Any member of the armed forces who--
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.
(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.
(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

Since he's he's stated his intent to turn himself in... They would be unable to prosecute him under Art. 85... It's the duty of the military during a courts martial under 85 to prove that the accused had intended not to return... If there is intent of return... it's AWOL/UA (Art. 86).


866. ART. 86. ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE
Any member of the armed forces who, without authority--
(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;
(2) goes from that place; or
(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

This is what he is guilty of. Internestingly, however, AWOL cases, unless they are extensive (occur multiple times) are not prosecuted by Courts Martial; rather the matter is handled under an Article 15 NJP hearing... which has severe limitation as to the sentence that may be proscribed.


887. ART. 87. MISSING MOVEMENT
Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

This also is typically handled under an Article 15... Unless its something which has occured frequently.


888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

For someone claiming to have some sort of short period before being commissioned as a Naval Officer, you don't know much. A Specialist or Sergent is not a Commissioned Officer; they are a NON-Commissioned Officer; same as E-4 (Petty Officer 3rd Class) to E-9 (Master Chief Petty Officer) are in the US Navy. Article 88 does not apply to non-coms.


since he's still punishable under the UCMJ, he could also be brought on charges violating Art. 88. also, regardless of his feelings, he is a member of the US Armed Forces. his duty, plain and simple is to follow orders. a soldier lives to serve. as i am still a civilian, i can say what i want and refuse to join the armed forces, but in a few years, as an officer in th Navy, i will accept all lawful orders given to me by my Commander in Chief. what he did is treason, plain and simple.

Treason is specifically defined in the US Constitution; he is not guilty of treason.

That went to Al Gore.

Well give him the next one!

A Specialist or Sergent is not a Commissioned Officer; they are a NON-Commissioned Officer

Just a tiny bit of pedantry, if I may. A Specialist isn't an NCO, they're an Enlisted Member. Of course, for the purposes of Art. 88 it's all the same, but being a SPC(P) (in the MIARNG, so I normally fall under the MCMJ, where the rules are a bit different) I just wanted to point that out.

But his orders were not lawful. I've already gone over the Iraq war. It was a clear violation of international law. It represents the crime of aggression: the unprovoked use of military force against another sovereign nation. We hanged people at Nuremberg for this crime alone. By no means is this man obligated to continue following orders.

*sighs*

The order to go to iraq was 100% LEGAL. Just becaue you disagree with the war does not mean the order was not legal. Under US Law and Authorized by Congress, the orders were legal. Under the UCMJ, all soldiers follow ALL LEGAL ORDERS from the Chain of Command from the President on down to their local COs. PERIOD!!! The order was legal and his failure to follow them means he broke military law. Ergo, he should be punished for this.

How many ways do I have to say this: aggression is a War Crime! The US violated the Nuremberg Charter, the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention, all in one fell swoop.

*YAWNS*

When you actually provide proof (be advised that there was a cease-fire meaning that war was still raging) then I will listen. As of now, the war in iraq has always been legal both under US Law and International Law.

The illegal occupation of Iraq has also brought the wholesale destruction of Iraq's civilian infrastructure, and the unnescessary deaths of almost a million people. That is a war crime, very nearly a crime against humanity. He has no obligation to continue following orders even by your statist social outlook.

*YAWNS*

he was under every obligation as the orders were legal. PERIOD! You have a problem that's fine but under the UCMJ, he is guilty and will be punished accordingly and good riddence.

Actually, he did a page or two ago.

traitor does not necessarily mean treasonous.

Let's say that you're end up being responsible for the gunnery on a US frigate that intercepts a boat full of Cuban refugees.

The captain orders you to open fire and sink the boat. Do you do it?

Simple answer:

No!

Anyone who thinks this man deserves to be punished is a traitor and is not a true American.

*dies of laughter*

Well give him the next one!

Um no.

The order to go to iraq was 100% LEGAL. Just becaue you disagree with the war does not mean the order was not legal. Under US Law and Authorized by Congress, the orders were legal. Under the UCMJ, all soldiers follow ALL LEGAL ORDERS from the Chain of Command from the President on down to their local COs. PERIOD!!! The order was legal and his failure to follow them means he broke military law. Ergo, he should be punished for this.

Those orders were in no way legal. International laws which the US are signatory to explicitly state that aggression is illegal. The US constitution says that treaties that the US signs are supreme law of the land. It's a well established legal precendant that no one anywhere in the world, regardless of their armed forces, can be legally compelled to obey an illegal order. Since the war itself was illegal, all orders pertaining to it are by extnension are illegal.

When you actually provide proof (be advised that there was a cease-fire meaning that war was still raging) then I will listen. As of now, the war in iraq has always been legal both under US Law and International Law.

There's a little flaw in your theory: the US has never been at war with Iraq. The first Gulf War was not a declared war, and there has never been a state of war between the US and Iraq. All military action prior to the 2003 Iraq War were done under the aegis of international law.

Once again, I direct you to the Nuremberg charter. We hanged leaders of Nazi Germany for the crime of aggression. We are signatories to all of these international statutes, and they are thus legally binding. International laws on war crimes are universal; you don't need to be signatories to these treaties to be punished for crimes against the peace or crimes against humanity. We signed the UN Charter, in doing so we obligated ourself to the highest standard of conduct in international relations. We have failed to meet that burden miserably. The Iraq War is a war crime, plain and simple. Aggression is never legitimate under international law.

he was under every obligation as the orders were legal. PERIOD! You have a problem that's fine but under the UCMJ, he is guilty and will be punished accordingly and good riddence.

Like I said earlier, international law has stated that no one is obligated to follow immoral and illegal orders, and orders are no defense against prosecution for committing crimes against the peace or war crimes.

Those orders were in no way legal. International laws which the US are signatory to explicitly state that aggression is illegal. The US constitution says that treaties that the US signs are supreme law of the land. It's a well established legal precendant that no one anywhere in the world, regardless of their armed forces, can be legally compelled to obey an illegal order. Since the war itself was illegal, all orders pertaining to it are by extnension are illegal.

So tell me what the terms of the peace treaty were when hostilities ended in 1991. Oh wait..there were none. There was no peace treaty signed. The only thing signed was a cease-fire. A cease-fire that was violated by Iraq. Under International law, a violation of a cease-fire agreement between nations is grounds for a resumption of warfare activities.

There's a little flaw in your theory: the US has never been at war with Iraq.

That's where you are wrong. When Congress authorized the use of force in 1991 that was a declaration of war on Iraq. In October 2002, they again authorized force against Iraq which is also another declaration of war.

The first Gulf War was not a declared war, and there has never been a state of war between the US and Iraq. All military action prior to the 2003 Iraq War were done under the aegis of international law.

As was the 2003 campaign. And yes, it was declared, just not formally.

Once again, I direct you to the Nuremberg charter. We hanged leaders of Nazi Germany for the crime of aggression.

For what they did was clearly aggression. However, is enforcing UN resolutions and following up on Iraq's violations of the cease-fire an act of agression?

We are signatories to all of these international statutes, and they are thus legally binding.

Agreed.

International laws on war crimes are universal; you don't need to be signatories to these treaties to be punished for crimes against the peace or crimes against humanity.

Actually...that's not 100% true. Unless of course you want to invoke the customary international law clause but then...some countries do not follow that either. We have not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Legally, we can test nuclear weapons if we wanted to. No one can say we are violating International Law if we do so for we have not ratified it.

We signed the UN Charter, in doing so we obligated ourself to the highest standard of conduct in international relations. We have failed to meet that burden miserably. The Iraq War is a war crime, plain and simple. Aggression is never legitimate under international law.

And Iraq is also a signatory to it and guess what? They violated that charter when they invaded Kuwait and then violated the cease-fire afterwards.

Like I said earlier, international law has stated that no one is obligated to follow immoral and illegal orders, and orders are no defense against prosecution for committing crimes against the peace or war crimes.

The orders were still lawful no matter what you say. Notice the posters here. some opposed this war but yet oppose him going AWOL. That says alot about the orders doesn't it? The orders were 100% clearly lawful and anyone who disobeys them needs to be punished in accordance with the UCMJ.

The Iraq War is a war crime, plain and simple.

I've known this for quite some time, but for some reason it really struck me while reading your post.

It actually makes my stomach churn thinking about it. My country has engaged in war crimes during my lifetime. It's happening at this very moment.

I guess I still have enough of the little-kid mentality left to be shocked and revolted by that.

The orders were 100% clearly lawful and anyone who disobeys them needs to be punished in accordance with the UCMJ.

This statement demonstrates a profound ignorance of international law. The issue is anything but clear.

This statement demonstrates a profound ignorance of international law. The issue is anything but clear.

Actually...it is very clear. He went AWOL in full difiance of the orders he received. Now I will give him credit for going back but he does need to be punished.

Corneliu 2, there's only one real bone of contention left here: whether or not the US has ever been in a state of war with Iraq.

It simply hasn't. Congress did not declare war in either of the Iraq interventions. It authorized the use of force but didn't declare a state of war. The US hasn't been in a legal state of war since WWII.

In either case, it is moot, because it is not the US's duty to punish Iraq for an alleged cease-fire violation. Since Iraq was in no position to harm the United States, it was illegitimate for the US to use force against Iraq.

you know what you DONT do?

go awol.

Sigh. The blindness with witch people follow authority never ceases to sadden me.

I've known this for quite some time, but for some reason it really struck me while reading your post.

It actually makes my stomach churn thinking about it. My country has engaged in war crimes during my lifetime. It's happening at this very moment.

I guess I still have enough of the little-kid mentality left to be shocked and revolted by that.

I know what you mean. It was really unsettling when I first really started thinking about it in 2004, since it had become a subject of importance in that year's policy debate topic. It took me a while to get used to the idea that my country, which I had admired, albeit critically, until then, was engaged in war crimes. I had a huge epiphany, and it's led me irrevocably to where I am today.

Actually...it is very clear. He went AWOL in full difiance of the orders he received. Now I will give him credit for going back but he does need to be punished.

What does he need to be punished for? For standing up for what he beleived in?


Fucking bushvik.:upyours:

as to the matter of the legality/illegality of the Iraq war, the general timeline goes as such:

The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council. If these requirements are not met international law describes it a war of aggression.

In 1990 The UN security council originally passed UN Resolution 678, authorizing military intervention after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

In 1991 the UN passed UN Resolution 687. Resolution 687 ("the cease fire resolution") declared a conditional ceasefire and end to authorized military force authorized in UN Resolution 678.

The case fire resolution carried several conditions that Hussein and Iraq were required to adhere to. Failure to adhere to such conditions could result in a material breach of the terms of Resolution 687, and a revocation of the cease fire, thus returning us to the state of legal hostilities articulated in Resolution 678

In 2002 the UN issued Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreements articulated in Resolution 687. It also stated that this was the last opportunity for Hussein and Iraq to comply with the cease fire conditions, or the cease fire would be considered null and void.

Following Resolution 1441, the US and the UK declared that Iraq was in continued violation of the cease fire terms articulated in Resolution 687 and, as Resolution 1441 stated this was the last opportunity to comply and that Hussein failed to comply, the cease fire was now null and void and Resolution 678 returned to force.

Here's the problem. This was the position of the US and the UK. It was never adopted by the security council as a whole. It remains...highly unclear whether individual nationstates can declare another nationstate in violation of a security council resolution, or if it takes the entire coucnil to do so. Resolution 1441 stated Hussein was on his final change, or the cease fire would be revoked. But it never actually revoked the cease fire. The US and the UK claimed it was revoked, but the council never reached its final position.

Whether the US and the UK could declare Hussein in violation of Resolution 687 and thus the termination of the ceasefire, without the rest of the security council is...highly questionable. Several high ranking current and former members of the UN said they could not, and it required the entire consensus of the council to do so.

Ergo, if that is true, the council never declared the ceasefire null and void, and is therefore still in place. Which would mean the US and the UK violated the ceasefire, and acted illegally.

To call this issue clear is, as I said, a profound display of ignorance regarding international law.

Actually...it is very clear. He went AWOL in full difiance of the orders he received. Now I will give him credit for going back but he does need to be punished.

and once again, if the orders were illegal he was under no obligation to obey them.

If the war in Iraq is illegal, the orders to engage in warfare in Iraq are illegal. It's entirely possible that the war was illegal, for reasons I explained above.

Corneliu 2, there's only one real bone of contention left here: whether or not the US has ever been in a state of war with Iraq.

It simply hasn't. Congress did not declare war in either of the Iraq interventions. It authorized the use of force but didn't declare a state of war. The US hasn't been in a legal state of war since WWII.

In either case, it is moot, because it is not the US's duty to punish Iraq for an alleged cease-fire violation. Since Iraq was in no position to harm the United States, it was illegitimate for the US to use force against Iraq.

Show me in the Constitution where it says a formal declaration of war is needed! All it says is that Congress declares war. It says nothing about doing it formally. By authorizing force, one can point out that is sufficient for declaring war.

If you know what treason is, why did you call him a traitor when he clearly isn't committing treason?

I was being polemical, caught up in a bit of an emotional overresponse to this guy in my initial post. An error on my part. I'll say it unequivocally:

He's not a traitor.

and once again, if the orders were illegal he was under no obligation to obey them.

But the orders were not illegal thus he was under obligation to obey them.

If the war in Iraq is illegal, the orders to engage in warfare in Iraq are illegal. It's entirely possible that the war was illegal, for reasons I explained above.

And yet...the war in Iraq is not illegal.

Show me in the Constitution where it says a formal declaration of war is needed! All it says is that Congress declares war. It says nothing about doing it formally. By authorizing force, one can point out that is sufficient for declaring war.

Congress never issued such a declaration. It merely authorized the president to use military force. There was no declaration of war, and in any case, the US cannot act unilaterally to enforce an alleged violation of a UN resolution. The UN Security Council must make such decisions.

I know what you mean. It was really unsettling when I first really started thinking about it in 2004, since it had become a subject of importance in that year's policy debate topic. It took me a while to get used to the idea that my country, which I had admired, albeit critically, until then, was engaged in war crimes. I had a huge epiphany, and it's led me irrevocably to where I am today.
It's particularly tough for me because the first major election I was able to vote in was the 2000 election. That kind of killed most of my idealism right off the bat...

But the orders were not illegal thus he was under obligation to obey them.



And yet...the war in Iraq is not illegal.

a brilliant job of completely ignoring my post above. When you feel like actually debating the UN resolutions and not just going "nuh uh, you're wrong, lalalalala I'm not listening!!!!" your input is worthwhile.

Until then, it is not.

But the orders were not illegal thus he was under obligation to obey them.



And yet...the war in Iraq is not illegal.



1. Yes they were

2. Yes it is.

as to the matter of the legality/illegality of the Iraq war, the general timeline goes as such:

The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council. If these requirements are not met international law describes it a war of aggression.

In 1990 The UN security council originally passed UN Resolution 678, authorizing military intervention after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

In 1991 the UN passed UN Resolution 687. Resolution 687 ("the cease fire resolution") declared a conditional ceasefire and end to authorized military force authorized in UN Resolution 678.

The case fire resolution carried several conditions that Hussein and Iraq were required to adhere to. Failure to adhere to such conditions could result in a material breach of the terms of Resolution 687, and a revocation of the cease fire, thus returning us to the state of legal hostilities articulated in Resolution 678

In 2002 the UN issued Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreements articulated in Resolution 687. It also stated that this was the last opportunity for Hussein and Iraq to comply with the cease fire conditions, or the cease fire would be considered null and void.

Following Resolution 1441, the US and the UK declared that Iraq was in continued violation of the cease fire terms articulated in Resolution 687 and, as Resolution 1441 stated this was the last opportunity to comply and that Hussein failed to comply, the cease fire was now null and void and Resolution 678 returned to force.

Here's the problem. This was the position of the US and the UK. It was never adopted by the security council as a whole. It remains...highly unclear whether individual nationstates can declare another nationstate in violation of a security council resolution, or if it takes the entire coucnil to do so. Resolution 1441 stated Hussein was on his final change, or the cease fire would be revoked. But it never actually revoked the cease fire. The US and the UK claimed it was revoked, but the council never reached its final position.

Whether the US and the UK could declare Hussein in violation of Resolution 687 and thus the termination of the ceasefire, without the rest of the security council is...highly questionable. Several high ranking current and former members of the UN said they could not, and it required the entire consensus of the council to do so.

Ergo, if that is true, the council never declared the ceasefire null and void, and is therefore still in place. Which would mean the US and the UK violated the ceasefire, and acted illegally.

To call this issue clear is, as I said, a profound display of ignorance regarding international law.

Quoted for clarity and relevance.

the US cannot act unilaterally to enforce an alleged violation of a UN resolution.

well in this case it acted bilaterally with the UK. Moreover, I should point out a clarification. the UN security council did decide, that Iraq was in violation of the cease fire resolution. Resolution 1441 clearly stated Iraq was in violation of the cease fire resolution.

HOWEVER, resolution 1441 also said it was Iraq's last chance to become complaint with the cease fire terms, or the cease fire would be revoked. Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance to come into compliance. The US, and the UK, acting without consensus from the rest of the council, decided that his time was up on the last chance, and he failed to do so, thus under Resolution 1441, the cease fire was null and void.

Problem is, can individual nationstates themselves decide whether Iraq complied with a UN resolution, and/or when its last chance, articulated in the resolution, had lapsed. Many high ranking UN figures say no. If a UN resolution says "last chance" it is the UN that decides if and when that chance expired, not the US/UK.

It's particularly tough for me because the first major election I was able to vote in was the 2000 election. That kind of killed most of my idealism right off the bat...

I was 12 in 2000, and I was positively pissed off at the results even at that age. I was pretty apathetic about politics, but I really didn't like how the recount turned out. I admit for a while after 9/11 I signed on to the patriotic bandwagon. But after the Iraq war began, things didn't really add up anymore. During the 2003/2004 policy debate season, I really started having my doubts. It wasn't long before there was no going back. The experience of just watching the Iraq war happen ended up radicalizing me and all my closest friends. It probably wouldn't have happened otherwise.

you know what you DONT do?

go awol.

Well, I suppose that it's rather difficult to go AWOL while on a ship. So, do you do it?


Simple answer:

No!

So, a soldier can be expected to disobey an order that he disagrees with, but he cannot be expected to go AWOL when he disagrees with the army as a whole?

This is my main point:

1.The orders themselves are legal under US law.
2.The war itself is illegal under the UN charter.

He is obligated under US law to obey lawful but the war itself is illegal. It would be my wish to see Bush, Rumsfeld Cheney Wolfowitz and all the other neocons responsible for this atrocity prosecuted for war crimes, but it will never happen. The US has lost in World Court decisions and still continued to terrorize people. The only reason the UN point is moot is because the US disregards international treaties and uses them to prosecute others.

This is my main point:

1.The orders themselves are legal under US law.
2.The war itself is illegal under the UN charter.

Problem. The US constitution states that any treaties entered into by the United States are legally binding on the United States. If the UN charter, which the US signed on to, is considered "a treaty", then under the terms of the US constitution, that treaty is legally binding on the united states, and any violations by the US of the UN charter is a violation of US law

So is that a yes that MLK deserved to be jailed? Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Gandhi deserved it too I suppose?




"Direct action is not a substitute for work in the courts and the halls of government. Bringing about passage of a new and broad law by a city council, state legislature, or the Congress, or pleading cases before the courts of the land, does not eliminate the necessity for bringing about the mass dramatization of injustice in front of city hall. Indeed, direct action and legal action complement one another; when skillfully employed, each becomes more effective." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Funny that (with regards to jailing desenters)...considering the Boston Tea Party ;)

Problem. The US constitution states that any treaties entered into by the United States are legally binding on the United States. If the UN charter, which the US signed on to, is considered "a treaty", then under the terms of the US constitution, that treaty is legally binding on the united states, and any violations by the US of the UN charter is a violation of US law

I suspect the matter would be substantially more clear if the United Nations had some sort of body that would permit for the official interpretation of the rules of the game. A court of sorts: Now, not a criminal court, for sure, but something akin to an American appeals court. Lifetime appointments ratified by either the general assembly or the Security Council or the Buddha for all I care, but with the ability to interpreting existing decisions, so as to provide a clear understanding of resolutions and the powers of the UN and all of that.

I suspect the matter would be substantially more clear if the United Nations had some sort of body that would permit for the official interpretation of the rules of the game. A court of sorts: Now, not a criminal court, for sure, but something akin to an American appeals court. Lifetime appointments ratified by either the general assembly or the Security Council or the Buddha for all I care, but with the ability to interpreting existing decisions, so as to provide a clear understanding of resolutions and the powers of the UN and all of that.

That would certainly be helpful. If it allows us to avoid another mess like Iraq, then all the political teeth pulling to get it done will be well worth it.

That would certainly be helpful. If it allows us to avoid another mess like Iraq, then all the political teeth pulling to get it done will be well worth it.

And, such a reform would require very few radical changes within the structure of the United Nations, just recognition of the importance of this Appeals Court.

UNAC, I like that...snappy acronym.

and once again, if the orders were illegal he was under no obligation to obey them.

If the war in Iraq is illegal, the orders to engage in warfare in Iraq are illegal. It's entirely possible that the war was illegal, for reasons I explained above.
I agree that unlawful orders need not be obeyed. But that does not confer the right to leave one's post, or disobey other lawful orders.

I think we're talking about this soldier's return to Iraq. What constitutes a lawful order to him must be quite different than what constitutes a "lawful" war in the eyes of the United Nations. As you've stated, it's far from clear whether the ceasefire was revoked lawfully and whether the war is "legal" from a UN standpoint. But it goes deeper than that, doesn't it?

From a point of view from within the United States, it most certainly is legal -- there is no law that prohibits our armed forces, especially after getting consent from Congress, from invading any other sovereign nation. Right or wrong doesn't matter -- just legal or illegal.

So if the United States Army is operating within the law of the United States, how can an order to report for duty in Iraq be unlawful?

And, such a reform would require very few radical changes within the structure of the United Nations, just recognition of the importance of this Appeals Court.

UNAC, I like that...snappy acronym.

Maybe we should start a movement: the UNAC Advocates. ;)

From a point of view from within the United States, it most certainly is legal -- there is no law that prohibits our armed forces, especially after getting consent from Congress, from invading any other sovereign nation. Right or wrong doesn't matter -- just legal or illegal.

So if the United States Army is operating within the law of the United States, how can an order to report for duty in Iraq be unlawful?

An act of war without authority of the UN is a violation of the UN charter. If the ceasefire resolution was never properly revoked, then the invasion violated the UN charter, that's pretty clear cut.

Here's the sticky part:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

The constitution says that all treaties made under the authority of the united states are supreme law of the land. If the UN charter is to be considered a "treaty" as per the constitution, then the United States, in signing such treaty, adopted the UN charter, and all resolutions made pursuant thereto, as its own supreme law.

So if the UN charter is a treaty, and the US violated the UN charter, the US violated a treaty made by the authority of the United States. And since treaties entered into by the United States are, as per Article 6 of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, the US in violating the UN charter violated the supreme law of the land.

And an act of congress can not invalidate, change, alter, or overrule the supreme law of the land.

So if the US broke the UN convention, and if the UN convention is considered a "treaty" under Article 6...congress violated the supreme law of the united states, which is illegal.

The basic summary is, the constitution says the US is bound by its treaties. If one of its treaties says "you can't invade Iraq until the UN says it's ok", then they can not legally invade Iraq until the UN says it's ok. If the UN doesn't say it's ok, and we invade anyway, we broke the law. And no person can be legally compelled to follow illegal orders.

Maybe we should start a movement: the UNAC Advocates. ;)

Quite, quite.

We need a celebrity spokesperson: I suggest Morgan Freeman.

Quite, quite.

We need a celebrity spokesperson: I suggest Morgan Freeman.

Morgan Freeman sounds good. Maybe we can get Green Day on board so that we can reach out to the younger generation.

cept he disobeyed unlawful orders,

the war is illegal under international law (and thus unconstitutional under the US constitution because 'all treaties signed become the law of the land')

In the US, an international treaty is treated just like any other law. Congress, through a vote, can repeal or modify the terms of a treaty. Congress authorized American military action in Iraq, so that overrides the terms of any applicable treaty to the contrary.

no war was declared by the congress.

That's a dead argument. Congress has repeatedly funded this war. Heck, we're not even at war anymore- we are supporting an ally (the Iraqi government) against an insurgency. Who do you think the US is at war with right now?

the congress has no authority whatsoever to give away their sole constitutional ability to declare war.

They didn't. Congress has repeatedly funded military action in Iraq.

disobeying unlawful orders.
way to pay attention to what is giong on former soldier

If that's the case, then he should have no fear of facing a court martial. If, as you say, the orders he disobeyed were illegal, why did he go AWOL? If he's so confident of his position, why not stand up like a man and argue his case on court?

No, this guy decided he didn't like the war he was fighting. Fair enough, but he doesn't seem to be man enough to face the consequences of his decisions. Martin Luther King and Gandhi engaged in civil disobedience, but they did not run off and hide- they faced the consequences of their actions like men.

An act of war without authority of the UN is a violation of the UN charter. If the ceasefire resolution was never properly revoked, then the invasion violated the UN charter, that's pretty clear cut.

Here's the sticky part:
[...All Treaties made ...]


The constitution says that all treaties made under the authority of the united states are supreme law of the land. If the UN charter is to be considered a "treaty" as per the constitution, then the United States, in signing such treaty, adopted the UN charter, and all resolutions made pursuant thereto, as its own supreme law.

So if the UN charter is a treaty, and the US violated the UN charter, the US violated a treaty made by the authority of the United States. And since treaties entered into by the United States are, as per Article 6 of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, the US in violating the UN charter violated the supreme law of the land.

And an act of congress can not invalidate, change, alter, or overrule the supreme law of the land.

So if the US broke the UN convention, and if the UN convention is considered a "treaty" under Article 6...congress violated the supreme law of the united states, which is illegal.
So how does the UN convention get treated, as a treaty, or as something else? Ron Paul would tell you one thing, but I'm sure there's an alternate view...

And how has that particular phrase been treated by the USSC?

Then again, if the law passed by Congress isn't challenged, who can say that the Congress has invalidated, changed, altered, or overruled the supreme law of the land?

Let's look at the last if...If the war is illegal, does a soldier have the right to decide that on his own? In other words, how far does the discretion of a low-ranking soldier carry in deciding if a Congressional action is illegal. It's clear on a low level. A Commanding Officer gives an order to rape and pillage, and the soldier refuses -- he doesn't leave his post, but he doesn't carry out the order,either. Fine. But do we let a new recruit make decisions about Congress and United States law?

The constitution says that all treaties made under the authority of the united states are supreme law of the land. If the UN charter is to be considered a "treaty" as per the constitution, then the United States, in signing such treaty, adopted the UN charter, and all resolutions made pursuant thereto, as its own supreme law.

Under US Constitutional law, treaties are just like any other law passed by Congress- a law passed later in time by Congress overrides an earlier one.

So, Congress can simply override the provisions of a treaty by passing a new law. Which it did when it authorized the use of military force in Iraq.

So if the UN charter is a treaty, and the US violated the UN charter, the US violated a treaty made by the authority of the United States. And since treaties entered into by the United States are, as per Article 6 of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, the US in violating the UN charter violated the supreme law of the land.

The only remedy in this case would be for someone to try and show that Congress's actions in authorizing military action were unconstitutional. There is no court ruling to this effect, so Congress's actions are constitutional and military action in Iraq is perfectly legal.

And an act of congress can not invalidate, change, alter, or overrule the supreme law of the land.

So once the US enters into a treaty, no act of Congress can supercede such treaty? Nonsense. A treaty is just another law passed by Congress- Congress can repeal or modify or supercede it at will.

So if the US broke the UN convention, and if the UN convention is considered a "treaty" under Article 6...congress violated the supreme law of the united states, which is illegal.

And yet, nobody has thought to bring this up in court?

The basic summary is, the constitution says the US is bound by its treaties. If one of its treaties says "you can't invade Iraq until the UN says it's ok", then they can not legally invade Iraq until the UN says it's ok. If the UN doesn't say it's ok, and we invade anyway, we broke the law. And no person can be legally compelled to follow illegal orders.

One Congress cannot bind the actions of a later Congress this way. Certainly, Congress can agree to enter into such a treaty. But such treaty is only binding upon the US until such time as a later Congress votes otherwise (or passes a conflicting law).

What you are claiming is that the current Congress has the power to pass laws that would take away the Constitutional powers of future Congresses. You seem to be claiming that the current Congress could enter into a treaty stating that the US could never again declare war without UN permission, and that future Congresses would be powerless to change this law.

That goes against centuries of American Constitutional law.

1. Yes they were

2. Yes it is.

Prove it.

Congress never issued such a declaration. It merely authorized the president to use military force. There was no declaration of war, and in any case, the US cannot act unilaterally to enforce an alleged violation of a UN resolution. The UN Security Council must make such decisions.

All the constitution says is that Congress declares war. now this can be done in any number of ways including authorizing the use of force. They have done so.

As to the UNSC...the authorization was already there.

What does he need to be punished for? For standing up for what he beleived in?

Does not matter since he went Absent Without Leave aka AWOL!

Fucking bushvik.:upyours:

What a nice little troll.

All the constitution says is that Congress declares war. now this can be done in any number of ways including authorizing the use of force. They have done so.

As to the UNSC...the authorization was already there.

The Congress did not pass a join resolution declaring a state of war between Iraq and the US, thus there was no war.

And the UNSC never gave authorization. It gave an ultimatum, but it is up to the UNSC to decide when to actually authorize the use of military force. It never gave such authorization.

Well, I suppose that it's rather difficult to go AWOL while on a ship. So, do you do it?




So, a soldier can be expected to disobey an order that he disagrees with, but he cannot be expected to go AWOL when he disagrees with the army as a whole?

The order to fire on ships with refuges violates every rule in the book. It is an illegal order and thus ignored. Going AWOL is punished because the person went Absent Without Leave. If he declared himself a conscientious objector that is one thing but he decided to go AWOL instead.

The Congress did not pass a join resolution declaring a state of war between Iraq and the US, thus there was no war.

So take the case to the courts. If Congress really felt that the military action in Iraq was not legally authorized, they could pull the funding for it tomorrow.

Whether or not military action has been legally authorized is basically a question for Congress to determine. Congress has authorized force and continues to authorize funds for military action in Iraq.

Unless and until Congress (or the Supreme Court) says otherwise, it's actions in funding the war are determinative.

And the UNSC never gave authorization. It gave an ultimatum, but it is up to the UNSC to decide when to actually authorize the use of military force. It never gave such authorization.

The UNSC has no power to bind Congress. It is simply unconstitutional for Congress to pass any law that would give the UNSC that power. The UNSC's deptermination of whether or not a war is legal is wholly irrelevant to the US.

While I am anti Iraq War I do have to say that the speaker is an a##. If you don't like serving where the US military sends you then you don't bother enlisting or for that matter re-enlisting. Instead because he had problem with the war and the way the war was conducted he failed to live up to his word thereby showing he is a honorless dog. I served in Iraq. It is the wrong war. But if you have to choose between their problems or your own you choose your own. So if that means that you have to shoot the occasional insurgent that is what you do. Not because he is wrong to oppose occupation, but because he has chosen the wrong method in which to express it. If a person doesn't like the war...you vote the current leaders out in favor of those who oppose it. That is America. You vote. Then you accept the fact that for the most part majority rules. It sucks...I mean Bush won another term. But that is the way it is. You don't whine and cry and scream that you are being treated unfair because those elected don't see fit to end the war. You just start a paper jyhad and deluge their offices with letters. The problem that sticks out the most gets solved first. Also if you break the law...even with good reason...you should take the consequences like a man. Not like a little child who runs from his parents when they do something wrong. You want me to believe you really oppose the war...then be willing to sacrifice for those views. Nelson Mandela did, he didn't hide like a little girl. As for Conscientious Objector status. How is this even plausible, if you don't wish to fight, don't join. If you join you should expect to have to kill someone.

The Congress did not pass a join resolution declaring a state of war between Iraq and the US, thus there was no war.

no they just passed a joint resolution authorizing the use of military force. Which is technicly a declaration of war. There is a difference between a state of war and a declaration of war. A state of war occurs when one side attacks another (see Pearl Harbor). A declaration of war is a statement that we declare war on you. This can be done in a variety of ways.

And the UNSC never gave authorization. It gave an ultimatum, but it is up to the UNSC to decide when to actually authorize the use of military force. It never gave such authorization.

I'm afraid you are wrong there. But that's ok. Continue to live in denial.

It simply hasn't. Congress did not declare war in either of the Iraq interventions. It authorized the use of force but didn't declare a state of war. The US hasn't been in a legal state of war since WWII.


Korean War, I won't cite the Vietnam Conflict, or the failed Bay of Pigs, or the Gulf Conflict. Actually we are still at war in Korea...no peace treaty ever ended it...

The law must be obeyed, even when it involves punishing a man for doing the right thing?

You forget, the law is the law is the law.

As Maddox once said "Civil disobedience is still disobedience."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_%28Star_Trek%29

Ok, that wins the thread.

You forget, the law is the law is the law.

There is nothing special about the law.

he can't be tried under military law,

he resigned and is no longer a soldier.





here's another guy who refused to fight in Iraq,
Lt Ehren Watada (http://www.thankyoult.org/)
but Lt Watada did not resign from the military as the guy above did,
Lt Watada only refused illegal orders to go to Iraq.
(he actually offered to go to Afghanistan, but was refused)

he can't be tried under military law,

he resigned and is no longer a soldier.

Then why is he oh turning himself in?

here's another guy who refused to fight in Iraq,
Lt Ehren Watada (http://www.thankyoult.org/)
but Lt Watada did not resign from the military as the guy above did,
Lt Watada only refused illegal orders to go to Iraq.
(he actually offered to go to Afghanistan, but was refused)

Of course he was refused. You do not pick your assignments. Anyone with half a brain knows that.

He's AWOL? Hopefully the MPs find him and throw his carcus into the slammer for disobeying lawful orders. That's all I have to say on this.
Hopefully. He's not helping anyone by abandoning his fellow soldier.

he can't be tried under military law,

he resigned and is no longer a soldier.



Actually unless he fulfilled his contractual obligation he is still a soldier. If that wasn't the case the US wouldn't have any soldiers...most would resign instead of go to Iraq. IMO

The constitution says that all treaties made under the authority of the united states are supreme law of the land.

The problem is that history shows us treaties signed by the US aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

The problem is that history shows us treaties signed by the US aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Actually...history shows us treaties signed by any nation is not worth the paper they're printed on.

Actually...history shows us treaties signed by any nation is not worth the paper they're printed on.

Name one treaty Brazil disrespected in the last 20 years.

Ok, that wins the thread.

I find it ironic that the thread-winning posts I make tend to be the ones in which I apply the least effort. Ah well. ;)

You do not pick your assignments. Anyone with half a brain knows that.

I picked my first assignment... I had my choice of orders... And I got first pick due to my finishing first in my class (even above fleet returnees).

yup. these are the only wars ever declared by the US congress.

- War of 1812
- Mexican-American War
- Spanish-American War
- World War I
- World War II

any history teacher, historian, or constitutional scholar or lawyer will tell you that.




the only way the executive can use the military in war-making is via a declaration of war or to repel an invasion.


the congress has no authority to designate its sole constitutional power to declare war to any other branch of government. only a constitutional amendment or a constitutional convention can alter branches powers. (maybe only the latter).

the constitution says nothing about "formal" or "informal" declarations of war.

therefore, the war is unconstitutional under US law on this account (at least) and not only are the acting executive branch officials subject to removal from office, but all those in the congress that (pretended) to wash their hands of the executives decision to use the US armed forces illegally yet allow the executive their blessing, they too are subject for removal from office. none of them should ever serve another day in government again in their lives.
kind of like the Baath party, or the Confederate States government.



therefore,
the FORMER soldier (as he resigned and is NO LONGER a soldier in any branch of the US armed forces),
cannot be tried under USMJ law, even if he were still a soldier,
because he disobeyed illegal orders

yup. these are the only wars ever
the FORMER soldier (as he resigned and is NO LONGER a soldier in any branch of the US armed forces),
cannot be tried under USMJ law, even if he were still a soldier,
because he disobeyed illegal orders

would that even really stop his prosecution?
when the us gov is doing add the rest of its great sevrices to the world (/sarcasm) would they really refrain from having him locked up just to silence the situation.

and how do you suppose to get these corrupt mott's out of government?
seeing as they are soo happy to stay there & keep getting money.

It's hard for me to write about this. I respect deeply that the military is a contract. My boyfriend is a military man (though I don't know if it's career yet or not), and we're trying to adjust ourselves to what life will be like with him (maybe us?) moving around every two to four years. I can't even imagine having him sent overseas. (And my boyfriend did choose his assignment, Corneliu 2, as I, who have more than "half a brain," would know. He told me.)
That being said, James Circello went AWOL and is legally subject to court-marshal for his crimes.
But still ... so many mistakes have been made. I don't know what should be done. We're stuck in Iraq, at least for now, because it seems to me that a greater crime than invading Iraq would be to invade Iraq and leave it war-torn. We should put an infrastructure -- acceptable to the Iraqi people -- in place before leaving. It's not my place to decide what that should be.
I'm just war-weary. Since the war started, I have had friends in Iraq. I'm lucky they've all come home.

The problem is that history shows us treaties signed by the US aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

this may be so,

but it is still within the constitution to have them removed for the sole reason of violating a treaty. (via impeachment, a call for a constitutional convention, or something or another. like say a new "declaration of independence" which even that legal document [the us supreme court has ruled that yes, that is a legal document under us law] recognizes government exists solely at the discrection of the people)


the imperial corporate war party(ies) rely on a) just enough apathy, and b) just enough people to think the rest of the world is "uncivilized" and backwards.

that's how they get away with violating their own constitution, when it's against "others".
and thus they punish those who refuse to kill.
refusing to kill is not a crime

I picked my first assignment... I had my choice of orders... And I got first pick due to my finishing first in my class (even above fleet returnees).

Well that's navy. This is army.

It's hard for me to write about this. I respect deeply that the military is a contract. My boyfriend is a military man (though I don't know if it's career yet or not), and we're trying to adjust ourselves to what life will be like with him (maybe us?) moving around every two to four years. I can't even imagine having him sent overseas. (And my boyfriend did choose his assignment, Corneliu 2, as I, who have more than "half a brain," would know. He told me.)

Let me guess...first assignment?

Edit: I just thought of something...when orders come in, you follow those orders unless they are illegal. I agree with the part I deleted that you follow all lawful orders (as the dude's orders were) and disobey illegal orders.

Click Stand;13156739']Well he can leave the military if he wants, I don't really mind at all.

However, it seems to me that he is just a puppet for some anti-war agenda™.
Well, he was a puppet for the pro-war agenda as a soldier, so...from one hand to the other...

Well that's navy. This is army.

With the army you choose your first assignment as well. After my first assignment I was allowed to rank in order of preference where I wanted to be stationed next, and if I wanted I could elect to stay at my first duty station (I could have chosen that until I started clearing, and I wish I had).

edit: You can also choose a duty station if you get it as part of your reenlistment contract.

As a general rule you don't get to pick and choose, but don't try to make absolute statements that aren't true.

With the army you choose your first assignment as well. After my first assignment I was allowed to rank in order of preference where I wanted to be stationed next, and if I wanted I could elect to stay at my first duty station (I could have chosen that until I started clearing, and I wish I had).

edit: You can also choose a duty station if you get it as part of your reenlistment contract.

As a general rule you don't get to pick and choose, but don't try to make absolute statements that aren't true.

Ah! I stand corrected. I should not have generalized and you are right. :)

In the navy, during re-enlistment you get to rank available billets (orders) as well... But the available is always based upon your rating's sea/shore rotation, which varies by rate [my rate (FT is 4 and 4: 4 years at sea, 4 on shore).... That rotation is actually one of the reasons I DIDN'T re-enlist... I had already spent 4 years at sea; was a FT1 (E-6), so my available options would have been going back to sub-school as an instructor (few billets available and not-likely; though I would have loved it); or working somewhere in some security capacity @ a shore command (something I seriously did not want to do)... Not to mention @ the time the SRB for my rate was abysmally low; so I said screw it and left (that is did not re-enlist).... That was 10 years ago.... I faired better than my Air Force brother, however; he's still in, actually he's on the last year of his fourth enlistment; and just recently made E-5.

with regards to treaties the US signs that become the "supreme law of the land".
we forget what "supreme law of the land" is.
the "supreme law of the land" is the constitution.
so, treaties signed are something akin to a constitutional amendment.

that is not to say they are there forever.


it is the senate, i believe, which must ratify treaties.
by 2/3?

since the constitution does not explicitly say how to get out of treaties,
and there are some treaties signed by the US written with language in them stating one or the another signatory can leave the treaty via X or by doing Y,
this suggests that the way for the US to get out of a treaty that does not have "Y to get out of a treaty" would be the same way the US gets into them, via the same senate ratification process.

but the US constitution is unique in that it requires treaties to be treated as the "law of the land".
the constitution also states all jurisdictions and courts must adhere to them as well.


therefore,
violating treaties regarding war and the crime against peace (the greatest war crime, in that it contains within it all other war crimes - to paraphrase a judge at the Nuremberg trials), violate the US constitution.
the first strike invasion of Iraq is a crime against peace.
it is therefore against the law.
disobeying any order to do warring in Iraq is adhering to the uniform military code of justice (or whatever is the exact name, memory fails) and following one's oath a soldier takes to defend the constitution of the US.

Actually unless he fulfilled his contractual obligation he is still a soldier. If that wasn't the case the US wouldn't have any soldiers...most would resign instead of go to Iraq. IMO

it seems if the pentagon can unilaterally rework a soldier's contract, so can any soldier.

(oops, sorry, I meant the military. the pentagon is a office building that works on weapons deals with other countries)

it seems if the pentagon can unilaterally rework a soldier's contract, so can any soldier.

(oops, sorry, I meant the military. the pentagon is a office building that works on weapons deals with other countries)

You sign a contract for 8 years initially half of which is active. That is, from my understanding of it, where they get you...instead of serving 4 and leaving they decide to keep all 8 active. So they aren't breaking the contract..merely not giving you the latter half off.

You sign a contract for 8 years initially half of which is active. That is, from my understanding of it, where they get you...instead of serving 4 and leaving they decide to keep all 8 active. So they aren't breaking the contract..merely not giving you the latter half off.

Anywhere outside of the truthiness of the Petagon, that'd be considered breach of contract.

Anywhere outside of the truthiness of the Petagon, that'd be considered breach of contract.

True, but if you enter into a contract with Uncle Sam and actually expect him to be fair about it...

You sign a contract for 8 years initially half of which is active. That is, from my understanding of it, where they get you...instead of serving 4 and leaving they decide to keep all 8 active. So they aren't breaking the contract..merely not giving you the latter half off.

don't they have those 'stop-gap loss' or something like that,
as of this recent regime,
that even after your entire contract, even the inactive stuff is up and you
are finally once and for all & for ever a civilian, they
call you back for more?

unless i am mistaken on that.
it seems they are unilaterally reworking people's contracts.
if the military can do it to any soldier, it only seems fair that any soldier can do it as well. justice used to imply fairness. now justice is defined only as "what is the law".

Anywhere outside of the truthiness of the Petagon, that'd be considered breach of contract.

Actually, I think it would be called an option. The DoD can exercise it's option to keep you under contract at the end of four years.

The thing is, it's THEIR option.

Actually, I think it would be called an option. The DoD can exercise it's option to keep you under contract at the end of four years.

The thing is, it's THEIR option.

And all perfectly legal to.

don't they have those 'stop-gap loss' or something like that,
as of this recent regime,

It can happen under any president actually.

that even after your entire contract, even the inactive stuff is up and you
are finally once and for all & for ever a civilian, they
call you back for more?

To a point...yes. When the 1st gulf war broke out, they asked my mom if she was willing to comeback into the Air Force to be in Administration and my mother said no. This was after she already served her 6 years in uniform. They have not bothered her again.

unless i am mistaken on that.
it seems they are unilaterally reworking people's contracts.
if the military can do it to any soldier, it only seems fair that any soldier can do it as well. justice used to imply fairness. now justice is defined only as "what is the law".

Um...a soldier has no right to rework a contract. Once you sign your name on the dotted line, you become the property of the Federal Government of the United States.

you become the property of the Federal Government of the United States.

property of "the people of the united states"?

how can people be property?
i thought such was outlawed over a century ago?

It can happen under any president actually.

so the 'stop-gap loss' thing isn't after someone is done with their active & inactive duty?

and there is no way to impress someone into service after those active & inactive years are done?

And all perfectly legal to.

And that's the problem...

Law =/= fairness. It expresses not a double standard, but a single standard, what Adam Smith called "The vile maxim of the masters of mankind: all for us and none for anyone else."

The same law that in its majesty denies the rich man and the poor man equally the right to steal bread also determines the poor man's obligations to the state. Naturally, he'll get shafted.

so the 'stop-gap loss' thing isn't after someone is done with their active & inactive duty?

and there is no way to impress someone into service after those active & inactive years are done?

Stop loss (not stop-gap loss) happens when you are in a unit that is preparing to deploy or in an MOS that is deemed critically understrength. When under stop loss your enlistment is extended until such a date as the stop loss is lifted. I once knew a guy who had been stop lossed for 2 years. This can happen even after the 8 year mark. However, if your enlistment successfully expires after the 8 year mark you can't be called back into service.

Stop loss (not stop-gap loss) happens when you are in a unit that is preparing to deploy or in an MOS that is deemed critically understrength. When under stop loss your enlistment is extended until such a date as the stop loss is lifted. I once knew a guy who had been stop lossed for 2 years. This can happen even after the 8 year mark. However, if your enlistment successfully expires after the 8 year mark you can't be called back into service.

is this new?

but if it happens after the 8 year mark you are already out and you get called back in?
either way, doesn't seem very fair.

and this is written into the contracts that people sign, WHEN they signed them?

is this new?

Nope

but if it happens after the 8 year mark you are already out and you get called back in?
either way, doesn't seem very fair.

Either I wasn't clear or you misunderstood. If you successfully get out after 8 years they can't call you back. However, if you have 10 years in and come under stop loss, you can't get out until stop loss is lifted.

and this is written into the contracts that people sign, WHEN they signed them?

Yep. Although, very few people read their contracts in their entirety. My enlistment packet for the National Guard was around half an inch thick.

edit: Wiki article on stop-loss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy

Yep. Although, very few people read their contracts in their entirety. My enlistment packet for the National Guard was around half an inch thick.

holy shmuck!!
no wonder no one reads it.
that seems important enough though, that certainly they tell all potential recruits such before they sign to become a servant of the people and take an oath to defend the constitution



edit,
thanks for the link

so what is this?
The new program, known as Involuntary Extension, is a circumvention of stop-loss, and simply changes the ETS [end time service] date on a soldier's account.
do they go into people's contracts, erase the ETS date, and write a new one?
this would appear to be "unilaterally reworking someone's contract"

holy shmuck!!
no wonder no one reads it.
that seems important enough though, that certainly they tell all potential recruits such before they sign to become a servant of the people and take an oath to defend the constitution



edit,
thanks for the link

The recruiter does (or should, at least) give at least a quick summary of what each sheet means. My recruiter at the time specifically told me about stop loss, although I'd already known about it, having been in the active Army for four years before that. Still, I think most people don't really listen to what their recruiter is saying because a lot of people seem quite surprised when they find out about it a few years down the line.

Under US Constitutional law, treaties are just like any other law passed by Congress

No it is not. I suggest you look up what "supreme law of the land" means. Article 6 of the US constitution says all treates entered into by the united states are supreme law of the land, to quote:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

Right there. Treaties made under the authority of the united states are supreme and are only revoked once the treaty is withdrawn from. An act of congress can not circumvent a treat, it may only withdraw from the treaty, and the last time I checked, the US is still a member of the UN, and as such, is still a signatory to the charter.

Nope



Either I wasn't clear or you misunderstood. If you successfully get out after 8 years they can't call you back. However, if you have 10 years in and come under stop loss, you can't get out until stop loss is lifted.



Yep. Although, very few people read their contracts in their entirety. My enlistment packet for the National Guard was around half an inch thick.

edit: Wiki article on stop-loss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy

We have a winner ladies and gentlemen.

And the UNSC never gave authorization. It gave an ultimatum, but it is up to the UNSC to decide when to actually authorize the use of military force. It never gave such authorization.
I'm afraid you are wrong there. But that's ok. Continue to live in denial.


Actually he's dead on, and you're dead wrong. The UNSC did not lift the ceasefire.

And all perfectly legal to.

But, as you know, perfectly legal doesn't mean perfectly right.

[QUOTE=Similization;13156798]If you're conned into signing a contract, is it still binding?
If you're under contract to engage in criminal activity, is the contract still binding?

Exactly.
Can a government that is signing unknowing citizens to perform their unethical, unjust, immoral, and illegal desires for them really claim that these citizens have wronged them by changing their minds? Especially since they change their minds as soon as they realize what they are actually being forced to do.

QUOTE=Similization;13156798If you're conned into signing a contract, is it still binding?
If you're under contract to engage in criminal activity, is the contract still binding?

Exactly.
Can a government that is signing unknowing citizens to perform their unethical, unjust, immoral, and illegal desires for them really claim that these citizens have wronged them by changing their minds? Especially since they change their minds as soon as they realize what they are actually being forced to do.

yeah.
i mean, how can a person realize what killing another human being is until they have to actually do it?
whether it is couched in language as "defending your friends and family" doesn't change the effects it might have on a person.
which might be why something like 80% of military personal end up with some sort of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. (and their families that are impacted by it when they get home)

Actually he's dead on, and you're dead wrong. The UNSC did not lift the ceasefire.

Actually...the UNSC does not have to under customary international law. When one side violates a cease-fire the other side is perfectly legal to go back in with or without international permission.

But, as you know, perfectly legal doesn't mean perfectly right.

That true but then...this is the military.

That true but then...this is the military.

So......?

That true but then...this is the military.

Yep, we had a saying:
"There are three ways to do things: The right way, the wrong way, and the NAVY way."

Yep, we had a saying:
"There are three ways to do things: The right way, the wrong way, and the NAVY way."

Seems every branch has a similar saying :D

Actually...the UNSC does not have to under customary international law. When one side violates a cease-fire the other side is perfectly legal to go back in with or without international permission.

wrong again corny. The ceasefire in question had no triggers, no automatic revocation clauses. There was no mechanism to allow for that. What you said is patently untrue.

Yep, we had a saying:
"There are three ways to do things: The right way, the wrong way, and the NAVY way."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Hehheh

wrong again corny. The ceasefire in question had no triggers, no automatic revocation clauses. There was no mechanism to allow for that. What you said is patently untrue.

Sorry Neo-Art but there need not be triggers when there is a violation of said agreement. Saddam violated the terms of the cease-fire. Under customary international law, that means we can legally re-attack the nation and this we did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

I think psychosis is probably the better term, and having spent several years in the military I can tell you that it definitely applies.

Seems every branch has a similar saying :D

I'll even illustrate this form of "Navy Way":

Ok, about 15 years ago, the Attack Center on Submarines was shared by two rates, FT's (FireControl Technicians) and DP's Data Processing Technicians)... Mostly FT's however.

FT's had the job of coordinating all sensor data (Active/Passive Sonar, Radar, Visual, Radio/OTHT [Over The Horizon Targeting]), maintaining solutions on all targets, including targets of interest, and maintaining a coherent picture of the "battlefield" for the OOD (Officer Of The Deck) and CO. They also had the responsibility for maintenance and repair on all associated attack center and the electronic side of all combat-control equipment in the attack center, CSES (Combat Systems Electronics Space), and torpedo room, including weapons simulation equipment. FT's received through their 'A' and 'C' schools, before deployment to the fleet, extensive training in electronics, 2M (Microminiture Soldering), specific maintenance/repair training on a Combat Control System (Seperate Combat Control systems have seperate NEC's [Equivalent to Marine MOS's]), as well as advanced submerged warfare tactics.

DP's on the other hand were just that Data Processors; they were only on watch when the boat was at periscope depth... Otherwise they were assigned to side duties in FT (like updating publications). They did not even know how to fix their own equipment. When at Periscope Depth, their duty was to coordinate with Radio for receipt of OTHT information, and updates to Missile Mission Data... No training in maintenance or warfare tactics.

Anyway, 15 years ago the Navy Submarine force realized that DP's were practically useless, and every FT was trained to do the job that DP's were doing anyway... So they decided to get rid of the submarine DP rating.... From this point there were three ways things could be done:

1. The Right Way - Send DP's back to FT schools for crossrating to FT, insuring that all of them are familiar with their new role/job and its associated equipment and have received the necessary NEC's for their new job.

2. The Wrong Way - Automatically declare all DP's now as FT's and grant them NEC's where they are presently stationed, or last stationed at sea.

3. The Navy Way - All E-5's and below get sent back for crossrating. All E-6's and above have their names submitted to BUPERS, so the rating and NEC genie can wave his magic wand and miraculously turn these people into FT's with the neccessary NEC's to fulfill their roles....

Our LPO @ the time on the USS Hampton, FTC/SS Easterling, was part of the E-6+ crowd under the third option... My God did we have to kiddie-walk this guy through everything we did, simply because when he's supervising, he had no fucking clue of the first thing of anything we did dealing with maintenance or upkeep... In fact, he spent 5 hours with part of the division while I was on watch in the Attack Center, down in the Torpedo Room attempting to coordinate tracing a problemed indicator panel on one of the Torpedo Tube control panels.... After I got off watch, I ate, went down to the Torpedo Room, and asked if they wanted a break.... Three of them left, leaving myself and FT2 Reisner to trace... Reisner gave me the rundown on what they thought it might be... A traced their idea, and it didn't mesh (they were assuming some problem in one of the power supplies to the unit; but in that case MORE should have not been working), decided to start over from scratch in tracing the probable culprit, and found the likely problem in 11 minutes (one of the connectors on the back of the panel had come loose; mind you, this pannel has around 300 connectors on the back of it)...

EDIT: It sounds odd, but @ the time, FT's were FT3's (E-4's) out of A school, and most of them were at or about to make FT2 (E-5) by the time they got to their first boat.... My division consisted of one E-7, two E-6's, 2 E-5's an E-4 and one E-3 (The E-3 had been an E-5 when I FIRST got to the boat as an E-5)

Sorry Neo-Art but there need not be triggers when there is a violation of said agreement. Saddam violated the terms of the cease-fire. Under customary international law, that means we can legally re-attack the nation and this we did.

*sigh* I know I'm doing the equivalent of arguing with a scarecrow, but I feel I must.

Here is the text of resolution 687, in its entirety. Please show me where it says the ceasefire will life automatically:

RESOLUTION 687 (1991)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting,
on 3 April 1991

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990, 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of 29 October 1990, 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990 and 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991,

Welcoming the restoration to Kuwait of its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and the return of its legitimate Government,

Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq, and noting the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating with Kuwait under paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with paragraph 8 of resolution 686 (1991),

Reaffirming the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions in the light of its unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait,

Taking note of the letter sent by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq on 27 February 1991 and those sent pursuant to resolution 686 (1991),

Noting that Iraq and Kuwait, as independent sovereign States, signed at Baghdad on 4 October 1963 "Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters", thereby recognizing formally the boundary between Iraq and Kuwait and the allocation of islands, which were registered with the United Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations and in which Iraq recognized the independence and complete sovereignty of the State of Kuwait within its borders as specified and accepted in the letter of the Prime Minister of Iraq dated 21 July 1932, and as accepted by the Ruler of Kuwait in his letter dated 10 August 1932,

Conscious of the need for demarcation of the said boundary,

Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons,

Recalling that Iraq has subscribed to the Declaration adopted by all States participating in the Conference of States Parties to the 1925 Geneva Protocol and Other Interested States, held in Paris from 7 to 11 January 1989, establishing the objective of universal elimination of chemical and biological weapons,

Recalling also that Iraq has signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972,

Noting the importance of Iraq ratifying this Convention,

Noting moreover the importance of all States adhering to this Convention and encouraging its forthcoming Review Conference to reinforce the authority, efficiency and universal scope of the convention,

Stressing the importance of an early conclusion by the Conference on Disarmament of its work on a Convention on the Universal Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and of universal adherence thereto,

Aware of the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles located in Iraq,

Concerned by the reports in the hands of Member States that Iraq has attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapons programme contrary to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968,

Recalling the objective of the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region of the Middle East,

Conscious of the threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security in the area and of the need to work towards the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of such weapons,

Conscious also of the objective of achieving balanced and comprehensive control of armaments in the region,

Conscious further of the importance of achieving the objectives noted above using all available means, including a dialogue among the States of the region,

Noting that resolution 686 (1991) marked the lifting of the measures imposed by resolution 661 (1990) in so far as they applied to Kuwait,

Noting that despite the progress being made in fulfilling the obligations of resolution 686 (1991), many Kuwaiti and third country nationals are still not accounted for and property remains unreturned,

Recalling the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, opened for signature at New York on 18 December 1979, which categorizes all acts of taking hostages as manifestations of international terrorism,

Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq,

Taking note with grave concern of the reports of the Secretary-General of 20 March 1991 and 28 March 1991, and conscious of the necessity to meet urgently the humanitarian needs in Kuwait and Iraq,

Bearing in mind its objective of restoring international peace and security in the area as set out in recent resolutions of the Security Council,

Conscious of the need to take the following measures acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire;

A

2. Demands that Iraq and Kuwait respect the inviolability of the international boundary and the allocation of islands set out in the "Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters", signed by them in the exercise of their sovereignty at Baghdad on 4 October 1963 and registered with the United Nations and published by the United Nations in document 7063, United Nations, Treaty Series, 1964;

3. Calls upon the Secretary-General to lend his assistance to make arrangements with Iraq and Kuwait to demarcate the boundary between Iraq and Kuwait, drawing on appropriate material, including the map transmitted by Security Council document S/22412 and to report back to the Security Council within one month;

4. Decides to guarantee the inviolability of the above-mentioned international boundary and to take as appropriate all necessary measures to that end in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

B

5. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with Iraq and Kuwait, to submit within three days to the Security Council for its approval a plan for the immediate deployment of a United Nations observer unit to monitor the Khor Abdullah and a demilitarized zone, which is hereby established, extending ten kilometres into Iraq and five kilometres into Kuwait from the boundary referred to in the "Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters" of 4 October 1963; to deter violations of the boundary through its presence in and surveillance of the demilitarized zone; to observe any hostile or potentially hostile action mounted from the territory of one State to the other; and for the Secretary-General to report regularly to the Security Council on the operations of the unit, and immediately if there are serious violations of the zone or potential threats to peace;

6. Notes that as soon as the Secretary-General notifies the Security Council of the completion of the deployment of the United Nations observer unit, the conditions will be established for the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end consistent with resolution 686 (1991);

C

7. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972;

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:

(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;

(b) The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of such approval:

(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;

(ii) The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragraph 8 (a) above, including items at the additional locations designated by the Special Commission under paragraph 9 (b) (i) above and the destruction by Iraq, under the supervision of the Special Commission, of all its missile capabilities, including launchers, as specified under paragraph 8 (b) above;

(iii) The provision by the Special Commission of the assistance and cooperation to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency required in paragraphs 12 and 13 below;

10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above and requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Special Commission, to develop a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this paragraph, to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of this resolution;

11. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968;

12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above; to submit to the Secretary-General and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution a declaration of the locations, amounts, and types of all items specified above; to place all of its nuclear-weapons-usable materials under the exclusive control, for custody and removal, of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General discussed in paragraph 9 (b) above; to accept, in accordance with the arrangements provided for in paragraph 13 below, urgent on-site inspection and the destruction, removal or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items specified above; and to accept the plan discussed in paragraph 13 below for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of its compliance with these undertakings;

13. Requests the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, through the Secretary-General, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General in paragraph 9 (b) above, to carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's nuclear capabilities based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission; to develop a plan for submission to the Security Council within forty-five days calling for the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items listed in paragraph 12 above; to carry out the plan within forty-five days following approval by the Security Council; and to develop a plan, taking into account the rights and obligations of Iraq under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968, for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with paragraph 12 above, including an inventory of all nuclear material in Iraq subject to the Agency's verification and inspections to confirm that Agency safeguards cover all relevant nuclear activities in Iraq, to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of the present resolution;

14. Takes note that the actions to be taken by Iraq in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the present resolution represent steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons;

D

15. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the steps taken to facilitate the return of all Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq, including a list of any property that Kuwait claims has not been returned or which has not been returned intact;

E

16. Reaffirms that Iraq, without prejudice to the debts and obligations of Iraq arising prior to 2 August 1990, which will be addressed through the normal mechanisms, is liable under international law for any direct loss, damage, including environmental damage and the depletion of natural resources, or injury to foreign Governments, nationals and corporations, as a result of Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait;

17. Decides that all Iraqi statements made since 2 August 1990 repudiating its foreign debt are null and void, and demands that Iraq adhere scrupulously to all of its obligations concerning servicing and repayment of its foreign debt;

18. Decides also to create a fund to pay compensation for claims that fall within paragraph 16 above and to establish a Commission that will administer the fund;

19. Directs the Secretary-General to develop and present to the Security Council for decision, no later than thirty days following the adoption of the present resolution, recommendations for the fund to meet the requirement for the payment of claims established in accordance with paragraph 18 above and for a programme to implement the decisions in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 above, including: administration of the fund; mechanisms for determining the appropriate level of Iraq's contribution to the fund based on a percentage of the value of the exports of petroleum and petroleum products from Iraq not to exceed a figure to be suggested to the Council by the Secretary-General, taking into account the requirements of the people of Iraq, Iraq's payment capacity as assessed in conjunction with the international financial institutions taking into consideration external debt service, and the needs of the Iraqi economy; arrangements for ensuring that payments are made to the fund; the process by which funds will be allocated and claims paid; appropriate procedures for evaluating losses, listing claims and verifying their validity and resolving disputed claims in respect of Iraq's liability as specified in paragraph 16 above; and the composition of the Commission designated above;

F

20. Decides, effective immediately, that the prohibitions against the sale or supply to Iraq of commodities or products, other than medicine and health supplies, and prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto contained in resolution 661 (1990) shall not apply to foodstuffs notified to the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) concerning the situation between Iraq and Kuwait or, with the approval of that Committee, under the simplified and accelerated "no-objection" procedure, to materials and supplies for essential civilian needs as identified in the report of the Secretary-General dated 20 March 1991, and in any further findings of humanitarian need by the Committee;

21. Decides that the Security Council shall review the provisions of paragraph 20 above every sixty days in the light of the policies and practices of the Government of Iraq, including the implementation of all relevant resolutions of the Security Council, for the purpose of determining whether to reduce or lift the prohibitions referred to therein;

22. Decides that upon the approval by the Security Council of the programme called for in paragraph 19 above and upon Council agreement that Iraq has completed all actions contemplated in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 above, the prohibitions against the import of commodities and products originating in Iraq and the prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto contained in resolution 661 (1990) shall have no further force or effect;

23. Decides that, pending action by the Security Council under paragraph 22 above, the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) shall be empowered to approve, when required to assure adequate financial resources on the part of Iraq to carry out the activities under paragraph 20 above, exceptions to the prohibition against the import of commodities and products originating in Iraq;

24. Decides that, in accordance with resolution 661 (1990) and subsequent related resolutions and until a further decision is taken by the Security Council, all States shall continue to prevent the sale or supply, or the promotion or facilitation of such sale or supply, to Iraq by their nationals, or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of:

(a) Arms and related materiel of all types, specifically including the sale or transfer through other means of all forms of conventional military equipment, including for paramilitary forces, and spare parts and components and their means of production, for such equipment;

(b) Items specified and defined in paragraphs 8 and 12 above not otherwise covered above;

(c) Technology under licensing or other transfer arrangements used in the production, utilization or stockpiling of items specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above;

(d) Personnel or materials for training or technical support services relating to the design, development, manufacture, use, maintenance or support of items specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above;

25. Calls upon all States and international organizations to act strictly in accordance with paragraph 24 above, notwithstanding the existence of any contracts, agreements, licences or any other arrangements;

26. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with appropriate Governments, to develop within sixty days, for the approval of the Security Council, guidelines to facilitate full international implementation of paragraphs 24 and 25 above and paragraph 27 below, and to make them available to all States and to establish a procedure for updating these guidelines periodically;

27. Calls upon all States to maintain such national controls and procedures and to take such other actions consistent with the guidelines to be established by the Security Council under paragraph 26 above as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of paragraph 24 above, and calls upon international organizations to take all appropriate steps to assist in ensuring such full compliance;

28. Agrees to review its decisions in paragraphs 22, 23, 24 and 25 above, except for the items specified and defined in paragraphs 8 and 12 above, on a regular basis and in any case one hundred and twenty days following passage of the present resolution, taking into account Iraq's compliance with the resolution and general progress towards the control of armaments in the region;

29. Decides that all States, including Iraq, shall take the necessary measures to ensure that no claim shall lie at the instance of the Government of Iraq, or of any person or body in Iraq, or of any person claiming through or for the benefit of any such person or body, in connection with any contract or other transaction where its performance was affected by reason of the measures taken by the Security Council in resolution 661 (1990) and related resolutions;

G

30. Decides that, in furtherance of its commitment to facilitate the repatriation of all Kuwaiti and third country nationals, Iraq shall extend all necessary cooperation to the International Committee of the Red Cross, providing lists of such persons, facilitating the access of the International Committee of the Red Cross to all such persons wherever located or detained and facilitating the search by the International Committee of the Red Cross for those Kuwaiti and third country nationals still unaccounted for;

31. Invites the International Committee of the Red Cross to keep the Secretary-General apprised as appropriate of all activities undertaken in connection with facilitating the repatriation or return of all Kuwaiti and third country nationals or their remains present in Iraq on or after 2 August 1990;

H

32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;

I

33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);

34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.

If you want to argue that there is some general "international legal standard" that overarchs this agreement, please cite it. Because right here is the cease ifre agreement, and it says NOTHING about automatic revocation.

The UN charter is very clear, it states quite unambiguously that it prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council.

It was neither self defense nor sanctioned by the UN security council. There is no clause in the charter that states "or if another country doesn't do what we tell it to". The ceasefire has no automatic revocation clause, it's just not there. Since it has no automatic revocation clause, it must be manually revoked by the security council. It wasn't.

But hey, don't take MY word for it. Let's see what US ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte said about resolution 1441:

[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12

Wow, so the ambassador to the UN says that there is no hidden revocation. Interesting.

What about the ambassador to the UN from our ally Great Britain?

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities

hrm...that's not good

Does ANYBODY have anything to say in our favor?

Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue

......crap

Neo...I'll go with customary international law that states that when one side violates a cease-fire then hang on for a wild ride.

Good day.

Neo...I'll go with customary international law that states that when one side violates a cease-fire then hang on for a wild ride.

Good day.

Whatever it takes so that we're in the right, eh?

Whatever it takes so that we're in the right, eh?

No I just go by common sense when it come to I.L. which is an oxymoron in and of itself.

Neo...I'll go with customary international law that states that when one side violates a cease-fire then hang on for a wild ride.


Ah, those "customary international laws" that you have yet to cite, or provide a single authority to back up your claims? Considering you have shown that your ability to get the law right is roughly on par to a blind, retarded squirrel finding a nut, forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

Especially when the ceasefire agreement itself has no provisions for automatic revocation, and both our ambassador to the UN, and the UK's ambassador to the UN stated quite clearly that this was not the case...

Neo?

Show me where I actually give a shit about the UN! You know full well I do not suppor the UN. So tell me when I actually care what the UN says.

The war is legal period.

Now since it is apparent that this thread has run its course...

Neo...I'll go with customary international law that states that when one side violates a cease-fire then hang on for a wild ride.

Good day.

To quote you to another poster in another thread

"When debating, the purdon of proof is on the poster that says it..... I asked you to prove this and all you did was run around the issue. This will not help your point. When you are asked for proof in an online debate, you provide it."

So in this case how about you provide some proof of the existence of this "customary international law".

Neo?

Show me where I actually give a shit about the UN! You know full well I do not suppor the UN. So tell me when I actually care what the UN says.

I see, so you don't support the constitution of the united states of america? Once again Corny I feel the need to remind you that just because you don't like something, doesn't make it untrue.

More to point, you're arguing it's "OK to violate the ceasefire" if they violate the terms of the ceasefire.....BUT the ceasefire was a UN resolution. The terms of the ceasefire were a UN resolution. The conditions for violation of ceasefire...were a UN resolution.

You say you don't care about the UN, but then use as justification for the invasion a violation of a UN resolution? Which one is it corny? If you don't care about the UN, then the UN ceasefire agreement is irrelevant, the terms of the ceasefire is irrelevant, and since you don't care what the UN says, you don't care about the conditions the UN placed on saddam. So then those conditions are irrelevant because, as you said, you don't care.

You can't use a violation for the UN ceasefire to argue the war is legal, then when pointed out to you that the ceasefire agreement doesn't allow for that, say you don't care what it says. You can't pick and choose corny, as much as you seem to be unable to form a cohesive argument without that.

It's childish nonsense to scream that the invasion is legal because "he violated the ceasefire!" What ceasefire? The UN ceasefire? The UN you just said you don't care about?

If you don't care what the UN says, you don't care about the ceasefire agreement. If you do care what the UN says, then the entirety of the agreement is important.

Neo?

Show me where I actually give a shit about the UN! You know full well I do not suppor the UN. So tell me when I actually care what the UN says.

The war is legal period.

Now since it is apparent that this thread has run its course...

Show me where I give a shit about you giving a shit about the UN. The fact is the UN matters.

The war is illegal, and I don't, to quote yourself, give a shit how many "periods" you put after your outright lie.

He's been in the military for how long, and he thinks he gets to walk out and claim he has no contract , no association with the military ?
He's AWOL, and he belongs in Leavenworth.
The poll is cute and amusing, but it leaves out the basic legal facts that this man is in violation of his voluntary sworn oath to the United States of America and his voluntary choice to make a committment to a Militry service - if he wanted out in an honorable manner, he had an onligation to follow the laws and procedures he agreed to- and were the military to have KICKED him out without following those laws, he - and his supports - would be screaming just as loud about the 'unfairness' of it all.
This is a political ploy, and I hope the Military Police catch up with him soon, and that he gets his rightful day in *military* court - whether he wants it or not.:headbang:

Snip

Why do you claim this guy sold his soul to the Military?

Show me where I give a shit about you giving a shit about the UN. The fact is the UN matters.

It does? What genocide have they prevented? What war have they prevented?

The war is illegal, and I don't, to quote yourself, give a shit how many "periods" you put after your outright lie.

Just continue to think that. It does not matter.

He's been in the military for how long, and he thinks he gets to walk out and claim he has no contract , no association with the military ?
He's AWOL, and he belongs in Leavenworth.

I would not go that far but he does deserved to be punished.

The poll is cute and amusing, but it leaves out the basic legal facts that this man is in violation of his voluntary sworn oath to the United States of America and his voluntary choice to make a committment to a Militry service - if he wanted out in an honorable manner, he had an onligation to follow the laws and procedures he agreed to- and were the military to have KICKED him out without following those laws, he - and his supports - would be screaming just as loud about the 'unfairness' of it all.

If he wanted out, he could have simply resigned or declared himself a conscientious objector.

This is a political ploy, and I hope the Military Police catch up with him soon, and that he gets his rightful day in *military* court - whether he wants it or not.:headbang:

Well if rumors are true, he left the service and good riddence.

Why do you claim this guy sold his soul to the Military?

He signed a contract and he violated it.

He signed a contract and he violated it.

Show me how the stop-loss programs AREN'T a violation of the spirit of these contracts.

I say again: He did not sell his soul to the Military.

If he wanted out, he could have simply resigned or declared himself a conscientious objector.

Enlisted can't resign. Officers can, but enlisted cannot. Also, the process for becoming a conscientious objector is long, difficult, and almost never ends with success.

Show me how the stop-loss programs AREN'T a violation of the spirit of these contracts.

The spirit of any contract with Uncle Sam is "You're going to get fucked, and if you're lucky we may give you a reach around. But probably not."

It does? What genocide have they prevented? What war have they prevented?

Heh sorta shot yourself in the foot with that one umm.

Show me how the stop-loss programs AREN'T a violation of the spirit of these contracts.

Um...I see you did not read the posts that it is written in their contracts and has been around since the Vietnam War?

I say again: He did not sell his soul to the Military.

he gave himself to the US Government. He is obligated to fulfill his duties and to follow all orders from the President on down to his local CO. He pretty much did until he seperates himself from the military.

He pretty much did until he seperates himself from the military.

No. He did not. If he had, he'd not have written that, nor subjected himself to the slander of people like you just so he could speak his mind about his first-hand experience in Iraq, one you did not have.

No. He did not. If he had, he'd not have written that, nor subjected himself to the slander of people like you just so he could speak his mind about his first-hand experience in Iraq, one you did not have.

I speak out against him because the bastard went AWOL! That discredits all he says. If he resigned and said it, I would not be "smearing him" as you so bluntly put it. he deserves the scorn I give him for going AWOL.