Brave? I don't think so.
I have to wonder if he thought this war was "immoral" and "illegal" before his unit got orders or after. He is a LT - did he join the military before we invaded or after? If he joined after then he knew the risks and needs to go to the brig.
You know what - to heck with when he joined. He needs to be either thrown out of the military with a dishonorable discharge or thrown in the brig.
I am soo sick and tired of people volunteering to defend our country but crying foul when they are actually called on to do so. Consciencious (I know I just spelled that wrong) objector my behind! How in the world can one justify signing up for a military job and then cry it is against their religion (or whatever excuse they have) to fight if they are called upon to do so!?!
One brave soldier.
-
LilacDragon
- Posts: 1382
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:23 am
One brave soldier.
Sandi
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One brave soldier.
LilacDragon wrote: Brave? I don't think so.
I have to wonder if he thought this war was "immoral" and "illegal" before his unit got orders or after. He is a LT - did he join the military before we invaded or after? If he joined after then he knew the risks and needs to go to the brig.yup yup!
LilacDragon wrote: You know what - to heck with when he joined. He needs to be either thrown out of the military with a dishonorable discharge or thrown in the brig.Make that thrown in the brig then dishonorably discharged.
I have to wonder if he thought this war was "immoral" and "illegal" before his unit got orders or after. He is a LT - did he join the military before we invaded or after? If he joined after then he knew the risks and needs to go to the brig.yup yup!
LilacDragon wrote: You know what - to heck with when he joined. He needs to be either thrown out of the military with a dishonorable discharge or thrown in the brig.Make that thrown in the brig then dishonorably discharged.
-
LilacDragon
- Posts: 1382
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:23 am
One brave soldier.
Hmmmm.
It seems like the destruction of a people is being done by OTHER people from Iraq - no the U.S. Military.
As a LT., this man would probably be in charge of a patrol. It would seem to me that if he really was upset about unlawful orders - he would go and make sure that the men that he commanded behaved in a responsible manner and didn't let any innocent people die.
Here is what I think - the Army paid for this guys college education and in turn, he signed a commitment to serve so many years on active duty. He was ok with that because well, hey - he got an education out of it and as an officer, it isn't like he is going to be doing grunt work when he does his time in the military. But then he got orders to go to a war zone and that put a whole new spin on things.
The orders to go to Iraq are most certainly legal. The soldier doesn't get to decide if the battle is moral - that lies with the President and Congress. Now, if his commander ordered him to go and shoot up an orphanage - that would be an illegal order and he could refuse to do that.
It seems like the destruction of a people is being done by OTHER people from Iraq - no the U.S. Military.
As a LT., this man would probably be in charge of a patrol. It would seem to me that if he really was upset about unlawful orders - he would go and make sure that the men that he commanded behaved in a responsible manner and didn't let any innocent people die.
Here is what I think - the Army paid for this guys college education and in turn, he signed a commitment to serve so many years on active duty. He was ok with that because well, hey - he got an education out of it and as an officer, it isn't like he is going to be doing grunt work when he does his time in the military. But then he got orders to go to a war zone and that put a whole new spin on things.
The orders to go to Iraq are most certainly legal. The soldier doesn't get to decide if the battle is moral - that lies with the President and Congress. Now, if his commander ordered him to go and shoot up an orphanage - that would be an illegal order and he could refuse to do that.
Sandi
One brave soldier.
At one time, I would have called him cowardly but then I got to thinking. How easy for some of us to sit back and call him a coward without walking a mile in his shoes. I'm sure when he enlisted he knew there was a chance of war, but myself, I would think, "Nah. Chances are slim to none." I THINK I could fight in a war I believed in, but to go risk my life, to be some where I feel we should not be, I don't think I could do it either.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One brave soldier.
He's not necessarily a coward. He is, however, a criminal.
-
LilacDragon
- Posts: 1382
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:23 am
One brave soldier.
Scrat wrote: Lilac D
That question occured to me also. Considering the ratio of combat troops to REMFs (20 to 1?) there is a good chance that he may get his butt blown away.
Since the people who decieved America into this conflict have no children in body armor over there (or very few, if any) why should he go? This is America is it not? If you have money you can get away with murder can't you?
More power to him. I certainly would think differently if 50% of the combat troops over there were the offspring of politicians but that surely is not going to happen is it?
Of course not.
My husband is a combat troop, I know how many of the men in his unit were lost in the last year.
My DH is in the National Guard and the deployment rules are a bit different. His contract says that once he pulls a deployment, he can not be called to deploy again for two years, if I remember right.
DH was home from Egypt for 6 months before he volunteered to go to Iraq. Does he believe that we were right to go into Iraq in the first place? I don't think so. BUT - he joined the military to defend our country from terrorists and if his Commander In Chief thinks that going into Iraq will help solve the problem then my DH's job as a soldier is to go and fight. Period. End of discussion.
That question occured to me also. Considering the ratio of combat troops to REMFs (20 to 1?) there is a good chance that he may get his butt blown away.
Since the people who decieved America into this conflict have no children in body armor over there (or very few, if any) why should he go? This is America is it not? If you have money you can get away with murder can't you?
More power to him. I certainly would think differently if 50% of the combat troops over there were the offspring of politicians but that surely is not going to happen is it?
Of course not.
My husband is a combat troop, I know how many of the men in his unit were lost in the last year.
My DH is in the National Guard and the deployment rules are a bit different. His contract says that once he pulls a deployment, he can not be called to deploy again for two years, if I remember right.
DH was home from Egypt for 6 months before he volunteered to go to Iraq. Does he believe that we were right to go into Iraq in the first place? I don't think so. BUT - he joined the military to defend our country from terrorists and if his Commander In Chief thinks that going into Iraq will help solve the problem then my DH's job as a soldier is to go and fight. Period. End of discussion.
Sandi
One brave soldier.
Diuretic wrote: He's wrong. If you serve in the military you are required to follow lawful orders. It's not up to him or any other individual to decide what they'll do. If his country chooses to send him to an immoral war than that's a bit of bad luck, he has to go or face the consequences. So I suppose he has chosen to face the consequences. This happened to an RAF officer in the UK, he paid the price for his refusal to go. Hopefully though it puts more pressure on the politicians who decided to invade and occupy Iraq.
I'd question that - how many people in War Crimes trials have been denied the defence that "they were just obeying orders".
A hypothetical question - I don't want to get side tracked at this point about whether FG considers the war to be legal :-
If, after you've joined the Army, your Government starts a war in breach of International Law, are you duty bound to fight in that war?
If you decide to fight and your superior officer orders you to perform an action you know to be in breach of International Law are you duty bound to obey that order?
I'd question that - how many people in War Crimes trials have been denied the defence that "they were just obeying orders".
A hypothetical question - I don't want to get side tracked at this point about whether FG considers the war to be legal :-
If, after you've joined the Army, your Government starts a war in breach of International Law, are you duty bound to fight in that war?
If you decide to fight and your superior officer orders you to perform an action you know to be in breach of International Law are you duty bound to obey that order?
One brave soldier.
Diuretic wrote: A lawful order isn't a matter of perception at all, it's an objective matter. He's an officer, he knows what's lawful and what's not lawful. Being ordered to go to Iraq isn't an unlawful order. Being ordered to murder a civilian child is an unlawful murder. He gets to refuse the unlawful order, he doesn't get to refuse the lawful order.
I think he's being a bit precious. He's a soldier. Soldiers kill people, it's their job. I think he may have known that before he joined but if he didn't I'm sure that he was told about it some time during his training.
His argument, obvoiusly, is that the war is unlawful therefore the order to take part is also unlawful.
What constitutes a lawful order is, at the time of that order, usually a matter of perception because very few people know army regs, their national law and international law in sufficient detail to make an objective judgement.
It might well be an objective matter when the courts have finished adjudicating the case but not before.
I think he's being a bit precious. He's a soldier. Soldiers kill people, it's their job. I think he may have known that before he joined but if he didn't I'm sure that he was told about it some time during his training.
His argument, obvoiusly, is that the war is unlawful therefore the order to take part is also unlawful.
What constitutes a lawful order is, at the time of that order, usually a matter of perception because very few people know army regs, their national law and international law in sufficient detail to make an objective judgement.
It might well be an objective matter when the courts have finished adjudicating the case but not before.
One brave soldier.
LilacDragon wrote:
The orders to go to Iraq are most certainly legal. The soldier doesn't get to decide if the battle is moral - that lies with the President and Congress. Now, if his commander ordered him to go and shoot up an orphanage - that would be an illegal order and he could refuse to do that.
Sorry, the President and Congress might decide to start a war but that does not, in itself, make it legal.
The orders to go to Iraq are most certainly legal. The soldier doesn't get to decide if the battle is moral - that lies with the President and Congress. Now, if his commander ordered him to go and shoot up an orphanage - that would be an illegal order and he could refuse to do that.
Sorry, the President and Congress might decide to start a war but that does not, in itself, make it legal.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One brave soldier.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Sorry, the President and Congress might decide to start a war but that does not, in itself, make it legal.Of course it does. What higher written law exists above that of a sovreign nation?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One brave soldier.
Scrat wrote: He has not been convicted of a crime yet so that must make the above only an opinion.He's confessed to the crime.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One brave soldier.
Scrat wrote: This is his statement. This is not a criminal act, he was sworn to uphold the constitution not take part in an unjust occupation that is basically making America the laughing stock of the world.
He is sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is not his place to decide who or how or when. He signed those rights away.
He is sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is not his place to decide who or how or when. He signed those rights away.
One brave soldier.
Accountable wrote: Of course it does. What higher written law exists above that of a sovreign nation?
The Internatioonal Court of Law, the Hague Conventions, international trearies signed by that Soverign Nation
When a Soverign Nation interacts with another nation then that interaction is not covered solely by the laws of one nation.
The Internatioonal Court of Law, the Hague Conventions, international trearies signed by that Soverign Nation
When a Soverign Nation interacts with another nation then that interaction is not covered solely by the laws of one nation.
-
LilacDragon
- Posts: 1382
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:23 am
One brave soldier.
It is like this - when the Twin Towers fell in 2001 - anyone with a brain knew that at some point, in some way - our military was going to be involved with some type of conflict.
This man has been in the Army for 3 years. If he joined after the invasion - then he is at the very least - a hypocrit. Willing to accept a military commision while the military is involved in an "illegal" war. If he accepted his commision before the invasion - then he is a coward. Willing to accept a commision but unwilling to fight for his Commander In Chief.
So, my next question is ----- did he try to resign his commision before or after his unit got orders?
This man has been in the Army for 3 years. If he joined after the invasion - then he is at the very least - a hypocrit. Willing to accept a military commision while the military is involved in an "illegal" war. If he accepted his commision before the invasion - then he is a coward. Willing to accept a commision but unwilling to fight for his Commander In Chief.
So, my next question is ----- did he try to resign his commision before or after his unit got orders?
Sandi
One brave soldier.
LilacDragon wrote: It is like this - when the Twin Towers fell in 2001 - anyone with a brain knew that at some point, in some way - our military was going to be involved with some type of conflict.
WHY? You are fighting small (well, they were when you started) groups of terrorists intermingled with civilian populations. The millitary is almost the last people to involve if you want any chance of beating them!
LilacDragon wrote: This man has been in the Army for 3 years. If he joined after the invasion - then he is at the very least - a hypocrit. Willing to accept a military commision while the military is involved in an "illegal" war. If he accepted his commision before the invasion - then he is a coward. Willing to accept a commision but unwilling to fight for his Commander In Chief.
and if he joined before the declaration of "war" and was (and is) fully prepared to fight in any other conflict - say Afghanistan (although I consider that to be equally illegal). Then he is perfectly willing to fight for his CinC - just not in an illegal war which is what he is saying.
The fact that he sees the invasion of Iraq as against the laws and constitution of the USA and is prepared to stand up and say so does not make him a coward
WHY? You are fighting small (well, they were when you started) groups of terrorists intermingled with civilian populations. The millitary is almost the last people to involve if you want any chance of beating them!
LilacDragon wrote: This man has been in the Army for 3 years. If he joined after the invasion - then he is at the very least - a hypocrit. Willing to accept a military commision while the military is involved in an "illegal" war. If he accepted his commision before the invasion - then he is a coward. Willing to accept a commision but unwilling to fight for his Commander In Chief.
and if he joined before the declaration of "war" and was (and is) fully prepared to fight in any other conflict - say Afghanistan (although I consider that to be equally illegal). Then he is perfectly willing to fight for his CinC - just not in an illegal war which is what he is saying.
The fact that he sees the invasion of Iraq as against the laws and constitution of the USA and is prepared to stand up and say so does not make him a coward
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One brave soldier.
Bryn Mawr wrote: The Internatioonal Court of Law, the Hague Conventions, international trearies signed by that Soverign Nation
When a Soverign Nation interacts with another nation then that interaction is not covered solely by the laws of one nation.Again, not a decision to be made at his level.
When a Soverign Nation interacts with another nation then that interaction is not covered solely by the laws of one nation.Again, not a decision to be made at his level.
One brave soldier.
Accountable wrote: Again, not a decision to be made at his level.
Depends how well he knows his law.
People have been saying that if he was ordered to blow up a school he would be entitled, well, if he believes that the orders are illegal then he's entitled.
Depends how well he knows his law.
People have been saying that if he was ordered to blow up a school he would be entitled, well, if he believes that the orders are illegal then he's entitled.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One brave soldier.
Military law is beautiful in it's simplicity. He signed on to obey lawful orders. Lawful is very simply and clearly defined. He refuses to obey, he is in violation of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.
A man of the calibre he claims would proudly go to federal prison for his crime.
A man of the calibre he claims would proudly go to federal prison for his crime.
One brave soldier.
Accountable wrote: Military law is beautiful in it's simplicity. He signed on to obey lawful orders. Lawful is very simply and clearly defined. He refuses to obey, he is in violation of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.
A man of the calibre he claims would proudly go to federal prison for his crime.
He probably will - whether he wants to or not.
That says very little about the rights and wrongs of his stand though.
A man of the calibre he claims would proudly go to federal prison for his crime.
He probably will - whether he wants to or not.
That says very little about the rights and wrongs of his stand though.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One brave soldier.
Scrat wrote: I think from his point of view ... that the enemy is of a domestic nature. [...]
The gov't body is not the enemy, no matter how much you dislike it. Domesic enemies would fall in the Timothy McVea category.
The gov't body is not the enemy, no matter how much you dislike it. Domesic enemies would fall in the Timothy McVea category.
One brave soldier.
Diuretic wrote: Ignoratio non excusat lex - I would think he would be presumed to know the law.
Then from your last two replies you support his position?
From his knowledge of the law, which he is presumed to know and must obey, he has determined that the war is an illegal action. Given that it is an illegal action, if he shoots anyone during that war, even another soldier, he is committing murder.
So his only recource is to refuse the order and go before the Courts Marshal.
That appears to be exactly his position
Then from your last two replies you support his position?
From his knowledge of the law, which he is presumed to know and must obey, he has determined that the war is an illegal action. Given that it is an illegal action, if he shoots anyone during that war, even another soldier, he is committing murder.
So his only recource is to refuse the order and go before the Courts Marshal.
That appears to be exactly his position
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One brave soldier.
I predict nothing will happen to him at all. The US has become so fat, spoiled, and "sophisticated" that anyone that stands proudly and speaks loudly gets a pass, whether they are right or wrong.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One brave soldier.
Scrat wrote: He's an aspiring politician!!!:yh_rotfl
If you think about it this is a good way to get attention. I doubt he will get far though.:wah:
If you think about it this is a good way to get attention. I doubt he will get far though.:wah: