Federal Court rules in favour of U.S. war resister

[EagleSmack]

Sometimes. Other times, I can.

OOOOkaaaaay.

So you think a silly joke isn't to be taken literally but not the definitions of justice and legality. Yeah, I got that.

Has a gasket been blown? You ok?

 

[L Gilbert]

I'm doing well, thanks.

 

[EagleSmack]

Good then.

 

[Spade]

Only "lawful" orders must be obeyed by American soldiers.
A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders
Quote:
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

 

[Cliffy]

Division of ran separately with their own agenda, own investors and some Companies are strictly NG.

There is competition within the Corporate World.

You have a lot to learn about the natural resource,electric, chemical industries and how they squabble.

NG has been using greens to target oil and nuclear promoting NG as the hero that will save the planet from certain doom.

They (Corporations)are using you as a voluntary mouthpiece the same way they are using the gung-ho to go off to clear the way for their pipes, plants and wells.

They aren't right, left, up, down, green or red white and blue.

They use and manipulate everybody by creating societal rifts to create and have the greens, the gung-hos and the worker bees to do their bidding.

Oil is more valueable for chemicals than it is fuel but first you greenie weenies have to fight for the planet to get the bees pay for the NG switch over while gung-hos secure the delivery system and bee build and run it all.

I'm well aware of the divide and conquer tactics used by industry and governments. That is why I am not supportive of or a spokes person for any of them. I can skewer any and all of them.

 

[EagleSmack]

Only "lawful" orders must be obeyed by American soldiers.
A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders
Quote:
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

Thanks Spade!

 

[L Gilbert]

lol.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Only "lawful" orders must be obeyed by American soldiers.
A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders
Quote:
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

Thanks Spade!

So given the fact the US action in Iraq has been declared illegal (unlawful) by Koffi Annan and the UN is it not reasonable to assume ANY order to go there or partake in any mission there is an unlawful order and military personal are bound by the UCMJ to disobey?

 

[EagleSmack]

So given the fact the US action in Iraq has been declared illegal (unlawful) by Koffi Annan and the UN is it not reasonable to assume ANY order to go there or partake in any mission there is an unlawful order and military personal are bound by the UCMJ to disobey?

Last time I checked... Koffi Annan and the UN are not leaders of the United States.

Do you see the UN mentioned in that post that Spade so graciously provided for us?

So it is NOT reasonable to disobey orders to go to Iraq. Quite the opposite... which is why the deserters are in SO MUCH TROUBLE!

Clear enough?

 

[Colpy]

So given the fact the US action in Iraq has been declared illegal (unlawful) by Koffi Annan and the UN is it not reasonable to assume ANY order to go there or partake in any mission there is an unlawful order and military personal are bound by the UCMJ to disobey?

Who gives a crap WHAT Kofi Annan thinks??? Or the United Nations??

Ask the Rwandans how useful the UN is in general, and Kofi Annan in particular.

The UN declaring anything "illegal" has NO bearing in law in the USA or with the US military.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Last time I checked... Koffi Annan and the UN are not leaders of the United States.

Do you see the UN mentioned in that post that Spade so graciously provided for us?

So it is NOT reasonable to disobey orders to go to Iraq. Quite the opposite... which is why the deserters are in SO MUCH TROUBLE!

Clear enough?

So show me where in the constitution that the action in Iraq becomes legal. Is there some clause that dictates 'regime change' & war for oil is a constitutional mandate?

 

[EagleSmack]

So show me where in the constitution that the action in Iraq becomes legal. Is there some clause that dictates 'regime change' & war for oil is a constitutional mandate?

Move them goal posts!

You got PWNED so now you are just going to get silly.

NEXT!

 

[PoliticalNick]

Move them goal posts!

You got PWNED so now you are just going to get silly.

NEXT!

I'm just trying to determine how the action became determined to be lawful. If you can show me it is legal then I would agree these men are AWOL, if it cannot be proven to be lawful then they are acting under the UCMJ and disobeying unlawful orders. Is it really that hard for you to understand or can you not find something, anything, to make it a lawful action.

So here are the questions that require answers....
1) was it approved by congress?
2) was there a declaration of war?
3) is it constitutional? How?
4) what is the mandate/reason for being there?
5) is that mandate lawful?

I'm sure with your opinions you must know the answers and that you can prove it as a lawful action under US laws. Or can you?

 

[EagleSmack]

The Executive Office and Congress approved it... actions brought before the US Judiciary to stop it failed...

... and then there was war!

Those are our 3 bodies of government son... Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary.

Simple as that.

Sorry Charlie. The US does not need the UNs approval for going to war... nor yours.

Oh and they are no longer AWOL. They were AWOL until they hit the 30 Day mark. After that they became Deserters. Much harsher punishment for Deserters.

 

[taxslave]

You can't be serious TS.

A Dishonorable Discharge carries huge ramifications. Life long consequences. Basically they are felons. I do not know how it is up in Canada if you are discharged dishonorably but in the US they are finished. It goes on their record that will pop up whenever they apply for a job. All state, federal, municipal jobs are closed. All veterans benefits are denied, they cannot ever vote, nor have a firearms permit, getting a loan is almost impossible. Oh man... I wouldn't want one.

You really do live in a seriously fukked up country.

 

[EagleSmack]

You really do live in a seriously fukked up country.

That's the way we roll baaaaaby!

Thanks Dude!

 

[CDNBear]

I myself signed up in the 80s. I worked hard and trained harder (including jump school). I was promoted twice in 2 years. I was then asked to go to Bosnia as, shall we say, an investigator. While their I learned many things and saw many things most of which was sickening but when I reported to my superiors it was swept under the rug multiple times or redacted or even changed completely. I cannot give you details of who was involved and what went on for a few reasons but mainly because it is part of an agreement that allowed me to leave our forces early. I chose to leave early because I could not be a part of what was happening and live with myself. It took some doing but I managed to secure an early release without getting myself, and others, in the brig for a long period. To this day I have mixed feeling about the military, I am proud I joined and was successful but ashamed of the things I was a party to. It is not all black & white my friend and it is not at all like you see in the movies. The poor schlep in the article served 15 months overseas before he decided he could no longer be a part of it.

The Mexicans don't know about Canada yet. Lookout when they do.

They already know about Ontario.

I chit chat with them at the local NoFrills when they're here during the summer and fall.

So what if they are avoiding committing war crimes? No-one swears an oath to be a criminal or do inhumane things. No-one deserves even a 'slap-on-the-wrist' or prison or really even a dishonorable discharge for refusing to do such things oath or not. Your apparent inflexibility seems to show a lack of understanding of the situation. Participating in an illegal war is a breech of the GC and a crime under international law. These men have every right to refuse without threat of punishment or persecution.

Your posts show a serious lack of understanding, so much so I question any claims of actual service.

In the US Armed Forces, just as it is in the Canadian Armed Forces, you can refuse to obey unlawful orders. Even in basic we were tested on this. It's actually quite simple to do. You say no, and you move up the chain of command, all the way to JAG if need be.

There'd have to be a big giant conspiracy for you not to find a reasonable CO in field and even if there was, you could fight your case from your cell, so be it. And considering we train with the understanding that people die in combat, sitting in a cell pushing your case forward, really is quite minor.

That's the way we roll baaaaaby!

Thanks Dude!

Semper Fi bru!!!

This coming from the pedophile who likes diddle little boys?

You really are an unmitigated scumbag.

 

[Niflmir]

I wasn't avoiding anything. There is a big difference between you LG making up rules than a body of government making up rules. The deserter knew the rules before hand what would happen if he deserted.

Knowing the rules before you break them in no way makes the punishment deserved.

We like to point out the barbarism of Iran by pointing out how they treat homosexuals, but by your logic, EagleSmack, they knew what the punishment was before they had sex.

If a person takes an honest look at the war in Iraq, they can easily conclude it was a war of aggression. In that case, even the Iraqi soldiers were innocents. If a person truly believes that, how could such a person go to fight in the Iraq war, and what officer is going to accept such a refusal? Escape is the only choice for such a person.

People sign up with the illusion that they will protect their country, when it turns out that they are going to be a mere paid killer, it is normal to feel it is not what they signed up for.

 

[CDNBear]

We like to point out the barbarism of Iran by pointing out how they treat homosexuals, but by your logic, EagleSmack, they knew what the punishment was before they had sex.

Not really.

The two aren't really comparable.

 

[Niflmir]

Not really.

The two aren't really comparable.

The two are both examples of the stated principle:

Knowing the punishment in no way makes the punishment deserved.

If you deny this principle and insist that knowing the punishment before committing the crime in fact makes you deserve the punishment then you have to also say that gays in Iran deserve to be executed.

Either the punishment fits or it does not; knowing what the punishment is in no way automatically makes it fit.

I mean, look how easy it is:

The deserter knew the rules before hand what would happen if he deserted.

The rule breaker knew the rules before hand what would happen if he broke the rule.

The gay knew the rules before hand what would happen if he had sex.