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

[SLM]

Thanks SLM. I figured I just let it go before she "paraphased" me anymore... but thanks

If what she attributed to me as my quote (below) which was actually hers it SHOULD be a TOS.


Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack

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

My first thought when I read the above "quoted" words were "There is no way that EagleSmack said that." When I read further and found the paraphrasing "defense" quite frankly it rather pissed me off.

There is a world of difference between "paraphrasing" and "quoting"; to paraphrase is indeed altering the words of another, usually to enhance clarification, quoting is verbatim. Mixing the two up is a really bad idea. Whether it is specifically mentioned in TOS or not, I have a feeling it would not go over too well. I know that FIFY is not regarded that highly, but at least in those situations the acronym is posted to indicate that the words in the quotation have indeed been changed. There was no such indication here.

Bottom line to me is that, on here, the only thing we have is our words. We cannot use any other methods to communicate with one another, body language, pitch in voice, nothing. Just our words. So the way I look at it, our words as written and posted by each of us, should be sacrosanct. It is extremely presumptuous, to my way of thinking, to alter those words regardless of the purpose for doing so.

 

[Locutus]

If members want to play the FIFY game, have at it, but be sure to highlight the altered text or alert us to it. But do not surreptitiously change a members' words when you include their original quote. That type of underhandedness will be dealt with with a little time in the closet or cooler. Your choice.


We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

 

[The Old Medic]

Just what Canada needs, another round of American cowards!

 

[L Gilbert]

Not really.

The two aren't really comparable.

My example of Hitler's war efforts was even closer to this.
I'll state it again; Hitler made murdering gypsies, Jews, etc. legal, and if one of his soldiers bucked the orders to carry out those murders, he'd be up on charges (if he was lucky enough not to get shot on the spot). There was no justice in those charges, though.

I might add, though, Niflmir, you picked a bit of a sloppy example in that homosexuality thing in Iran with which to highlight your point.

 

[taxslave]

So you're smarter than everyone there huh?

A prospective vendor tried using that "oxymoron" joke while doing a presentation. He went red when nobody laughed everyone looked at me and one of my colleagues as we are both vets. It was funny watching him try to back out of it. Joke was on him in the end.

Way smarter than any of the officers and sr. NCo's I worked with. Canadian army does not promote on merit like the US. Speaking French is more important than above room temp IQ. Just one example: They had me through out a NEW jet refueling hose because the physical count did not match the computer. Value aprox$3000. How smart is that?

 

[EagleSmack]

Way smarter than any of the officers and sr. NCo's I worked with. Canadian army does not promote on merit like the US. Speaking French is more important than above room temp IQ. Just one example: They had me through out a NEW jet refueling hose because the physical count did not match the computer. Value aprox$3000. How smart is that?

Not smart at all. Could you sell it on e-bay?

 

[L Gilbert]

lol.

 

[CDNBear]

So let's just consider what is the contract? What is the person volunteering for? they volunteer to 'DEFEND' the country....

U.S. Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment

ES dispatched your post already, so I'll leave it at that.

These are all examples of the exact same principle I am trying to argue. I cannot even begin to deal with the actual argument that you are trying to change EagleSmack's words into until you agree to the basic principle: knowledge of a punishment does not make the punishment deserved.

It depends.

You say it depends, but this is the same as denying it.

No it isn't.

That is why I start with easy examples where there is no contract. It can easily be changed: Rosa Parks knew she would have to sit at the back of the bus when she bought the ticket. She voluntarily accepted those terms when she bought the ticket. Yet you say she didn't deserve it?

Of course, because the by law was abhorrent.

You want to elevate the military to something beyond the law.

No I don't.

The military operates on a different level. It has to.

I know that the rule of law has been kicked around, beaten and broken for decades, but at least admit that you want a two tier justice system.

Whether I want it or not is irrelevant, it already exists. Civilian jurisdiction, military jurisdiction.

On a battle field, there may be extenuating circumstances, off it there are none.

In the military, following orders is important.

Hence the differing judicial system.

My example of Hitler's war efforts was even closer to this.

Not really.

 

[L Gilbert]

Not really.

That's what ES said, too. But no-one's offered an opinion of what the differences are yet.
I mean besides the obvious ones like that the US war machine isn't the same as the Third Reich, doesn't use German as its main language, uses different weaponry, is based in a different part of the planet, etc.

 

[EagleSmack]

No I don't.

The military operates on a different level. It has to.

Whether I want it or not is irrelevant, it already exists. Civilian jurisdiction, military jurisdiction.

.

I missed that one Bear. I remember a Marine Reservist trying to plead that he was still entitled to the rights of a civillian when he decided to bail on his unit before Desert Storm. I got a chuckle out of it.

When you volunteer for the Armed Services you give up MANY rights and are absolutely held under a different jurisdiction... a stricter one at that.

 

[L Gilbert]

I missed that one Bear. I remember a Marine Reservist trying to plead that he was still entitled to the rights of a civillian when he decided to bail on his unit before Desert Storm. I got a chuckle out of it.

When you volunteer for the Armed Services you give up MANY rights and are absolutely held under a different jurisdiction... a stricter one at that.

I agree with that part. As I said before, I have no issues about the desertion being illegal.

 

[CDNBear]

That's what ES said, too. But no-one's offered an opinion of what the differences are yet.

That's simple.

What we're discussing here is...

Desertion, which is what you're charged with for voluntarily abandoning your post, and been AWOL more than 30 days.

Abandoning ones post is a serious offense for a multiple of reason. I can list them if you really need me to.

What you want to compare it to is something that isn't Constitutional in the States. Therefore it would be an unlawful order.

I missed that one Bear. I remember a Marine Reservist trying to plead that he was still entitled to the rights of a civillian when he decided to bail on his unit before Desert Storm. I got a chuckle out of it.

When you volunteer for the Armed Services you give up MANY rights and are absolutely held under a different jurisdiction... a stricter one at that.

You have to forgive some civilians, they just don't understand what it is to serve, and what is necessary to maintain good order in the face of battle.

And that isn't meant as an insult to anyone.

 

[L Gilbert]

That's simple.

What we're discussing here is...

Desertion, which is what you're charged with for voluntarily abandoning your post, and been AWOL more than 30 days.

Ayuh. Got that. I guess you haven't read much of what I posted earlier.

Abandoning ones post is a serious offense for a multiple of reason. I can list them if you really need me to.

Got that part, too.

What you want to compare it to is something that isn't Constitutional in the States. Therefore it would be an unlawful order.

Um, we are talking about the Iraqi war here. Specifically, a war that was not justified.
Consitutionally?
https://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=o...pw.r_qf.&fp=64d4a585716470bd&biw=1899&bih=968

As I said, Hitler made it legal to murder people and illegal to refuse his orders. He was not justified in doing so, however. I still se no difference.

You have to forgive some civilians, they just don't understand what it is to serve, and what is necessary to maintain good order in the face of battle.

And that isn't meant as an insult to anyone.

Hope you're not including me in that group.

 

[CDNBear]

Um, we are talking about the Iraqi war here. Specifically, a war that was not justified.
Consitutionally?
https://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=o...pw.r_qf.&fp=64d4a585716470bd&biw=1899&bih=968

That's a matter of debate and not what you originally forwarded.

The parameters of a combat role are very clear about legitimate targets.

Changing that to include specific groups that are not combatants, is unlawful, unconstitutional, and disobeying them righteous.

Abandoning ones post, instead of following procedure, is actionable.

Hope you're not including me in that group.

I didn't have you in mind, no.

 

[EagleSmack]

That's what ES said, too. But no-one's offered an opinion of what the differences are yet.
I mean besides the obvious ones like that the US war machine isn't the same as the Third Reich, doesn't use German as its main language, uses different weaponry, is based in a different part of the planet, etc.

Honestly... why should we touch this. You're saying the invasion of Iraq is the same as Hitler's Germany killing jews gypsies etc. Am I right?

Um, we are talking about the Iraqi war here. Specifically, a war that was not justified.
Consitutionally?
https://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=o...pw.r_qf.&fp=64d4a585716470bd&biw=1899&bih=968

.

Well that is what people say who are/were opposed to the war... but it was Constitutional whether you wanted the war or not.

What judicial body declared the war unconstitutional?

 

[L Gilbert]

That's a matter of debate and not what you originally forwarded.
The parameters of a combat role are very clear about legitimate targets.

Changing that to include specific groups that are not combatants, is unlawful, unconstitutional, and disobeying them righteous.

Abandoning ones post, instead of following procedure, is actionable.

What I said from the begiinning is that the deserter is likely guilty as hell, but there may be no justice in charging him for deserting because the war was not justifiable.
(Then there was this long period of watching ES dance around with his idea that legalities and justice are the same thing).

I didn't have you in mind, no.

Coolness. I followed my orders even though they weren't military ones. Had good captains all through my career.

 

[earth_as_one]

I understand LJ's point clearly. Soldiers can refuse orders which are war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. He gave an extreme example. No he never claimed it was the same or equally bad.

But this American conscientious objector got to stay because the Canadian judge who reviewed the case decided "he would not get a fair trial if returned because the U.S. court-martial system is not an independent and impartial tribunal as required under Canadian and International law."

The decision wasn't a judgement on the Iraq war so much as an judgement of the U.S. court martial system.

 

[CDNBear]

What I said from the begiinning is that the deserter is likely guilty as hell, but there may be no justice in charging him for deserting because the war was not justifiable.

OK, I hear ya...

Although I still disagree.

Coolness. I followed my orders even though they weren't military ones. Had good captains all through my career.

Very cool.

 

[taxslave]

Not smart at all. Could you sell it on e-bay?

Nope. had to cut it up into 3 ft pieces and put them in a barrel so it could be properly disposed of.

 

[L Gilbert]

Honestly... why should we touch this. You're saying the invasion of Iraq is the same as Hitler's Germany killing jews gypsies etc. Am I right?

Jeeezez, look past the specifics willya? No, I am not calling Jr. Bushy "Hitler" or saying the circumstances are identical. I am saying the underlying principles are very similar.

Well that is what people say who are/were opposed to the war...

And the people that were for the war disagree. So what? Personally, I think it depends upon whether you think Bushy & Co. were feeding the public and Congress a pile of gooseshyte or not. I think they were.

but it was Constitutional whether you wanted the war or not.

What judicial body declared the war unconstitutional?

Who says? Just because it wasn't contested, doesn't mean that it was Constitutional.
What it looks like to me is that Congress simply voted on the resolution to end its decision-making in the process thereby transferring ALL responsibility to the prez (or at least trying to). Congress passed the buck in spite of the fact that the decision on whether to send the country into war or not IS entirely up to it.