lets see just how high on the liberal pedastal this guy is put on.....

can you imagine....an officer in the military who refuses to go to war and then talks down his boss............
he belongs in the stockade and not in the news...


of course I am sure that he would be first in line for gi bill or veteran benefits or college tuition or free dental care .....

I am against the war, and yet today we have a VOLUNTEER army. Fry the guy for all I care.

Once in a great while the dog refuses to eat the crumbs falling from the master's table and jumps up and takes want he wants.

May some others in our mercenary army follow suit.

am sure that he would be first in line for gi bill or veteran benefits or college tuition or free dental care .....

Of course, he probably thinks the benefits are owed to him without even working for it....

The problem with this is, too many people who join today think the military is a "I have a voice in this" type situation. While the military encourages you to have an opinion, and to sometimes question a particular order, when the president gives you an order, it is like the people themselves have given that order. You just dont question it. The military should not, and is not, a forum for people who joined voluntarily to question every mission and every order. You pledge to give your life for country, for honor, for your friends. In return, you get the respect of the nation, and possibly a good paycheck. You are supposed to do it for selfless service, for a higher calling than yourself. Today, people are just too wishy washy. Too quick to quit when the heat in the kitchen gets too hot. A measure of character is in deeds done, not in talk of action. This officer, IMHO, is showing that when courage is needed, he cannot be counted on. He shows disrespect for the office of the president, and disrespect to the nation. The liberals and conservatives on this site can question the president if they please, but those of us who wear these ACU's just do not have that luxury when the time comes to action. This is just not honorable. Those of you who disagree with me know I stand to my issues. But one thing you do know, that when it comes time for me to give my life for you, even if I dont agree with the reason, I will be there, and I wont be late.....

The Army Values...

Loyalty
Duty
Respect
Selfless Service
Honor
Integrity
Personal Courage

These are Values our conduct here in the Army is founded on...We can NEVER waiver in these....

boaz and member......bravo........


turnleft.....your kind of comments make me think.....no....make me KNOW that you dont deserve the sacrifice of these brave people who risk thier life for your freedom........and they are the people who this fuckwad has shit on....and they should be the ones who decide what happens to him.........

and they should be the ones who decide what happens to him

Good thing about it, Bush,

It will be officers on his board....He can get on his soap box with them...and rest assured they will know the meaning of the army values, not the bending and flexing values of today's society..

May some others in our mercenary army follow suit.

Posted by TurnLeftb42late at 2006-07-11 08:05 AM | Reply


Do you fancy yourself a rebel? Anarchist?

if he REALLY belives that and he isnt just trying to pull chains.......then he is another example of liberals who will support ANY issue no matter how far left or wacked out it is........and I am not sure that it really matters if they agree with it or not....if its a looney left thing, then they are for it.......

If we still had the draft and if this guy had been drafted, I would be cheering him on. As it is, he volunteered for this and what did he think was going to happen if he entered the ARMY? Hello? No, I am not at all sympathetic to his plight. Let him sit in a stockade for 7 years.

The headline is misleading this officer didn't show direct "contempt" for Bush.

What he is on trial for is dereliction of duty. He disobeyed a lawful order for deployment given by a superior officer acting on the policy developed by the Commander in Chief, the President.

And for that the Lieutenant should lose his commission and be thrown in jail for at least 10 years.

What did Ehren Watada think he joined when he joined the US Army? Perhaps he thought he was signing up for the Peace Corp, Americorp or Green Peace?

Ehren Watada joined a killing machine. An entity whose sole purpose is to kill the enemy and destroy the enemy's ability to wage war. I think somewhere ole Ehren missed that part of the recruiter's message.

If Ehren would like to decide which war he thinks is a "justified war" for the US Army to fight, maybe he should run for POTUS.

They should fry this whiney little girl.

Stopthebox,

If we had a supportive public that thought more like you and didnt restrain public policy, Iraq would be tame by now....

Applause, Applause......

"If we had a supportive public that thought more like you and didnt restrain public policy, Iraq would be tame by now...."


Yeah
The Sunnis and Shia would all be singing kumbaya.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

What absolute horseshit.

Commander Data,

If all the Sunnis were either dead or in prison camps, Boaz is right on.

........the attack on Iraq was a war-crime.......Watada is in agreement with the majority of Americans.......I salute his courage.................

..............people are astounded that we are hated around the world, but the fact is that much of the world sees our occupation of Iraq the same way they saw Russia's occupation of Poland or China's occupation of Tibet............our War Criminal in Chief has made us into loathed pariahs................( and please no WMD lies, and no there were no terrorists in Iraq before we let them in )..............

Courage my ass. What Watada is displaying is cowardice in the face of the duty he swore to uphold. Watada's actions fit the classical definition of COWARDICE.

........the attack on Iraq was a war-crime.......Watada is in agreement with the majority of Americans.......I salute his courage.................

Posted by skizziks at 2006-07-11 09:12 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e



no data.....here is your horseshit......

and this bozo also does not deserve to have the american soldier fighting for his right to spew this garbage but thats the way it is......and I guess it is as it was meant to be from our founders...they just didnt expect that a public school education could come to this kind of a conclusion........

Skis
If the majority believe it is a war crime why have they not tried to impeach the President for said war crimes?

Besides it is spot on, that this guy is not being tried for speaking out, but for refusing to deploy with his unit. With the men and women who he trained with and as an officer would have been looked to to give leadership and guidance. I am with Boaz on this one, good thing the Army administers their own justice otherwise he might have gotten away with this.

Skizziks,

The US Amry found WMDs in Iraq.

Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal, both known international terrorists, were in Baghdad before the war started.

Using Larry Mohr slang, WRONG! Do try again again. Nexxxxxxttttttt.

people are astounded that we are hated around the world, but the fact is that much of the world sees our occupation of Iraq the same way they saw Russia's occupation of Poland or China's occupation of TibetPosted by skizziks at 2006-07-11 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag



ooooooo I was waiting on something like this.......sure they are......

and I will agree with you if you can name me ONE NAME...just one name of someone we all know...or who you just know even...
just the name of one person who fled the west and escape to anywhere in the middle east because of the repressive western governnment....doesnt even have to be the us....name me someone who fled from canada to make a better life for his family in oh say...somewhere in the sudan maybe or how about anywhere in the middle east......please...come on tell us.....

Jeff,
How is the order to deploy with your unit an unlawful order? Explain to me where in the UCMJ a soldier can say I refuse to go anywhere. Soldiers go on unaccompanied tours all the time, if as a soldier, you just have to not like the order for it to be unlawful what control would any commander have? The military is not a democracy, it is there so the rest of the population can enjoy one. And as many have pointed out he raised his hand and joined on his own.

If all the Sunnis were either dead or in prison camps, Boaz is right on.

Thank you Lurchy for finally slithering out of your shell and showing us all what a cretin you really are! So genocide and forced imprisonment are the keys to "winning" Iraq? Well, go tell your glorious leader. I'm sure he's never thought of it.

That sentence may be the most reprehensible verbage I've ever encountered on this blog, and that says something. You are a vile, evil man without a conscious, and certainly no soul. Spare us your demented utterances and crawl back in the hell that must be your life. You are sick beyond words. And don't even try to say it was hyperbole. You meant every word.

There were more terrorists in Canada, Spain and England then there were in Iraq before the war.........we were attacked by Saudis on 9/11, not Iraqis........The Islamists were an enemy of Saddam. Please do not continue to propogate those lies...........as for courage..........this man Watada is not a coward .............he has the courage to stand up to the whole U.S. Army, the President included.......that takes more courage than that draft-dodging Chickenhawn in Chief ever showed......

bushlover
****and I will agree with you if you can name me ONE NAME...just one name of someone we all know..****

Kim Philby

...you said just one........

Ski,
Having problems following your logic. It is courageous to disobey orders. It is courageous to go to jail. It is courageous to leave the platoon that counted on you as a leader right before they go into battle. Please explain this to me.

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.

Could you armchair military types please stop posting things that you know NOTHING about?

Any order, regardless of how you feel about it, DOES COMPLY WITH THE UCMJ when it comes from the president. A military officer DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to disobey an order from a lawful superior. What he does have the right to do, is challenge that order, AFTER HE HAS CARRIED OUT THE ORDER, with superiors GREATER THAN THE OFFICER WHO GAVE THE OFFENDING ORDER. That is why commanders are responsible for the orders that they give...

Please people, this officer is WRONG, regardless of how you look at he, and he knows it. Take it from a commander who just gave up command of an active duty unit, I know the UCMJ....

Mohawk

Following orders takes no courage.
Making a principled stand that the orders are illegal.....and then standing up to the whole army, throwing away your career as an officer, knowing that you will likely wind up in jail.......that takes more guts than having your father pull strings to get you in the Alabama national guard to avoid going to Viet Nam.

He Swore An Oath And It Is His Duty !!

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


"I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me"

He Is Fully Obligated To Deploy And He Is Displaying A Lack Of Leadership.

When You Receive An Order You Disagree With You Have A Chain Of Command And Legal Avenues To Follow.

You Don't Disobey An Order, I State And Will State This Again, I Disagree With The President But I Will Take A Full Burst Of 7.62 mm For Him.

-Sarge

That sentence may be the most reprehensible verbage I've ever encountered on this blog, and that says something. You are a vile, evil man without a conscious, and certainly no soul. Spare us your demented utterances and crawl back in the hell that must be your life. You are sick beyond words. And don't even try to say it was hyperbole. You meant every word.

Thank you! Thank you! Ohhh please stop! You are much too kind!!!

Tony,

If you have not figured it out yet, the way you win wars is by killing the enemy and breaking their will. Ask the faux fly boy, he will tell you. The Sunnis are responsible for much of the blood shed in Iraq right now.

BTW...I saw this freak Professor on Hannity and Coma last night talking about the controlled destruction of the WTC. Tony, you would have loved it. This freak was right up your ally.

BTW,

Jeff in Denmark,

No disrespect intended...

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.

Could you armchair military types please stop posting things that you know NOTHING about?

Any order, regardless of how you feel about it, DOES COMPLY WITH THE UCMJ when it comes from the president. A military officer DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to disobey an order from a lawful superior. What he does have the right to do, is challenge that order, AFTER HE HAS CARRIED OUT THE ORDER, with superiors GREATER THAN THE OFFICER WHO GAVE THE OFFENDING ORDER. That is why commanders are responsible for the orders that they give...

Please people, this officer is WRONG, regardless of how you look at he, and he knows it. Take it from a commander who just gave up command of an active duty unit, I know the UCMJ....

"Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions, which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve gas."

* Note Not Referenced To As "WMD" In The Classified Report Waved In front Of TV Cameras

-Sarge

Mohawk,
The issue isnt deployment. The issue is the war itself.

The war is illegal, based on lies and trumpt up charges.

Stopthebox,

If we had a supportive public that thought more like you and didnt restrain public policy, Iraq would be tame by now....


Applause, Applause......

Even Better If More Like You Would Join And We Make The Army Recruiting Goal This October.

-Sarge

Sarge
***You Don't Disobey An Order, I State And Will State This Again, I Disagree With The President But I Will Take A Full Burst Of 7.62 mm For Him.***

I admire the nobility of your sentiment, but it dates from the time of Royalty, when the Churches had people convinced that Royals had the "Divine Rights of Kings" and plebians should lay down their lives at the whim of Royalty. We are a nation founded on laws and equality. When the police are found to be corrupt,when a mayor, a congressman or the President, is found to be acting outside of the law, they must be brought to account. Lay down your life for your country when needed, but to die so that Halliburton can get a reconstruction contract ?.........that is not your, mine, or Watada's obligation.............men do not reach for greatness but have it thrust upon them.......Watada has more integrity than the entire Administration including the Chickenhawk-in-
Chief...............

If you have not figured it out yet, the way you win wars is by killing the enemy and breaking their will.

And every person of a particular ethnic group deserves to be labeled as disposable in the balance? What you recommend is genocide, not any usable tactic for winning a war. Even you know the difference.

"If we had a supportive public that thought more like you and didnt restrain public policy, Iraq would be tame by now...."

Total thoughtless bullshit. What would public support do to force Iraqis into following our orders? What has Bush asked the public to sacrifice in order to help the war effort anyway? He hasn't asked for anything because it may hurt him politically to ask for sacrifices. And he doesn't care enough to risk it. He doesn't want the public to be inconvenienced in the least.

And why should the public support a war that only works against us anyway? Iraq will be much more of threat five years from now than it ever was under Saddam. And people died and we wasted billions to make that happen. If the reason we were given for invading has been proven untrue (WMD), what kind of a moron supports in anyway?

I've given money towards sending care packages to servicemen in Iraq. But when I hear from people like Boaz who have contempt for the American public, I want to tell them "Well if you want to go to Iraq to fight a war for no reason then you should pay your own way because this ain't doing shit towards helping the US in any way." I just have to remind myself that people like Boaz only claim to speak for all of our people over there.

He Is Violating:

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


890. ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.

Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or

(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.



It Is His Responsibility And He Must Uphold The Honor Of The Military As And Officer.

He Has Every Right To Contest But He Must Follow Orders.

-Sarge

George Bush and his daddy used their contacts to get him a spot in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam. When he was transferred to the Alabama Air National Guard he never showed up to complete his military commitment to the United States. Now I have no problem with Georgie or "I had other priorities" five deferment Dicky, getting out of going to the war crime in Vietnam, but to grow up and strong arm your way into the CIA to fix intelligence and to deceive a country and play on its fears to lead us into another war crime is inexcusable and cowardly.

In no way am I versed in the UCMJ, but I thought the whole purpose of the Numerberg Trials and those in Japan after WWII, was to make certain that soldiers would be held responsible for following the immoral/illegal orders of their superiors.

So if what you are saying is that all US military personnel must follow the orders of a superior even if the orders are illegal, how does this jibe with laws relating to rules of engagement?

skizziks,

This is all in the Constitution which is You And I, The Founding Fathers Were So Far Away From Royalty And is The Reason The Opposed The Other King George.


"I,do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

It Clearly States The "Constitution Of The United States" Not The President.

Per The Constitution Congress En-powers The President And Can Not Act Without Their Approval.

-Sarge

I've Been Through 5 Administrations 2 Were Total Fuck Ups, this Being One Of The 2.

Administrations Come And Go And You Grin And Bear It For 4-8 Years.

You Adapt And Overcome Adversity, Lawful Orders Are Outlined In the Geneva Convention When It Come To Military Action.

On Every US Military Members ID Card States The Type Of Geneva Convention Combatant you Are And That You Are In Compliance.

-Sarge

Bushlover,

I am repeating your post because I didn't see it until now and it is way up there and way out there too.

"turnleft.....your kind of comments make me think.....no....make me KNOW that you don't deserve the sacrifice of these brave people who risk their life for your freedom........and they are the people who this fuckwad has shit on....and they should be the ones who decide what happens to him........."

It's their leaders who don't deserve their sacrifice and don't really care that much about happens to them because THEY DON'T HAVE TO MAKE ANY THEMSELVES!

We pay them a little bit and throw them out there to die.

Oh, how different this would be if we had the draft and you people HAD TO sacrifice your sons and daughters for the cause of keeping America fat and the billionaires richer.

Conduct Unbecoming

By Cindy Sheehan

I don't know Lt. Ehren Watada, but I know his mother and spoke at length with her back in May in Hawaii about how Ehren morally did not want to go to Iraq and how he was being harassed by other members of his unit for his beliefs that the war in Iraq was wrong and that he didn't want to kill innocent people for BushCo.

Ehren tried everything he could within regulations and legal means to be excused from going over to the war crime in Iraq and becoming a war criminal himself, nothing worked, so he refused to be deployed with his unit.

Today he was charged with missing movement, contempt towards officials and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman! Are they kidding me? Are they kidding the world and hiding behind an ancient code while they are pretending that anything about Iraq or our government is "gentlemanly?"

How about looking at the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, George Bush, for one? George Bush is a dry drunk who runs our country like he ran all of his failed businesses---with an attitude that if he screws up, his daddy, or his daddy's friends, will bail him out. He has already said that the problem of Iraq will be solved by "future presidents" which absolves and excuses him from cleaning up the murderous mess that he has made.

George Bush and his daddy used their contacts to get him a spot in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam. When he was transferred to the Alabama Air National Guard he never showed up to complete his military commitment to the United States. Now I have no problem with Georgie or "I had other priorities" five deferment Dicky, getting out of going to the war crime in Vietnam, but to grow up and strong arm your way into the CIA to fix intelligence and to deceive a country and play on its fears to lead us into another war crime is inexcusable and cowardly.

To also underscore what a "gentleman" our president is when he was asked about meeting with me when we were camped outside of his ranch, within spittin' distance, he said that he "had to get on with his life." How nice that George is able to get on with his life! Wish I had that option. It's so nice that George can "get on with his life" when he has sent so many off to lose theirs and steal the lives of others. George can be very flippant about it because he has no flesh and blood in harm's way and he never attends any funerals or allows any pictures of flag-draped coffins to offend his sensibilities so he can get on with his life bike riding or destroying the world.

Donald "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want" and he of the famous machine signed condolence letters, Rumsfeld is Lt. Watada's civilian leader in the Pentagon. Donny has constantly and consistently ignored advice for more troops from generals in the field and we can be sure that when he makes his unannounced visits to Iraq he travels in heavily armored vehicles and is far better protected then our troops even when he moves about DC. I have an idea! How about not sending our young people off to fight, die and kill innocents in an illegal and immoral war whether they are prepared or not!

We have already mentioned "5 Deferment Dick" and his Doctrine of the Insurgency Last Throes---what more can be said of the ungentlemanly conduct of our nation's shadow president? How about when he told Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont to go and "f**k" himself on the Senate floor? How about mistaking your best friend for a dove and shooting him in the face while allegedly intoxicated and waiting until 24 hours to report it so there would be no evidence of the intoxication? How about the coincidence of the company that he used to run being awarded billions of no-bid contracts in the Iraq war crime? Just his ever present sneer with the raising of one eye-brow as if he is incessantly smelling something awful is distinctly ungentlemanly!

There are so many examples of Ungentlemanly Conduct in BushCo that the examples could fill pages and pages. How about allowing the people of New Orleans to hang off of their houses while George plays guitar and eats birthday cake with John McCain? How about when Press Secretary Tony Snow was asked about the unnecessary and tragic number of 2500 when that casualty number was reached and he said, "It is only a number." How about all of the administration lying about mushroom clouds and terrorism in Iraq with colored pie charts and pointing sticks? The list goes on. The list goes on.

Everyone, male or female, in the Bush Regime should be charged with Ungentlemanly Conduct which is Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Lt. Watada should be set free and allowed to carry on with his life because it is also in the UCMJ that a soldier has a duty to disobey an unlawful order and from our own Constitution to international law, everything about Iraq is unlawful (UCMJ ART. 90-920).

Lt. Watada also took an oath to defend our country from all enemies "foreign and domestic" and one doesn't have to cross any international borders to find the enemies of freedom and of life that we all have to be defended from.

Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, Lt. Ehren Watada for doing your duty.

Sarge,

Just hypothetically.........if you were in the forces and given an illegal order...........what would you do ??

We are not talking specifics now....and I won't twist it to specifics........but what would you do ?

Even Better If More Like You Would Join And We Make The Army Recruiting Goal This October.

-faux fly boy

Meet me at the recruiting station of your choice and we will join together.

BTW...The only organization that has the authority to set the Army's recruiting goal is the US Congress. The US Congress sets only a fiscal year goal for the Army.

Your persistent confusion of monthly recruiter's benchmarks with the Congressionally set statutory fiscal recruiting goals, only further exposes you as a clown.

Kim Philby

...you said just one........

Posted by skizziks at 2006


you will have to be more specific..... I wasnt referring to draft dodgers or the like.......

The Lieutenant VOLUNTEERED for the Army. This means he was not knocked out in a hillbilly bar and subsequently transported to a military base and stuffed into an officer's uniform. He's wrong.

When he is separated from the military, then he can call George Bush a dry-drunk, ADD-afflicted, draft-dodger, but NOT before. Thank you.

Skizziks,

I'd Advise the higher Chain of Command.

-Sarge

Ski,
So disobeying an order to deploy is in your opinion courageous and just following orders, like say to take out a machine gun that is mowing down your squad does not take courage, pure your following orders is not courageous.

As Boaz and Sarge both stated there is a way in which someone can question an order which they think to be illegal. Refusing to follow an order is not how you do that.

Jeff,
the person who does not get this is you because a soldier does not have the right to decide if a war is legal or illegal just as he can't decide he doesn't want to go to Iraq as his orders state.
"I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me" This officer swore this oath.
Again as I said before the military is not a democracy. It's job is to ensure the rest of the people enjoy a democracy.

And the first thing you offer with your democratic freedoms provided by everyone who has worn a uniform is to slam them with the freedom of speech their service gives you.

***********IF BUSHCO LIVED THE LIE*************By Elmore Leonard

The bull dyke swaggered into the tent from the dusty yard. She held her M16 like a phallus, resting the butt of it in her crotch and stroking the barrell with her left hand. Behind her came two drunk, muffin topped killers, with rolls of fleshy midriffs poking out beneath their body armour.
The greenhorns were in awe. The bull dyke took a long toke on her cigar and flipped into the face of a greenhorn.
"Ready to die ?"
The greenhorn was silent, nothing in her infantry training prepared her for this.
The bull dyke laughed, " You'll be ok kid, just stick with me, I'm here to fight for my country, my dad, and your crotch, welcome to the snapper regiment"

Behind her, the two drunks had already found their stashed bottles and were swigging Johnny Walker straight from the bottle. The crazy one said " Man, I musta killed me fifty or sixty rag-heads....then my machine gun overheated and jammed......thanks, sis, for taking out that nest.....they woulda got me for sure."
Now the greenhorns noticed a slight family resemblance in the drunks....the second drunk said " I need a man, I have'nt been fucked since this morning and I got the need......hey Jenna, lets go down to the road-block, I noticed this hunky camel jockey who lives near there...maybe we can fuck the guy, waste anybody who gets in the way. Mary can stay here with her stash of snappers but I need dick."
"Lemme finish the bottle then we can go........"

Silly Abacus Box Boy Learn Something I Thought Numbers Were Your Job?

Can You Write That In English?

-General

Mohawk

Taking a moral position that contradicts authority, takes more guts than submitting to it. The Emperor Has No Clothes and Watada has called him on it.

Here at the school where I am stationed, I just witness a Saudi officer promoted. Attending are american officers, United Arab Emirates officers and presided by an Egyptian Colonel. I was blessed to be a part of this cerimony and it just reaffirmed why I am in the military. Some of you on this blog have no clue what it means to be military and you have no clue how we are perceived by other countries militaries, especially those of muslim countries....with whom, I currently serve...

The officer whom this current blog is about, has put dishonor on his own military, as well as the allies I am currently sitting with, congraduating an officer from a foreign military on his promotion...and a muslim nation no doubt..

Skis,
Deploying is not an order that is illegal.

If an order were illegal or a safety issue there are ways to handle it through the chain of command. As an example I used to fly. One night I was flying with the company commander. We were going to our third aircraft because the first two had failed a portion of the preflight inspection. He had forgotten his checklist in the second aircraft and sent me to get it. He continued to inspect the aircraft without his preflight checklist. By the time I got there he was starting the engines before I had gotten in the aircraft. At the end of the runway he did the take-off checklist on his own while I was handling communications. I asked him to run through the checklist out loud with me as he is supposed to do. He said it was complete and started to taxi towards the runway. I told him he was sitting on a cold ejection seat and wanted to know what else he had forgotten. He armed his seat and took off. He broke many safety orders just to make the take off time. He was my company commander but I wrote him up and so did the crew chief who saw him start the engines before I got in. It made it uncomfortable when we flew together later but the issue was addressed. There are ways to address things that are wrong. This LT is flat out wrong.

Box,

The Fiscal Year Starts 1 October, Knot Head !!!!

I'm Not From Arkansas Ass Clown !!!


"The US Congress sets only a fiscal year goal for the Army.

Your persistent confusion of monthly recruiter's benchmarks with the Congressionally set statutory fiscal recruiting goals, only further exposes you as a clown."

Which Starts When ?

1 October Ass Clown !!

-Sarge

Skis
His view of morality was left at the place he swore into the military. He cannot arbitrarily decide what orders are legal and illegal. We are talking about the orders he recieved that said you will report to such and such airfield at such and such time with your equipment to deploy with your unit. Please tell me what morality those orders have broken.

Mohawk

With full respect to your service.
I beg to differ. Many of us see this Iraqi war as an illegal assault on a foreign country.
Watada seems to see it that way also.
Being in the military, you must have a clear understanding of how much Watada's conscience must have weighed on him to do what he did.
I think most soldiers would rather patrol the airport road to Bagdhad on a Vespa than to do what Watada did.
This war is a crime against humanity. The ordinary soldiers don't have much of a choice, but I am confident we will see this administration prosecuted for it sooner or later.

Mohawk,

Being in the service, tell me how you feel about a Commander in Chief who ducked his service ?....Also, what is the prevailing mood in the military about an administration composed almost exclusively of men who avoided service ?....Powell was the exception but they ignored him and then pushed him out....How do you and your fellow officers feel about that ?

Ski,
Most of us wouldn't do what Watada did not because all of us disagree with his personal view but because we value what being a soldier means. Watada spit on that and that is what disgusts us and moves us to state for the record we believe his actions to be those of a coward.

BOAZ and Mohawk,
I guess we will see if he is convicted, that will be the deciding factor of this arguement.
But anyway here is the oath:

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

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.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.

Mohawk

I am guessing you cannot speak freely about certain questions. Are you still in the military ?

Mohawk

There are many people who feel that Watada elevated the status of being a soldier to higher level.

He is reaping both scorn and praise because he is a soldier-philosopher.

We should be so lucky to have a President-philosopher.

Ski,
I served for 11 years and have worked as a military contractor for the past 4 years. For me it has not been proven one way or the other about Bush's service. I haven't seen anything that would convinve me he did or didn't attend in Alabama. As for people serving in the National Guard or Reserves vice regular duty, I commend all that serve in what ever capacity they see fit.
The problem with the majority of the Congressmen and Administration not serving is not recent. This was discussed when Clinton was in office. I think it is detrimental.
Maybe it is me growing up in California or maybe visiting so many countries where they do have some sort of requirement but I believe everyone should have to serve for two years. The service does not need to be in the military, it could be in any capacity where the person was forced to serve the greater good of the nation, inner city kids clubs, Big Sisters or Brothers, candystripers. I think in many schools they are know requiring community service for high school graduation and I think that really opens peoples minds and exposes them to service.
On Powell I was sad to see him go. Him and many others that disagreed with the Secretary of Defense.

Jeff,
Said the oath 3 times in person and you feel the need to write it out for me, just a little insulting. I am still waiting on the UCMJ article that shows an order to deploy to be illegal. write me when you find it.

Mohawk,
......thanks for a thoughtful response.........and now its time to go to lunch.............let us all remember........for evil to triumph, its enough for good men to do nothing.......so we all do what we can...

If we are throwing out favorite quotes

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because
rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf"
- George Orwell

Skis,
Have a good lunch and enjoyed the exchange of ideas even if we don't agree.

This thing about deployment that you keep bringing up is a non issue.
He is refusing to go to Iraq on moral grounds. plain and simple.
If you have taken the oath 3 times then you understand the importance of this sentence, "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 3, 2002

The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan.

Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today's world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We're still in Korea and we're still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990.

The process by which we've entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress' abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution.

Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution.

Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed!

A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice.

However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions.

In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that once we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts.

What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people!

A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn't permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn't a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn't even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it's difficult to claim that we're going into Iraq to restore peace.

History will eventually show that if we launch this attack the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities.

The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown.

It's a well-known fact that the al Qaeda are not allies of Saddam Hussein and despise the secularization and partial westernization of Iraqi culture. They would welcome the chaos that's about to come. This will give them a chance to influence post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment.

An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote "No" on assuming responsibility for this war.

Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.

Not only is it sad that we have gone so far astray from our Constitution, but it's also dangerous for world peace and threatens our liberties here at home.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

The lesson of Nuremberg is that soldiers are required to question the morality and leaglity of their orders. There is no defense of "I was just folowing orders". The US was the chief power behind the Nuremberg trials and the resulting war crimes framework.

It seems the US now wants to repudiate all that because they are now the ones engaging in an illegal war and committing war crimes.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.


Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2006-07-11 12:25 PM
Dr. Ron Paul is a Libertarian posing as a Republican. Not sure why he gets so much attention on this Website.

It doesn't matter to me if Dr Ron Paul is an alien from Mars.
What matters is the truth behind his words.

Hey JeffnSkidmark, why not post your own thread instead of ruining this one? Nobody reads your posts anyway, you're just giving everyone's scrolling finger a workout.

Hey Joe in Trailerpark USA.
Why don't you kiss my ass, and write a love story.

It's time re institute the draft folks.

We need troops and lots of them in Iraq and all the other places we've made our enemies. The need is there and Bush and his disciples are constantly saying we need to do what it takes to win this. Everybody, and especially you wingnuts write your representatives and tell them you want the draft asap. Hopefully they can get it passed before the midterms.

It's time to bring this dirty little war into focus in this country. If we are really for it then let's support it fully.

Jeff,
My point is He is an isolationist. As with most Libertarians they prefer not to get invloved outside our borders. To say AQ and other radical jihadists are not friends means nothing. They have the same ultimate goal and follow the same radical verses of the Koran.

C'mon! Somebody has to brace up the Army Chief for this. How many Pentagon pencil pushers uttered contemptuous words toward then-President Clinton between 1993 and 2001? And how many of them were punished by the Army?

If the Army will enforce this issue of disrespect when a member has serious questions about the President's judgement, then it ought to do so at all times, whether the sitting President is a liberal or a conservative or a Democrat or a Rupublican. Isn't there a concept of equal justice for all?

"To say AQ and other radical jihadists are not friends means nothing. They have the same ultimate goal and follow the same radical verses of the Koran."
I have no doubt that there is a extreme faction of Muslims, That want to do harm to the US.
But the point is that if we weren't enforcing US will on foreign sovereign countries (illegally) they wouldn't even be interested in the USA.
All of this started after the USA put a permanent base in Saudi Arabia (to protect the Royal Saudis hold on the oil).
America shouldn't be isolated from the rest of the world, but they should most definitely not be the world police.
The policies of the USA are policies of Imperial conquerors, and definitely not policies of peace.
All of this bullshit about this being about stopping terrorism is just that, bullshit. The policies that we are now involved in are making America more vulnerable to terror, and creating an atmosphere of new terror threats thru out the middle east.
I might ad that these extreme Muslim factions are no more scary and dangerous than the extreme factions of Christians (mostly in the US) that want to start ww3 in the middle east to hasten Armageddon, and the second coming of Christ.

Skidmark,
Don't listen to Joe. I'd much rather give my scroll finger a workout bypassing your cut and pastes than read any idle thought that you decided to post.

Cynic, none of those tried at Nuremburg were on trial merely for taking part in the war (because the Allied commanders, unlike yourself, saw what a dangerous precedent that would set). They were all on trial for specific crimes, resulting from following specific orders that they would have been well within their rights, morally speaking, to disregard. (No doubt they would have paid a heavy price for refusing to participate in the genocide, but no one ever said that doing the right thing is easy.)

If this officer had refused a direct order to shoot an innocent civilian and was facing punishment by the military for doing so, then I would call him courageous. As it stands, he would not be committing a war crime by deploying to Iraq, whether or not the war is a legal one. Not by any stretch of legal reasoning, not by any legal precedent. The Nuremburg analogy is severely flawed.

There is no defense of "I was just folowing orders".

But that is not the scope of what we are talking about, is it? Some individual orders you may be able to question, but this was an overall directive given by the president, he doesnt have the authority to disobey it..

101,
"than read any idle thought that you decided to post."
I will take that as a compliment, coming from a pea-brain like you.....

But I like how you implied that ALL of our soldiers are war criminals (your Nuremburg comparison implies this, whether intentionally or not). Disagreeing with the war does not make one unpatriotic. Hell, I think it was a huge mistake to go into Iraq, as I've said many times. But not all ways of voicing disapproval for the war are equal, and some cross the line.

If we had a supportive public that thought more like you and didnt restrain public policy, Iraq would be tame by now....


ROFL. Yes, those evil "thought rays" have ruined everything! It wasn't that we shouldn't have attacked, and that the plans were bungled...

ITS THE PUBLICS FAULT!(even though they were behind bush until he REALLY started fucking up)

boaz,
I am curious to see how this turns out in the trial.
And I dissagree with you about disobeying the president.
It is the constitution that he has sworn to defend, and not the president. The USA hasn't become a dictatorship yet.

Freddy already addresses when it is an obviously illegal order that will result in death or injury and why this is not. Jeff you keep brining up the oath and highlighting one part which I still have not gotten where in the UCMJ it is illegal to tell asoldier to pack his bags and go somewhere. What about this part of the oath, "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me" How is he upholding that portion?

jeff,

The president is the commander in chief...ever heard of that?

He is at the top of my food chain..

Jeff: you are right and Boass is, well, an ass.

I took the same oath and we swore to Defend the Constituiton from ALL enemies,foreign & DOMESTIC.

I believe anyone calling the Constitution "a god-damned piece of paper" is an enemy of The Constitution.

briwo,
I took the same oath many years ago.
It amazes me how many so called rightwingers are so willing to give up their constitutional rights as American citizens.
I really believe a lot of them would be perfectly happy and willing to just declare GW king, and be done with it.

"It's time re institute the draft folks."

LOL! Are you really this insane? Bush would NEVER reinstitute the draft. He wouldn't ask the voting public to inconvenience themselve one bit to help the people he sent to Iraq. He would not ask Corporate America to forego one penny of profit or change even the smallest priority in order to help the people over there. He will not do anything that will upset any voters to help the people in Iraq. He is more worried about Republicans winning elections than winning the war.

That you suckers believe otherwise is hillarious. Bush has not requested any sacrifices whatsoever to help the war effort. Fuck, he didn't even bother forumulating a plan for brining those guys home before he sent them over there. He couldn't be bothered. And you think he's going to start up the draft? Sucker.

I believe anyone calling the Constitution "a god-damned piece of paper"

Are you saying I said this, Briwo?

Why are you calling me names? I never called you a name...

took the same oath and we swore to Defend the Constituiton from ALL enemies,foreign & DOMESTIC

You also said this as well....

and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States

These are the articles he is being charged under. It is undeniable that he has missed movement the other is more subjective.

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.

If I am not mistaken, he is also being charged with conduct unbecoming an officer..

This is another article if they are not using they should.

809. ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;
shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

I took the same oath and we swore to Defend the Constituiton from ALL enemies,foreign & DOMESTIC.



Posted by briwo at 2006-07-11 01:44 PM | Reply

and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God"


Screw that Oath, those are just a bunch of words.
Signed,
Briwo

Boaz just had not gone down far enough yet.

933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct

Jeff,
I am still waiting on the UCMJ artcle that says if you disagree with a war you don't have to go. Are you having trouble finding that one?

You are gonna be a while waiting on that one, Mohawk....

That is why it is called "selfless service"..

"and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God"

Well if God hasn't decided to punish the guy, as it clearly says he would in the oath, then I guess he's done nothing wrong.

Kidding. I don't think the guy should have to respect Bush in the least, Bush certainly doesn't respect him and his peers, but I do think he needs to follow his orders.

Boaz of all people you know I know it is not there but it is what Jeff based his point on and then other chimed in.

He stated "The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.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."

I just want to see where the order to deploy is unlawful.

Then they jumped to the lame Nuremburg comparrison as if an order to go to Iraq was the same as to torture and kill millions of innocent people because they happen to be jewish.

It is not an illegal order, if it was you would have some sort of proof to point to where in the past it has been shown to be. As stated before no one has been prosecuted for war crimes just because they served their country in a war.

Mohawk,
It is very clear to me. I think it should be just as clear to anybody paying attention.
The key word is "lawful".
If an order is unlawful it is a soldiers duty to not obey it. No matter who is giving the order.
To obey all (Lawful) orders.
This officer is dissobeying orders he believes to be unlawful.
I am curious to see how the court case plays out.

"Then they jumped to the lame Nuremburg comparrison as if an order to go to Iraq was the same as to torture and kill millions of innocent people because they happen to be jewish."

I see nothing lame in this.
The point being, "They were just following orders. Unlawful orders.
Again it is a soldiers sworn duty to disobey unlawful orders.
Also thousands of inoccent Iraqis have been imprisoned, tortured, and murdered.
The comparison seems perfectly reasonable to me.

The volunteer military is indicative of people that wish to serve the country and defend our freedon. Bless this man for sticking to his guns and telling the president where to stick it. Iraq was never a threat to our's or anyone's freedom. Fighting in Iraq is equivelent to volunteering to being a suicide bomber and die for some elusive ideology. The only difference is the better odds for survival but the soldiers are being asked to offer themselves as martyrs to the neoconfabulator's cause.

Fuck you bullshit "gotta follow orders no matter what" assholes that believe that volunteering in the military is a committment to forego critical thinking. No one is required to do what some wackjob says to do becuase he wanted to win what he thought to be an easy victory. I don't care what uniform they are wearing. Only a fucking pussy would do something as wrong as this war just because they were ordered to do so.

I guess I don't even have to ask if Bushskank served a day in his life.

Jeff still waiting to see where in the UCMJ it states you can refuse to deploy. There is nothing unlawful about movement orders, those are the orders he is refusing to follow.

This officer is dissobeying orders he believes to be unlawful.

It is not up to the officer to decide whether the order is lawful or not, it is up to a military court, WHICH IS WHY YOU OBEY THE ORDER, then take it up with superiors after the order is followed....

But who am I, I am only active duty at the moment..

Look people,

Especially you liberals,

Liberals like to flex on rules and see liberal interpretations of things. Military law is designed to NOT be flexable. Military law is NOT open to interpretation by any individual. It is straight forward, and no amount of this officers feelings or how he see things is going to get him out of this. Military law is like this by design...

Go ahead and ask me shithead. 23 years. Retired E-9. Desert Storm. Under real leadership. My last tour I was stationed overseas at the inception of this round of bullshit. I would rather face a firing squad over taking orders from this bullshit administration. Iraq was contained. Boaz-o you worship the mindless.

Not a problem skank,

But we are not talking about that are we? Then tell me CSM, am I wrong about my intepretation of the UCMJ? Can we just follow any command we feel necessary without fear of prosecution? What would you have told an E-6 that told his battalion CSM(Which I am sure you were) that he wasnt going to pull duty because he felt he shouldnt have? How much ass would you have chewed out of him before he understood he didnt have a choice? And I really doubt you wouldnt take orders from this admin if you were still in. Anyone who did 23 years was in it for the career and probably set the standard for the army values...No?

Maybe he only joined for the waterskiing.

When I was in the USMC, I prayed everyday that there would not be a war, because I knew I'd have go and kill someone. But I would've done it.

It is not up to the officer to decide whether the order is lawful or not, it is up to a military court,

So if a commanding officer orders you to shoot a newborn baby and burn its house down, would you do it?

If so, who do you think would go to prison if caught?

Its written that officers have a moral and legal obligation to NOT follow ilegal orders. Rumsfeld himself was corrected over this issue in a press conference by a general.

That said, this guy shouldnt have signed up if he didnt want to go to iraq.

this guy will stick to his princeables but not to his guns more power to him he also should not complain when they frog walk his ass off to leavenworth
jasman

The difference is that shooting a baby and burning down his house is an illegal order and I would take my chances on a courts martial by refusing. There is no way that movement orders are "illegal". That is where he has sealed his fate.

The difference is that shooting a baby and burning down his house is an illegal order and I would take my chances on a courts martial by refusing. There is no way that movement orders are "illegal". That is where he has sealed his fate.

"Fuck you bullshit "gotta follow orders no matter what" assholes that believe that volunteering in the military is a committment to forego critical thinking. No one is required to do what some wackjob says to do becuase he wanted to win what he thought to be an easy victory. I don't care what uniform they are wearing. Only a fucking pussy would do something as wrong as this war just because they were ordered to do so."

Posted by Bushskank

I apologize after reading this I assumed you had never served because in serving you know that some of the things you are told to do don't make since but that doesn't mean that you disregard them. How is it that you instilled discipline and order in a Battalion that was allowed to tell you fuck off I don't think I should have to clean toilets, be in the field on my son's birthday or what ever excuse they could give. It seems like it would be impossible to even keep CQ's if they could decide when and where serving was convinient for them.

Mohawk,

You and I both know anyone in the military can't just say "fuck off". It just doesnt happen, as much as the left would love for it to be that way. Militaries that way dont last very long. And if Bushskank really is a CSM(ret), then he knows his position is full of holes. And it is sort of paradoxacle that he is a CSM, the keeper of standards and order. An attitude like his just doesnt seem like a SGM...

So if a commanding officer orders you to shoot a newborn baby

Alex,

You know no military member of the United States would not order someone to shoot a baby. That is blatanly against military doctrine.

An officer refuses to follow an illegal order...

this guy should be given a medal.

Opps, I forgot... being a military officer means you serve the Bush Royal Family, not the United States of America.

Oh well.

justsome,

I expect better than that from you. You are one of the more sane libs out there! :)

The order he got was not illegal. We all know that. He will be prosecuted. As it should be..

Guy,

The Problem Is That Congress En-powered Bush And It Falls In-line With The Constitution.

Is This War Trumped Up And Was It Planned Back In 1998,Yes.

Is Operation Iraq Freedom The Worse Planned In US Military History, Yes.

Should The SECDEF Resign Or Be Fired, Yes.

Is This Young Officer Disobeying A Lawful Order, Yes.

Congress Has Authorized It, Not Bush.

It Legally Falls In With Our Constitution's Checks And Balances.

Oh It Sucks And Is Wrong, But It Is Legal.

-Sarge

Sarge How can You declare this war Legaol when It violates the UN Charter which in turn Violates the US COnstitution Article 6 Clause 2. It is an Illegal War and it would be an Illegal Act. Those are the facts.

Larry

Larry,

I didn't do it Congress did, I mean those are the facts, like I've stated time and time again PNAC planned this back in 1998. It has not Officially Illegal until Congress says so, it is the Law.

I agree it is wrong and Bush should be Impeached but he has Control over both Houses of Congress.

-Sarge

I didn't do it Congress did, I mean those are the facts, like I've stated time and time again PNAC planned this back in 1998. It has not Officially Illegal until Congress says so, it is the Law.

I agree it is wrong and Bush should be Impeached but he has Control over both Houses of Congress.

-Sarge

Posted by Sarge at 2006-07-11 07:34 PM | Reply


Congress has no Jurisdiction in Defining what is Legal and what isn't that is for the Judicial Branch NOT Congress. Maybe we will FINALLY get it to the US Supreme Court. We can only Hope.

Larry

SHAME on HIM......SHAME on this OFFICER....a O-2.....that is a PRIVATE in the ENLISTED military....this guy probably has NEVER been overseas....what a CROCK of SHIT....i got SHIT STAINS in my underware that has more time in the SEVICE than this guy....HELL the CUMSTAINS alone have been oversea more than this OFFICER...LEARDER OF TROOPS.....KICK out the GREEN BOOT

Cumbell,

why aren't you over there?

JSG...because the DOD has its head up its ASS

bushblows, your comment "but also for the entire view of executive power the Administration used to justify them" is what liberals would like to believe but it isn't true.

The decision in Hamdan was narrowly drawn. It is pure partisan politics to believe that it means any more then it does.


Hamdan's greatest impact is in its vindication of the Administration's claims they can hold the Gitmo prisoners indefinitely without any trial at all.

In fact, all the court really said was, if the governement does want to put them on trial, it must be done by a court whose parameters are set by Congress.

You know no military member of the United States would not order someone to shoot a baby. That is blatanly against military doctrine.

Posted by boaz at 2006-07-11 05:59 PM | Reply | Flag


So villages weren't massacred and burned to the ground in vietnam? Interesting...

ALEX...NOT by the ORDERS of SENIOR commanders.....i DOUBT that this guy was asked to do anything against the code of the UCMJ.....the BOOT OFFICER needs to GROW UP and take on the RESPONISIBLITIES of his MEN....that is WHAT he is there for....NOT to make POLITICAL JUDGEMENT calls.....when you here our TROOPS talk....about why they FIGHT...its NOT political...its NOT for the FLAG....its NOT for their COUNTRY....ITS FOR EACH OTHER

"The decision in Hamdan was narrowly drawn. It is pure partisan politics to believe that it means any more then it does."

It means that the Prez is not a fuckin KING.

Nuff sed.

The Army Values...

Loyalty
Duty
Respect
Selfless Service
Honor
Integrity
Personal Courage
___________________

& YET, the nation is run by a criminal cartel based on "military discipline"

read-----"extra-judicial terror!"

HOW COME SO FEW AMERICANS ARE INTO REALITY?

Skidmark,
Don't listen to Joe. I'd much rather give my scroll finger a workout bypassing your cut and pastes than read any idle thought that you decided to post.

Posted by 101Chairborne
____________________________

& another HYENA takes to his high chair
his little pony is broken!
& if he is not acting stupid

he might just happen to Think
----for himself

(which is "not proper" in his world)

.....

all the HYENAs pretend that "the REAL"
is that within "the blinders" that hide their face
& hide their feelings (so vulnerable!)
from the human race

______

& so

borne about upon his highCHAIR

(waving to reflections of the chimpanzee)

pretending to be...free

yes, yes

JUST...PRETENDING

ANOTHER ONCE MAN GOING TO WASTE

This one is tough to talk about.
1. The officer in question is not a COWARD in my opinion. He did not desert under fire. He did not, at least in any statement I have read, say that he wasn't going because he is afraid. He will, odds are, suffer much greater harm by his decision not to go than if he had gone.

Now for my opinion of his actions. He is guilty of disobeying a lawful order and should be convicted. He took the oath and is now repudiating that oath. The fact that the man giving the order is himself a coward is not material or germane to the debate. He is still Commander-in Chief, even if he is the worse CIC in the history of the nation.
It is not this officer's place to judge his orders unless they are clearly illegal orders, which they have not been ruled to be.
It is the duty of Congress to impeach this President for his illegal actions, not this officer. So long as Congress has not done so, his orders have to be deemed legal unless they are truly illegal orders such as to deliberately kill civilians. Since that is not the orders given to this officer, nor any other such orders, he is legally required to obey them.
If he were issued orders to torture prisoners, he would have the right and duty to disobey those orders and report those illegal orders to his commanding officer and on up the chain of command. Those soldiers who did not do so and did torture prisoners are now subject to the Geneva Convention on treatment of prisoners.
He, on the other hand, has no legal nor moral basis (such as becoming a conscientious objector, which is a legal basis for disobeying an order to kill people) for disobeying what are considered legal orders from his CIC.

As I said, it is a hard decision to make, to disobey an order for what you may consider moral grounds, but if you do so you must be prepared to face the consequences of your actions and pay the price for doing so.

He should not expect mercy in sentencing since he freely chose to volunteer for this responsibility and he has soldiers who are depending upon his actions for their own safety and welfare as well as commanders who are making battle plans which depend upon his unit performing their duties in order to do battle with what have been designated as enemies of this nation. So it is a domino effect, where it is not just your own actions that you are responsible for but those of an entire army.
The old saying is true, "For want of a nail, the shoe was lost; For want of the shoe, the horse was lost; For want of the horse, the rider was lost; For want of the rider, the battle was lost."