This can't be true because Crispee assured me yesterday that our troops love to serve three and even four tours of duty over there because they so storngly believe in the mission.

Oh dear. NOt this thread again.

If you don't want to go to the war, don't enlist. No one forced you to sign the papers.

*sigh*

No, but after signing the papers, a certain level of command competence is implied...and multiple mandatory tours are not indicative of competence, it's indicative of desperation and mismanagement.

No, but after signing the papers, a certain level of command competence is implied...

If you are referring to Bush (and I assume you are), he was president when this guy enlisted.

Next excuse, please?

BTW, the oath they take and the papers they sign do not say they get to change their mind if they don't like the CiC. I know. I read it before I signed.

No, but after signing the papers, a certain level of command competence is implied.

SORRY....did not see that in the contract.... when you sign the contract...you give up certain rights

They should Court Martial him and give him 10-20 years at Ft Levenworth. This chicken shit bastard knew what he was getting into when he enlisted. There was no gun to his head making him join.

Danni, nobody likes being there, trust me it is a shitty part of the world. I hated it the first time and didnt like it any better the second time but I went willingly. I could have retired instead of going the second time. However, we are there and "most" military members understand why and do believe that it is for a good cause.

If "sick of libs" found Iraq to be a "good cause," I think "sick of libs", not some poor schmuck lied into uniform, deserves excoriation. You do NOT give up basic human rights when you agree to don a uniform. And there are higher rules than the misnamed "Uniform Code of Military Justice." herm

You do NOT give up basic human rights when you agree to don a uniform.

Gee, wish I knew that when I was in boot camp and forced to make a middle east cruise. Now you tell me, herm.

Goat,
So, you are agreeing there was incompetence at the highest levels? At least you are honest.
By the way, the soldiers point about this war being unconstitutional...it's a good one.

"However, we are there and "most" military members understand why and do believe that it is for a good cause."

The word "most" has been defined different ways by different people. I have heard soldiers say that "most" don't think that we should be over there. It is actually irrelevant though because "MOST" Americans think the troops should be home.

So, you are agreeing there was incompetence at the highest levels? At least you are honest.
By the way, the soldiers point about this war being unconstitutional...it's a good one.

Yes I do agree there has been incompetence at the highest levels concerning the Iraqi war.

The soldier is not a constitutional scholar. Even if he was, his interpretation of the Constitution is not grounds on self assignment (or dis-assignment) of duty stations.

"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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

The word "most" has been defined different ways by different people. I have heard soldiers say that "most" don't think that we should be over there. It is actually irrelevant though because "MOST" Americans think the troops should be home.

Actually, it is your arguement that is irrelevant, Danni. All (not most) enlisted men took an oath and signed a contract.

You do NOT give up basic human rights when you agree to don a uniform

You DO give up your right to say NO to anything the people of the United States tell you. That's what libs just dont understand. The army isnt a fair weather organization. You cant be wishy washy or change your mind like a child. And I really dont care what you liberals think, THIS SOLDIER DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY NO. PERIOD. I hope he gets the maximum punishment.

One of you people, just one, please post a link that proves this war in Iraq is illegal.

Next!


rwd

i think if these soilders were seeking a non-deployable staus

they might have an arugement....if....they were in units that were engaged in daily combat for over 2 tours (not in rear echlon unit) except for MotorT

im just curious what units these guys severed in that would qualify a non-deployable status

Ex-Marine Jason Lemieux told how a senior officer had altered a report he had written because it slammed US troops of using excessive force, firing off thousands of rounds of machine gun fire and hundreds of grenades in the face of a feeble four rounds of enemy fire.

THIS TACTIC IS CALLED "LAYING DOWN A BASE OF FIRE" (AKA FIRE SUPREMACY)..FUNNY HOW INFANTRY TACTICS ARE BEING TURNED INTO POLITCAL STATEMENTS

The war in Afghanistan is a legal war.
The war in Iraq is an illegal war.
Bush should be impeached for lying and using phony intel to "sell" his war in Iraq.

HOWEVER --

We cannot have our members of the military deciding on their own whether or not a particular war has merit or if they will fight in any particular war. That is not their decision to make.

The justification for any war, and the political right or wrong of any war, should be left up to the American people who will give their opinions at the voting booth. More importantly, it should be our members of Congress whose duty it is to conduct every investigation possible when there is a legitimate question as to the legality of any war a President and his Vice President has led us into. It the case of Bush's Iraq war, Congress has foresaken their duty.

I do not want some 20 something year old kid -- some young soldier, Marine, or sailor -- making that decision. They are in the military to follow orders -- right or wrong -- and it's not their decision to make as to the right or wrong of any particular war we have engaged in.

"Matthis Chiroux"?
Hmmmmm . . . sounds French.
Yrs,
A True Blue American

foresaken = forsaken

You do NOT give up basic human rights when you agree to don a uniform

This is coming from a person who said he was in the navy for a couple of years and hated it....yea your opinion is not slant at all

your attitude toward our military leads me to believe that you were kicked out....or got OTH

They are in the military to follow orders -- right or wrong...

Spoken like someone who never served in the armed forces. IF you had then you'd know that there are exceptions as well as a means of determining whether those exceptions apply, and if not the penalties that may be proscribed.

An unlawful order, even from the CiC, does not require obeisance, but dissent and refusal.

OZ...i think CC was refering to the political aspect of the war......not to certain instances (ie murder...rape...theft)

but your comments are a nice deflection....these guys were never given such order to murder...rape or pillage

these guys were told to do thier MOS job....but they refused to do it citing political opinion

OzarkAggie

You know me well enough by now to know I've never served in the military so I am assuming by your post you mean something like the Mai Lai massacre in Viet Nam war when a soldier or Marine has the right to decide if an order is right or wrong? (And I agree that order by Lt. Calley should not have been followed.) But we are talking whether or not to fight an entire WAR here.

You know how adamant I am against both Bush and his illegal Iraq war but, in general, should a 22 year old kid be making the decision if and when to walk off the battlefield? I wish my 19 year old uncle made the decision not to fight on Tulagi Island in the Solomons in WW II but he followed orders and died because of it. (Odd postnote, McCain's grandfather was one of the over Admirals in charge of the Solomon Island/Guadacanal battle in which he died.)

So, my honest question for you, because I truly would like to know -- at what point is it okay for some kid in the military to decide on his own the legality of a war?

You wrote:

IF you had then you'd know that there are exceptions as well as a means of determining whether those exceptions apply, and if not the penalties that may be proscribed....

What "means" would those be?

but your comments are a nice deflection

Who knows, maybe they don't teach the Geneva Convention in boot anymore. But there's also Conscientious Objector status.

Personally I think the guy should have gone - maybe with some extra memory cards or an extra camera. After all, he'd be in the perfect position to expose atrocities if he witnessed them.

I'm not saying he's right, but anyone can refuse an order and request a court marshal. Seems like he's doing just that.

As for CC...anyone who nicknames The b00b "Truthseeker" has a few loose marbles.

Judas

I'd like to hear your opinion also. As I said I don't know the answer and
would like to learn so all points of view are welcome.

What "means" would those be?

Already stated: refuse an order and request a court marshal.

Oz

As for CC...anyone who nicknames The b00b "Truthseeker" has a few loose marbles.

"Truthseeker" is said tongue-in-cheek. I get a kick out of BuffaloBob and give my own version of fond nicknames to those I like -- whether they are right or wrong (or loco!) in their opinions.

Besides, everyone else beats up on him so much a little niceness towards someone once in awhile won't kill you guys. Of course when BBob called me an asshole about 15 times on one particular thread I didn't "speak" to him for a month. Nice way to repay someone who calls you "Truthseeker"! (grin)

I didn't "speak" to him for a month

Tough stuff Bubbles.

Who knows, maybe they don't teach the Geneva Convention in boot anymore.

Would have to google it to be doublesure but didn't Bush get rid of the Geneva Convention when he authorized torture? As you can see from a post of mine just now on the Nooner I've got to call India for help with my computer.

I'll come on back to this thread a little later. I find this subject interesting.

Tough stuff Bubbles.


Hey, Nullifidian called me an "internet tough guy" the other day.
Guess my "bubbles" ((( scare ))) him. hahaha

Geneva Convention in boot anymore. But there's also Conscientious Objector status.

conscientious objector does not apply in this case .....when one seeks a conscientious objector status....its usually based on relgious grounds...not political....the chances of them getting that are slim to none...based on the questions given to them when they were being DEP in and going to MEPs

Geneva conventions argument can not be used because they follow the UCMJ....when their court martial come up....they can cite whatever geneva convetions rules they said they broke....but i doubt any of them broke any rules at all...except for disobeying a direct order and desertion or AWOL (if they left their post or refuse to man thier post)

at what point is it okay for some kid in the military to decide on his own the legality of a war?


a solider is responsible for is own personal actions when it come to his conduct during war time... the UCMJ has guidline to that conduct....and a chain of command to enforce the conduct..... if violation are found... a soilder can report what he sees to his chain of command

A very good read by Paul Craig Robert on Pat Buchanan's new book. This is relevant to the destruction the neocons are inflicting on this country.

The Americans quickly adopted Churchill's criminal policy of attacking civilians, culminating in the outrageous use of nuclear weapons against two Japanese cities, the slaughter of Vietnamese civilians, and the ongoing slaughter of Afghan and Iraqi civilians.
A popular American myth is that "the greatest generation" saved the world from Nazi tyranny. As Buchanan points out, the fact of the matter is that the Normandy invasion in June 1944 played little, if any, role in Germany's defeat. By the end of 1942 Hitler had lost World War II at Stalingrad, long before any American troops appeared on the scene. What the Normandy invasion achieved 18 months later was to keep the Red Army from over-running all of Europe.

Although Buchanan's book is about how the British destroyed themselves, Buchanan is clearly thinking about America. In the closing pages Buchanan shows how the Bush Regime has broken from the sound policy of President Reagan and is replicating the British folly of self-destruction. "There is hardly a blunder of the British Empire we have not replicated," laments Buchanan.

The distinct American hubris that we are "the indispensable nation" and the braggadocio that we are an "omnipower" has us overcommitted in alliances that we cannot fulfill. Despite 25 percent of the Iraqi population killed, injured or displaced, the "world's only superpower" cannot even control Baghdad. To deal with the pointless war we started in Afghanistan, we have had to sucker our NATO allies into a conflict that is no concern of theirs. Militarily overextended and with a faltering economy and collapsing currency, the cabal of morons that rules America still hopes to attack Iran, Syria, and to drive Hezbollah from Lebanon. American idiots in think tanks are busy at work drawing up plans about how the US is going to check China and prevent her emergence as a power beyond US control. The Republican presidential candidate has boasted that he will challenge Russia and bring Putin to heel.
Amazing.

The world's greatest debtor is going to take on the two powerful countries with the largest trade surpluses. According to the World Factbook, an annual publication of the CIA, Russia's 2007 current account surplus is $465 billion and China's is $363 billion. In contrast, the US current account deficit is $987 billion--an amount larger that the total deficits of all other countries in the world combined. The out-of-pocket and already incurred future cost of Bush's wars of aggression is between $3 and $5 trillion, every dollar of which must be borrowed. That comes on top of the unfunded liabilities of the US government totaling $53 trillion. By any account the US is the world's worst credit risk. The "mighty" US relies on foreigners to finance its consumption, its wars, and the daily operations of its government.

"an amount larger that the total deficits of all other countries in the world combined"

Well, Ray, I didn't vote for Reagan or Bush or Clinton or Bush or Rick Perry.

I voted for Ann Richards twice and Ron Paul once.

Otherwise it's been choosing the most amusing version of "none of the above."



I always voted.



Once.

"You DO give up your right to say NO to anything the people of the United States tell you. THIS SOLDIER DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY NO. PERIOD. I hope he gets the maximum punishment."

Once more: The Nurenberg trials said you have not only the right but the duty to disobey illegal, immoral orders. This soldier, too, 'tho some seen to think it means only the losing side.

"One of you people, just one, please post a link that proves this war in Iraq is illegal."

YOU look it up, Don. Our constitution specifies that only congress can declare war...

Your honorably discharged (good conduct medal) herm

"conscientious objector does not apply... its (sic) usually based on rel(i)gious grounds...not political....the chances of them getting that are slim to none..."

Another know-it-all brings us the gospel from on high. A religion is a shared belief. The Supremes have ruled that it does not require a deity. I'll get yelled at here (but so what?) but I suggest that folks without deities are more moral than those who worship something, because worshippers usually let someone else make the critical decisions. I say the guy is a hero. herm

"only congress can declare war..."

Tell that to all the people we killed in acts of war since the last time Congress declared war.

America's been going downhill since at least Andy Jackson; As inevitable as an avalanche; Just like Nam and Iraq and your extinction.

I could have done a real sweet social psychology PhD on it in 1970; But cognitive dissonance erased the entire thing in a flash. Understanding the extinction of your own being can be unnerving for a 20 year old indoctrinated in the illiterate, mindless "Christianity" of North Texas in the 1950's ...

Camping out alone on the ranch when I was 8 and 9 with just a .22 and a blanket.

Hard to top.

Actually I'm still waiting.

Now there's a prison there.

Sad.

The biggest source of light pollution out here is the Bastrop prison.

But in Austin you can't even see the stars at night.

He has a right to refuse to fight and the Army has a right to court martial and then execute him.

Army has a right to court martial and then execute him. tom-tom

They don't execute people for disobeying orders unless they dessert under fire, or they are found guilty of a capital crime. This guy is AWOL.

Once more: The Nurenberg trials said you have not only the right but the duty to disobey illegal, immoral orders.

Why are you liberals always trying to supplant our national sovergnty (sp?) to a foreign court. The U.N., NATO, I really dont give a fuck what they think. Let a soldier under my command disobey one of my orders, especially in combat. He will be punished to the fullest extent of the law, AMERICAN LAW. And I wont give a SHIT what they think in france....or fucking EUROPE...

Tis funny. We Americans demand other countries abide by the rules of International Organizations but Yet We are unwilling to adhere to the same standards. If that ain't fucked up I don't know what is. I say fuck that fuck that. We should lead by example. If other Country's must face World Courts then by God we must as well. Or are we the King Jackabooboo of Double Standards??

Larry Mohr

He should be arrested,tried for treason, and shot. He's just a pansy that doesn't want to take responsibility for what he enlisted for.

I'm not thrilled about this war and i'm with Obama about it. But when you enlist in the military you know what you're signing up for.

To not want to serve your country is treason and the punishment should be death.

"He should be arrested,tried for treason, and shot. He's just a pansy that doesn't want to take responsibility for what he enlisted for.

I'm not thrilled about this war and i'm with Obama about it. But when you enlist in the military you know what you're signing up for.

To not want to serve your country is treason and the punishment should be death."

Actually, this incident is a measure of how much too far the Bush administration has pushed things. To me, the fact that an individual soldier has made the decision to take this stand shows up just how much people are thinking about this war and its justification, or lack thereof.

I don't say the guy is right or wrong, but if we'd gone into this war only on well-established grounds, conducted it by generally-recognized rules like the Geneva conventions, and done everything in our power to limit both the extent of our entanglement and its duration, I don't think Sgt. Chiroux would be having this conversation with himself.

Posted by pragmatous at 2008-05-16 11:01 PM

I have to agree with pragmatous. I was against the invasion of Iraq but a man has to keep his commitments.

If other Country's must face World Courts then by God we must as well.

The world court is biased against the U.S. Larry. You think a U.S. soldier can get a fair trial in a "world" court? We really shouldnt care about any world court, and if other countries want to be subject to them, then so be it. The world court has no jurisdiction over the U.S. Constitution or it's citizens. Why are you trying to give away our sovernty?

Boaz why don't You want to be equal amongst those who You prosecute for the same crimes that are taking place in Iraq Now by American Soldiers thanks to Dubya?? If We condemned the Germans for their dastardly deeds why can't the world condemn us for Ours??? Why is it that we think we can just snub our noses at every other Country but feel we can make them pay for their wrong doings??? Two way street Boaz. It's called being fair and being just. Something I thought this Country stood for?? Or do You not believe in Justice Boaz??

Larry Mohr

No this is a measures of the commitment he signed
up for is held to under the UCMJ. No gray areas in the contract he signed.

Two way street Boaz. It's called being fair and being just.

You cant prosecute someone for following orders larry, especially since we are trying to help. So, if we lost the war, you think germany should have held court for the jews or americans? How do you think that would have worked out? Is that justice?

Something I thought this Country stood for??

I think we should get back to justice in this country only. Yes we are a world power, but the world seems to be ungrateful these days. But without the U.S., there is no hope for millions of weak people in other countries. Again larry, the U.N. has NO jurisdiction over the U.S. military.

A soldier with a conscience. Mother must be proud. He may be using the fact that that this is in all likely-hood an illegal war (at least by international standards), but it is not the true reason for his lack of enthusiasm for serving in Iraq. Afghanistan probably wasn't much fun. but he's had some sweet duty stations -- Germany, Phillipines, and Japan. Wait Japan? That explains it all. Fucking REMF.

RealPlus correct Me if I am wrong since I never got a chance to serve but isn't there a code in the UCMJ that one must disobey any order Contrary to the United Nations Charter?? I believe there is so How can He obey an order contrary to the UN Charter??

Larry Mohr

It's about time.

Hopefully Barack will pardon them all, just like they did for vietnam deserters.

Hopefully Barack will pardon them all, just like they did for vietnam deserters.

I felt sorry for the vietnam war deserters. They were drafted. The guys today volunteered and signed a contract under their own free will. It is probably the same ilk who expect uncle sugar to bail them out of their subprime contracts they so stupidly signed.

All I can say is that these folks are let out of their legal binding contracts, I hope that if the time comes that I stupidly sign one that I suddenly disagree with for whatever reason that I am let out it, too.

Technically, Goat, you're right in your hair-splitting. The Vietnam era guys who fled to Canada probably were drafted. The Iraq guys who cannot find the stomach to go on probably needed three squares and a cot, and were lied to by recruiters.

Some of the worst Nazis who post here want to put the poor schmuck before a firing squad. I say give him a medal. Can we vote on that? Those who want a vote on reproductive rights, on pulling the plug if terminal, on people marrying other people of the same gender: Can we vote on those issues? herm

Some of the worst Nazis who post here want to put the poor schmuck before a firing squad. I say give him a medal. Can we vote on that? Those who want a vote on reproductive rights, on pulling the plug if terminal, on people marrying other people of the same gender: Can we vote on those issues?

Some of those issues. But giving a medal to someone who renegs on a contract? I have to disagre.

UCMJ Section 885. Article 85 DESERTION. Paragraph 2

This kid is in very serious jail time trouble.
Who talked him into this to hype their cause?
This mess was on C-Span last night
IF YOU SAW IT it told a entire different story
of activist demonstrators

Herm --

...Some of the worst Nazis who post here want to put the poor schmuck before a firing squad. I say give him a medal. Can we vote on that?

Sure. Let's vote on that one. I vote "NO" even though I am totally against the war in Iraq.

Now, since you're all in favor of voting -- how about when you said:

...Those who want a vote on reproductive rights, on pulling the plug if terminal, on people marrying other people of the same gender: Can we vote on those issues?


The people of California did vote on whether people of the same gender can marry.
What good did that do them?

In 2000, 61% of California's voters voted "YES" on Proposition 22 which stated "Marriage is between a man and a woman." Guess what happened to their votes yesterday thanks to the California Supreme Court.

So much for the vote of the people counting for anything.

"The people of California did vote on whether people of the same gender can marry. What good did that do them?"

The court ruled quite correctly that others have no say in who I wed, what fetus I opt not to carry or whether I can pull the plug on a hopeless existence. This should be settled law. herm

"Who talked him into this to hype their cause?"

Why won't you accept that even a "GI" can have an attack of conscience? herm

He joined! Nobody forced him to join, blah, blah, blah. What about the German soldier that joined before Hitler took power, and then got ordered to commit atrocities at the Dachau camp? "They joined". Wow, what a simpleton argument you righties have. Are you ALL so fucking dumb? Weak, weak, weak...

Soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen enlist to: quote "defend the C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N of the United States against all enemies, foreign and D-O-M-E-S-T-I-C". Unquote.

So, based on the oath he took, he has far more obligation to wage war against the Bush Administration, who have relentlessly raped the Constitution for the last 7+ years, than against Iraq, which hasn't done jack shit to this country's Constitution or the its national security.

Execute this traitor and make an example out of him.

Preferably, by firing squad.

Thank you,

Kuma

What about the German soldier that joined before Hitler took power, and then got ordered to commit atrocities at the Dachau camp?

Read the story and quit being so indignant. This guy joined while Bush was president. Besides, unless I myself missed something in the story, I don't think he's being asked to summarily execute innocent civilians.


Soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen enlist to: quote "defend the C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N of the United States against all enemies, foreign and D-O-M-E-S-T-I-C". Unquote.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you ended the quote prematurely. But like all people in a losing arguement, trying to take something out of context is usually a last gasp attempt to prove your point.

"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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

So, based on the oath he took, he has far more obligation to wage war against the Bush Administration,

The oath he took requires him to obey the president of the US. How, in your warped mind, does this translate to an obligation to wage war against him?

Goatman, does fubar fit these posters

RP5: It does.

It is also truly amazing that there are people who think a militia can properly function when any of its members get to pick and choose when and where they take up arms.

GOATMAN,

Wrong. I quoted exactly the relevant portions of the oath to support my argument, an oath OBTW which I took personally on one enlistment and 4 subsequent reenlistments.

What is the title of the story? Is their the word "illegal" in there? Did you see it? It is a very relevant word, Mr. Goatman.

There is NO obligation to obey order from anybody, President or superior officers, when those orders are ILLEGAL. Reminder: the guy is calling the war ILLEGAL. That is his defense. C'mon, bro, connect the dots!

Now, it is certainly the major issue to ascertain what is legal or illegal, but more importantly, who makes that determination. But that is not for you, insane neocons, or even the U.S. at this point in the game to decide. Example: Gee your honor, I was just obeying "legal" orders from Adolf Hitler when I was gassing those fucking Jews. The SS would have shot my ass if I disobeyed. What could I do? Nuremburg thought otherwise Mr. Goatman. Individuals who commited what were considered war crimes were held criminally responsible. For what? FOR FOLLOWING FUCKING ORDERS FROM THEIR FEURER AND THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER THEM, THAT'S WHO!

You see Goatman, there is something called a conscience, but of course some people were born without one. When a country's laws become "The Law of the Jungle", then what is "legal", like falsifying evidence to enter your country into a war, torture, kidnapping (aka extraordinary rendition), detention for years without charges, abusing the War powers Act to emasculate the entire Legislative Branch of government, etc. makes the word "legal" a very, very cheap commodity these days. When a criminal president shits on the rule of law, the Geneva Conventions, Habeus Corpus, etc., etc., etc., then his "orders" which trickle down to his lackeys in the Pentagon, and eventually the "officers appointed over me" aren't worth a bucket of shit.

Looks like your back to the drawing board...

The guys been in the military since high school. He is now around 24 years. It is kind of hard to feel sympathy for the predicament he now finds himself in. As much as I disagree with GWBs elective and incompetently run war in Iraq, it is not the place of individual soldiers to decide which wars they will fight and which they won't. He signed the papers, he took the oath, now he's got a commitment to fulfill. Oh well.

You DO give up your right to say NO to anything the people of the United States tell you. That's what libs just dont understand. The army isnt a fair weather organization. You cant be wishy washy or change your mind like a child. And I really dont care what you liberals think, THIS SOLDIER DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY NO. PERIOD. I hope he gets the maximum punishment.

POSTED BY BOAZ

In the Nuremberg Trial it was stated that it was not an excuse for German soldiers to follow orders.

MODER8, over simplification. There is NO obligation to follow illegal orders, oath or no oath. This is known to every single servicemen and was determined, with the THE UNITED STATES in the lead, at Nuremburg after WWII. That is Chiroux's entire defense: ILLEGALITY, as he believes he is being coerced to commit war crimes. And if the world ever shows the balls (which they won't because we have more guns than anybody else), this war will be declared illegal, and Bush would be dragged to The Hague just like Milosevic. No UN mandate. Entire premise for the war based on lies. Good night, Irene.

If some shitbag deserted his unit, etc. while we were fighting the Nazis back in the 40s, then he should have been smoked. No brainer. I am not making some peacenik, liberal argument. But this Iraq debacle is a disgrace, and a black eye to this country. God knows how some people can't see it.

New Yawker: Comparing the American fighting soldier to Nazis is ridiculous and offensive. GWBs elective war to oust dictator is a far cry from anything Hitler ever did. We are not rounding up and murdering millions of innocent people based on race or religion. Our soldiers are heroically attempting to complete an impossible and incompetently planned mission. (In my opinion GWB should be prosecuted for his incompetence and dishonesty.) Our soldiers are not to blame, and there is no shame nor lack of morality on their part as a result of their efforts to morally accomplish this task. To say that an individual American soldier under these circumstances has the right to simply refuse to obey orders is absurd. If that is our attitude, this nation is DOA.

He signed the papers, he took the oath, now he's got a commitment to fulfill. Oh well.

Actually he fulfilled his commitment, served his enlistment, and the Stop Loss program called him back.

Don't you think that violates the contract?

Ozark: I haven't fully thought this out. But my instinct is to say that serving in the US military is something far more profound than some legalistic contract. It is a commitment to defend our people and serve her needs. If our leadership (rightly or wrongly) deems it necessary to extend enlistments, the proper response does not seem to be for individuals soldiers to simply mutiny. Rather, if in fact the extensions are unnecessary or fundamentally unfair, than it is we the citizens who must speak out. Which is exactly what I expect to happen this November.

What I expect is that Bush will attack Iran after the elections...and mutiny is something very different. It is the overthrow of a command. This guy is simply AWOL, and apparently ready to defend himself in a military court.

Looks like your back to the drawing board...

Really? I guess I missed the part where the war is illegal. Can you provide a link, please? I realize YOU think it is illegal. Have our military leaders been failing to contact you as required?

I'd like to see a link that proves this war is illegal and you'll have a point as will as the chicken shit sargeant. Until then it is you who is back at the drawing board my friend!

There is NO obligation to follow illegal orders, oath or no oath

again I ask: What illegal order is the chicken shit sergeant being asked to follow?

Actually he fulfilled his commitment, served his enlistment, and the Stop Loss program called him back.

Don't you think that violates the contract?

No. He obligated himself for 8 years like every other swinging dick who signed the paper. If he is 24 YO, there is no way he could have fulfilled his 8 years. You cannot sign up at 16.

GOATMAN,

My original point to engage in this debate was that I saw the simple reliance on the enlistment oath as a massive oversimplification of a very complex issue. If a reckless government compels soldiers to commit what a conscientious, reasonable person in western civilation believes is war crimes, then the oath is not binding, and I used Nuremburg to illustrate that point.

Back when I was active duty, we received annual LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict) briefings. Kill Guy A (combatant), no problem. Kill Guy B (noncombatant), and you're a criminal. But that's was all nice and pretty on PowerPoint slides, which fly out the window once the bombs start exploding.

The point of the the war itself being "illegal" aka unjustified, will not be their defense, OBVIOUSLY. It's the comment about war crimes that counts:

"Former army sergeant Kristofer Goldsmith told a half-dozen US lawmakers and scores of people who packed into a small hearing room of "lawless murders, looting and the abuse of countless Iraqis."

Oh yeah. You think Uncle Sam is gonna want these kids to blow the lids off scores of more "Hadithas" by putting them through courts martials. If any of these guys are from the same unit that may have done any of this, then the military will be thinking twice about doing any severe punishments. Speaking of Haditha.

Look at Haditha. That sergeant ORDERED a subordinate to smoke noncombatants. KIDS! It was an ORDER! The subordinate swore an oath to obey the orders of his superiors. Where's your oath now, Goatman? Sorry, per LOAC, the kid was a fucking criminal for following the order! Because the ORDER was an ILLEGAL ORDER.

Legal? Link. Nothing is legal. It's an illusion. I can do something in Alabama that gets me thrown in the slammer, but is perfectly legal in another state. Who is going to have the balls to declare the Iraq war "illegal"? The U.N.? We'll laugh in their face. We have a big ass economy that can rattle the entire globe. We have ships, subs, bombers, fighters, and 2,000 nukes to back em' up. Nobody tells us shit. BUT, I say this kid has a hypothetically plausible case if he can link to Nuremburg by saying he expects to be ordered to commit war crimes in an unjustifiable war. Could he ever win? Hell no. They will Kangaroo Court his ass and throw him in the brig.

But how about this? Why isn't the U.S. going apeshit on the Canadian Govt for harboring "deserters" from US forces? I bet once this fiasco is over, they will all get a reprieve--just like happened to the draft dodgers from the Vietnam era.

MODER8 somehow twisted my points that I somehow imply US servicemen are Nazis. Pure BS. Certainly, some servicemen have commited atrocities, like Haditha, but I made no generalization of the entire US forces, as I have clearly illistrated my point was Nuremburg. Despite the fact we have degraded ourselves to letting felons join the service these days, I would assume (or hope) that the number of those absuers would be small.

correct Me if I am wrong since I never got a chance to serve but isn't there a code in the UCMJ that one must disobey any order Contrary to the United Nations Charter??

WHAT??? Larry, I cant believe you even posted something like this. Who the FUCK is the UN? U.S. soldiers dont give an OATH to the U.N. You cant be THAT stupid larry. I knew super liberals want there to be a one world order, but this I cant believe. Are you really that eager to give away U.S. sovernty?

but would this guy also be required to stay in the military (and in Iraq) if kept in as part of the Individual Ready Reserve?

The IIR isnt an organization all to itself, its just a way for the military to call you back if you voluntarily got out..

I knew super liberals want there to be a one world order, but this I cant believe. Are you really that eager to give away U.S. sovernty?

A true dumb ignorant republican at its best.

The one world order is and has been pushed by the republicans since the 80s. The only ones giving away our sovereignty is the republicans again with the world trade organization and making funky laws with that organizations agreements.

Get a clue.

As for Larry's idiotic comment, I don't even know how to begin to address such lack of common sense.

Best way to put it, because of clinton and losing control of our own troops because we let a UN officer run our troops and lost men because of UN agenda and officers country agenda a law was put into place that makes our troops only reporting to U.S. officers.

I would personally never join up and would fight a draft but this guy should be put in jail not in front of a microphone.

They should Court Martial him and give him 10-20 years at Ft Levenworth. This chicken shit bastard knew what he was getting into when he enlisted. There was no gun to his head making him join.

Posted by sickoflibs

You are absolutley correct SOL, they should throw the book at 'ole Bushie boy. He did take an oath and there was no gun to his head when he swore to uphold the constitution, not shred it. I am glad you now share our views!

newyawker: Yes, there have been illegal actions commited by others. Was the good sergeant ordered to kill kids? I don't think so. That others did kill kids without orders is not a defensible excuse. I'm surprised he could be so ignorant of that fact.

Anyway, like others who have wimped out of their contractual obligations using the same feeble defense, he will be making small rocks out of big rocks for a long time.

Legal? Link. Nothing is legal.

I hope his court-martial is televised. I'd love to see the look on the tribunal's face when he uses that as a point of defense!

A soilder can not be convicted ifan order is illegal.

I would love to see this go to a court marshal. The prosecutor would have to prove that the order is legal in trying to get a conviction. That means that he would have to prove that the war is a legal war.

Good luck with that!

prosecutor would have to prove that the order is legal in trying to get a conviction

Wrong, Eddie. The war is assumed to be legal and if "illegal war" is the CS sergeant's defense, it will be up to his lawyer to prove the war is illegal. The prosecution does not have to prove the war is legal. That is not what the court martial will be about.

Good luck. He'll need it. That defense has not worked yet. His future involves making a lot of little rocks out of big ones.

Legal burden of proof:

necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit the ordinary rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains."

IOW, the sergeant broke a long standing and accepted law (desertion). He is complaining he did it because the war is illegal. He has to prove it.

prosecutor would have to prove that the order is legal in trying to get a conviction

Wrong, Eddie. The war is assumed to be legal and if "illegal war" is the CS sergeant's defense, it will be up to his lawyer to prove the war is illegal. The prosecution does not have to prove the war is legal. That is not what the court martial will be about.

Good luck. He'll need it. That defense has not worked yet. His future involves making a lot of little rocks out of big ones.

Posted by goatman



What country do you live in? I live in the US and lucky for him, the soldier does to.

He is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the Prosecutor.

The Prosecutor must prove that this is legal war. He won't get very far :)

Nice try though.

necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit the ordinary rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains."

IOW, the sergeant broke a long standing and accepted law (desertion). He is complaining he did it because the war is illegal. He has to prove it.

Posted by goatman


And the Procecutor is the one who is complaining :)

And the Procecutor is the one who is complaining :)

Yes, you are right. The prosecutor is complaining that the sergeant deserted. That's all the prosecutor has to prove. That will be a slam dunk.

What if the sergeant's defense was that he didn't like the food? Would the prosecution then have to prove that the food tastes good? What if his defense was that he didn't think the uniforms were the right color? Would the prosecution then have to prove they are in order to get a conviction on desertion? No.

The prosecution merely has to prove the charge of desertion. It is up to the defense to defend against that charge. IOW, they have to prove the war is illegal. Trust me on this.

Sorry, Eddie -- no offense, but you do not understand criminal law and burden of proof. I'm no lawyer, but I do know the basic tenets of law and burden of proof.

He is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the Prosecutor.

That's right. The charge is desertion. That is what will be on trial, not the war itself.

The Prosecutor must prove that this is legal war.

No he does not. The war is not on trial. The sergeant is on trial for desertion. That is what the prosecution has to prove. Was the sergeant where he was supposed to be? No. Does he have a good reason? Sergeant says he does. Now he has to prove it.

If criminal procedings worked the way you think they do, Eddie, the courts would be hopelessly mired in prosecutors "proving" that laws are just. That is not what a prosecutor does. A prosecutor's job is to prove that a law was broken, not if it is just.

What if a robber used the defense, "I robbed this grocery store to get food for my family. My family is starving because the president's economic policies are responsible for my job loss".

Does the prosecutor have to prove that the guy robbed the store, or does he now have to prove that the president's economic policies did not cause him to do it?

Sorry, Eddie. You've got this one wrong. If there is a lawyer out there (and I know there are some) I'm sure you can explain this to Eddie more elegantly than I. Please do.

What if the sergeant's defense was that he didn't like the food?


LOL!

Dude, nice try, but something subjective as "food not tasting good" can't compare to the real defense which is the soldier disserted because he did not choose to obey an illegal order. This is an iron-clad defense.

You are attacking my knowledge of "the law" (whatever that is) and I am simply pointing out that you can't see the political motive of this guy.

Sure, they will get him on something minor to shut him up and release him from his commitment from the Army with an Honorable Discharge (if he cooperates). But if the Prosecution proceeds full out on dissertion, this guy will bring it to everyone's attention that the war is, in fact, an illegal war. I don't think the guy really cares if he goes to jail or not.

There are many many in the military who believe the same way. They want to fight America's wars but please make sure it's a war for the right reasons!!!

The Prosecutor must prove that this is legal war.

No he does not. The war is not on trial. The sergeant is on trial for desertion. That is what the prosecution has to prove.

The dissertion charge comes about because he refused to obey an illegal order. Again, this is an iron-clad defense.

The Prosecutor must prove that this is legal war.

No he does not. The war is not on trial. The sergeant is on trial for desertion. That is what the prosecution has to prove.

The dissertion charge comes about because he refused to obey an illegal order. Again, this is an iron-clad defense.

Dude, nice try, but something subjective as "food not tasting good" can't compare to the real defense which is the soldier disserted because he did not choose to obey an illegal order.

No it doesn't.

Bottom line is, he is being prosecuted for desertion. That's what the prosecutor has to prove. The sergeant will be able to offer a defense. If he proves his defense (war is illegal) he is off the hook. That's the way our legal system (even military) works, even if you do not agree with it.

The dissertion charge comes about because he refused to obey an illegal order.

I missed that part in the story. What was the illegal order he was given?

If he was given one and can prove it, he'll be able to offer that as a defense and get off.

Again, this is an iron-clad defense.

Again, that defense (the war is illegal) never worked before.

I am very opposed to this war. I hope the sergeant wins. But he won't. There's no question that he deserted. If his defense is that the war is illegal (that is what the article says, not that he refused to obey an illegal order. You made that part up) it won't work. He'll be in Leavenworth making little rocks out of big ones shortly.

The dissertion charge comes about because he refused to obey an illegal order.

I missed that part in the story. What was the illegal order he was given?

If he was given one and can prove it, he'll be able to offer that as a defense and get off.

Posted by goatman


uh... *whispering* he disobeyed an order to show up.

:)

For one thing DESERTION would mean that he was on duty and left his post. That charge would be frivolous.

He failed to obey a direct order. He is AWOL. Now that he's made public statements he'll be charged with bringing discredit on the service. They'll toss in another one or two for good measure.

As for the prosecutor, he only has to play the tape because the guy has ADMITTED against interest that he received the order to report and did not do so.

Guilty as charged.

The Constitutional question is whether or not the Stop Loss program is legal, and did Bush violate the treaty provision of the Constitution when he failed to obtain authorization for the use of force from the UN, hence the "illegal war." That will not be heard in a military court.

In fact, it may not be heard at all, but if it is then the burden of proof will be on him in a Federal District Court. Good Luck with that.

(that is what the article says, not that he refused to obey an illegal order. You made that part up)

and you accuse me of being ignorant of the law?

Everyone, in the know, will assume that he disobeyed an order. Every communication in the military is an order. It's not an advisory. It's not a suggestion...

The coomunication that the Srgt got to show up in Iraq and fight the war (don't know his exact mission) was an order, and he disobeyed it!

Don't mean to be harsh, goatman, but you need to think outside the box as he did.

It would be a political mistake if they prosecute on the desertion charge, rather, the Prosecution will find a lesser charge and will drop the charges if he goes away peacefully.

You are attacking my knowledge of "the law" (whatever that is) and I am simply pointing out that you can't see the political motive of this guy.

I do indeed see his political motives. Quite clearly AAMOF. But political motives do not preclude the word of the law.

And I meant no attack on your knowledge of the law and I apologize if you saw it as an attack. I was merely pointing out that you are undoubtedly wrong if you think that the prosecution has to prove the war is illegal. They do not and I'll bet any amount of money on it.

The charges are against the sergeant and are of desertion. That is what has to be proven. Period. Did he or did he not desert? If so, he is given the chance to prove mitigating factors. If he can't prove mitigating factors, he's toast.


That's the law, dude.

uh... *whispering* he disobeyed an order to show up.

*more loudly* Being told to show up at your post is not an illegal order. I know. I saw many guys go to NJP for being UA. They were busted every time.

If his defense is based on that "illegal order", his lawyers have quite a hill to climb if they want to exonerate him.

The Constitutional question is whether or not the Stop Loss program is legal, and did Bush violate the treaty provision of the Constitution when he failed to obtain authorization for the use of force from the UN, hence the "illegal war." That will not be heard in a military court.

In fact, it may not be heard at all, but if it is then the burden of proof will be on him in a Federal District Court. Good Luck with that.

Posted by OzarkAggie


Unfortunately, you are right. It will not be heard in a military court.

I did err if in fact the guy is over 30 days. So maybe he's not AWOL any more. LOL

Don't mean to be harsh, goatman, but you need to think outside the box as he did.

Thinking outside of the box is fine, but getting out of it when its bars are made of long standing laws built on a solid legal foundation will be quite difficult.

The sergeant is not arguing stop loss, is he?

He fucked up, too with the maudlin touch of crying and having his friends talk about "self-medication" and such.

Bad move. Should've gotten a lawyer first.

Maybe he'll just have to be a martyr for peace. Conceivably - but not probably - he enlisted to give his all for a cause in which he believes. He now has his chance. If they jug him and throw away the key, or even have wild horses pull him limb from limb a DR Nazis suggest, "libs" will hold rallies for him forever.

You know. Like they do for Norman Morrison. WHO??? Norman Morrison, who set himself on fire in Washington to protest the Vietnam war. herm

Don't mean to be harsh, goatman, but you need to think outside the box as he did.

Thinking outside of the box is fine, but getting out of it when its bars are made of long standing laws built on a solid legal foundation will be quite difficult.

Posted by goatman


I have to apologize for being flippant and sarcastic and I do see where you are coming from. In fact, you are right about what will happen to this guy. He will be found guilty and will spend a a while in jail serving a 30-years sentence.

But what I meant about thinking outside the box was that the US has fought in a war since WWII. Under the Constitution, Congress must declare in order for it to be a war. Then the President has more power. This is not a war.

I could go on about that, but my point is that the Srgt is trying to bring attention to the fact that this is not a war.

If it's not a war, then what is it?

And why should a soldier obey an order that goes against every reason he joined the military in the first place?

He joined the military to defend his country.

The Iraq "War" is "happening" in defense of economy?

In defense of the US Empire?

What is it?

I'm not defending the war. I am very much against it. As to its legality, I cannnot say. That is a legality that is in a gray area this layman cannot discern. It is not as black and white as the charge of desertion, so I haven't a clue there.

I fully understand the heartache one must feel to get a letter telling the reader "you signed up for eight years, and we want you back until it's over." It's a clause in the contract that really sucks. When I was in, it was only six years and I did all six of those active duty, so stop loss would not have affected me.

As I said, I'm against the war. I'm also against the criminalization of marijuana, but laws are laws and until we can change them, we have to live with the consequenses of breaking them.

The military, even more so. An undisciplined militia that is allowed to get away wwith murder (be it figuratively by deserting or literally by murdering innocents) will never work. Discipline must be maintained.

"As to its legality, I cannnot say. That is a legality that is in a gray area this layman cannot discern."

Goat, you cop out. You CAN say. What part of the constitution's insisting that only congress can declare war can you not grasp? "Discipline must be maintained?" It's OUR side, with its Geneva convention and Nurenberg trials, that insists higher rules exist. A guy refusing to torture or to fight in an illegal war obeys the higher rules. At his own peril, I fear. herm

The military, even more so. An undisciplined militia that is allowed to get away wwith murder (be it figuratively by deserting or literally by murdering innocents) will never work. Discipline must be maintained.

Posted by goatman


I completely agree with this statement, but I'm afraid that Bush is misusing the military (boy, is that an understatenment?) and I am truely surprised t