quote We are at WAR with terrorism and it is often confused due to the belief that there are many terrorists there.

i don't understand how we can be at war with a non-entity.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: here's an area where i know just about exactly nothing, so could you expand on that? what occurs to me is that while the UCMJ and the civil legal system may both devolve directly from the constitution, they do not necessarily relate, one to the other. rules of evidence, for instance, are not defined by the constitution, so could be quite different for each system. could you take up a few of what you consider relevant points of departure between military and civilian justice?

1. In Civilian life you can bad mouth the President all you want. In the Military it is forbidden by the UCMJ.
2. If you do not show up to work in civilian life you are not prosecuted. In the Military you are prosecuted. it's called missing movement or deployment.
3. continus absence from your civilian job: Job abandonment, and they find a new person to take your place.
In the MIlitary its AWOL and desertion. In wartime, these are punishable harshly, and in the case of desertion, you can be put to death if convicted.

These are just a few examples. I am not even covering the "don't ask don't tell ones."

S. Williams

------------------
1988 Fiero Formula T-tops
CJB 143 of 1252 "factory T-top cars"

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: i don't understand how we can be at war with a non-entity.

that is why we are saying "we are not actually at war"

the war is over. Iraq lost.

What would you call a police officer who voluntarily accepted a position, took thye expensive training, SWORE AN OATH, and then refused to answer calls in a neighborhood that was more dangerous than others?????

quote Originally posted by 88 Formula: What would you call a police officer who voluntarily accepted a position, took thye expensive training, SWORE AN OATH, and then refused to answer calls in a neighborhood that was more dangerous than others?????

New Orleans' finest.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 01-10-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: New Orleans' finest.

Ouch...glad I ain't NOPD...or, as some wag said, NO P.D....

Here's the oath of enlistment: (which I've taken at least three times)

"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 oath for officers is even more specific and binding, and is in addition to the oath of enlistment:

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Basically, I don't think he has a legal leg to stand on...he's trying to use the court of world opinion and statements made by the former Secretary General of the UN, neither of which have the force of law. When he gets into that tribunal, I think it's going to be the fast track to what the officers attending the Command and General Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth used to refer to as the "Long Course"...because in a court-martial, the ONLY thing that matters is the law, specifically the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He's a well cooked goose.

[This message has been edited by Vonov (edited 01-10-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Vonov: "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

i agree that he is probably about to be roasted and basted, but i'm curious...

would it be at all possible, or relevant, for him to demonstrate that the task he was being told to undertake did not in any material way defend the constitution? it seems to me that "true faith and allegiance" isn't the same as total obedience, so that clause doesn't come into effect, and that the main item to be used against him with respect to the oath would be the question of his duties.


edit: oops. scratch the main part of that. i didn't clearly read the part where you indicated that the officer's oath is in addition to the enlistment oath, which is pretty specific about following orders.

the first curiosity stands, though.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-10-2007).]

Remember that the oath for officers is in addition to the oath of enlistment...including the part about obeying "the orders of the officers appointed over me". (You sort of have to be enlisted in the armed forces of the United States, before you can be appointed an officer in the armed forces of the United States. If there are any exceptions to that, such as ROTC, someone please correct me.)

quote Originally posted by Vonov: Remember that the oath for officers is in addition to the oath of enlistment...including the part about obeying "the orders of the officers appointed over me". (You sort of have to be enlisted in the armed forces of the United States, before you can be appointed an officer in the armed forces of the United States. If there are any exceptions to that, such as ROTC, someone please correct me.)

Too many years ago, I honestly don't remember. If I can find my commission, I'll post what it says.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

He's an LT and the Officer's Oath states it very clearly:

"... I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter..."

(Thanks Vonov)

He has no argument.

used to be an officer could resign his commission. then what?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: New Orleans' finest.

LOL! good one

quote Originally posted by Falcon4: In the meantime he's a goddamn genius.

How so ? Umm...there is absolutely zero logic contained in your supposition. I would hate to think stupidity caught you.
In one breath, Watada says the war is illegal. In another breath he says it is up to the newly elected Congress to decide. He also gives as reasons for his actions...

quote Lt Watada You know, I think the most important reason here is to raise awareness among the American people that hey — there's a war going on, and American soldiers are dying every day. Hundreds of Iraqis are dying every day.

Did he join the press corps or the Army?

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Second, he claims the war is illegal under international law. He discovered that "the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg principles all bar wars of aggression." The Constitution makes such treaties part of American law as well. These are not wild legal claims. Watada's conclusions are supported by mountains of evidence and experts, including the judgment of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who in 2004 declared that the U.S. invasion was "not in conformity with the U.N. Charter, and from our point of view ... was illegal." Watada said he came to recognize that the military conduct of the occupation is also illegal: He told ABC News that the "wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people" is "a contradiction to the Army's own law of land warfare."

I just can not see how anyone would think of this war as one of aggression. Secretary General Kofi Annan has even less credibility than the UN. The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people ? That is too far out to even be within a reach.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I just can not see how anyone would think of this war as one of aggression.

whether or not you agree that it is - and you make it clear that you don't - i find it hard to believe that your certainty is so concrete, that it completely blinds you to anyone else's doubt.

so was this a rhetorical flourish, or are you really that unseeing?

quote Originally posted by lurker: used to be an officer could resign his commission. then what?

It would depend on his status, (Reserve Component or Regular Army) how much, if anything, remained of his statutory obligation, and how he became an officer in the first place. (Most "mustangs," for instance, have long since discharged their six-year statutory service obligation by the time they reach status as commissioned officers; an OCS grad would generally have to serve the remainder of his time as enlisted personnel.)

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Damn I'm glad your not in charge of anything. You know NOTHING about this guy yet make these statements.

I know he took an oath and violated it. That's all I need to know about his character.

Perhaps YOU don't mind paying your taxes to feed, educate, shelter, and arm men who drop their guns and go running to mommie the second they are called upon to do what they promised to do, but the REST of America DOES.

He will be convicted and thrown in jail. Mark my words.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Then you don't understand any war that has ever been fought. WWII wasn't a war against Germany and the German Army...or the Italian Army or the Japanese Army, etc.

this is one of the more inventive bits of armchair-warrior bullshit i've seen. nicely done. you really do have this knack for overstating anything, just so you can bulldog a corner.

i think i'll just see if any actual military historians care to chime in on this one.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-14-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: i think i'll just see if any actual military historians care to chime in on this one.

One already has.

My military library:
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/046789.html

You see, one need not have served in the military to be a military historian. One only needs an inquisitive mind.

Let us know when you get one.

It would take a blind eye and a deaf ear to not realize that radical muslims have an intent to destroy anything American or for that matter, anything that doesn't go along with their beliefs. Their ideology and intrepretation of the Koran taken to the extreeme is what this war on terrorism is all about. It too bad that some of our so called allies don't have the intestinal foritude to take a stand along with our volunteer military and put an end to the barbarism taking place all over the world.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: .......or are you really that unseeing?

You really have a way about throwing out insults.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: ......i find it hard to believe that your certainty is so concrete, that it completely blinds you to anyone else's doubt.

Do you care to make a case that the war is one of aggression? I can understand doubt and appreciate it. My words reflected a conclusion of thoughts. I can not even see how the word rhetorical entered your mind unless it was to belittle.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: One already has. My military library: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/046789.html You see, one need not have served in the military to be a military historian. One only needs an inquisitive mind. Let us know when you get one.

oooh, snap. you're getting almost as good as voytek, now.

yeah, yeah, i'm all impressed with the paperweights on your bookshelves. gee, next we'll start trading transcripts.
do you have a fallback position that doesn't involve wagging parts of your anatomy?
sheesh.
like i said, i'll wait for some others to weigh in - should they choose to do so - who have something to offer other than bellicose overgeneralizations. who knows? i might even be persuaded. but not by your self-aggrandizing blowhardiness.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: It was his reasons that were obvious Andrew. The confusion I have is about his means of telling the world about them. Most cowards just run away and announce their gutlessness with their actions alone, but this guy stood in front of a camera to tell the entire world that he was a coward and did so with some level of ....I dunno...pride? Weird.

And I see what you meant. I was actually saying that you are assuming he is gutless. I believe your strong personal convictions leave you with no other idea except that. You just can't use yourself or an idea to generate an accurate picture of someone Else's personality or their reason for doing something. This guy is anything but obvious and like many people that seem to be intelligent he confuses me with his apparent lack of logic.
Maybe he isn't gutless. Maybe he truly believes in his conviction that he is doing the right thing for the right reason and this is according to him the right time to take a stand for everyone else. Besides, since when do brave and correct have anything to do with each other?


------------------
Agent 99: Oh, Max, how terrible.
Maxwell Smart: He desereved it, 99. He was a Kaos killer.
Agent 99: Sometimes I wonder if we're any better, Max.
Maxwell Smart: What are you talking about, 99? We have to shoot and kill and destroy. We represent everything that's wholesome and good in the world.

[This message has been edited by pokeyfiero (edited 01-14-2007).]

Anyone stating that Iraq was not being aggressive towards the US is woefully ignorant of the facts. We were flying over Iraq for years before the war started to enforce the UN mandated no-fly zones. This was a condition of the ceasefire that Saddam agreed to after he was kicked out of Kuwait. Before we invaded, Iraq was firing missiles, trying to shoot down our aircrews on a daily basis. I fail to see how anyone can consider firing missiles at aircraft carrying out UN sanctioned missions not being aggressive.

quote Originally posted by 88 Formula: Anyone stating that Iraq was not being aggressive towards the US is woefully ignorant of the facts. We were flying over Iraq for years before the war started to enforce the UN mandated no-fly zones. This was a condition of the ceasefire that Saddam agreed to after he was kicked out of Kuwait. Before we invaded, Iraq was firing missiles, trying to shoot down our aircrews on a daily basis. I fail to see how anyone can consider firing missiles at aircraft carrying out UN sanctioned missions not being aggressive.

aside from the preamble, a very direct, concrete example. thank you.

it raises other questions, which i need to think about a little, before i come back to it. it's getting late, and i'm not feeling all that cogent.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-14-2007).]

The aggressive to the US part is that they didn't ever launch any attack towards the US, never announced any intention of launching any attack towards the US. We attacked them as a preemptive strike... that was the declared goal, the emergency that couldn't wait, that they were an immediate threat to the US and the surrounding region, that they had WMD and were going to use them. IT didn't have squat to do with 9/11, with Israel, with Kuwait, with them firing at UN sanctioned air patrols. Our leaders stated that they had weapons of mass destruction and we had no choice but to invade to eliminate that threat. All the spin in the world doesn't change that we were wrong... lie or misinformation. After the fact spindoctoring doesn't make it a defensive war by the US. WE invaded THEM. They didn't launch any attack on the US that had to be repelled.

Thousands, tens of thousands, maybe more than a hundred thousand Iraqi's civilians died in our attack. Then we let anarchy reign, then we used their worst example of what we were supposedly their to free them from against them. We are the ones roaming the streets kicking in doors, blindfolding civilians and dragging them off. We are the ones NOT keeping the peace, NOT imposing order, NOT stopping the attacks that are taking dozens to hundreds of lives a day. They are the ones dying in mass on a daily basis. WE INVADED, THEY DIE... what part of that isn't aggression? We lost 3000 in 9/11, something they had no connection with, we've now lost more in Iraq, they've lost about 20x that number of civilians. How happy would we be if we were the ones with anarchy in the streets and a occupying military force killing us in those numbers for our own good or better yet... to prevent it from happening on their soil?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

This post is to be viewed as a something to give a different point of view than your being asked to use by our government. It's to point out the problem, not a defense of Watada's actions. Keep this in mind... Rumsfeld has had charges filed against him for war crimes. As a soldier I was trained to follow LEGAL orders, and we had classes where it was explicitly explained that we had a duty to not follow illegal ones. The argument that the he took an oath to follow the President's orders doesn't hold on it's own if the orders were not legal. If the president said, burn the babies alive, rape the women, then rape and kill the men... should he follow that because the orders were given by the Commander in Chief? Just play the scenario out, it's a matter of drawing the line. I'm not saying he is at that line, Watada is and has put his liberty an future on the line to play it out in court.

I don't believe his orders to deploy come close, if he got into a situation once there... that's when he should have brought it up. Apparently he believes otherwise pretty strongly.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/a...1564,1413907,00.html

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Every war that has ever been fought is the manifestation of one ideology confronting another head on.

Actually, most wars that have been fought throughout history have been either a large-scale armed robbery (such as Saddam's invasions of Kuwait and Iran) fought because one nation was trying to grab resources from another; or a clash precipitated by one group of people encroaching on another group's territory, (such as the Hebrews invading Canaan, or the people who now occupy the area we know as Vietnam, who were pushed there by the Manchu invaders of what is now China) and displacing the people who originally lived there. Wars over ideology have been fairly rare until the Twentieth Century, with the notable exception of the Crusades.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: it was, therefore, a solely pre-emptive invasion, that can only be differentiated from a "war of aggression" because we're the good guys. or something to that effect.

Now that is a conclusion of thoughts...or something to that effect. Which might be doubt. Cool.
A War of Aggression does not differentiate due to an alleged aggressor claiming good guy status. It is rooted in international law. I am unaware of the United States ever being charged with the war crime of starting a war of aggression. Many people put spin on things trying to stir up doubt. Also cool. Spin is usually a reach and is always rationalization to excuse. As in the case of Lt Watada. Whatever. Because I cannot see how anyone would think of this war as one of aggression, would not mean I am unseeing. Maybe not all seeing but definitely not unseeing. Don't tell anyone but I have fallacies .
I can make a case that the war was not even an invasion. It was precipitated by a war of aggression by Iraq on Kuwait. An invasion of which we came to at the defense of our allies. As we did against Germany. The first “gulf war” never ended. The Saddam Hussein dictatorship, which committed crimes against humanity, was supposed to abide by UN stipulations, which they never did. In fact, after being known to have weapons of mass destruction and using them on his own people, he claimed to still have them and defied UN inspectors their right he gave them to look for and destroy them.
After also defying the no fly zones, which drew international response which was led 99% by American forces and policy, one would not have to put too much spin on the fact Saddam Hussein would/could allow weapons of mass destruction into the hands of our enemies which vow destruction of ourselves.
Remember the guy on the porch who had a flip-flop sandal, claimed it a gun and threatened to use it? He never committed an act of aggression with it. He met the same fate as Saddam.
Nations who are starting an armed conflict must now argue that they are either exercising the right of self-defense, the right of collective defense, or - it seems - the enforcement of the criminal law of jus cogens. It has made formal declaration of war uncommon after 1945. The UN charter stipulates that a party to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice. The Unitede States did this exhaustively with the UN Security Council.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I can make a case that the war was not even an invasion.

many cases could be made, as you have just done. but to say "i can't see [...]" is either to make the blanket assertion that no contrary case has enough merit even to be considered, or that you actually can't imagine the possibility of such a case.

and that was my point. it was a more serious example of meta-argument (a notion i just introduced to fierobear). in many instances, i'm far less interested in the competing premises and cases themselves, then in how the ways in which they are presented reflect individual and group worldviews.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: "i can't see [...]" is either to make the blanket assertion that no contrary case has enough merit even to be considered, or that you actually can't imagine the possibility of such a case.

Maybe to you. I don't see it as an either/or. In fact, I do not see it either making a blanket assertion nor negating the possibilities of imagination. Taken in the context that it was a reply to an assertion, there can be no doubt that it invited more information than just an opposing view.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Maybe to you. I don't see it as an either/or. In fact, I do not see it either making a blanket assertion nor negating the possibilities of imagination. Taken in the context that it was a reply to an assertion, there can be no doubt that it invited more information than just an opposing view.

and there it is again.

it seems to me that indeed there is doubt, now on two levels.... first, of the assertion itself; second, of your framing.

would you care to make another similar declaration, and add a third?


edit: "i don't understand that", or "i don't understand this opinion about that" is different from "i don't understand how anyone could hold this opinion about that."

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-15-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: would you care to make another similar declaration, and add a third?

I can't see how I won't...at some time or another.

we crossposted. see edit above.