What about the troops?
POSTED BY: Causal
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 15:17
VIEWED: 12314
PAGE 3 of 7
Quote:
"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."
Therein lies the issue, you see: The Constitution takes precedence, first and foremost in a soldiers duty, and obediance to it's principles is not a matter of debate or conjecture - it takes precedence even over and above his orders, because it is the very basis they rest upon.
Quote:
US CONSTITUTION.
Article 1, Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Congress, and ONLY Congress, has the power to declare war - they cannot legally abdicate it, the President cannot legally usurp it, and unless a power has been specifically granted to either one, it is the province of the state, or it's people respectively (See: Amendments IX and X)
We ain't supposed to have a standing army either, you wanna get picky about it.
This was absolutely intentional, and intended to prevent exactly the situation we are staring down the barrel of now - a President who thinks he's King.
Is there an Offical, recorded Congressional Declaration of War on Iraq ?
No.
THEN THERE IS NO WA
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The troops are certainly not evil.
In the military there is chain of command, and it is necessary in order to reduce casualties and win objectives....if every soldier "debated" and "pondered" every order given, all you would have is chaos and mass casualties.
For this war.....I blame ( my opinion ) the Generals and former Sec. Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was stubborn & arrogant, and did not take the General's advice for more troops from the onset, and the Generals have horrendously under-estimated the enemy's resolve and capabilitites. Going way back, the minute I saw the endless days of looting in Baghdad I knew that the whole thing was screwed up. Also the politics of this have messed things up alot. We could have nabbed Al Sadr a zillion times but never did....then he went on a rampage against Sunnis, plunging Iraq into civil war...and we are in the middle of no-man's land. I'm not a military man...but I still ask the question..I don't understand WHY the military can't protect a street from roadside bombs located a few blocks from the Green Zone??? I don't understand why ANY Iraqis were EVER allowed to carry guns, etc etc. This is going exactly like Vietnam...after America pulled out of S. Vietnam about 3 million Vietnamese & Cambodians were slaughtered by the Communists...In Iraq when we pull out no one will be slaughtered (except the Govt.) but Iranians and their terrorists stooges will have a new base to wreak more havoc against all their neighbors..I don't see (like Bush always says) that America is threatened any more or less by our leaving there. And finally, I'd like to see Rumsfeld arrested and charged with gross negligence, incompetence, and reckless endangerment.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Don't throw that goddamned piece of paper in our faces, Frem. (Kidding- in the not-so-funny way)
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Is there an Offical, recorded Congressional Declaration of War on Iraq ?
No.
THEN THERE IS NO WAR, Constitutionally.
Peeps not exposed directly to abuse of power have a hard time dealing with how complicated and subtle it can be. I've been in contact with it on the court judge/police officer level, and it's quite surprising to see at first; it makes you feel like you're in a bad TV movie. You wanna ask them "So, you're a good guy? What are the bad ones like?"
Just tossin' that in Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Of course it's unworkable, if they did that then folks might start *gasp* actually disobeying unlawful orders, and without the threat of force to push the will of the empire upon us, we might not be "good little americans" anymore... can't have that, can we ?
No it's unworkable because its...literally imposable to implement in any truly meaningful form. I mean out side of some sort of star trek convergence of holodeck / alien mind modification/ MKultra mess.
First you would have to some how convinces a guy that he is in fact in a real no Sh* combat situation. Then you would have to come up with some at lest marginally plausible reason that given the situation at hand (which in spite of being completely mocked up he has been convinced is the real deal) for him to cap a "innocent civilian".
I mean it can't be patently ridicules ether way can it as far as the shot/don’t shot scenario is concerned? There are after all "child" solders and female suicide bombers it's all situatnel.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since there's some cross-posting, here's the location of my post that also applies here.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=26886
Rue
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:The vast majority of men and women that serve and have served this country deserve our gratitude and respect, as well as BETTER quality benefits than they've been recieving from miserly old Uncle Sam!!!! Average 100+ day wait for attention from the VA seems completely effed to me. If money can be dumped into this war, it sure as hell should include the well being of the troops back at HOME!!!
Originally posted by Causal:
Well, FFF.net: what do you think? How should we respond to the military and to those who have served in Iraq?
All manner of concerned Chrisisall
Hear! Hear!
ChrisisallisDaBom
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
it's all situatnel.
Course it is.
That's why I am not faulting the guys on the ground at the front line - the time to think about this crap is before you get there, cause once you do not taking a round takes precedence.
To paraphrase David Drake a little - When you send a person into a combat zone, they are going to do whatever they feel is necessary in order to survive the situation, and if you have a problem with that, the time to do something about it is before you send em.
Yer typical fresh faced recruit straight out of high school and the american "education" system doesn't know jack diddly shit about this kind of issue, nor are they given any incentive or opportunity to learn it, especially not when rammed through BASIC, AIT and shipped to the front, hell no - they don't know these things and faulting them for that ignorance is asinine.
I rest the blame for such things on the shoulders of the folks giving orders they DO know are unlawful, but in the rare case of a soldier realizing he's caught in a bind between his oath and his orders, I am not going to fault him either, provided he responds in a way that does not needlessly endanger his unit.
When yer out on patrol is not the time to address those issues, obviously, let's have a little common sense in here folks, but if upon return and standdown he takes it up with his CO, that is his perogative and his duty.
The blame for this fiasco belongs squarely on the shoulders of the high command, and ShinyEd just gave a good concept of that failure, although I would not agree with disarming Iraqis as a whole, since we've proven beyond doubt that we're unable to protect them if we do so.
What's gonna happen is gonna happen, whether it happens now or later, our responsibility is going to be the same regardless, and there's no easy solution, no.
Probably the best thing we could possibly do is throw it in the lap of the UN and split, sure they're corrupt as hell, but honestly no more so than KBR, Haliburton, and all the war profiteers WE brought with us, really.
Given the realities of the situation I'd prefer to unfuck the situation first and start layin blame later - but in spite of those realities the illusion that the orders in question are legal is just that, an illusion, and we should at least be honest with ourselves about it.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I have a theory that says that civilians have a tendency to treat the military and military operations the same way that they treat a waiter in a restaurant.
Hear! Hear! TonyisalmostasbrilliantasChrisisall
FutureIamhungrytooMrsFillion
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
From combined dispatches
FORT LEWIS, Wash. -- The judge in the case against the first U.S. officer court-martialed for refusing to go to Iraq barred several scholars on international and constitutional law from testifying yesterday about the legality of the war.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070206-121218-7307r.htm
The words "Drumhead Court" come to mind.
When a Judge exerts control over what testimony and/or evidence can be introduced, at that point in ANY case, he has overstepped his authority and the trial itself becomes a farce, if you are going to sit there and refuse any evidence or testimony in order to bend the trial to your will, deny the jury their rights to decide the law as well as the case - fuck it, just drag em out back and lynch em, cause that's exactly what yer doing.
I've already pointed out the facts of the matter above - they have no case, so they manufacture one by preventing evidence from reaching the jury, thus deliberately and with malice aforethought, misinforming them in the hopes of skewing the verdict.
And this case, as well as others related to gun ownership and tax payment, make me wanna fucking puke when some asswipe judge states the The Constitution has no place in a US Court of Law ?
When it is the very BASIS of those Laws ?
ANY Judge who speaks those words should be stripped of his robes, tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail, period.
Are we America ?
Or are we really just some pathetic tinpot junta pretending to a title we no longer have a right to ?
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
From combined dispatches
FORT LEWIS, Wash. -- The judge in the case against the first U.S. officer court-martialed for refusing to go to Iraq barred several scholars on international and constitutional law from testifying yesterday about the legality of the war.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070206-121218-7307r.htm
The words "Drumhead Court" come to mind.
When a Judge exerts control over what testimony and/or evidence can be introduced, at that point in ANY case, he has overstepped his authority and the trial itself becomes a farce, if you are going to sit there and refuse any evidence or testimony in order to bend the trial to your will, deny the jury their rights to decide the law as well as the case - fuck it, just drag em out back and lynch em, cause that's exactly what yer doing.
I've already pointed out the facts of the matter above - they have no case, so they manufacture one by preventing evidence from reaching the jury, thus deliberately and with malice aforethought, misinforming them in the hopes of skewing the verdict.
And this case, as well as others related to gun ownership and tax payment, make me wanna fucking puke when some asswipe judge states the The Constitution has no place in a US Court of Law ?
When it is the very BASIS of those Laws ?
ANY Judge who speaks those words should be stripped of his robes, tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail, period.
Are we America ?
Or are we really just some pathetic tinpot junta pretending to a title we no longer have a right to ?
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
For what it's worth, the reason the judge ruled that the legality of the war is not permissible in Watada's defense is because it's not germaine to the charges. Watada is not being charged with dereliction of duty or refusing to obey a direct order. He's being charged with missing movement--that is, for failing to be physically present with his unit when it shipped out. Now, if Watada had move with his unit, and then refused all orders once in-country, then I imagine that the legality or illegality of the war would be germaine to the defense. This is part of what I've been saying about soldiers not being able to choose which orders to obey and which not to. As far as I can tell, the movement order wasn't unlawful, so the legality or illegality of the war isn't relevant. What is relevant is just whether or not he was with his unit. So apparently there's going to have to be another dissenter to get the legality/illegality question brought up in court.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME