Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The anti-war left’s newest "hero"
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, June 08, 2006

I have very strong feelings about this, but I don't believe it necessary to go into them. I'm sure most regular readers of this blog know full well how I feel about this person. Suffice it to say this guy won't be showing up on any "Project Hero" posts:
In a rare case of officer dissent, a Fort Lewis Army lieutenant has refused orders to head out to Iraq this month to lead troops in what he believes is an illegal war of occupation.

1st Lt. Ehren Watada was scheduled to make his first deployment to Iraq this month. His refusal to accompany the Stryker brigade troops puts him at risk of court martial and years of prison time.

"I feel that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration," Watada said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Fort Lewis. "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war."

In a statement released today, Watada said the "war in Iraq violates our democratic system of checks and balances.
Any officer who takes his oath seriously understands that he may not agree with the national authority about when, where and who he might be called on to fight. But that's an argument to be considered before you take the oath. If you have any doubts at all, you should seek another line of work. Once you've committed yourself by swearing your allegiance and have made the solemn promise to follow the orders of your superiors, that argument is over.

That is especially true in an all volunteer force. I have no respect or sympathy for LT. Watada. He feels the Army will make an example of him. I sincerely hope they do.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
While I understand your feelings, isn’t it a duty of all officers to not follow orders they believe are illegal.

"We were following orders" shouldn’t be the words they use in their defense at a war crimes trial.

Having said that, he should still be thrown in jail, and charged with whatever section of the UCMJ covers this. No need for the military to make a spectacle of him, the left will be more then willing to do that.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
HE IS A COWARD.
 
Written By: Sharon
URL: http://
I second what Keith said.
Aren’t servicemen and -women taught not to follow orders they know to be illegal, e.g., human rights violations?
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://

THIS MAN IS A COWARD.
 
Written By: Sharon
URL: http://
Sure OrneryWP and IF his deployment orders WERE illegal he couild refuse to obey them... he’d still be tried, but the argument would be that he would be cleared. As his orders AREN’T illegal he gets tried AND convicted.

As a 1Lt. he’s been in the US Army no more than 3 years, I’d bet, meaning his commission is from 2003, meaning he became an ossifer AFTER 9/11 and during OIF. He volunteered IN A TIME OF WAR. He’s a poltroon and a loser. Now the Army is asking him to fulfill his oath and he doesn’t want to, too darn bad. You don’t want to "Travel to faraway places, meet exotic people and ...KILL TEHM" fine, don’t volunteer, otherwise "sack up" and be prepared to go.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
He objects to trying to rebuild Iraq?
He thinks that’s illegal?
He doesn’t want to fight the insurgency and help stablize the new government of Iraq?

So, exactly when did he decide this ’war’ was illegal? It’s been going on the entire time he’s been in the Army.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Clearly this soldier is not brainwashed enough to wear the uniform.
 
Written By: skillet
URL: http://
It is amazing to see so many computer warriors declare the man a ’’coward’’ from the safety and security of their homes, rather than from Fallujah.

This young man is standing on his belief that the war is illegal, and immoral: Could any of his detractors follow orders they thought were Illegal?

Once again, the moral degeneracy, and hypocrisy, of the 20% of the population who still support this God-forsaken war has reared it’s ugly head.

Del Wasso,
Former Marine, 1985-1991,
and webmaster of ShockedandAwful.com
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
The only folks who think Operation Iraqi Freedom was "illegal" are Susan Sarandon, Saddam’s lawyers, the DNC, Iran, Syria, Juan Cole, a handful of socialist ex-chancellors from Germany and Scandinavia, and, of course, Kofi Annan’s UN.

This "soldier" should take a look at his fellow-travelers and realize he’s gotten on the wrong bus!
 
Written By: grass
URL: http://
In a statement released today, Watada said the "war in Iraq violates our democratic system of checks and balances.
This idiot should get jailed for criminal stupidity.

This war was signed off on in a constitutional way. CONGRESS signed the authorization. The President is carrying out his part. Congress votes for funding. Congress and the media are unrelenting in their criticisms of the conduct of the war. Exactly what check or balance has been bypassed?

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
What is illegal is the violation of international agreements and conventions signed by the US to not wage pre-emptive war. There was not and is not any proof that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was directly supporting terrorism against the US. If there was even a shred of proof, the Administration would be trumpeting it at every opportunity. Therefore, the war is illegal with regards to international law. If the US will not abide by international treaties, we will soon find ourselves lacking support for those policies for which we need international support (e.g. drug suppression, patents, weapons trade).

After such tragedies as Abu Ghraib and Haditha, we could use more soldiers who can tell the difference between right and wrong.
 
Written By: Luke
URL: http://
It is amazing to see so many computer lawyers declare the man is acting in accordance with his duty to refuse illegal orders. You take an oath to defend the Constitution. Refusing illegal orders follows from that, but let’s look at this from a constitutional perspective. The Constitution declares that the commander in chief is the president, and he has the sole authority to declare war. No caveats for "illegal wars." According to the Constitution, if the president sends you off to war, it’s legal by definition. By refusing to fight in that war, this 1LT has just broken his vow to defend the Constitution. He deserves to be court martialed and sent to Levenworth for a good long time, long enough for him to figure out what constitutes an illegal order.

Illegal orders are the kind of thing which happened at My Lai and appears to have happened at Haditha. "Kill those unarmed civilians" is an illegal order. "Go to war" is perfectly legal.
 
Written By: BrianOfAtlanta
URL: http://
I suppose I’m "anti-war" insofar as I didn’t think this invasion was a good idea, but I’m no friend of this guy or his type.

 
Written By: Mithras
URL: http://mithrastheprophet.blogspot.com
The lieutenant swore an oath. You may not put much stock in that. Fine - Don’t raise your right hand and swear to it. It is an all volunteer force and nobody twisted his arm to force him to say the words or sign on the dotted line. But he did and the oath went something like this:

"I, Ehren Watada, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, 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."

As stated earlier in a previous post, nowhere in this oath does it talk about exceptions like "illegal war" and such. If the lieutenant wants to play the "illegal war" card then he better be able to discount not only the orders of his Commander-in-Chief but also the vote in the Senate and even the vote in the UN Security Council. A British Royal Air Force officer tried to do the same and got convicted. He’s now doing hard time in the British equivalent of Leavenworth. There is a difference in an illegal order and an illegal war. He will be convicted on disobeying a legal order. And for those who will cry "Innocent until proven guilty" - his guilt came from his own lips.

But I believe a more important question needs to be asked to those who support his actions. Do you really want officers in the military to pick and chose what orders to obey? Think about it for a minute - Do you really? Because that is the way of the Praetorian Guard of ancient Rome. The Praetorian Guard and the Legions of Rome became the power of the throne. They chose Ceasar. Generals who wanted the power only had to pay their soldiers enough for their support and - poof - out goes the old Ceasar and in comes the new. They put their personal loyalties above that of the state. Take a good look at that kind of history and then tell me that is the kind of military officer you really want. South and Central American history is full of examples of officers who knew what kind of government should hold sway and proved it with force of arms - Remember Pinochet? Are these representative of the kinds of officers you support? And do not state that these were aberrations, that this young lieutenant is standing up for what he believes. Eichmann said the same thing. Goering said the same thing.

You can’t have it both ways.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Quick correction Brian of Atlanta,
The Constitution declares that the commander in chief is the president, and he has the sole authority to declare war.
Congress has the sole authority to declare war.

And really, Sharon, find something insightful or contructive to say like everyone else has. You make everyone who agrees with McQ’s post look bad.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Luke - I’d like to see some treaty citation before I decide what we have and have not violated.
You’ll pardon me if your word that we’ve done so isn’t quite solid enough for me to agree with your point.

We’ll just skip all the ways Saddam violated the UN resolutions after Gulf War 1 too.

Pretty interesting that there’s only this 1 out of the many 1st Lt’s both in, and going to Iraq who aren’t on board with this guy though isn’t it?
Yeah, I know, we must have virtually an entire army full of 1st Lt’s who just have no conscience. Probably gobs of Captains, Majors, etc too.
Yep, that’s got to be the answer.

What a shame all those gobs of senior conscienceless officers in the military aren’t going to agree with all of you who think he’s an upstanding guy with a valid point.
Tell ya what, get his vital info and you can be his pen-pals when he’s in Levanworth.
I’m sure that’ll be great comfort to him.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
What is illegal is the violation of international agreements and conventions signed by the US to not wage pre-emptive war. There was not and is not any proof that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was directly supporting terrorism against the US. If there was even a shred of proof, the Administration would be trumpeting it at every opportunity. Therefore, the war is illegal with regards to international law
I don’t know what foreign nation or institution YOU give alliegance to and put their laws above ours, but we’re conducting the war in a constitutional way. This "illegal" sh*t doesn’t fly. And even if you want to debate the fig-leaf of the UN (which I suppose is what you mean) then I guess you need to tell me exactly what was violated, when, and why.

Put up or shut up.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Pre-emptive war is a recognized International War Crime for which the United States HUNG Germans, following the Second World War.

If it was a crime then, please tell me what happened to make it legal, today?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
Del Wasso, I would point you to your own link (paragraph 2)
The United Nations Charter admits only two circumstances in which one country is allowed to use military force against another:

- when a country must defend itself against an attack from another country;

- when the Security Council authorizes the use of military force against a country that is in violation of the principles of the U.N. Charter.
As has been discussed ad nauseum, Iraq was under UN Sanctions threatening military force. Therefore, we followed those rules. You may disagree with the steps followed to get the Congress to agree to the war to make it legal in the US, but it is certainly a legal UN function. If you disagree, I suggest you take it up with those notorious war-mongers who joined us in your so-called illegal war: Poland, Spain, Canada, etc.
 
Written By: Ken
URL: http://
Pre-emptive war is a recognized International War Crime for which the United States HUNG Germans, following the Second World War.

If it was a crime then, please tell me what happened to make it legal, today?
You do realize that this war was "legalized" by multiple UN resolutions, and by Saddam’s violation of the cease-fire accords?

Don’t argue history with those actually remember it, m’kay?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Once again, the moral degeneracy, and hypocrisy, of the 20% of the population who still support this God-forsaken war has reared it’s ugly head.
Excuse me!!!

With all due regard to your service, I support this war and stated my thoughts clearly.

So why don’t you stop trying to paint with such a broad brush.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
I’d like to see the treaty, prior to the establishment of the UN (which was created AFTER the Second World War) that was used as evidence to hang the Germans for launching a ’pre-emptive’ war.

And maybe you could tell me what they were pre-empting in Czechoslovakia, the Rhineland, and Poland?
That sort of comparison is like saying Saddam launched a pre-emptive strike against Kuwait.
You DO understand what ’pre-emptive’ means, correct?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
SShiell - do you want an officer or soldier who only follows orders, legal or not?
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
"The Constitution declares that the commander in chief is the president, and he has the sole authority to declare war. "

Better read it again.


"And do not state that these were aberrations, that this young lieutenant is standing up for what he believes. Eichmann said the same thing. Goering said the same thing."

I think you are a little confused. Eichmann said that he was only following orders, not disobeying them. Is it your contention that blind obedience to orders is a good thing?


"Pre-emptive war is a recognized International War Crime for which the United States HUNG Germans, following the Second World War."

Where in your linked excerpt does it use the words "pre-emptive"? Preemption and aggression are not synonymous.


"Once again, the moral degeneracy, and hypocrisy,..."

Do you insult everyone who disagrees with you? You must have a very small circle of friends.


 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Pre-emptive war is NOT illegal. Uh we hung Germans for WAGING WARS OF AGGRESSION, not pre-emption. Please get your facts and terminology straight. Sorry you lose.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Aside from the fact that it’s a Wikipedia citation - even if people agree with the posting as fact, it indicates the Germans weren’t tried because of the Kellogg-Briand treaty violations, they were tried on principles that came out of the trials themselves and based on ’notions’ that were generated as a result of the treaty. All of which led to principles used in the UN agreements later on.

The citation itself says these were the Nuremburg Principles which outline what ’Crimes against Peace’ are.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Which all leads back to one fundamental question: DID THE UN SANCTION WAR AGAINST IRAQ?

The United Nations did NOT.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091704D.shtml

You Bush-bots simply can not fathom that what Bush-Messiah did is, UNEQUIVACABLY, a WAR CRIME.

By definition, a WAR OF AGGRESSION is generally considered to be any war for which the purpose is not to repel an invasion, or respond to an attack on the territory of a sovereign nation.

You lose.
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
I understand the argument that one should follow the orders of one’s superiors once one has joined the military.

However, that is predicated on the idea that one’s superiors are faithfully executing their own duty to the Constitution of the United States. The law is above any man handing you orders.

In the case of interrogation techniques, for example, the Army field manual sayeth:
While using legitimate interrogation techniques, certain applications of approaches and techniques may approach the line between lawful actions and unlawful actions. It may often be difficult to determine where lawful actions end and unlawful actions begin. In attempting to determine if a contemplated approach or technique would be considered unlawful, consider these two tests: 1) Given all the surrounding facts and circumstances, would a reasonable person in the place of the person being interrogated believe that his rights, as guaranteed under both international and US law, are being violated or withheld, or will be violated or withheld if he fails to cooperate; [and] 2) If your contemplated actions were perpetrated by the enemy against US PWs, you would believe such actions violate international or US law. If you answer yes to either of these two tests, do not engage in the contemplated action. If a doubt still remains as to the legality of a proposed action, seek a legal opinion from your servicing judge advocate.
Now, this officer is free to question his orders and not follow them. He will be held to account for his (in)actions, and if he is ultimately found to be in the wrong then he’ll have to deal with the consequences.

I prefer that system to unquestioning obedience to the men above you, for the reason I already mentioned: those superiors themselves have a duty to the Constitution.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
United Nations Resolution 1441, which declared that time had run out for Saddam, WAS NEVER PASSED.

Look it up, warmongers.
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
There’s a bit of a logic problem here.

If we assume the 1LT is right in refusing to obey an illegal order, doesn’t that logically mean the ?500K? troops who did deploy when ordered obeyed illegal orders and must be tried as war criminals?

So for those here respecting this troop for his decision to avoid the illegal war, are you calling for the trials of the majority of our troops for obeying an illegal order? Or just blowing smoke?

What from his perspective must really stink is his 3 years of active mandatory time end this month (His comission was 6/2003). At some point I’m sure he got it in his head he’d made it through without having to go. I don’t know if there is a reserve requirement after those 3 years, the army website isn’t to clear, and I’m not digging.
 
Written By: Ryan
URL: http://
Wow Del, quoting truthout.

So how’s that Rove indictment coming along. I hear it will be soon.

Quoting Truthout here will only get derision, give us another source.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Which all leads back to one fundamental question: DID THE UN SANCTION WAR AGAINST IRAQ?

The United Nations did NOT.
Actually they did.

Oh, how cute, he cites something from truthout! Hey, what happened, you couldn’t find any citations from KOS or DU?

Anyway, YOU may give your loyalty (such as it is) to the UN, but I’m an American and the only authority I follow or recognize is the law of my country.

Your arguement is as dead as Zarkawi.



 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
SShiell - do you want an officer or soldier who only follows orders, legal or not?
To answer your question simply - No, I do not want an officer who only follows orders. He/She should know what is legal and what is not.

As I stated before, there is a difference between an illegal order and what has been referred to as an "illegal war." The Lieutenant was given an order to deploy. That was a legal order. He disobeyed. He claims he disobeyed for cause. His cause? He claims the war is illegal. Okay, lets see if his "cause" stands up to scrutiny. And it will take a Court Martial to determine that.

I served for 24 years and on one occasion was given an illegal order. It was illegal because it violated a regulation. (As an aside, following the order would not have physically hurt anyone.) I requested the superior officer to put the order in writing - which was my right. He refused to put the order in writing and then withdrew the order.
I think you are a little confused. Eichmann said that he was only following orders, not disobeying them. Is it your contention that blind obedience to orders is a good thing?
Confused? Maybe you should go take a look at the transcript of Eichmann’s trial. Yes, he did claim he was following orders. He also stated on more than one occasion he believed he was doing the right thing by following those orders.

Blind obedience? You have obviously never served in the armed forces - at least not in the service of the United States. I swore an oath to "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." It was an oath that I took seriously and one that does not allow for any blind activity on my part. That is part of what is meant in the oath where it states "without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion" and that means with eyes, ears, heart, and brain wide open. You show me an automaton and I will show you someone who is not a product of the United States military.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
I stand corrected typos abound - UN R1441 was passed, but a follow-up resolution mandating the use of force, was NOT passed.

Look that up.
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
Del Wasso and "Joe" sounding awfully similar with the "you lose" line. Sock puppetry perhaps? Or inability to think of an original line?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Apologies to "Del Wasso" and "Joe"....lol further re-reading showed me I was in error about what I said.

Sorry!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
No, shark - we’re probably just tired of Bush-bots KILLING American kids, with their pig-headed refusal to back down from a failed foreign policy.

And your blind obedience to the Bush/Messiah is hardly ’original.’’

There’s lots of your talking points to be heard on the am radio, and FoxNews.
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
Ryan - the 1LT is correct to disobey what he thinks is an illegal order. That doesnt mean that order was illegal.

I can respect a man for following his conscience, even if I don’t agree with the reasoning behind his acts.

I respect Ghandi for following the path of non-violence, even though I myself would never be comfortable following that path.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Del Wasso - you really are lowering yourself with those comments.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Of course you are sorry... Joe was trying to make your point, but as usual, CONServatives eat their fellow Americans first, being only obstacle preventing them from eating everyone else, alive.

Christ warned about you monsters.

Mat 24:4-13
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
And your blind obedience to the Bush/Messiah is hardly ’original.’’
Sorry Del, but my loyalty isn’t to the current administration (though I certainly support them) it’s to AMERICA. Not the UN. I find it sad that you cannot separate the two points.

Tell me Del, who do you give your loyalty to? America, or the United Nations?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
OrneryWP are you SAYING, not "suggesting" that the, "... those superiors themselves have a duty to the Constitution." have NOT performed their duty vis-a-vis the Constitution? Otherwise what is the point of your postings? The gentleman has received a valid deployment order, from his legitimate superiors, for a valid and legitimate miltary action, ordered by his Chain of Command, President to Brigade Commander, in a military action duly auhtorized by the United States Congress. This is prima facie evidence of the "lawfulness" of his orders and therefore, constitutes pretty d@mning evidence of his dereliction of duty.

Del Wasso you MIGHT persuse Just and Unjust Wars by Walzer, wherein you will find that India in 1971 launched a war on East Pakistan not in response to any attack per se on India. No one charged Indian officials with a war of aggression...why not?

Did the UN authorize the Kosovo Campaign, Del Wasso? If not then did President Clinton commit a war crime, too?

Are you, in fact, claiming that the UN supercedes US sovereignty? That unless the UN authorizes force, that the US Congress has lost it’s power to declare war and the US President is NO LONGER COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the US Armed Forces? Can you explain to me how a "confederal" system, such as the UN can replace the national sovereignty of ANY nation?

Even the quoted, somewhere UN article does not prevent PRE-EMPTION, BTW. In short, like so many of your ilk you make something "illegal" when it’s something with which you disagree. I’m sorry not voting for Bush does not make it illegal for Bush to act, even in ways with which you disagree. Again, sorry you lose.


 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Sorry, Keith...

I decided a long time ago that the Bush-bots can not be engaged in civil discourse. I firmly believe that the few Americans that still support this war was be belittled and shamed - just as the German populace had to be shamed, following WW II.

I know that a lot of folks disagree.

And that is okay, by me.
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
Christ warned about you monsters.
Oh, I’m sorry to have wasted everyone’s time. I didn’t realize I was going at it with someone logging in from the asylum...

Hey Del....

BOO!!!!!
Booogety Boogety Boogety!!!

Did you pee yourself with fear?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
SShiell - we agree in principle I think. The 1LT is the one trying to make the order to deploy into an illegal one. A justification that will ultimately fail.
"It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war."
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Del Wasso:
1441 passed unanimously Nov 8th, 2002.

http://www.answers.com/topic/un-security-council-resolution-1441
or
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

NOTE: when the official U.N. document says "adopted" that means it passed.

Try again.
HINT: Do Not use wikipedia as a source..ever.

As for the Lt. He has not been ordered to do anything illegal. He has been ordered to be deployed. If he is having a crisis of conscience, then fine, you can have it, pay your price and get your dishonorable discharge and be on your way.

Is he honorable, hell no. He knew damn well what he was getting into when he signed up for the MILITARY. ffs. He did it for the money and the chance to "get" at his enemy ’bushco" IMHO.


 
Written By: navtechie
URL: http://
My loyalty is to the United States, shark - and George Bush is NOT the United States.

Your rhetoric reminds of the commentary Rudolph Hess made during the Nremburg Party Rally, wherein the fellow was caught, on film (Leni Riefenstahl’s ’’Will to Power’’), as saying, ’’Germany is Hitler!!! Hitler IS Germany!!!’’

Is that what you believe, ’’shark’’?

Is George Bush the United States?
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
Del Wasso - well, I determined a long time ago, that people who push a simplistic view of things shouldn’t be trusted, and generally should be ignored.

see ya...
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
I decided a long time ago that the Bush-bots can not be engaged in civil discourse. I firmly believe that the few Americans that still support this war was be belittled and shamed - just as the German populace had to be shamed, following WW II.
Well then expect no further discourse from me... as you have stated that you aren’t here to discuss, rationally or otherwise. But I am glad to see that the "Sheeple" ahve finally been linked to the Nazi’s by you... good going. Bush=Hitler, Iraq=Poland, Americans=Germans... WELL DONE.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
My loyalty is to the United States, shark - and George Bush is NOT the United States.

Your rhetoric reminds of the commentary Rudolph Hess made during the Nremburg Party Rally, wherein the fellow was caught, on film (Leni Riefenstahl’s ’’Will to Power’’), as saying, ’’Germany is Hitler!!! Hitler IS Germany!!!’’

Is that what you believe, ’’shark’’?

Is George Bush the United States?
Sorry Del, but my loyalty isn’t to the current administration (though I certainly support them) it’s to AMERICA. Not the UN. I find it sad that you cannot separate the two points.
Read this, you tell me. Consider it a test of your reading comprehsnsion and/or sanity
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
NATO authorized Kosovo...

I will use Wikipedia as a source when it’s as good as any...

If you think that I am crazy in quoting Christ, them you should REALLY be upset with the WAR CRIMINAL in the White House...

And I am not in the bit concerned about the OPINIONS of Walzer.
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
GODWINS’ LAW! GODWINS’ LAW!

Having declared victory........I’m done!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Nor can you seperate loyalty to the United States from loyalty to the President.

That is so un-American to border on TREASON.
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
navtechie - oh, how about one more wiki reference...

this one

Don’t feed the trolls!!!
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
By definition, a WAR OF AGGRESSION is generally considered to be any war for which the purpose is not to repel an invasion, or respond to an attack on the territory of a sovereign nation.

You lose.
By definition of your sovereignty clause -
the UN war never ended from Gulf War 1
Or
The UN was committing a Crime Against Peace.

How do I know this?
There were No-Fly zones administered by UN forces (that would be the United States and Britain).

Now the clause says -
c - The "sovereignty" rule means that it is a crime of aggression to use armed force with intent to overthrow the government of a state or to impede its freedom to act unhindered, as it sees fit, throughout its jurisdiction.
So your options are:
The UN was committing a Crime against Peace because they were violating Iraqi sovereignty by enforcing the No-Fly Zones,
or
the 1st Gulf War never really ended, Iraq was under UN sanction and the United States was authorized to use force (on behalf of the UN Weenies) from Gulf War 1.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
And you find this in WHAT UN documentation?

You are, after all, using the UN to justify American aggression - so back it up.

Once again, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
It can not be done - the documentation does NOT exist.

Twice, Bush-bots have brought up UN R 1441, in which there IS NO AUTHORIZATION FOR FORCE.
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
Hey Del

I just made a donation to the GOP in your honor.

Expect a thank you e-mail from GOPUSA shortly!

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Great!!! Maybe I’ll get your all kinds of info on you from the GOPUSA (the home of White House’s male hooker, Jeff Gannon) reply.

I’m looking forward to it.
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
Joe - You really gotta get over your obsession with me, dude.
OrneryWP are you SAYING, not "suggesting" that the, "... those superiors themselves have a duty to the Constitution." have NOT performed their duty vis-a-vis the Constitution? Otherwise what is the point of your postings?
I didn’t say whether I thought he was right or wrong (but given my continuing support for the war, go ahead and guess). What matters to me is that people who are sworn to protect the Constitution are not forced to do something they genuinely believe is against the Constitution. The law is above your superior officers.
The gentleman has received a valid deployment order, from his legitimate superiors, for a valid and legitimate miltary action, ordered by his Chain of Command, President to Brigade Commander, in a military action duly auhtorized by the United States Congress. This is prima facie evidence of the "lawfulness" of his orders and therefore, constitutes pretty d@mning evidence of his dereliction of duty.
That may very well be so, and I personally support the war. But he disagrees with your characterization of the military action as "valid and legitimate," and any soldier who has very real doubts about the lawfulness of his orders should question those orders. The President is not the law.

If he’s wrong, he’s wrong and he’ll face the consequences.
But it’s better that he be able to question his orders than not.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Del Wasso:

Why do the words ’lithium’ and ’Haldol’ come to mind when I read your posts?

BDS at it’s worst.

Where’s the troll food dispenser keith?! I have a pocket full of change beggin to be spent.



 
Written By: navtechie
URL: http://
Is NATO authorized to attack a non-NATO member, let alone a NATO member, without it being a War Crime unless it has received a UN sanction (according to your need to have UN approval of any war)?

Odd, I don’t see Bosnia on the NATO members list. oh darn.

Are you asking me to prove the UN forces drove the Iraqi Army from the nation of Kuwait in January 1991?
Are you asking me to prove that the UN imposed sanctions on Iraq with the threat of a renewal of military action being the result of failure to adhere to the sanctions?

You served during 1991, it probably didn’t escape your notice that we had military forces actively engaged against the nation of Iraq in the Persian Gulf, right?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
No OrneryWP it’s NOT the 1 Lt.’s job to question his deployment... WAY ABOVE HIS PAY GRADE. 1 Lt.’s may question Cpt’s and Maj’s on various orders issued pursuant TO his deployment or made during his deployment, but the DEPLOYMENT ITSELF IS NOT SUBJECT TO QUESTION, especially in this case...AUMF and the like being the case. 1Lt’ need to focus a WHOLE LOT LOWER than a deployment order.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I didn’t justify the war in Iraq with United Nations resolutions, looker.

You Bush-bots did.

Get over it - the war is Illegal, and George is a W-A-R C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L.
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
And actually, I don’t have to ’prove’ anything -
Your own argument proves it.

It is either as I said,
the UN was committing Crimes Against Peace by enforcing the No-Fly-Zones in Southern and Northern Iraq, which is a violation of Iraqi sovereignty if it is done without your blessed UN approval

OR

The UN had authorized force against Iraq, and the United States, as an authorized ’enforcer’ had license to deal with violations of UN sanctions, based
on the UN resolutions passed before and after the Persian Gulf War.

Clearly the UN had authorized force against IRAQ at some point, and the continued deployement of offensive forces enforcing the UN No-Fly-Zones is proof that this is the case.
Now, the choice of the United States to further enforce the UN sanctions without the UN’s ’re-approval’ is a diplomatic matter, scarecly proof of your allegation that we have committed War Crimes for which we can be tried.

Odd that the UN has not called for a War Crimes tribunal to ’try’ us isn’t it?
I gather they feel a bit less strongly about what you have accepted as sufficent proof.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Get over it - the war is Illegal
We’re going around in circles here. Del has made it abundantly clear that despite his protestations to the contrary, he views the "laws" and mandates of the United Nations as superceeding the laws and mandates of this country. The rest of us have made it clear that we’re Americans.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
There waws NO UN Resolution authorizing anyone using force against Iraq.

Simply because you and George make the claim, does NOT make the claim true.

You have bought, whole-sale, the Administration’s argument that they did not need further UN approval - but the UN does not agree with that assessment.

The United Nations has made it very clear that the US has acted on it’s own.

Because George Bush did NOT invade Iraq under the auspices of the UN, and because their was no immenent threat to the United States from Iraqi aggression, the invasion of Iraq was a pre-emptive WAR OF AGGRESSION, and, thus, a war crime.
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
But I must admit, to see someone so filled with anger and rage on this- I love it. Your anger is my amusement.

Dance for me clown!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The Congressional authority for the use of force against Iraq was predicated on UN sanctioning of the invasion - sanctioning that NEVER came.

Talk all you want about how I think UN resolutions supercede American law (I do not).

You Bush-bots justify the war by claiming the United States was invading Iraq with UN approval, which simply is NOT true.
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
No OrneryWP it’s NOT the 1 Lt.’s job to question his deployment... WAY ABOVE HIS PAY GRADE. 1 Lt.’s may question Cpt’s and Maj’s on various orders issued pursuant TO his deployment or made during his deployment, but the DEPLOYMENT ITSELF IS NOT SUBJECT TO QUESTION, especially in this case...AUMF and the like being the case. 1Lt’ need to focus a WHOLE LOT LOWER than a deployment order.
Oh-kay Joe, why don’t you point out where it says that servicemen and -women can only question the legality of a limited set of orders based on their pay grade?

I had no idea their oath was so limited. But I’m sure you can enlighten me.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
No problem, Bush-bot... It’s not my band-width.

I love cutting my teeth with the warmongers... it helps me get my talking points down.
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
OrneryWP whilst it’s POSSIBLE that a 1 Lt. can question such orders, we come tot he military necessity(ies). 1 Lt’s DON’T GET TO QUESTION THE LEGALITY OF THE WARS THEY FIGHT. Sorry, militaries don’t work tht way. 1 Lt’s get to question the legality of the orders on HOW THE WAR, at their level, IS BEING FOUGHT. Otherwise, one runs the risk of having to adjudicate EVERY person in the military’s "questions." Now some militaries have run this way, the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War spring to mind, but generally those militaries also failed. So as a rule of thumb, 1 Lt.’s and E-1’s don’t get the right to usurp the CinC and Congress’ perogatives and refuse to deploy on legal grounds...they certainly can and SHOULD question orders about the ways and means of their fighting, e.g., 1 Lt Watada has no business questioning his deployment, but has every right and DUTY to question an order that unduly risks the lives of his troops or will result in the deliberate murder of civilians in his AO, given certain constraints...I would refer you to a number of works concerning military ethics in combat for examples elucidating these sketchy examples.

In short, as Shakespeare says,
BATES
Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know
enough, if we know we are the kings subjects: if
his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes
the crime of it out of us.

WILLIAMS
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath
a heavy reckoning to make,


1lt. Watada worries about the King’s worries, instead let him sorry about things at the platoon/company level.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I love cutting my teeth with the warmongers... it helps me get my talking points down
Just warmongers? Not going to call me a Nazi again?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
We don’t have a king, Joe - something you Bush-bots keep forgetting.
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
If the shoe fits, shark.
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
Del, get them down a little further (do your gums hurt yet?)

If the matter were as clear and concise as you seem to think -
Where are the lawyers taking the United States to court for War Crimes?
Where is the Democratic party (since I assume we can presume the Republicans in Congress would, being good bots, not attempt to impeach) on the filing of impeachment proceedings on the basis of the current Administration committing ’War Crimes’.
Surely if indiscrete sex in the Oval Office is meritorius of discussion of impeachment, War Crimes are!

And yet, there aren’t any of these things happening!

Other than your determination that these things are SO....there doesn’t appear to be any massive world wide activity from the UN or other resonable nations, to even enact Sanctions against the US (you know, like the sanctions against Iraq, or North Korea, or Iran, just to name a few) for these ’War Crimes’.

Perhaps in addition to getting your talking points down you should dwell on the National and International credibility of your charges and the fact that no one with the authority to press charges is backing your claims.

Hating Bush isn’t enough to make them real, but do play on.


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107


Presidential Determination.—In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Del Wacko -
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";
What’s your major malfunction?
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
And here we have the floor speech of one of those delusional warmongers who signed on to the resolution:

...
I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980’s, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam’s revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Certainly we can not let someone who can be decieved so easily be a future President of the US of A!!!
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - you really must start reading more than the National Review, looker!!!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_Administration_War_Crimes_in_Iraq

http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=52

 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
Why bother with Del Wasso, he has freely admitted he’s not here to debate:
I decided a long time ago that the Bush-bots can not be engaged in civil discourse. I firmly believe that the few Americans that still support this war was be belittled and shamed - just as the German populace had to be shamed, following WW II.
So as there’s no debate, DON’T FEED THE TROLLS.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Blah, blah, blah... Keith.

Congress doesn’t control the intel community, the Chief Executive does.

George Bush ’’cherry picked’’ intel that made it look like Saddam was an immdeiate threat.

Saddam was NOT an immediate threat, and there was LOT’S of intel to support that, that was NOT given to Congress.

George is a WAR CRIMINAL.

You Bush-bot warmongers are in the minority, now - you will lose a lot of seats in Congress come November, and you better start facing up to reality - fascism is not welcome in America.
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
So as there’s no debate, DON’T FEED THE TROLLS.
Good point Joe - it is kinda humorous though ;-)
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Saddam was NOT an immediate threat
And the immediate threat of the Taliban was....?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
With the hindsight derived from the Oil For Food scandal I believe it is irrelevant that the UNSC failed to pass an authorization to attack Iraq, especially given the fact that the blocking countries were complicit in the scandal. That Congress did authorize the action, claims of illegality are simply ridiculous.
 
Written By: Khepri
URL: http://
Why assume that I oppose the invasion of Afghanistan, Mark?
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
Wow, Joe, I can see I’m just going to have to keep rolling this ball further and further uphill while you slowly back off in the face of being unable to produce anything more than assertions.

I’m not falling for it this time. I’m not Sisyphus.

Until you show me something substantive that says people of given ranks are not bound by their oath to the Constitution to question and disobey unlawful orders (and if the order to go to war is unlawful, then deployment can certainly be questioned), I’ll be off doing better things.

Or, you can just keep yelling about pay grades. Whatever floats your boat, Joe.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
You Bush-bot warmongers are in the minority, now - you will lose a lot of seats in Congress come November, and you better start facing up to reality - fascism is not welcome in America
WE WANT MORE WAR! WHAT OTHER NATIONS CAN WE DESTROY FOR THE OIL!?!? WHO WANTS SOME US HERE WARMONGERERS ARE ITCHING TO KILL OFF LOADS OF BROWN PEOPLE YEE HAW!

SEND OUR ENEMIES TO THE CAMPS! YEE HAW! ROUND THEM ALL UP FOR OUR FASCIST OVERLORDS YEE HAW!

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go confer with W on how to commit even more war crimes...


 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Keep to that line, Khepri... you’ll sleep better at night.

LOL!!!
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
While I’d love to go back and read all the He Did/No He Din’t [especially Sharon’s initial all-caps comments, reminded me of a Neandrathal who thinks ’FOOD’ means hunger, or something like that], I think it’s safe to assume that the man in question is simply making a choice here. A decision. We’re allowed to divorce our husbands or wives, we’re allowed to put our kids up for adoption. On a much more visceral level, I think it should be within our rights, as humans, to decide what we want to do - go overseas and become physically and/or emotionally nothing more than ground chuck or stay away from all that. All you folks who really want this guy to follow through and serve - you know what might be the best solution? Instead of arguing on the internet, why not go support enlistment of troops? Why not sign up your kids - make sure your families know how you feel and sign up as many of your brood as possible? If you’ve got kin in the forces, try to argue them into going to Iraq. Hand out some flyers outside bus stops? Maybe?
 
Written By: snarky
URL: http://
Why not sign up your kids
Because YOU can’t sign anyone up. They have to sign up themselves.

Please bring something to the table next time. Your snark is sadly lacking
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I did my time in the service, USMC (1985-1991)

Most of these internet warriors are too cowardly to stand up for what they believe in, they can only take solace in denigrating others who do stand up.

What brave men they are!!!
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Abscence of evidence is.....abscence of evidence.

Ya know, generally, abscence of evidence is what prevents people from having a trail because there’s, uh, no evidence.
uh, yeah.....

So, if there’s uh, no evidence that anyone is going to attempt to bring the United States Legislative, and Executive branches and the United States Military (Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy and Coast Guard) to trial for having committed War Crimes, then, that means.....
Well, in my world, it means the legal powers think the ’War Crimes’ angle is kinda iffy.

In your world I guess it means...the rest of the world is too gutless to try us?
Is THAT your theory?

Boy, you ARE screwed eh? And so is Lt Wattadork.

And Snarky - ah yes, the de rigueur demand that we send our children to fight, or go ourselves, just because some bozo decides he doesn’t have to live up to the oath he swore to, and the documents he signed.
I repeat, why did he wait this long to protest?


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
You didn’t follow the links, looker.

My comment was referring to your lack of information - not that there wasn’t any information out there.

Go back, and follow the link.

Or are you to brain-washed, i.e., the german people under hilter, to question what you’ve spoonfed?

www.worldtribunal.org
 
Written By: Del Wasso
URL: http://www.shockedandawful.com
I did my time in the service, USMC (1985-1991)
They did teach you to shoot straight while you were there, didn’t they Del?

God, Nazi’s, and Jeff Gannon all in one thread!?

Really emptying your clip on this one, aren’t you? (Keep shootin’, you’ll hit something eventually lol)

Come on’, man. You’re not doing the Lefties who frequent here any favors. Cool your barrels and take aim. I’m sure you have a shot in you.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
War Crimes Roundtable:
Mark Levine: Professor, Dept. of History, UC Irvine, author of Why They Don’t Hate Us: Lifting the Veil on the ‘Axis of Evil’.
Francis A. Boyle: Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law.
Michael Mandel: professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, specializes in international criminal law.
Liz Holtzman House of Representatives, D-NY.
H. Victor Condé teaches International Human Rights Law at Trinity International University in California and at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.
and the ’world Tribunal.org’ are NOT legal international entities Del.
Get a grip. They have as much standing legally as any joe (or Del) on the internet.
Get it?

They are not countries.
They do not have UN representatives that represent COUNTRIES.
They are not recognized by the United States Government.
They cannot enact treaties on behalf of anyone.
Or wage war on anyone without being considered terrorists.
In short, they’re a collection of jumped up individuals who think that if they yell loadly enough (gee, you must REALLY like these guys) that the Americans have committed War Crimes, that it must be so, that the world will recognize it is so, and that goodness, truth and light shall flow upon their pointy little heads.

In fact, they probably have whatever minimal standing to be recognized in an international court that any individual legal filer does, and that might be questionable.

They don’t represent the American People as elected representatives.

Hello?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
No countries are taking us to court for War Crimes Del - see?
With the amount of hatred of the US externally, and hatred for George Bush internally, if there were enough credibal evidence to make the charges stick then some ’recognized’ body internally, or externally, would make them.

Your fond dreams of working through the seccession for President that would whack out all the Republicans and leave a Democrat at the helm are interesting, but ulitmately futile.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Oh-kay Joe, why don’t you point out where it says that servicemen and -women can only question the legality of a limited set of orders based on their pay grade?
They’re more than welcome to contrive whatever they like, but tell me Ornery, other than declaring it to be so, what actual argument does the LT have to stand on other than it’s what he thinks?

Here’s the interesting thing. He’s going to be hit with a number of charges, none of which have anything to do with this war per se. He’s going to be charged with disobeying a direct order to deploy, missing movement and other various charges related to that.

He’s going to have a heck of a time proving his orders to deploy were illegal or immoral.

Here’s the bottom line. He’s welcome to do whatever he thinks is right. He also gets to pay the price for doing so. If he’s willing to take the punishment, I’m sure the Army will oblige.

I hold officers to a much higher standard than I do enlisted soldiers (at least enlisted on their first enlistment). They don’t just get basic and AIT. Depending on the program they’re trained for years. What they’re getting into isn’t a mystery to them. And when they raise their right hand and swear to live up to the oath they take, it is serious business and all doubts and qualms should have been settled long before that moment. When they take the oath, they know who the legal authority is they answer too and they also have been taught what constitutes immorality and illegality.

The fact that one officer out of all those who serve and have served in Iraq decides it is illegal and immoral may say more about him than any real moral or legal issues.


As for the Del Wasso, put a sock in it.
I decided a long time ago that the Bush-bots can not be engaged in civil discourse. I firmly believe that the few Americans that still support this war was be belittled and shamed - just as the German populace had to be shamed, following WW II.
If that’s your belief, then go elsewhere. If you can’t be civil we’re simply not interested in your participation. If you can be civil then by all means, say what you like and argue to your heart’s content.

Fair warning.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Debating the "legality" of the war is pointless — we will never know the answer.

By "legal" I mean in relation to U.N. rules, regulations and charter, what most people mean by "internation law". Both sides believe they are legally correct. It doesn’t matter what Bush, Blair, Saddam, Annan, the media, you or I believe or say that determine its legality. It is up to an official body or court to make the final decision.

The first thing to determine would be if there have been "acts of aggression" by the U.S., England, etc., against Iraq — has a crime been committed? Regardless of your or my interpretation of the U.N. rules, the U.N. body responsible for determining that is the U.N. Security Council. No issues are black and white, they are debated and decisions are politically motivated.

This issue will not be brought before the council. It is utterly implausible that the council, considering its makeup, would find the action illegal. Bringing it before the council and having the council find that no act of aggression was committed would politically sanction the action by the council. Because some members want to berate the U.S. for its action, they can best do so by never bringing this to council in the first place.

Both sides at the international level know this. This is why we’ll never have an answer on its legality, only opinion and debate.
 
Written By: Scout
URL: http://
By "legal" I mean in relation to U.N. rules, regulations and charter, what most people mean by "internation law".
That UN (or international law) has absolutely nothing to do with "legal" concerning war in this country.

The legality or illegality of a war is defined through the Constitution here. The UN has no, let me repeat that, no legal authority in that regard.

This war is Constitutionally legal and that’s all anyone needs to know in relation to this case.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ, I think we actually agree on almost everything.

I don’t know what the Lt’s argument is for why his deployment for this particular war is an unlawful order. I think he might just genuinely believe in that argument, though.
Whatever his case is, he’s going to have to make it. I agree that he’ll have a hard time proving his case. I expect him to lose this fight.

But if he genuinely believes in this argument, believes he is dedicated in his duty to the Constitution — and is more than happy to serve the military in all Constitutional actions — but cannot support this particular war, I don’t disrespect him for acting on it. It’d be more a matter of stupidity than of moral fiber.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
McQ, I think we actually agree on almost everything.
Gee, why doesn’t that surprise me? ;)
But if he genuinely believes in this argument, believes he is dedicated in his duty to the Constitution — and is more than happy to serve the military in all Constitutional actions — but cannot support this particular war, I don’t disrespect him for acting on it. It’d be more a matter of stupidity than of moral fiber.
Well let me put it another way then, and I’ll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

If he really wanted to make the point that he thinks this is an illegal and immoral war, then he deploys, goes to Iraq and refuses his first combat mission or during that mission.

Then the charges are much more serious than he’ll face today. But he’d certainly be able to make his point about the war to a court martial.

I have vague feeling about Watada’s reasons for refusing now, that I’ll keep to myself for the time being. But let me just say, 28 years in the military didn’t leave me particularly clueless about the machinations of others within it’s ranks (and I especially learned a lot during the VN era as you can imagine).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The legality or illegality of a war is defined through the Constitution here. The UN has no, let me repeat that, no legal authority in that regard.
I understand and completely agree with you, McQ.

I get frustrated at hearing the "illegal war" statement repeated so often. I was trying to present a case completely within the murky confines of "international law", which some people seem to use to frame the definition of "legal" with regards to Iraq. My point was that if one chooses to ignore U.S. law and insists on using the international framework, legality will likely never be determined and debate using it is pointless.

It is clear to me that in the legal framework of the U.S., the one that actually applies, that there is nothing illegal here.

Actually, is it even possible for a war authorized by Congress to be illegal?
 
Written By: Scout
URL: http://
Actually, is it even possible for a war authorized by Congress to be illegal?
Under the Constitution? I don’t believe so, and that was my point.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Why assume that I oppose the invasion of Afghanistan, Mark?
Why wouldn’t you be? I don’t remember our having UN approval for that one, hence my question about the Taliban being an "immediate threat".
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
UN approval is only mandated for "wars we don’t like".

And I’ll say it - this thread topped 100!
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Is it illegal under the Constitution for the US to initiate a break in its treaty obligations?
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
OrneryWP, you are a MASTER of debating the TRUE but irrelevant...
Yes, Lt. Watada may/can advance any set of arguments he cares to to combat his deployment, BUT:
1) The Congress passed the AUMF
2) Funded and continues to Fund the War in Iraq
3) Yielding NO VIOLATION of the "Checks and Balances"
4) The President, the SecDef, the CJCS, the CoSA, Commander ForceCom, his Corps Commander on down have all been duly authorized to issue the orders they have.
5) He has an INTACT chain of command, which is duly authorized to order his deployment to Iraq.
In short he HAS NO LEGAL LEG TO STAND ON. He can and ought to be charged with "Conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the service"...BECAUSE 1 Lt.s are not in the position of questioning the deployment orders they are given. It’s not simply an "assertion." Sorry 1Lt.’s don’t get to question the WAR they’re fighting, they can and SHOULD question the manner in which they fight.
I say the true but irrelevant in that YES he can question, just as you and I can question, BUT the question has been settled constitutionally,/legally and politically since about 2003, some of it earlier, in terms of the law and the UCMJ. So yes it’s true he CAN do many things, but it’s also IRRELEVANT. Now beyond this I will not go. You seem a determined nit-picker... so I concede your point he CAN question, but again he can question the actual nature of Schroedinger’s Cat, but that won’t do him any good either.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
PogueMahone - you forgot one, he also called us chickenhawks...

And don’t worry, he is obviously not representative of the more left leaning that usually visit here. Otherwise, he would know to differentiate between the myriad of opinionated people here.

But just like the Scien... (I wont spell it out because that will just cause them to come back) who got all riled up a few weeks past, this guy came floating in for some reason and decided it was his mission to teach us dirty ingrates a thing or two...

I respect most everyone that posts here. But this guy takes the cake. Wonder if it’s a full moon. The bats are out again.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
@Keep to that line, Khepri... you’ll sleep better at night.

Well, I’m glad you find it amusing Del...:)

I will keep to that line and no amount of moonbat delusional screaming is going to change my mind.

Now, by "cherry picking" intel you mean tossing out the Oil For Food conpiractors disinformation, I guess I could agree with that...

I find it equally amusing that 200 Iraqi nuclear scientists working at the reactor in Libya does not constitute an immediate threat in your world. Especially in light of 9-11.

 
Written By: Khepri
URL: http://
@looker "Perhaps in addition to getting your talking points down you should dwell on the National and International credibility of your charges and the fact that no one with the authority to press charges is backing your claims.

Hating Bush isn’t enough to make them real, but do play on."

Exactly. Even Pelosi, amazingly, wasn’t stoopid enough to go down that road...LOL

Khepri
 
Written By: Khepri
URL: http://
@Del

www.worldtribunal.org - ROFL....

You cite *that* organizations website and then have the gall to hurl the accusation of being brianwashed?!?! Too funny!

Yes, we are all shaking over the author of The Vagina Monologues and friends finding the US guilty on all charges.

". . . the WTI is self-consciously an organ of civil society, with its own potential enforcement by way of economic boycotts, civil disobedience and political campaigns. And on the substantive issues of legality, it is designed to confirm the truth of the widely held allegations about the Iraq War, not to discover the truth by way of political, legal and moral inquiry and debate. It proceeds from a presumption that the allegations of illegality and criminality are valid and that its job is to reinforce that conclusion as persuasively and vividly as possible."
 
Written By: Khepri
URL: http://
@Del - The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

That’s funny Del, that’s what I keep asserting about WMD....:)

It follows; We haven’t found Amelia Earhart either, does that mean she didn’t exist too?

 
Written By: Khepri
URL: http://
Okay, I get it. Del Wasso is a supporter of this guy. He/she found QandO was talking about him and his "job" is to troll in defense of the anti-war hero (which is a bit of a strong word for my taste, but whatever). It’s his/her contribution for the cause/movement. Apparently he/she hasn’t quite grasped that the debate has changed. As a nation we’ve moved on from the legality/illegality debate.
 
Written By: Monica
URL: http://
I suspect that the wayward Lieutenant will be well advised not to take del’s fervently delivered advice. Nor should he use any attorney recommended by del or those who believe as he does.

Having prosecuted or defended several hundred courts martial nearly 40 years ago (including 30 or so GCM in Vietnam) I have a pretty good idea what will "sell" in front of a military court before whom he will be tried.

Del’s approach will assure a very long sentence in Leavenworth, and it will be affirmed by the convening authority and all reviewing courts, including SCOTUS.

Back in the VN era, there were many reserve officers who, like myself, incurred their military obligations in peacetime Iong before the US was at war. Moreover, there was a draft, to which all military aged males were subject. Some officers joined up to avoid being E-1’s in the draft. A significant minority of draftees and junior officers tried the "illegal war" approach after the VN war cranked up. They did not want to end up in VN, of course, so they refused to report for duty. It was my job to prosecute or defend them before a miltary court martial.

Members of Courts Martial were, as now, generally senior Captains, Majors Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels. Most had seen real difficult war duty in Korea or WWII. They were singularly unpersuaded by civilian attorneys making esoteric international law arguments about the legality of the VN war.

It was a lot like Ramsey Clark making his arguments on behalf of Sadaam. And about as effective. MCQ has it dead on.





 
Written By: vnjagvet
URL: http://www.yargb.blogspot.com


"Here’s the bottom line. He’s welcome to do whatever he thinks is right. He also gets to pay the price for doing so. If he’s willing to take the punishment,"

Bingo. Took the words right out of my keyboard.


"and all doubts and qualms should have been settled long before that moment."

Perhaps about the situation at the time of the oath taking, but how can you agree to go along with something in the future without in effect pledging blind obedience?



"that I’ll keep to myself for the time being."

Thanks a bunch. Just like tv. "Astounding film footage of ...; but first, a brief commercial message".
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Just out of curiosity, how does one acquire 5 or 6 ribbons for spending approx. 3 years at Ft. Lewis? Is it that bad there?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"and all doubts and qualms should have been settled long before that moment."
Perhaps about the situation at the time of the oath taking, but how can you agree to go along with something in the future without in effect pledging blind obedience?
Not at all, but you are pledging to support the Constitution. That, at least to me, says that if the Constitution is followed, as it was in this particular case, your pledge is valid and binding.

There are obviously two sides to every pledge, Tim. If the Constitution had been subverted to get us into Iraq, he’d have a valid case and I could support him. But it wasn’t. Those are "the qualms and doubts" I was speaking of.

My guess is he just doesn’t want to go and is using vague moral and legal arguments to give his desire more acceptable grounds. But he hasn’t a moral or legal argument to stand on in my opinion.

I hope they throw the book at him.
Thanks a bunch. Just like tv. "Astounding film footage of ...; but first, a brief commercial message".
He’s an artillery officer. I can guarantee you he isn’t going to Iraq to fulfill an artillery officers role and he doesn’t like that. So he’s now against this "immoral and illegal" war, if you get my drift.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Just out of curiosity, how does one acquire 5 or 6 ribbons for spending approx. 3 years at Ft. Lewis? Is it that bad there?
Everything to the left of the first ribbon are service ribbons. The first one to the left is the National Defense Service Ribbon, or what we used to call the "I was alive in ’65" ribbon (of course that doesn’t apply now). It would have been more proper to call it the "I was in the service in ’65" ribbon, but it didn’t rhyme. ;)

Or said another way, all but one of those ribbons would most likely be worn by just about anyone who’d been in the Army for 3 years just for being there. I can’t really tell what the first ribbon is, but it looks like it may be an Army Commendation medal.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"If the Constitution had been subverted to get us into Iraq, he’d have a valid case"

I think that is his case. It may not be valid, but I think he can make an argument that he is fulfilling at least the spirit of his oath. Not too bright, even for redleg. Perhaps he thinks he can get away with it. He seems to be intentionally publicizing his plight, hoping to gather support. It worked for that woman B-52 pilot a few years back.

" all but one of those ribbons would most likely be worn by just about anyone who’d been in the Army for 3 years just for being there"

I couldn’t read them, and couldn’t find a bio of him that included much of his record. Can you really get that many ribbons for three years of stateside garrison duty? Assuming, of course, that he wasn’t on some general’s staff.


"I can guarantee you he isn’t going to Iraq to fulfill an artillery officers role"

This reminds me of a thread a while back, about reorganization of the army and troop levels, I think.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I think that is his case. It may not be valid, but I think he can make an argument that he is fulfilling at least the spirit of his oath.
Come on, Tim. That’s the penultimate "fake but accurate" argument. And it will get the dismissive treatment it deserves in any court-martial.

Just because some yahoo contrives an illogical excuse to get out of his sworn duty doesn’t mean you have to invent an equally contrived and painfully stretched "spirit of his oath" argument in support.

Face it, it’s an excuse to get out of going and the guy definitely doesn’t want to go. If you want to cloak his excuse with the Constitution, go ahead, but it has no traction with me. I think the man is afraid to go and is using this extremely weak excuse as a reason to give him something other than "I’m afraid" on which to base his refusal.
I couldn’t read them, and couldn’t find a bio of him that included much of his record. Can you really get that many ribbons for three years of stateside garrison duty? Assuming, of course, that he wasn’t on some general’s staff.
Sure. Go to Korea and you get the AFEM (part of the 2ID is in Korea). I think there’s a GWoT ribbon. NDSM for serving in time of war, etc. etc. They’re called "service ribbons" for a reason.
This reminds me of a thread a while back, about reorganization of the army and troop levels, I think.
He’d be going to Iraq as a infantryman and pulling patrols in dangerous places and he knows it. He probably feels that isn’t what he signed on to do and probably doesn’t want to do it (it’s very dangerous work, as you well know). Much better if he were on a firebase somewhere shooting big guns and essentially out of the direct line of fire. He probably wouldn’t have a moral or legal argument with that.

Now, if you’re him, do you claim the high-road of an illegal and immoral war or the low-road of "I don’t want to be an infantryman and get my crap blown away" when you decide to announce your refusal to go?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I said that he could make the argument, not that it was valid or would be accepted.


"If you want to cloak his excuse with the Constitution,"

I don’t want to, he is. I do not support his arguments, I am just pointing out what I think they may be.

"They’re called "service ribbons" for a reason."

I realize that, It just strikes me as odd that one can perform so much service in so short a period of time, all from the relative comfort of Ft. Lewis. He has almost as many rebbons as I do, and I was in longer, served on three continents, and actually saw the elephant(Nasty creature). Is there a decoration inflation akin to grade inflation?


I would like to apologize for the redleg remark. It was uncalled for and a bit childish, but I put at least partial blame on this website for not having a decent delay between pressing the submit button and actual submission. Either that or an AW S***! button that will automatically edit the last entry.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
ps

I think the horse is dead.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I would like to apologize for the redleg remark. It was uncalled for and a bit childish, but I put at least partial blame on this website for not having a decent delay between pressing the submit button and actual submission.
Gawd, you sound like a liberal. Apologize for some pc violation and then blame the problem on someone else.

Redlegs, cannon cockers, gun bunnies, etc. H*ll infantrymen are grunts, crunchies (that’s what tankers call us), doggies, earth pigs and various other sweet names used often and with relish. No one apologizes when they call us that. And if they do, they don’t try to blame their slip up on software. ;)
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
," crunchies"

I’ve heard that one, and always wondered about the source. Thanks.


"earth pigs"

This one is new to me. I like it.

Perhaps I felt a bit of empathy and guilt, having spent half my time in a mortar platoon, which I suppose is the infantry’s version of artillery. After reflection I realized what high intelligence was required to own & operate an indirect fire weapon.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"earth pigs"
This one is new to me. I like it.
Heh ... me too.
Perhaps I felt a bit of empathy and guilt, having spent half my time in a mortar platoon ...
I was a weapons platoon leader in an infantry company for a while. Absolutely loved it. Of course this was back when companies still had 81mm mortars. Also had 106 recoiless rifles for AT.

Talk about two completely different applications.

Both the mortar section and the AT section won best in Divison when I was with the 82nd Abn Div. Of course that had a lot more to do with a phenomenal Platoon Sergeant than the platoon leader. ;)
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider