Quote:

---

Wow. Here's a hint about debating - if you're going to make a big, self-promoting statement like "servicemen are in the military to preserve your freedoms", do not immediately follow it with a comprehensive argument that shows your career has no basis on our freedoms (you're the C-in-C's bitch) and in fact if you were ordered to end our freedoms (for example, our freedom not to have a bullet lodged in our chests), then you'd do so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Let me answer with a question. As the military is an extention of the politicians arm, if your commanding officer recieved an order to fire into a crowd of civilians and passed that order on to you, what would you do?

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:
I'd like very very much not to believe that our boys are behaving like vikings. But they must follow orders. To question an order or refuse to obey one during war time can be a lethal mistake. I haven't seen enough evidence out of Iraq from the media to indicate they have behaved innapropriatly. This whole thing about "bitches" and all the rest is disrespectful given the lack of evidence of any atrocities.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
should the troops be blamed for Iraq in the same way, or to the same degree (or at all) as the President is blamed?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Let me answer with a question. As the military is an extention of the politicians arm, if your commanding officer recieved an order to fire into a crowd of civilians and passed that order on to you, what would you do?

---

I'm not sure what this question has to do with the military being "an extention of the politician's arm." I guess I was under the impression that having the military under civilian control was a good thing, being that it provides a check on the power of the military.

In the second place, it would depend on the crowd. Are the civilians armed and shooting at me? If so, darned tootin', I'd shoot. If the civilians were not armed, and not posing a mortal threat to the lives of my men, hell no, I wouldn't shoot. That would constitute a Rules of Engagement violation, and as such, it would be an unlawful order, and I would, therefore, be obligated under military law to disobey it. Then I'd try like hell to get that officer court martialed for dereliction of duty for passing on an unlawful order (because he, too, had the obligation to disobey).

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, that's a thing: it's one thing to arm-chair quarterback, another to make decisions when it's life and death and bullets are flying. And you're absolutely right. If you sit down to figure out whether or not you like an order, you or someone close to you will die. And the hell of it is, it's impossible to explain that fully to someone who hasn't had the experience of mortal terror in combat.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Our current training gives a lot of lip service to defying an illegal order, but then provides endless reinforcement against actually DOING it.

---

Quote:

---

This Watada guy even tried to do it the right way to begin with, BEFORE making an issue of it, he attempted to resign his commission, something normally done for the exact reasons he tried to do it - and the military defied it's own regs to throw it back in his face and demand his compliance with an order he felt illegal.

---

Quote:

---

Look, either they KNOW, or they're not soldiers, they're killers.
Which is it ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

Quote:

---

What seems to be missed is that those people are a tiny proportion of the 135,000 people who do their jobs honorably, professionally, and in keeping with the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

________________________________________________________________________

---

What happens when the President, the Commander -in-Chief, declares that the Geneva Conventions don't apply, as GWB did?

He's on moderately reasonable legal ground, too. I've read 'em-- they only apply between the armies of nations that are signatories to the Convention, which Islamic Jihad and al-Quida are not. They also require that armies wear distinctive uniforms, and carry their arms openly, so ya know who to target-- by definition, an insurgent army wants to look as much like a bunch of civilians as possible.

But then, the Conventions are about protecting non combatant civilians and the wounded and sick, and others, such as POWs, who no longer fight.

So he says, Conventions don't apply, tells the General in Command, who tells your colonel, who tells your Sergeant, who tells you to shoot somebody, or torture a prisoner to find out about some future terrorist attack.

Is it an illegal order you should refuse? C-IN-C says no. When did it become one? What will the US Supreme Court decide? or the International Criminal Court, to which the C-IN-C says we don't have to listen?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
What happens when the President, the Commander -in-Chief, declares that the Geneva Conventions don't apply, as GWB did?

He's on moderately reasonable legal ground, too. I've read 'em-- they only apply between the armies of nations that are signatories to the Convention ... But then, the Conventions are about protecting non combatant civilians and the wounded and sick, and others, such as POWs, who no longer fight.

---

Quote:

---

So he says, Conventions don't apply, tells the General in Command, who tells your colonel, who tells your Sergeant, who tells you to shoot somebody, or torture a prisoner to find out about some future terrorist attack.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Let me answer with a question. As the military is an extention of the politicians arm, if your commanding officer recieved an order to fire into a crowd of civilians and passed that order on to you, what would you do?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eric:
I've always had this notion, utterly unworkable I know, of a final step in basic training that would involve a concocted situation in which a soldier is intentionally given a clearly illegal order, just to see if they would have the guts to disobey.

---

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."

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

I've always had this notion, utterly unworkable I know, of a final step in basic training that would involve a concocted situation in which a soldier is intentionally given a clearly illegal order, just to see if they would have the guts to disobey. Like, being ordered to shoot an unarmed civilian, only the soldier doesn't know that his weapon is loaded with blanks and the 'civilian' is really an undercover officer. I'm sure the case could be made that it's an unfair test, but then, so is combat. It'd be interesting to see the success rate...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:


Is there an Offical, recorded Congressional Declaration of War on Iraq ?
No.

THEN THERE IS NO WAR, Constitutionally.

---

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 ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

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?

---

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!!!

All manner of concerned Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

it's all situatnel.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Quote:

---

US CONSTITUTION.
Article 1, Section 8.
The Congress shall have power...
To declare war

---

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)

Is there an Offical, recorded Congressional Declaration of War on Iraq ?
No.

THEN THERE IS NO WAR, Constitutionally.

By the very letter of the highest law, orders for deployment to Iraq are unlawful orders

---

Quote:

---

Well, it's pretty clear we're not going to agree over the issue of Constitutionality (because in my mind the declare war/CinC thing is ambiguous)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
Yes, because everyone knows that still images prove that everyone who's deployed to Iraq must have tortured their very own Iraqi! And furthermore, the intense scrutiny in the post-Abu Ghraib world hasn't turned up a thing on systemic torture because the military has a vast conspiracy in which everyone has a role! And we all know that photos can't be reproduced, doctored, faked, or anything else! Oh, wait. Those are from the roll of film from the Abu Ghraib scandal. The same peresonnel appear in photos throughout that list.

Look, what these people did was wrong, no question, and I hope they're crucified, if for no other reason than for besmirching the honor of the rest of us. But a parade of photos hardly establishes anything like "systemic" torture.

Oh, and your IHT article, while interesting, only establishes a your-word-against-mine situation. Even if true, it's also not evidence of systemic torture.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
My whole problem with the "If you don't support the war, you must support our troops", is that the overall sentiment among the sheeple is that very catch phrase. It makes it almost impossible to petition or picket the war without looking like an insensitive asshole to all of the Brave and Honorable Soldiers who put their lives on the line for you and me. I think this is the most sordid use of propeganda and doublethink I have ever been witness to in my life.

---

Quote:

---

I see no problem with my statement that "I don't support the war or the soldiers". It is doublethink to believe that you could truly do both at the same time. I choose not to.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
My question to you is: you've entered the thread with information on torturing. Does that mean that you think that all the soldiers serving in Iraq are torturers? Are all our forces over their evil abusers?

---