Info Junkie <bondrock@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:1d20341chdkkfivv2bkp4csjbujqca3o7q@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:21:19 -0500, z <z@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>Info Junkie <bondrock@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>news:ro0v24tkgrh67l5as37mk8fhsm5gdcg8ah@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:16:52 -0500, z <z@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Info Junkie <bondrock@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>news:pa0v24lctd8pfh7pt2dpf5j7gf477nf6sf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 17:35:04 -0500, z <z@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Info Junkie <bondrock@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>>news:74mu24lcd0egrhbo7r3h0pu8bl24nbmeso@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 14:29:11 -0500, z <z@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Info Junkie <bondrock@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>>>>news:k4st24p1m96pa7d58o8la7ev6lj1p9o54i@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 07:29:35 -0500, z <z@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>cmdr buzz corey <cmdr-buzz-corey@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>news:c475899d-3ac9-414f-b1d4-
>>>>745ecec7007e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>>m:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 16, 10:13 pm, Mike Roberts <M...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> US soldier refuses to serve in 'illegal Iraq war'
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> May 16 10:49 AM US/Eastern
>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthis Chiroux is the kind of young American US military
>>>>>>>>>>>> recruiters love.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "I was from a poor, white family from the south, and I did
>>>>>>>>>>>> badly in school," the now 24-year-old told AFP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "I was 'filet mignon' for recruiters. They started phoning
me
>>>>>>>>>>>> when I was in 10th grade," or around 16 years old, he added.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chiroux joined the US army straight out of high school
nearly
>>>>six
>>>>>>>>>>>> years ago, and worked his way up from private to sergeant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He served in Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, and the
Philippines
>>>>and
>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>>>>> due to be deployed next month in Iraq.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, he refused to go, saying he considers Iraq an
>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal war.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately he doesn't have the authority to make the
>>>>>>>>>>> decision of whether the war is illegal or not, or whether he
>>>>>>>>>>> serves even
>>>>if
>>>>>>>>>>> he does think it is illegal. He should have thought about all
>>>>that
>>>>>>>>before
>>>>>>>>>>> he signed the dotted line.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It is his duty to refuse an illegal order
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All soliders do indeed have a "...duty to refuse an illegal
>>>>>>>>> order".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "...However, the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion,
or
>>>>>>>>> personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience
of
>>>>>>>>> an otherwise lawful order."
>>>>>>>>> http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The posted article shows no illegal order given to the
sergeant.
>>>>>>>>> Ergo, your comment is non sequitur.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The soldier has a different opinion apparently.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He's free to have any opinion he wants...in private. ACTING upon
>>>>>>> his "different opinion" by refusing to re****t to Iraq is a
>>>>>>> courts-martial offense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes it is. During the cour-martial his opinion will be tested.
>>>>>
>>>>> ITM, "...the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or
>>>>> personal
>>>>> philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an
otherwise
>>>>> lawful order." http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf
>>>>
>>>>Yes. The test will be if it is a lawful order.
>>>
>>> We have two separate issues. Either and both and liable for
punishment
>>> under the UCMJ.
>>>
>>> IAW the article he claimed; "I stand before you today with the
>>> strength and clarity and resolve to declare to the military, my
>>> government and the world that this soldier will not be deploying to
>>> Iraq..."
>>>
>>> 1. Written orders transferring him to Iraq would be just as "lawful"
>>> as if the military were to transfer him to Afghanistan, Germany,
Japan
>>> or the Philippines.
>>>
>>> The article also states "he considers Iraq an illegal war" as his
>>> justification for not transferring to Iraq.
>>>
>>> Since he's not yet IN Iraq, he has no orders for performing ANY
>>> duties.
>>>
>>> 2. Should he go to Iraq and THEN refuse to perform his assigned
>>> dutites BECAUSE "he considers Iraq an illegal war", his refusal to
>>> would fall under consideration as to whether his assigned duties were
>>> "lawful orders" but NOT because "...the dictates of a person’s
>>> conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse
>>> the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order."
>>> http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf
>>>
>>
>>If the war and occupation is illegal,
>
> I'm simply amazed at how dense some posters appear to be...
>
> No US Court has made such a ruling, your "IF" is non sequitur.
I'm sorry you are having so much trouble understanding. Logic can be
tough.
The Soldier contends that the war is illegal. If he is right, he should
refuse the order to go before he enters Iraq. Its that simple.
>
>>him entering Iraqi airspace would
>>be considered illegal
>
> So in your world, somehow it may be "illegal" for a United States Army
> sergeant to enter into Iraqi airspace to perform his military duties
> based on written orders transferring him to Iraq where others are
> currently stationed, but somehow:
Thats his argument, from the looks of it. I don't know all the details.
>
> "Pass****ts valid for at least six months and visas are required for
> most private American citizens."
> http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1144.html
>
> ROTFLMHO
>
>>so he must refuse the order before getting there.
>
> He has NO authority to refuse his orders to Iraq based on "woulda,
> coulda, shoulda" and/or "IF the war and occupation are illegal"
> premises. He's in the US military, not your knitting club or ceramics
> class.
Thats what is in question. He maintains that he does have the authority
to refuse the order. He may well be wrong, but thats seemingly his
argument. Thus the court martial.
>
> His personal opinion is irrelevent on such issues as "...the dictates
> of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot
> justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order."
> http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf
His personal opinion is exactly relevant. If he thinks that an order is
illegal it is his duty to refuse it. He might be wrong, and so he'll be
held to account.
You seem to have problems with basic comprehension, I'd seek some medical
advice. You might have a tumor or something causing pressure on your
brain.
|
