On Mon, 19 May 2008 23:59:47 -0500, z <z@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Info Junkie <bondrock@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>news:gs543498di224eoli43j3e4t2t2p8u7519@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:08:55 -0500, z <z@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>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 only trouble I'm having is watching you try to justifiy the
>> falsity by claiming "logic".
>>
>> Here's an easier example for your "logic":
>> (Presuming you're a US citizen driving in the US with a legal driver's
>> license and required paperwork (registration, insurance, whatever))
>>
>> A police officer stops you for speeding, and THINKS you've been
>> drinking alcohol. The officer demands you take a breathalyzer test.
>>
>> You KNOW you weren't speeding or drinking alcohol, and despite your
>> best efforts, can not talk the officer from writing you a speeding
>> ticket, but you refuse to take the breathalyzer test.
>>
>> In many states, this refusal equates to a immediate suspension of your
>> driver's license. The officer advises you of the court date.
>>
>> Evenm though you hoinestly beleive you're in the *right*, do you
>> arrange for the car to be moved (and a ride for you) and plead your
>> case in court, or do you refuse:
>> A. And tear up the speeding ticket
>> B. Ignore going to court?
>> C. Try and drive away in your car?
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> Well this is what happens when you try to sh** in one hand and wish in
>> the other...see which one gets filled first.
>>
>> Instead of posting flippant comments about "logic", maybe you should
>> read what the court has already stated (and I've posted several times)
>> about what any soldier(s) may or may not "contend":
>>
>> "...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
>>
>> In plain English for those that try to apply false "logic" and
>> wrongheaded simplicity, the court's stated solider's such as this
>> sergeant's personal opinion is irrelevent.
>>
>>>>>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.
>>
>> So far, several posters including yourself have made all sorts of
>> silly arguments based on the lack of details and the military.
>>
>>>> "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.
>>
>> He's entitled to a courts-martial....and he'll lose.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> It's his duty to CHALLENGE a percieved illegal order. Refusing to obey
>> an order (short of murdering a civilian for example) based on your
>> personal opinion of Iraq is where you continue to fail in your
>> "logic".
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> OMG. Comprehension? I've posted what the courts' have stated about
>> what soldier's "contend"...and the soldier's opinion is irrelevent.
>> What's your repsonse to the court's ruling? Nothing at all...and
>> you're accusing ME of failing to comprehend? LOL
>>
>> Here ya go fool; Since this guy is sergeant in the US Army:
>> "Under 635-200, what grounds may a soldier request a voluntary
>> discharge?
>>
>> Hard****p/dependency, conscientious objection, good of the service,
>> minority, convenience of the government, and pregnancy"
>> http://sill-www.army.mil/usancoa/PDF%20Files/study_guide_2002.pdf
>>
>> Yeah, he'll get his day-in-court, and I hope he gets in addition to
>> Article 92, multiple charges are added, resulting in a dishonorable or
>> bad-conduct discharge.
>>
>> The "tumor" may be in your own head...it's obviously imparing your
>> eyesight (failing to read) and accept facts (comprehension).
>
>Your issue with logic is that no where do I say the soldier is right. I
>never say the war was illegal in this argument, only that the soldier
>thinks it is and, if he thinks it is illegal he should refuse the order.
(Sigh). Maybe you ignored answering the questions from my first
example as being too complex, so here's a similiar scenario:
If you're driving (nearly any US state), the police pull you over as
they suspect you're impaired and driving a vehicle, i.e. DUI/DWI. You
THINK the police are 100% wrong, and you refuse the order to submit to
a breathalyzer or blood test.
So...use your "logic" and tell the NG readers...since you REALLY
believe you're in the *right*, and refused to take a breathalyzer or
blood test....do you then try and drive away?
Yep, you will have your day-in-court, and btw, in neither of my
examples do I assert you are or are not breaking the law, or even if
the law is "legal" or "illegal".
Hint: the Court will NOT determine if the speeding or DUI/DWI laws are
legal or illegal. The Court will ONLY be deciding if you violated the
law(s) as written.
>And that the court martial will resolve the issue, more than likely he
>will have to go to jail. You seem to have trouble with this concept.
Here's the "concept", aka reality, you refuse to accept:
There are three military courts-martial courts: General, Special and
Summary. In each of the them, their "jurisdiction over crimes
committed by any person, including civilians".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Advocate_General's_Corps
The "issue" that a courts-martial court will resolve, is whether the
sergeant followed the written orders to travel to and re****t to his
newly assigned unit that is currently deployed to Iraq. His refusal
to re****t as ordered is a direct violation of said written orders. He
WILL being going to the brig...followed up with discharge orders.
The "issue" that a courts-martial court will NOT resolve, is the
legality of the conflict in Iraq. A Courts-Martial court doesn't have
the authority to decide such matters, ergo, these courts CAN NOT
"resolve the issue" wrt the "legality" of Iraq, as they do not have
the authority to RULE on such issues.
ITM, since the active military force is a part of the Executive
Branch, the "issue" became legal when the POTUS, both as the leader of
the Executive Branch AND the military's Commander-in-Chief, ordered
the military to Iraq in sup****t of the UN resolutions. Congress
further sup****ted this legality when they gave their
"sense-of-the-Congress" approval and continue to fund it.
>Maybe you don't have a tumor, maybe you are just stupid.
Buy a clue son....the stupidity is your own.
|
