Army officer refuses to serve in Iraq on grounds that Bush has committed war crimes - Page 2 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 27 (permalink) Old 07-06-2006, 06:32 PM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1427 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
Let's look at the original Nuremberg Indictment against Nazi Germany:


Count 1 - CONSPIRACY to commit crimes alleged in the next three counts.

Count 2 - CRIMES AGAINST PEACE including planning, preparing, starting, or waging aggressive war.

Count 3 - WAR CRIMES including violations of laws or customs of war.

Count 4 - CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY including murder, extermination, enslavement, persecution on political or racial grounds, involuntary deportment, and inhumane acts against civilian populations.

How many of those do you think Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice could be charged with?

Damn, I'd say that's an open and shut case, folks. Send our young hero home and let's get on with the real trial.
Zeitgeist is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 27 (permalink) Old 07-06-2006, 06:59 PM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
Prana25's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2006
Vehicle: 04 SL55 AMG
Location: Sacramento, CA - US
Posts: 927
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Let's not forget the oath that we (if you did) took at enlistment. I couple of the key points:

To defend our nation against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.
To obey the LAWFUL orders handed down by the officers appointed above me.

(Paraphrasing - cut me some slack - it's been 8 years since I’ve actually read them out loud)

You're right - he is puting the entire war and government on trial. He'll lose. I wish he stood a chance, but they won't kick him out. That would be an example of how to get out.
Prana25 is offline  
post #13 of 27 (permalink) Old 07-07-2006, 07:05 AM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Jul 2006
Vehicle: 1988 260E, 1989 300E
Location: Richlmond, Virginia
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DriveByPoster
Under the UCMJ, the man has a valid case.
Can you explain why you believe he has a case. I don't see anything in the UCMJ that would give him any relief.
reinholdt is offline  
post #14 of 27 (permalink) Old 07-07-2006, 07:22 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prana25
Let's not forget the oath that we (if you did) took at enlistment. I couple of the key points:

To defend our nation against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.
To obey the LAWFUL orders handed down by the officers appointed above me.

(Paraphrasing - cut me some slack - it's been 8 years since I’ve actually read them out loud)

You're right - he is puting the entire war and government on trial. He'll lose. I wish he stood a chance, but they won't kick him out. That would be an example of how to get out.
Yeah, I remember that oath. It sure made an impression on my 18 year-old mind when I read it and recited it.

The lawful order thing is probably not going to work since Congress passed a resolution empowering the Adminstration to force Iraq into compliance. Therefore, CinC can issue orders on that basis and it is legal.
Botnst is offline  
post #15 of 27 (permalink) Old 07-07-2006, 07:34 AM
BenzWorld Member
 
GMISBEST's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2005
Posts: 315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor
"with missing movement" WTF is that a bowel thing? I want my tax money back! What in the hell did he get paid to do anyway? The military is a service for our nation not a center for ideology; the dude should have resigned instead of playing games while in uniform.
How's my gmisbest. impersonation?
huh you swallow a diktionary or something "center for ideology" I dont paint pictures with words I say what I say

UP DETROIT STEEL

im going for Kentucky Fried Chicken
GMISBEST is offline  
post #16 of 27 (permalink) Old 07-07-2006, 09:19 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
felkhound's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2005
Vehicle: 2006 SLK350
Location: North Little Rock, AR
Posts: 544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
A Courts Martial is not a public forum, it is a military court, and as such falls under a different set of rules (I.E., the UCMJ). When a person takes the oath of enlistment they are required to follow the orders they are given. Military people just can't pick and choose what they want to do. That's why it's called an order.

There will be no ruling on the purported legality of what's going on in Iraq. These will be military officers conducting the hearing, and they will have no sympathy for one of their own.

2006 SLK350
Something Silver

“I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
- Hillary Clinton
felkhound is offline  
post #17 of 27 (permalink) Old 07-07-2006, 10:47 AM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
Prana25's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2006
Vehicle: 04 SL55 AMG
Location: Sacramento, CA - US
Posts: 927
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Yeah, I remember that oath. It sure made an impression on my 18 year-old mind when I read it and recited it.

The lawful order thing is probably not going to work since Congress passed a resolution empowering the Adminstration to force Iraq into compliance. Therefore, CinC can issue orders on that basis and it is legal.
I'm slacking off at the office so I don't have too much time to get into this (although it seems we finally have some good insult free discussion around here). I will, however, just throw out a quick scenario for people to play with and call me names...

A commander orders troops to perform certain movements based on intel and the orders he was given from a Sr. Officer. Let's say, eliminate a group of people who are hiding explosives. So, the troops are eliminating the targets when the commander finds out that the intel was fabricated and the target is nothing more than a group of people who pissed off the Sr. Officer that initiated the target elimination to begin with. i.e. a personal grudge from a past business deal gone bad. Now, the troop commander knows the information is false and the target is not hiding explosives. However, the commander is up for his star and isn't going to do anything that might jeopardize his status and future. So, Sr. officer continues his quest, only because admitting it was initiated illegally would have severe consequences (initiating any attack under intentionally falsified information is still illegal, correct?). So, as the Sr. officer continues to do anything he can to save his ego and reputation, is he still issuing lawful orders? Are the troops then supposed to follow those orders or should they see it as attempted treason for tearing down everything that they'd sworn to defend?

Not like that scenario would ever happen... Oh, I was thinking of Moby Dick. Wrong forum.
Prana25 is offline  
post #18 of 27 (permalink) Old 07-07-2006, 12:22 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prana25
I'm slacking off at the office so I don't have too much time to get into this (although it seems we finally have some good insult free discussion around here). I will, however, just throw out a quick scenario for people to play with and call me names...

A commander orders troops to perform certain movements based on intel and the orders he was given from a Sr. Officer. Let's say, eliminate a group of people who are hiding explosives. So, the troops are eliminating the targets when the commander finds out that the intel was fabricated and the target is nothing more than a group of people who pissed off the Sr. Officer that initiated the target elimination to begin with. i.e. a personal grudge from a past business deal gone bad. Now, the troop commander knows the information is false and the target is not hiding explosives. However, the commander is up for his star and isn't going to do anything that might jeopardize his status and future. So, Sr. officer continues his quest, only because admitting it was initiated illegally would have severe consequences (initiating any attack under intentionally falsified information is still illegal, correct?). So, as the Sr. officer continues to do anything he can to save his ego and reputation, is he still issuing lawful orders? Are the troops then supposed to follow those orders or should they see it as attempted treason for tearing down everything that they'd sworn to defend?

Not like that scenario would ever happen... Oh, I was thinking of Moby Dick. Wrong forum.
Easy answer: No soldier is required to follow an unlawful order. In fact, it is his duty to refuse an illegal order and report the order up the chain of command. It is a point of honor and the legal duty of a soldier NOT to obey an illegal order.

Remember the Nuremburg defense the Nazis used failed explicitly for just that reason.

Make the choice, pay the consequences. Nobody said soldiering was simple or easy.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #19 of 27 (permalink) Old 07-07-2006, 12:25 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Easy answer: No soldier is required to follow an unlawful order. In fact, it is his duty to refuse an illegal order and report the order up the chain of command. It is a point of honor and the legal duty of a soldier NOT to obey an illegal order.

Remember the Nuremburg defense the Nazis used failed explicitly for just that reason.

Make the choice, pay the consequences. Nobody said soldiering was simple or easy.

B
Then this guy is toast, plain and simple. No one in the chain of command is going to side with him, so that's that.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #20 of 27 (permalink) Old 07-07-2006, 12:27 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar
Then this guy is toast, plain and simple. No one in the chain of command is going to side with him, so that's that.
I'm lost. Who are we talking about, now?

B
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome