quote:Ah, well I freely admit to the GC stuff. I was entirely wrong about that. I do remember it now that I see the context.
And yet you persist with the personal debate. you want to accuse me of "starting the fight," but it was only a fight to you. For me it was being dogpiled by others and yourself being accused of being unAmerican, anti-American, and other insults.
Regarding the Geneva Conventions:
quote: You're comparing the mistreatment of soldiers to the mistreatment of government officials.
Are you aware that the Geneva Conventions apply to both? They apply to non government civilians as well.
quote:I inferred that they are liable to American law first.
No, you said that soldiers were not "governed by" international law. If that was what you meant, then that is fine and I agree. However, what you said and what you meant are, in this thread, two different things. Your first post, which was the one on which I commented, pointed out you citing Geneva Conventions previously, which are international laws, and pointed out that "governed by" does not mean Americans cannot be held liable. If you want to discuss which parts of the Geneva Conventions Iran broke with their actions, I do believe I had a thread discussing things having to do with Iran, and you can feel free to post them there or in a new thread. The point was that you actually cited them even though you originally claimed you did not.
quote:I don't believe you. Probably because I'm a Fox News fan And no, I'm certainly not going to forget about that insult, or stop bringing it up, especially when you keep insisting that this is an even trading of accusations.
You don't have to believe me. I am telling you that your assumptions are wrong. You are free to continue with your assumptions, but it makes you seem more hypocritical to me. As for the insults, I am saying specifically that they are not equal. You lobbed personal insults against the ToS, I questioned your bias and called you on it. I didn't call you a jackass and worse. I didn't question your loyalty to America. You may disagree, but your behavior has been far worse and "you started it" is no justification.
quote:I can be charged with jaywalking in Zimbabwe. Doesn't mean that law has any power over me.
No, you don't understand. If you commit a crime against international law, and it would have to be a significant crime, you can have charges brought against you. However, if the US decides not to hold those charges against you, then you will not be charged while on American soil or in a nation that does not recognize universal jurisdiction (the link lists some countries that do). In the example I gave of such charges, Rumsfeld, Tenet, and Gonzales had charges against them that, were they to step foot in the nation where the charges oriented, they could be detained under that jurisdiction. However, were they to remain in the embassy during their time there, the US could claim that universal jurisdiction does not apply. The cases themselves seem to have gone nowhere, but the precedent of what I have been pointing out from the beginning existed in those cases. It does have power over you in that you can be detained and tried if you are not on US soil and the authorities in the nation in question decide to detain you. There is an argument of strained diplomatic relations, but that doesn't change that international law can still apply to you if you have been charged in a nation that accepts universal jurisdiction. What changes is how national governments decide to handle such incidents in favor of diplomatic relations. Your being an American doesn't change your liability in those situations, it only affords you a better chance of being vetted off to the local embassy and shuttled back to your country.
I repeat: Given the information I have provided, do you or do you not accept that Americans can still be held liable to international law even if the US government does not try them?Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yet you persist with the personal debate. you want to accuse me of "starting the fight," but it was only a fight to you.
Oh, I see. You're pointing out that you didn't intend it to be a fight. You only intended to make a personal, bigoted remark based on your faulty assumptions about my politics, and expected that to be left out there on the field, so to speak.
I'm not like that. So, you can just drop that expectation. I don't take kindly to people asserting (in a transparent, smugly superior way) that I'm a foolish follower and that they're smarter than me, all the while asserting that I'm the one who's narrow minded. One, it's pretty damn irritating. That's where the duration of my response comes from, that and I find these kinds of stories interesting to read about. Two, I'm more than confident that I am not, in fact, narrow-minded, or a follower. I might very well be a fool, but I don't think so.
And as for accusing you of being "anti-American", well, I'm just guessing here, but that probably had something to do with you taking, from the very start, an openly pro-Iranian perspective in that thread. Also, you going out of your way to believe Iranian news sources and speak in support of them.
And while we (and by we I mean you) are dredging up that thread, how about we talk about who exactly captured those sailors and marines? As I recall, I claimed that it was a religious, nationalist element of the Iranian military. You (wrongly) asserted that it wasn't, and yet you had the gall throughout that thread to assume that I was the one who was shooting from the hip.
quote:As for the insults, I am saying specifically that they are not equal. You lobbed personal insults against the ToS, I questioned your bias and called you on it
You questioned a bias you guessed existed, and did it in a smug, condescending way. You've still never apologized for, or even admitted, that you were wrong about that, by the way. In fact, you asserted that if you were right, I'd never admit it-calling me in effect a liar. Quit hiding behind the ToS. If you fling accusations like that at me, I'm gonna call you a jackass. Whistle the post if you want. Oh, maybe you could whine about another forum as well, even though I've never said anything there that I haven't said here, to your face.
Ugh. Well, now my irritation with you has been overcome by my irritation with myself for gabbing about this for so long. I think I'm done with this conversation--with you--for awhile. And again, unlike you, when I say that, I mean it Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the information I have provided, do you or do you not accept that Americans can still be held liable to international law even if the US government does not try them?Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If nothing else, he's taking one for the team. The team here being people who think the whole situation is messed up, and that more attention needs to be directed towards fixing it, and holding accountable the people who messed it up in the first place.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with what he's doing, but I think it's a lot more than many people are willing to do, and I respect that.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry Dag. The scholars are all people I've heard speak at various forums at the University and I can't seem to find a written version of their remarks.
OK, but can you clarify whether they were speaking of the invasion or of the movement of troops into the country 2 years later at the invitation of the internationally recognized government of a sovereign nation?
Because that makes a HUGE difference.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This does bring up the question, to what extent does a soldier have either/both a right and a duty to refuse to engage in actions they believe are illegal?
There's a very simple answer here. The soldier has an absolute right to refuse any orders he wishes. The military, however, has a corresponding right to punish him to the letter of the law for it.
Best of both worlds!
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Foust: This does bring up the question, to what extent does a soldier have either/both a right and a duty to refuse to engage in actions they believe are illegal?!
As I understand it, US soldiers have a duty to refuse to engage in actions that are illegal and a duty to follow all legal orders. If a US soldier obeys an illegal order, he can be punished. If he refuses to obey an legal order, he can be punished. If he believes an order to legal and follows it, but it was not legal, prison or possibly death. If he believes an order to be illegal but it is determined to have been legal, prison and possibly death.
Our laws truly put our soldiers in a very untenable position. If we want out soldiers to be responsible for their actions, we need to make the risks for disobeying an order that the soldier believes to be illegal lower.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry Dag. The scholars are all people I've heard speak at various forums at the University and I can't seem to find a written version of their remarks.
OK, but can you clarify whether they were speaking of the invasion or of the movement of troops into the country 2 years later at the invitation of the internationally recognized government of a sovereign nation?
Because that makes a HUGE difference.
The scholars I've referred to were referring specifically to the legality of the continueing occupation of Iraq. I'm afraid I am not qualified to summarize the legal arguments. They ranged from violations of rules of occupation which have been established in various international treaties to arguments about the legitimacy of the current Iraqi government.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Foust: This does bring up the question, to what extent does a soldier have either/both a right and a duty to refuse to engage in actions they believe are illegal?!
As I understand it, US soldiers have a duty to refuse to engage in actions that are illegal and a duty to follow all legal orders. If a US soldier obeys an illegal order, he can be punished. If he refuses to obey an legal order, he can be punished. If he believes an order to legal and follows it, but it was not legal, prison or possibly death. If he believes an order to be illegal but it is determined to have been legal, prison and possibly death.
Our laws truly put our soldiers in a very untenable position. If we want out soldiers to be responsible for their actions, we need to make the risks for disobeying an order that the soldier believes to be illegal lower.
In situations where you think orders are illegal (assuming you have as much time as Mr. Watada did), you have a couple of options that can go, or not go, in this order
1)express your concerns (and then follow orders anyway) 2)start chain of command hopping 3)hit up the Inspector General (IG)
If you fight Big [Insert Service] you will get stomped. Mr. Watada fought The Boss and The Board, and I expect he will be thoroughly thrashed.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish I had more to say on this subject, but I find it somewhat perplexing. On one hand I admire this soldier for standing up to his convictions regardless of the consequences.
One thing I have learned from Harry Potter is that sometime the right thing to do is the wrong thing to do. By this I mean, sometimes the morally right thing to do is to defy rule and laws. Rules and Laws are our guides for general living, but sometimes the specific overrides the general.
Before the troops were even deployed, I was convinced that the Administration was simply using 9/11 as an excuse to do what they wanted to do. There subsequent evidence to me rang just as phony as their original intent. I never once thought their evidence or justification was substantial; meaning I always felt it was lacking in substance. But at that time, no one would let you say a word against the President.
I wondered where the Journalist were, why they weren't digging deeper into these issues and this evidence. But they all seem to be towing the party line. There was little I could do by make my voice heard to those who were close enough to listen to me, but no of us have power or influence. So what could we do, but stand by while our country went into a clearly unnecessary war.
Now don't get me wrong Sadaam was a bad guy, amoung the baddest. I felt that likely at sometime we might have to go into Iraq and do something. But I didn't feel this was the time, I didn't feel we had the evidence or the genuine provocation.
So, I do have great sympathy for this soldier, but at the same time my nephews are literally going to war, while this person refuses.
Though I will note that this particular soldier has not refused to serve his country. He is willing to go to war in Afghanistan or any other LEGAL war zone. He seems well aware that his IS GOING to pay a very high price for taking this stand, and he seems willing to pay that price. He seem true to his conviction, and firm in his stance.
He seems to be playing the role of Harry Potter. Instead of quietly sleeping with the rest of his classmates, he is out breaking the rules because the current moral circumstances call for the rules to be broken.
Sometimes doing the wrong thing is the morally right thing to do. Heroes and martyrs have known and lived by this paradox from the beginning of time.
posted
I am not sure how it got in everybody's heads that Watada said he'd happily go to Afghanistan or somewhere else besides Iraq. It's common knowledge in the army that the guy provided a typed memo to his chain stating that he wouldn't deploy to ANY war under this administration because he didn't want to be "Bush's tool" or something like that. Wish I could point to a reference, but there must be something out there as it is so widely known among soldiers.
I also want to point out that his two Article 88 charges (disrespect toward elected officials) really doesn't cast him in a good light. More than anything, it makes him seem like a guy who just hates the administration but made the mistake of joining up.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, thanks for the link. It will take me a long while to be able to comment on it, and I might not ever get to it, but I'm glad I've read it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One quick thing - it deals with international law only. Statute and treaty are both coequal in U.S. law (and each subject to the Constitution). The later of two contradictory laws - whether statute or treaty - overrides the earlier. Although generally a court will interpret the later so as not to conflict if possible, the specific will be held to control over the general (as a general matter of construction). So I'm not sure this answers the question "was this legal under U.S. law?"
Again, though, thank you for posting it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wish I could point to a reference, but there must be something out there as it is so widely known among soldiers.
Why do you assume that soldiers would be the best source of accurate, unbiased information about someone that their culture is practically designed to pillory?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think its ridiculous to argue that the war is "illegal."
Immoral perhaps, I do not believe that is so but I believe very strongly in the words of Thoreau,
"Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison"
If we fight a war that I believe is wrong, if I believed it was evil enough, I would refuse to pay for it and go to jail.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sometimes doing the wrong thing is the morally right thing to do. Heroes and martyrs have known and lived by this paradox from the beginning of time.
So have almost all the villains of the world, though. That's the tricky thing.
quote:Time will tell if he's a Harry Potter or not. It's too soon.
I just hope that it won't turn out that Saddam had a horcrux....
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:Why do you assume that soldiers would be the best source of accurate, unbiased information about someone that their culture is practically designed to pillory? [/QB]
I've never been led astray going with conventional wisdom of soldiers. The military is an excellent microcosm of mainstream American society in general; and even our lowest privates today are far more intelligent, disciplined and educated than their civilian counterparts.
Low-ranking soldiers are also an excellent guage of how well a strategy is working. If you get a squad-sized group of average-intelligence privates together and explain a plan, they can give you a pretty good call on whether or not the plan will work. I am sometimes confused as to why no reporters have figured this out--because any private can tell you that we're gonna be in Iraq for decades to come.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: If we fight a war that I believe is wrong, if I believed it was evil enough, I would refuse to pay for it and go to jail. [/QB]
I agree with this...what ever happened to facing the consequences of your actions? If it's so important to you that you don't participate in an "evil" war, then you should be willing to do some time for it.
The growing "I shouldn't have to be responsible for my own actions" attitude in America is starting to worry me. For instance, freedom of speech doesn't grant you immunity from the consequences of everything you say. And maybe this kid should have thought of going to jail before he spoke up. The extreme left would crown him their king once he got out, anyway.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Battler03: I am not sure how it got in everybody's heads that Watada said he'd happily go to Afghanistan or somewhere else besides Iraq. It's common knowledge in the army that the guy provided a typed memo to his chain stating that he wouldn't deploy to ANY war under this administration because he didn't want to be "Bush's tool" or something like that. Wish I could point to a reference, but there must be something out there as it is so widely known among soldiers.
I also want to point out that his two Article 88 charges (disrespect toward elected officials) really doesn't cast him in a good light. More than anything, it makes him seem like a guy who just hates the administration but made the mistake of joining up.
Battler03, One of Watanda's superior officers', Lt. Col. James, acknowledged in the first court-martial that Watanda offered to serve in Afghanistan. Maybe it got into everyone's head because it is true?
quote:Watada's attorney, in opening arguments, said his client acted and spoke out of deeply held beliefs. The Army, said defense attorney Eric Seitz, had ample opportunity to respect Watada's beliefs and reassign him to alternative duty, including serving in Afghanistan.
"We will argue at the end of the trial that he conducted himself as an ethical officer in accordance with any standards that you may hear about," Seitz said.
But Antonia and Lt. Col. William James, another officer who counseled Watada, said the first lieutenant lost the respect of his soldiers and was no longer fit to serve as their officer.
"He gave his word; he broke his word," James said.
James also said he found Watada's offer to serve in Afghanistan in "direct conflict" with Watada's written statement that he did not want to deploy as a "tool" of the Bush administration.
edit: I read what I posted, and it seems the Lt. both made a statement that he didn't want to deploy under Bush's orders, AND offered to go to Afghanistan in lieu of Iraq.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Watada said he didn't want to be 'a tool of the Bush Administration', I don't see that as being in direct conflict with his position. He is saying he will not be a tool of Bush's personal and political agenda which is quite different that the necessity of confronting the enemy directly on their soil.
The idea that forces inside Afghanistan were a threat was very real and indisputably factual. The idea that forces inside Iraq were a threat was, in the view of some, a whole fabricated idea that served the personal agenda of individual politicians. One represents serving your country, the other represents serving special interests.
It's not that hard for me to see the distinction between the two, and I reject the Army's assertion that either one represents serving as a tool of Bush's personal agenda.
To those who say this soldier should take this stand unless he is willing to do the time, he seem perfectly willing to so just that. He seems to understands and accept prison time as a consequence.
quote:He is saying he will not be a tool of Bush's personal and political agenda which is quite different that the necessity of confronting the enemy directly on their soil.
What, exactly, does being 'Commander-in-Chief' mean, then, if an individual soldier can decide he won't be that CiC's tool?
ETA:
quote:One represents serving your country, the other represents serving special interests.
Special interests like...the US Congress?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the best of my knowledge Congress did not authorize this war. They gave the president General Authorization to take Preemptive Action if such action became necessary and justified.
Further I make a distinction between the interests of the Commander-in-Chief in general, and those specifically of the President and his staff. Commander-in-Chief is a universal and eternal title whereas Presidents, their staff, and their personal agendas come and go.
For what it's worth. Steve/BlueWizard
Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Congress did not authorize this war, why have they not made that clear since it began, exactly? Or is it only the side that now dissents with the war that gets to decide whether or not the Congress of years ago in fact authorized it?
quote:Further I make a distinction between the interests of the Commander-in-Chief in general, and those specifically of the President and his staff. Commander-in-Chief is a universal and eternal title whereas Presidents, their staff, and their personal agendas come and go.
"Universal and eternal"? What does that mean, exactly? That soldiers are required to serve as the tools of CiCs...but not of the people who legally and legitimately hold that title? If the CiC is to be taken as seperate (because it's "universal and eternal") from the President (who is, as far as I've ever learned, the Commander-in-Chief), exactly what is to stop a soldier from refusing orders because they disagree with the "personal agenda" of the President (not to be confused with the eternal and universal Commander-in-Chief)?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:To the best of my knowledge Congress did not authorize this war. They gave the president General Authorization to take Preemptive Action if such action became necessary and justified.
That's what authorization means - telling someone else that they have the power to do something.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) 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 there after 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 resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Many authorizations are conditional on the authorized person making a determination. It doesn't make them not authorizations.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me its immaterial that he was willing to serve in Afghanistan. If the army decides to take that into consideration and give him that option then I'm glad everyone can get what they want.
But if the army for any reason decides that is not the case, for example, "If we cater to this soldier, why not every soldier who tries to hand pick their assignment and refuses to fight if they are not appeased?" Then he is in dereliction of his duty and post and should be disciplined.
Soldiers throughout history have disobeyed orders they thought were wrong, both in the moral sense and in fact. The ones who do not instigate coups accept the ramifications of such actions.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it's just my fatalism, but I don't see why not believing in "the cause" excuses a contracted soldier from making war. Soldiers have always approached their conflict with a grain of salt--however, they have always (generally) gone ahead and carried out orders.
You think the Janissaries actually WANTED to assault the impregnable walls of Vienna? They went ahead and effing did so anyway.
Your personal feelings have no bearing on the matter. That is the whole point of being a warrior. Frankly, as a warrior, I'd consider it more or less a blessing that I don't have to (because I am sort of forbidden to) think about the abstract philosophical or moral implications of my actions.
Say what you will, but once your name is on the dotted line, you opinions go out the window. If the Army (or the Corps, or whatever) wanted you to have an opinion--as the saying goes--well then hell, they would issue you one.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is very simple I was in the Navy for six years untill an injury ended that. By your oath you shall follow the orders of the President this war was ordered by the President and authorized by the congress as the representatives of all the people in the United States of America. Any and every order in relation to the execution of that war is now legal unless superceded by regulations that state otherwise (Uniform Code of Military Justice) such as committing an attrocity. Being deployed to Iraq does not qualify on any of these grounds. Now if when he got to Iraq he was ordered to slaughter a village then by all means refuse to do so and in fact it is his duty to prevent that by any means neccessary such as removing that officer from command. However, untill such an event happens he has no rights to operate on his own volition with regard to second guessing his orders. Otherwise if he does not deploy he could be found guilty of UCMJ Articles: 86 Absence without leave 87 Missing movement 88 Contempt toward officials 89 Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer 90 Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer 92 Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation 98 Noncompliance with procedural rules 99 Misbehavior before the enemy 104 Aiding the enemy 132 Frauds against the United States 133 Conduct unbecomming an officer and a gentleman 134 General Article Will they charge him with all of these I doubt it some do not apply depending on his attitude in his "protests". Either way if he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of Military Law by which he is bound his life is effectively over regardless of his education or past work experience if he chooses to remain in the United States.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And no, I'm certainly not going to forget about that insult, or stop bringing it up, especially when you keep insisting that this is an even trading of accusations.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
