REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

What about the troops?

POSTED BY: CAUSAL
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 05:17
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9245
PAGE 1 of 2

Monday, February 5, 2007 12:39 PM

CAUSAL


Over in another RWED thread, I posted an explanation of the military command structure as part of post regarding my military service in Iraq. I tried explaining how the chain of command works, and that the chief function of the military is to protect the country, its citizens, and its system of governments. I got the following response:

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.



This scared the hell out of me. Because up to this point in the Iraq war, those who oppose it have been able to separate their anger at the President from their feelings toward the military. Apparently, the wall that separates the two is beginning to crumble: apparently we veterans and active-duty servicemtn are "bitches" who would happily put bullets in the chests of civilians and who have no interest in preserving the freedoms enjoyed by American citizens.

Well, FFF.net: what do you think? How should we respond to the military and to those who have served in Iraq?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 5, 2007 12:45 PM

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?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 5, 2007 12:55 PM

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).

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html


Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 5, 2007 1:00 PM

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 5, 2007 1:08 PM

CAUSAL


Chris, I agree that the government isn't terribly swift about caring for vets (and neither, for that matter, is the military itself).

I guess the big issue on my mind, though, is the basic question: should the troops be blamed for Iraq in the same way, or to the same degree (or at all) as the President is blamed? Some on this board have said that the only troops they support are the ones who refused to deploy (which I find disturbing) and others have come perilously close to the sort of rhetoric we saw in Vietnam (baby killer, et al). I am just wondering what people think: are the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to blame? Or just Bush?

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html


Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 5, 2007 1:09 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 5, 2007 1:18 PM

CAUSAL


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.



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.

That said, there has been some misbehavior in Iraq. Haditha springs immediately to mind, as does Abu Ghraib. I hope the wrong-doers are punished severely. 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.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html


Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 5, 2007 1:22 PM

CHRISISALL


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?

Troops do a job; they don't make the job details up to suit themselves. Wanna blame workers at Wal-Mart for closing down mom and pop shops? Wanng give them respect when Wal-Mart gives out a scholarship? They work there. Difference is they don't put their very lives on the line. Troops deserve respect for the hard and potentially deadly job they do. Apart from the inevitable tiny wacko percentage that you'll also find in any population of Police, Seven-11 workers or Hollywood actors, they are peeps, just like us, but braver. And in NO WAY responsible for the mess in Iraq, and any who say different are just in need of scapegoats and a kicked ass.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 5, 2007 2:11 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


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.

I see it happen every day.

If a consumer eats at a restaurant and the food is lousy, the waiter's tip suffers.

Why is this? What does the waiter have to do with the quality of the food? Usually nothing at all. Their job is to bring the food to you, and to get you accessories as you need them. (Refill your beverage, get a spare napkin, etc.)

Now, it's one thing if you ordered Eggs Benedict and got an Omelette. That is clearly the fault of the waiter. But if you got your Eggs Benedict and it's just awful, that's not the waiter's fault.

People seem to treat the military similarly, unfortunately. They don't like the quality of their war, so they take it out on the warriors. Why didn't the warriors refuse to go to this bad war? Likely the same reason the waiter didn't refuse to serve your bad Eggs benedict. It's their bloody job to serve. They don't choose the food or the war, and they don't choose how it's cooked or executed. They merely pledge to serve when called to do so.

Lately, as terms of service are changed and lengthened, I have begun to wonder if we aren't going to see more restaurant analogies.

You see, if your waiter/waitress has been forced to work mandatory overtime with no days off for 3 consecutive weeks, the quality of their service is bound to suffer. They aren't going to be as peppy in getting your order. You might not get that smile. Your extra napkin might never arrive. They might even get testy and rude with you.

The waiter certainly takes some blame, but so, too, should the management that forced endless days of long hours upon the beleagured employee. How long can a waitress be expected to deliver peppy, smiling service without a chance to unwind?

What about the folks carrying guns and getting shot at? What happens when they are pressed into service beyond reason? What happens when months turn into a year? What happens when a year turns into two? Or three? Or more? What is the warrior's equivelant to 'bad service?'

When the men in the field start to break down after too-long service, will we remember that the management is also to blame?

It's amazing how much the military is like a restaurant.

Then again, maybe I'm just hungry.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 5, 2007 2:15 PM

CHRISISALL


EXTREMELY well put, Tony!!!

Oh, waiter Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 5, 2007 2:16 PM

FLETCH2


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).




Damned good answer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 5, 2007 4:40 PM

FREMDFIRMA


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.

I call bullshit.

Not about whether you "like" an order or not, mind you... but about whether you SHOULD follow an order or not, as in how do you know without thinking it over.

Soldiers are warriors, warrior trained and although they have no *formal* training in Bushido, the very nature of their intent and intended use obviously is there as a basis.

When given an order, there's no NEED for thought, a soldier *KNOWS* in the eyeblink instant whether or not he should do it, or he is no soldier, but just a killer.

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

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.
*sigh*

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

That bein said, mostly the troops at the front end of things get the mushroom treatment, they don't know shit about what's going on, could care less about the big picture - cause what's really important to them is finding decent cover, a safe place to pee, and not gettin themself or their buddies killed - at which point I am not going to assign blame cause there's no way for em TO know, you understand.

I want em outta there, actually paid enough for the dirty job they're doin, and medically and psychologically supported after the fact - but in 220+ years of this country that hasn't happened a single time, and it would be ridiculous to expect it this time.

I think our sad history of crapping on war vets is pretty shameful, overall.

And yes, I did serve a stint in a somewhat ludicrous MOS, 76X10 basically the guy who gets the food from the airdrop to the warehouse (with the help of a 20,000lb MoGas rough terrain forklift) and then from the warehouse to the troops at the front line, be it perishables for cooking by the 94B10 (cook) with the unit, or MREs, someone has to GET the food to those yahoos and more often than not logistics doesn't have the folk or trucks to spare.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/atlas.htm
Woo, the new 20,000lb units are nice, man what I woulda given to have that extendable boom back in my day!

So prettymuch yer on your own, no escort, no air support, just you and a deuce and a half of MRE's trying to find the unit that was "kinda somewhere around here, last time we checked" on your map, and get the food to them, armed with naught more than a badly worn vietnam era M16A1 that will probably jam on the second round if the damned thing fires at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuce_and_a_half

I gotta say, out of all the usually crummy equipment the army forced off on me, I loved "Moi Deuce" - that damned thing would go places you couldn't get a mule to go, and was tougher than clint eastwood with bad constipation.

The guys I feel the worst for are our current logistics folk, stuck on predictable routes and underarmed, unarmored, often without escort down IED alley.

We can discuss the matter in detail once we've got em OUT of there, because the whole if,why,and how matters a lot less than getting them the hell out before more of em die.

And that's ALL I plan to say on the matter.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 5, 2007 5:30 PM

CAUSAL


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.



Well, no offense, but I have to wonder how long ago your service took place; you did, after all, say "current." My service took place in Afghanistan and Iraq. And here's what I can tell you about the lawful/unlawful training we got: at least 2-3 units in bootcamp, another 2-3 in my primary and secondary schools covering more job-specific stuff, 2 units prior to each deployment, 1 unit when arriving in theater (both deployments), 1 unit when arriving in the combat zone, and an ROE brief before every mission. So it is not lip service. It is something that is taken seriously, as far up the chain of command as I ever had access to.

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.



I have to respectfully disagree over the case of Watada. He tried to resign his commission and the Army refused his resignation--but that's not illegal. The Army typically has a minimum number of years that an officer must serve after being commissioned (to prevent people from taking a commission and walking away after 18 months or some such). In addition, the Army can refuse the resignation of an officer if they deem that there is a pressing need for his continued service (and please note, I'm not saying that's right, but it is legal). In addition, the Army offered Watada a non-combat posting with his current unit, but Watada turned that down. Why? Because he felt that the Iraq war was wrong. And that's why he's on court martial: he doesn't get to make that call. I can sympathize with Mr. Watada's situation in this much: he is firmly convinced that the order to deploy was unlawful, and he therefore disobeyed that order. But if the military court should find him guilty, as seems likely, it will be because Watada was wrong about that. Frem, I know you disagree with that passionately, and I respect your right to do so. I'm not wanting to pick a fight over this issue. I'm just wanting to offer an additional perspective on Mr. Watada's actions. Because Mr. Watada does not get to disobey an order that he feels is illegal. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that his deployment order was not illegal, which is why he's being tried for missing movement.

Quote:

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


The fact that you disagree with the military situation does not mean that the orders being given to the men fighting the war are illegal ones. So why are you implying that the people who are doing their job--which is to serve at the discretion of the Commander in Chief--are just killers, not soldiers? Because if you want to tell me that these are illegal orders, I need to you to show me what parts of the UCMJ, US law or Geneva Convention that has been violated--specifically, what's law has been broken such that each and every deployment order is actually and unlawful order? And if it is so clear cut that deployment orders are unlawful, why is that not being talked about? Why is that not being debated on the senate floor? Surely there are '08 presidential contenders who would love just that kind of ammo...

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html


Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 5, 2007 5:57 PM

WALKERHOUND


ya know i always get the impression that there are some people that have this picture in there head...kind of a what if or a what should happen.

It’s of the "troops" in masse refusing to do X to follow order Z. Just say dropping there weapons and declaring that they wont be a part of this clearly -insert adjective- war/action. On account off how it's all so obvuase and clearly wrong and the only reasonable reaction from people of good faith....yada yada (maybe there's even a little bit of the fantasy were instead of dropping the guns' thay return home and "SET THINGS RITHT").

Sounds real string and it's the sort of thing that can make a real kick ass climax to a story. Shoot in small way's things kind of similar have even happened in history. After all it's what these people would do them selves an't it? Seeing as how it's just such a clear and obvuase conclusion especially at a safe distance.

Problem is the world just don't work that way. If for no other reason than that well ya know that obvuase and oh so clear conclusion ya came to? Well ya'd be surprised how many people (and perfectly pleasant reasonable people at that) just as strongly disagree with ya.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 5, 2007 6:31 PM

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. 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...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 5, 2007 10:35 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


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?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 4:16 AM

CAUSAL


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.



Well, just so you know, I completely disagree with the decision to withhold Geneva Convention protection from "enemy combatants" because the Geneva Convention is supposed to be about keeping civilians safe and insuring a baseline level of humane treatment for those who are no longer able to fight (like POWs). That said, we are not (to my knowledge) summarily executing or torturing (in the same sense that the North Vietnamese did) captured fighters. And where abuses have a occurred (e.g. at Abu Ghraib), people have been held to account. And in places like Guantanamo Bay, there is enough noise being made and legal challaenges being brought that those things are beginning to change, thank God.

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.



Well, I have a hard time seeing how the shooting somebody thing works. I assume you've never been in combat--I have. Your Sergeant never just says, "Hey, shoot that dude." You don't shoot anyone, really, unless they're already shooting at you. And then it's pretty unambiguous who the threat is: the man or woman (or child, because yes, that happens) firing the weapon at you. And in those circumstances, ROE is pretty clear: you kill whoever it is that's trying to kill you. We even made sure to have a Geneva Conventions brief about what targets were legitimate and when (e.g. peaceful mosque just sitting there: not a target; people using the mosque as cover to attact you: legitimate target under the Geneva Convention). As I understand it, Bush didn't throw out the entire convention, just the "POW" designation and associated material.

If I were ordered to torture a prisoner, yes, I would disobey that order. In the first place because it offends my conscience and in the second because it's illegal under various laws. If they wanted to arrest me, fine: I would hope that it would come out in the wash. And incidently, as a member of a Naval Special Warfare Task Element, I did conduct interrogations. We never used physical violence on them (in fact, we even loosened a guys cuffs because they were cutting off circulation to his hands). About the worst we did was conduct interrogations in a dark, smelly room and raise our voices. And I'm pretty sure that doesn't consitute torture.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html


Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 4:18 AM

HERO


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?


Thats too easy. Take one crowd of civilians and add a sprinkling of terrorists using them as cover to fire on the soldiers and perhaps mix in one suicide bomber with a nuclear bomb strapped to his back using the crowd as cover to get to the UN and George Clooney is yelling in your ear "TAKE THE SHOT" and Jack is nowhere in sight...

The answer is yes, unless the answer is no.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 4:25 AM

HERO


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.


There was an incident during WW2 in which a German military police commander, a reservist, refused an order to execute a group of Jews by firing squad. In the end he and only a handful of others in the unit refused the order despite assurances that there would be no fallout (and there was not because the commander had connections).

The incident was a case study for my Political Violence professor.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 6:46 AM

FLETCH2


"Political Violence Professor?" bet that looks good on a resume!

Still, props to the German guy, hope he ran for public office in later life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 7:00 AM

FREMDFIRMA


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."

Therein lies the issue, you see: The Constitution takes precedence, first and foremost in a soldiers duty, and obediance to it's principles is not a matter of debate or conjecture - it takes precedence even over and above his orders, because it is the very basis they rest upon.
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.


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)

We ain't supposed to have a standing army either, you wanna get picky about it.

This was absolutely intentional, and intended to prevent exactly the situation we are staring down the barrel of now - a President who thinks he's King.

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 - I am not gonna sit here and fault people for obeying them anyway, given what happens in the army to damned fools who have the nerve to actually take that duty seriously, but nor am I going to allow the fiction that those are legal orders to continue.

Have I disobeyed unlawful orders ?
Hell yes, on two very noteable occasions I have - and both times while completely vindicated in the end for doing so, was endlessly retaliated against by the chain of command in all the subtle ways they're capable of.

I don't care how many puff-piece classes they give to absolve themselves of responsibility, the military reality of defying an unlawful order is far from what the book tells you - don't believe me, try DOING it if/when an unlawful order is given you and see what happens to you.

Try arguing with the MPs for a while over a female troop in the brig for refusing to suck the captains dick, for example - which got her charged, AND PUNISHED mind you, for insubordination, which they couldn't slap on her for her refusal no...
So they slapped it on her for her MANNER of refusal, that being the exercise of her right to demand any order be in writing.

Don't shovel shit at me and tell me it's rose petals, things may have changed since I served, but I highly doubt they've changed that MUCH, especially after watching the mess in Katrina, and miltary units actively helping in the seizure of guns from law abiding citizens while armed mobs ran wild - I lost all respect for the 82nd that day, and the National Guard units involved should have flat refused.

Would they fire on unarmed american citizens if ordered to ?

Hell yes they would, without so much as a second thought, it's the way they are trained and conditioned from MEPS, to BASIC, to deployment, absolute unthinking instant obediance - unlawful orders be damned, disobey an order in the army, no matter HOW blatantly unlawful it is, and you will pay, it's just that simple, and anyone who tries to tell you one word different than that is lying to you.

You might get a few who stand up, but when you see what happens to them when they do the object lesson is crystal clear.

Eric
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...

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 ?

You would, however, greatly enjoy Christopher Anvil's short story "Test Ultimate" based on the very concept you expressed, and available for free via the Baen Free Library, here's the quicklink for you.
http://www.webscription.net/10.1125/Baen/0743436008/0743436008___9.htm
(You might and others might also enjoy other offerings of said library, check em out.)

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 7:03 AM

SHINYED


The troops are certainly not evil.

In the military there is chain of command, and it is necessary in order to reduce casualties and win objectives....if every soldier "debated" and "pondered" every order given, all you would have is chaos and mass casualties.

For this war.....I blame ( my opinion ) the Generals and former Sec. Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was stubborn & arrogant, and did not take the General's advice for more troops from the onset, and the Generals have horrendously under-estimated the enemy's resolve and capabilitites. Going way back, the minute I saw the endless days of looting in Baghdad I knew that the whole thing was screwed up. Also the politics of this have messed things up alot. We could have nabbed Al Sadr a zillion times but never did....then he went on a rampage against Sunnis, plunging Iraq into civil war...and we are in the middle of no-man's land. I'm not a military man...but I still ask the question..I don't understand WHY the military can't protect a street from roadside bombs located a few blocks from the Green Zone??? I don't understand why ANY Iraqis were EVER allowed to carry guns, etc etc. This is going exactly like Vietnam...after America pulled out of S. Vietnam about 3 million Vietnamese & Cambodians were slaughtered by the Communists...In Iraq when we pull out no one will be slaughtered (except the Govt.) but Iranians and their terrorists stooges will have a new base to wreak more havoc against all their neighbors..I don't see (like Bush always says) that America is threatened any more or less by our leaving there. And finally, I'd like to see Rumsfeld arrested and charged with gross negligence, incompetence, and reckless endangerment.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 7:11 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:


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

THEN THERE IS NO WAR, Constitutionally.


Don't throw that goddamned piece of paper in our faces, Frem. (Kidding- in the not-so-funny way)

Peeps not exposed directly to abuse of power have a hard time dealing with how complicated and subtle it can be. I've been in contact with it on the court judge/police officer level, and it's quite surprising to see at first; it makes you feel like you're in a bad TV movie. You wanna ask them "So, you're a good guy? What are the bad ones like?"


Just tossin' that in Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 3:58 PM

WALKERHOUND


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 ?




No it's unworkable because its...literally imposable to implement in any truly meaningful form. I mean out side of some sort of star trek convergence of holodeck / alien mind modification/ MKultra mess.

First you would have to some how convinces a guy that he is in fact in a real no Sh* combat situation. Then you would have to come up with some at lest marginally plausible reason that given the situation at hand (which in spite of being completely mocked up he has been convinced is the real deal) for him to cap a "innocent civilian".

I mean it can't be patently ridicules ether way can it as far as the shot/don’t shot scenario is concerned? There are after all "child" solders and female suicide bombers it's all situatnel.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 4:16 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Since there's some cross-posting, here's the location of my post that also applies here.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=26886

Rue

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 4:19 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


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



Hear! Hear!

ChrisisallisDaBom





----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 4:21 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

it's all situatnel.

Course it is.

That's why I am not faulting the guys on the ground at the front line - the time to think about this crap is before you get there, cause once you do not taking a round takes precedence.

To paraphrase David Drake a little - When you send a person into a combat zone, they are going to do whatever they feel is necessary in order to survive the situation, and if you have a problem with that, the time to do something about it is before you send em.

Yer typical fresh faced recruit straight out of high school and the american "education" system doesn't know jack diddly shit about this kind of issue, nor are they given any incentive or opportunity to learn it, especially not when rammed through BASIC, AIT and shipped to the front, hell no - they don't know these things and faulting them for that ignorance is asinine.

I rest the blame for such things on the shoulders of the folks giving orders they DO know are unlawful, but in the rare case of a soldier realizing he's caught in a bind between his oath and his orders, I am not going to fault him either, provided he responds in a way that does not needlessly endanger his unit.

When yer out on patrol is not the time to address those issues, obviously, let's have a little common sense in here folks, but if upon return and standdown he takes it up with his CO, that is his perogative and his duty.

The blame for this fiasco belongs squarely on the shoulders of the high command, and ShinyEd just gave a good concept of that failure, although I would not agree with disarming Iraqis as a whole, since we've proven beyond doubt that we're unable to protect them if we do so.

What's gonna happen is gonna happen, whether it happens now or later, our responsibility is going to be the same regardless, and there's no easy solution, no.

Probably the best thing we could possibly do is throw it in the lap of the UN and split, sure they're corrupt as hell, but honestly no more so than KBR, Haliburton, and all the war profiteers WE brought with us, really.

Given the realities of the situation I'd prefer to unfuck the situation first and start layin blame later - but in spite of those realities the illusion that the orders in question are legal is just that, an illusion, and we should at least be honest with ourselves about it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 4:25 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


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.




Hear! Hear! TonyisalmostasbrilliantasChrisisall

FutureIamhungrytooMrsFillion


----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 10:06 AM

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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 10:25 AM

CAUSAL


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



For what it's worth, the reason the judge ruled that the legality of the war is not permissible in Watada's defense is because it's not germaine to the charges. Watada is not being charged with dereliction of duty or refusing to obey a direct order. He's being charged with missing movement--that is, for failing to be physically present with his unit when it shipped out. Now, if Watada had move with his unit, and then refused all orders once in-country, then I imagine that the legality or illegality of the war would be germaine to the defense. This is part of what I've been saying about soldiers not being able to choose which orders to obey and which not to. As far as I can tell, the movement order wasn't unlawful, so the legality or illegality of the war isn't relevant. What is relevant is just whether or not he was with his unit. So apparently there's going to have to be another dissenter to get the legality/illegality question brought up in court.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html


Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 10:50 AM

CAUSAL


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



Yeah, but here's the trouble:

Quote:


US CONSTITUTION
Article 2, Section 2

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States



The trouble seems to be this: the constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and it names the president Commander in Chief. This means that the president can issue orders to the military, but not declare war, and congress can declare war, but not issue orders to the military. As I understand it, this is meant to insure that both branches work together. But the framers missed a huge loophole: they did not specify whether or not the president could order the military into combat without a declaration of the war. So: big issue. Can a president order the nation's forces into combat without a congressional declaration of war? Well, pretty clearly, the president has (the most notable examples being Vietnam and Korea, which were labelled "police actions" avoid this whole issue). Now, I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that the way jurisprudence works is that when a law seems to cover a particular circumstance but does not do so explicitly, an appeal is made to precedent. Now, there are at least three twentieth century examples of presidents ordering American forces into combat without declarations of war (Korea, Vietnam and Gulf War I). It would seem that the precedent established has been that yes, the president can order America's military into combat without a declaration of war. Unless a legal challenge is mounted and precedent is set that contradicts that, I'm pretty sure that ordering American forces into Iraq was not illegal (though it was certainly monumentally foolish).

Now, the War Powers Resolution was passed with exactly this sort of situation in mind: congress wanted to restore what it viewed as the slide of power away from the legislative branch toward the executive. So the War Powers Resolution places a check on executive power by requiring the president to seek congressional approval before the commencement of hostilities (which Bush did, and which congress duly gave him). So again, the Iraq war may be foolish, but it is not illegal, being that the president sought and received congressional approval. Interestingly, the War Powers Resolution can be used by congress to require the president to pull US troops out of combat (it was used this way in the aftermath of the battle in Mogadishu, Somalia). So congress could, conceivably, still act in order to legally require the president to withdraw US forces from Iraq.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html


Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 11:25 AM

FIVVER


Actally there's precedence going back to at least 1801 where congress, without specifically declaring war, authorized Thomas Jefferson to use whatever military forces he needed to protect American interests against the Barbary Pirates.

This is pretty much what congress did with Iraq. They voted to give the president authority to act militarily and since then have continued to authorize funds to conduct the war.

But the main reason the judge is not letting the trial become about the legality of the war is he has no authority to do so. The judges authority only extends to trying the defendant under the law he is accused of violating. It is at the appeals court and supreme court level where other issues (did the defendant receive a fair trial, were his rights respected, is the law he was tried under constitutional, etc) are determined.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 11:28 AM

CAUSAL


Well, then I guess Mr. Watada will have his hearing at those levels. I wonder if they'll really make a run at it...

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 8, 2007 3:27 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Casual -

On that one I agree, he should have showed up, demanded, as is his right, his orders in writing and THEN refused them, by the book.

So yes, on that charge I would spank him, but that's a minor thing and by the potential sentence they're offering, it's just another sidestep like the captain I mentioned above used to discipline a female troop ostensibly for something else, when in fact he was retaliating for her failure to do what he ordered, you see.

There's a few spots where Watada failed in his duty regardless, by missing movement for one, and by attempting to influance fellow troops to also refuse - that is not his decision to make, and I do feel it comes under conduct unbecoming because in a position like this an officer speaks with his ACTIONS, and he should have simply stated his position and then stood to it with the silent dignity an officer is required to maintain in such a situation.

Being issued, and subsequently refusing, an unlawful order gives you no right to simply pitch the whole rulebook, and a soldiers actions are his own - him encouraging others to also refuse might fall under spreading sedition, which is a whole other can of worms unrelated to simply refusing an unlawful order.

What this smacks of is trying him for one offense, and then sentencing him for another, and that's complete bullshit, in my opinion.

As for the War Powers Resolution, and I trust we're speaking of Public Law 93-148-1973 - the final arbiter is still the constitution, and an unconstitutional act is still such a thing regardless of cover of law, because it is the basis for those laws - writing a law in such a fashion is no different than writing one ex-post-facto, which has also been done repeatedly.. just because the powers that be choose to ignore said document's requirements, does not absolve one of one's oath to uphold and defend it, which oath, mind I remind folk, does not expire when one leaves the service, which is why this is such an issue for me.

That being said... his 60 days are long since up, Congress has failed in their duty to declare war in iraq, be it by negligence, ignorance or unwillingness to commit, they have still failed that obligation and thus no state of war exists, rendering deployment orders unlawful at this time.

All that being addressed, I *would* charge Mr. Watada with deriliction of his duty both for failing to appear with his unit, because by the book he should have appeared, demanded those orders in writing and then refused them, and also for conduct unbecoming an officer in lieu of the more debateable sedition charge.

And yes, he should be charged for those things, and if convicted should be sentenced for those things - but what should NOT happen, is convicting him of those things, and then SENTENCING him for something else, that's a bullshit sidestep manuever used all too often by military courts in a case where unlawful orders have been issued and disobeyed.

And finally, the defense is allowed in any court of law to present evidence that they feel is relevant to the charges, and to a degree it is, if only as a mitigating factor in the sentence, and it is not a judges right to decide what evidence or testimony can be entered, to usurp this falls to "cherry-picking" and an active attempt to influance the verdict in that fashion resulting in something other than the fair trial Mr. Watada has a right to.

I hope that clarifies my position on the matter a bit.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 8, 2007 3:35 AM

CAUSAL


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).

The judge in Watada's case has declared a mistrial on the basis that Watada didn't understand a form he was signing (funny, he can investigate the war thoroughly enough to decide it's illegal, but 12-page documents give him trouble). In any event, I think it's a short-term victory and a long-term defeat for his case. He's not going to prison (at least not for now), but he's losing the opportunity to put the war on trial in the appeals process. And personally, I wouldn't mind having the government make an official pronouncement on the legality/illegality of the war (if for no other reason than to shut up people like us!).

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html


Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 8, 2007 4:27 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Agreed, and since it is their responsibility, and one they have neglected, I say we put the screws to Congress and DEMAND they vote on it.
(Declaration of War, that is)

A nice simple Yea or Nay that would settle the matter in instant.

Yea - They have to come up with some unambiguous plan involving what needs to be done before we can declare victory and go home.

Nay - We throw it to the UN and bug out.

I call that a win-win situation.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:11 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070208131528.htm

Study Based On Abu Ghraib Suggests Military Veterans Highly Tolerant Of Detainee Abuse

Only 16% of veterans indicated zero tolerance for detainee exposure and deprivation
Only 31% indicated zero tolerance for detainee exposure and sexualized humiliation
Not even half (48%) indicated zero tolerance for detainee rape

In general, veterans' tolerance for abuse was least when soldier-initiated, and greatest when superior-ordered. Tolerance for abuse also was high when a whistleblower was involved.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 19, 2007 3:48 AM

SIMONWHO


The trouble is if someone says abuse is widespread, some people will say "No it isn't" because they genuinely believe that and others will say "No it isn't" because they're just Iraqis and who cares if they get killed, maimed, tortured.

I think it's pointless to debate with the latter group and the first group will just insist that any abuses are just one off examples:

So here's my first one-off example:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/18/opinion/web.0218abuse.php

Your standard man is held by the Americans, interviewed twice, tortured, starved, electrocuted then released (providing he signed a form saying "I was not mistreated during my incarcaration").

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 19, 2007 6:02 AM

AMITON


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)


Just to throw a quick idea in, I don't think that the Constitution is ambiguous on the matter in intent. Only Congress can declare war, and when that's combined with the original intent to not maintain a standing national army it stands to reason that the President wouldn't have anyone to command unless Congress had called up the military. I think the ambiguousness came from sidestepping the application (apparently all the way back to Jefferson...who knew?)

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 19, 2007 11:52 PM

SIMONWHO


Caution: today's link contains images of those tortured by the Americans. You will see pictures of people dead, abused, covered in excrement, beaten, bloodied.

If you want to keep pretending there's no systemic issue with the troops, do not click on the following link:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:40 PM

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.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:35 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Testimony is evidence.

My post I believe shows shit flows downhill. They were more comfortable with torture if it was ordered. Who would be ordering that? They were more comfortable with torture if they suffered from depression or PTSD, or especially both. Now who would be keeping them on extended tours? They were more comfortable with torture if a whistleblower was invovled. That sounds like seige mentality to me. How would that happen, I wonder?

I don't think the troops are to blame - it belongs at the top.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:49 PM

CAUSAL


Yep, I totally agree with you. How's this for testimony: I, and three of my friends, served in Iraq (and Afghanistan, in my case). Neither I, nor any of my friends, tortured anyone, nor have any first-hand knowledge of torture being performed. In addition, I personally participated in the interrogation of a number of Iraqis, and not only did we not torture them, there was one instance in which we loosened a prisoner's flex-cuffs because it was obvious that they were cutting off circulation to his hands, and we didn't want that.

Now, I don't disagree that there is malfeasance going on. But to claim that torture is commonplace and de rigeur is pretty ridiculous. Let's apply the principle of parsimony: which is the more realistic explanation for a lack of evidence for widespread, systemic torture by the majority of American units? That there is no such systemic torture, or that there is a vast government- and military-wide conspiracy to bury the evidence of all that torture? Principle of parsimony (aka Ockham's razor) says do not multiply entities beyond necessity; and positing a vast conspiracy of the type that would be required to suppress what would have to be a mountain of evidence is most certainly multiplying entities.

Now here's the part that I don't think people comprehend: I don't condone torture. I think the Abu Ghraib folks should be hung from the fing yard arm. They did wrong. In doing so, they soiled the honor of the rest of us who served honorably in Iraq, and never tortured a soul (the vast, vast majority, I can assure you). Torture is wrong. It shouldn't be done. If it's done, it should be punished severely. But I also maintain that accusing the troops (en masse, as some seem intent on doing) of torture on a grand scale is just ridiculous. It's an insult to all of us who served our country (and, by extension, you) honorably.

For the record, Rue, I don't feel attacked by you. This is more a general purpose rant than anything else.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:38 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I think we all know where I stand in regards to this war. Frem pretty much says all that needs to be said about that, so I won't bother going there.

I do have an opinion on how the media says we should feel about the war though. I resent being told that we can be against the war, but we must support our soldiers.

I'm not even saying that this is necessarily untrue on the whole. My brother served in the millitary and I was really worried for him. He already had a college degree prior to enlisting. He was even one of the ones who signed up after September 11th and not one of the weekend warriors looking for a free ride to college who bitched and whined when they had to do their duty. I have nothing but the utmost respect for him and what he did for this country and I believe that his intentions were benevolent and that he did not partake and was not aware of any torture situations.

Are the soldiers bad? No, I don't believe so. Not anymore so than I would say your average civillian is bad, which unfortunately isn't really saying all that much. They are doing a job and taking orders. If our soldiers stopped obeying orders, I don't know what makes anybody feel that we wouldn't have been invaded by any other country who has a much more diciplined army by now. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the beast.

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.

My closing thoughts are this:

If you have a loved one(s) serving in a hot zone, I suggest you pray to whatever God(s) you believe in that they make it home in one piece, physically and mentally, and show them that you support them, be it care packages or letters or whatnot. If you don't believe in any sort of higher power, just let them know that you love them and that you miss them and you long for their return. Otherwise, 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.

Let the crucification of 6SJ commence.......

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:00 AM

JOSSISAGOD


It's our current Commander-in-Chief I have issues with; not the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces of our country. In short, the troops aren't the bad guys, they just have "Curious George" leading them.

I will always respect the men and women in the Armed Forces, no matter what I think of the guy telling them what to do.

Fe'nos Tol
JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD

Self appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The Doctor.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:41 AM

SIMONWHO


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.



Exactly the response I expected - you attack the authenticity of the photos despite them being supplied by the US Military to the trial of US soldiers and that nobody's stories can be substantiated. Have you any idea how insulting that is to those who have been tortured? Put it this way, how insulted would you be if I said that you were lying about not torturing prisoners?

I'm just going to keep posting links to "one person's story" until the pile of dead bodies is so high that you can't ignore it.

Here's the Red Cross's report about US soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners. Their verdict? Torture used as a modus operandi by certain parts of the military.

http://www.truthout.org/mm_01/4.rcr.iraq.pdf

If a thorough investigation by an independent source doesn't convince you, what will?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 22, 2007 4:13 AM

CAUSAL


Well, I hope you're not busily replying to my old post right now, because that would only push this argument ahead.

Here's what I think we can agree with: torturing of detainees has occurred, it's wrong, and should be punished.

Here's what I think we disagree about: how widespread said torturing is.

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?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 22, 2007 4:23 AM

CAUSAL


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.



I call BS. I served, and if you want to picket and protest, be my guest. But don't do it outside the gate of a military base. Nobody there is in a position to do anything about. Don't do it by spitting on a soldier (which happened to my uncle)--he doesn't control US foreign policy. Don't do it by shouting slurs at military recruiters. If you want to protest the war, get your ass on a plane, and take your poster-board sign to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and tell that guy how terrible you think the war is. He's the guy who has control over how this war thing goes. It's just pure bullshit to say that you can't protest the war without looking like a schmuck, because many of the people that I know that protest the war do so because they support the troops--and they think that the best thing that could be done to support them is to bring them all the hell home.

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.



Must be nice to think that "support the troops but not the war" is a doctrine for the "sheeple." That must make you feel all kinds of smart and special and different. Unfortunately, that's exactly what I want you to do. Claiming that it's impossible to separate the two is just asinine. What I'm asking you to do is exercise your power of discrimination. Can you detect a difference between the guy who gives orders and the guy who follows them? Between the civilian leadership of the military and the military itself? Can you distinguish between the person who ordered American forces into Iraq and the person that actually has to go there and carry a rifle? I'm sure that you can--you seem like a very bright chap. Now if you can do that, you can support the troops and not the war. Because supporting the troops is as easy as not blaming them for the situation we're in. It's as easy as saying, "Thanks for serving our country." As easy as not calling them monsters. If you can discriminate between a trigger-puller and the order-giver, you can support the troops. It's as easy as this: you hate the war, but you don't let that hatred extend to the people stuck fighting it.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:27 AM

SIMONWHO


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?



Of course not. But the fact you have to load the question that way (and indeed the title of this thread) shows how badly the soldiers in Iraq are perceived at the moment.

Amnesty International says that prisoner abuse is widespread. The Red Cross says prisoner abuse is widespread. The UN says prisoner abuse is widespread. This is systemic torture, not withstanding what's happening at Guantanamo.

The fish rots from the head of course and your President has made it quite clear that he's prepared to ignore international law and the Constitution. That's spread all the way down the government and the military, leading to exactly this situation: the US troops believe they are beyond the law which leads to incidents like this one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6384781.stm

So I guess my question to you is: traditionally soldiers have been hailed as heroes for the actions of the collective, regardless of individual deeds. Why should they not be collectively held responsible for their failure and atrocities committed under their banner?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:46 AM

CAUSAL


But they shouldn't be so hailed. Hero is a much abused term IMHO. I'm certainly no hero, and I don't want to be thought of that way. Furthermore, most people who really would fill the definition of a hero don't think they're heroes. So no, I don't think the troops should collectively be held responsible for the deeds of a few. Because even if every detention facility and every guard and every interrogator tortured--and I don't believe that's true--even if that's the case, guards and interrogators are a really small slice the American military presence in Iraq. Even if that were the case, why are you so intent on extending culpability to every soldier who is serving there? Your link to the BBC article is compelling--it would clearly seem that that guy should be locked away. But you are reasoning from single instances (like the murder of the girl, to global guilt (all serving in Iraq are guilty of war crimes). I din't commit any war crimes, nor did anyone I served with. So again, I ask you: am I a liar?

More on this later, I'm in class...

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 09:39 - 2070 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL