Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-04 03:58:21)
Yes because we should set an example of action without consequences for all of armed forces.FFLink13 wrote:
That's wrong for him to be punished.
For those ignorant ppl like you who don't know - among a lot of reasons one of the key one to invade Afghanistan were drug lines via it's border , to USSR . Before late 1980's in USSR there were mostly no drug threat ... it appered after our troops left Afghanistan and the control over the country were taken by Taliban & later - Al Queda . The same shit happens now ; all countryes of former USSR are affected buy it . It is nice to sit in your peaceful US and judge about the things that never will touch you .ATG wrote:
or Soviet Union for Afganistan?
Last edited by Longbow (2007-01-04 03:15:06)
Cute.-Traitor
-Coward
The terms of the commissioning this man received are non negotiable. His sentencing under the UCMJ will be non negotiable as well.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project … ments.htmlThe International Military Tribunal was opened on October 18, 1945, in the Supreme Court Building in Berlin. The first session was presided over by the Soviet judge, Nikitchenko. The prosecution entered indictments against 24 major war criminals and six criminal organizations - the leadership of the Nazi party, the Schutzstaffel (SS) and Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the Gestapo, the Sturmabteilung (SA) and the High Command of the German army (OKW).
The indictments were for:
- Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
- Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
- War crimes
- Crimes against humanity
Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2007-01-04 03:27:10)
Or, for the religious minded, there is the classical definition of a "Just War", with anything outside this definition being an "unjust war" by default. This goes pretty deep into philosophy, so any superhawks might want to get their aspirin bottles handy.The first lists specific acts for which an individual in a position of responsibility could be held accountable for aggression. Under this definition: planning, preparing, ordering, initiating, or carrying out an armed attack, or the use of force, or a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties or agreements, by a State, against the territorial integrity of another State, against the provisions in the UN Charter.
The second provides a list of acts constituting aggression:
invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or military occupation, or annexation of territory by the use of force
bombardment by armed forces of a State against the territory of another State
the blockade of ports or coasts of a State
the use of armed forces of a State which are within the territory of another State in violation of the terms of an agreement between those States
a State allowing its territory to be used by another State for an act of aggression against a third State
a State sending armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries to carry out grave acts of armed force against another State.
Taken strictly in this context, the war was OK as Saddam did some pretty nasty things to his own people, but we were not given that reason nor was it a part of any stated goal in the beginning. As well, believe it or not, there are many far worse tin pot dictators that deserved it more than Saddam floating around in the world. We had our pick to take any one out, and were working to take on Osama at the time. Why we switched targets to an unrelated guy should be the big question...especially since we never finished off Osama.When is a war just by the criteria of Just War theory? (Jus ad bellum)
In modern language, these rules hold that to be just, a war must meet the following criteria before the use of force (Jus ad bellum):
- recapturing things taken
- punishing people who have done wrong
A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said:
"Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations"
This is where the US policy begins to crack. Saddam's crime against the US was...well...nothing. Just refusal to do oil business with American companies.Comparative justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;
This is where US policy is blatantly fucked up. We're doing this to maintain the flow of oil or to maintain the power of our dollar...oopsy.Legitimate authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;
Right intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
I.e., if the only way to 'win' is to nuke them flat. Another big oops.Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Don't get me started on this one...Proportionality: The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.
Anyone with half a brain or who was paying attention realized that Iraq was indeed doing everything it could to avoid war and play ball with whatever massive demands were placed on them. But it was already planned and written a looong time ago and there was nothing Saddam could do or say to appease King George and Halliburton.Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted. Note that these are only the most typical conditions cited by just war theorists; some (such as Brian Orend) omit Comparative Justice, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.
Again, use common sense on this one. "Shock and awe" was the buzzword if I recall...Conducting a just war (jus in bello)
Once war has begun, just war theory also directs how combatants are to act:
(Jus in bello)
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of discrimination. The acts of war should be directed towards the inflictors of the wrong, and not towards civilians caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians. Some believe that this rule forbids weapons of mass destruction of any kind, for any reason (such as the use of an atomic bomb).
Civilian death toll is...ummm...one fuck of a lot of people whether you want to believe 60,000, 150,000, or 750,000. Proportional to US deaths that Saddam perpetuated....let's see...ZERO.Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. The force used must be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the possible good that may come. The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation's claim to justness of a war it initiated.
We're all going to hell.Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction. It is different from proportionality because the amount of force proportionate to the goal of the mission might exceed the amount of force necessary to accomplish that mission.
The Green zone doesn't count as "rehabilitation". 3 hours of electricity a day and no running water...with friends like us, who needs enemies?Ending a war: jus post bellum
In recent years, some theorists, such as Gary Bass, Louis Iasiello and Brian Orend, have proposed a third category within Just War theory. Jus post bellum concerns justice after a war, including peace treaties, reconstruction, war crimes trials, and war reparations. Orend, for instance, proposes the following principles:
Just cause for termination - A state may terminate a war if there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place, and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of surrender include a formal apology, compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps rehabilitation.
Ummm...sure...whatever...we'll burn a few privates all the way up to the lofty command levels of...sergeant. Just a few bad apples...it wasn't policy at all. *snark*Right intention - A state must only terminate a war under the conditions agreed upon in the above criteria. Revenge is not permitted. The victor state must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed forces may have committed.
How many elections does it take until we get who we want in power to be the "legitimate authority"?Public declaration and authority - The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority.
So lets sack every government authority, military or not, and watch as they descend into chaos...pass the popcorn.Discrimination - The victor state is to differentiate between political and military leaders, and combatants and civilians. Punitive measures are to be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict.
Of course, their oil will pay for our war...after all, they started it.Proportionality - Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated. Draconian measures, absolutionist crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community are not permitted.
Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2007-01-04 07:28:31)
That wasn’t a flame, is was a mild spark. You may think the war in Iraq was founded under lies and misconceptions, I say there is a bigger picture your not seeing.Havok wrote:
How is that ignorant? And why do you result to flaming to state your belief? The war in Iraq was founded under lies and misconceptions.
He signed a contract with the government, he has no rights other than those stated on the paper he signed.Havok wrote:
He's not a traitor because he didn't hinder his own nation in any way. I think people such as yourself (forgive me for the stereotype but you sound like a redneck) should take a look at the world and how it works. This man used his free will and logic to see that the cause is unjust and he does not want to be part of it.
God, you are so wrong. We "lost" Korea because we decided not to use nukes.Havok wrote:
We lost Korea because our military was underfunded after WWII. We bit off more than we could chew, plain and simple.47man wrote:
I'm curious of your "ideas" as to why this war is criminal. I don't mean that liberal bullshit that everybody and their sister can spout at the drop of a coin. I want an actual reason. Not "George Bush said there's oil", etc. We removed a dictatorship and are attempting to restore order, anti-insurgency wars can take well over 15 years to accomplish. It is people like you that caused us to lose Korea and are going to cause us to lose this.kessel! wrote:
the war IS criminal. This man is a hero
Of all the people, you have presented your side the best. +1GorillaTicTacs wrote:
I remember a lesson we were taught in basic training in Ft. Leonard Wood in '95. Not sure if they still teach it the same way...but it was only for about 10 minutes while we were waiting to get smoked again for some stupid shit. The idea is basically "Do the right thing." If you are given an order that you feel is illegal, ask for clarification. If the clarification still sounds like an illegal order you have an obligation to disobey unless lives are in immediate danger if that order is not followed.
In WW2 we established during the Nuremburg trials that an "aggressive war" is a war crime of the highest degree. Simultaneously, we established that "following orders" is NOT a defense of any kind for a soldier. We, as Americans, set that standard. Before Bush took office, any numbnuts going through basic training was given this instruction as well as a 5 minute blurb on how to deal with it. I don't think that's the case anymore, unfortunately, but I can't say for sure.
Second is this soldier's oath, which ALL soldiers, public servants, and politicians take prior to performing their jobs. They swear only to uphold the Constitution, with its implied values and principles and directly stated laws. No more, no less. They further swear to protect this set of laws and principles with their lives against all enemies foreign and domestic, no more, no less. If you were paying any sort of attention in the last 6 years, you can see who those enemies are. I'll give you a hint, it isn't some neutered tin pot dictator half-way around the world or the several million little brown people he ruled over. It is our domestic terrorists in the administration, using fear tactics to goad a scared American people with bogeymen to accomplish the dismantling of our Constitution piece by piece as well as establish laws that would plunder our natural resources and enrich those that would perpetuate war.
This officer did something more ballsy than I could or did, and I admire his courage. I simply refused to be promoted in order not to take any larger role in a war that I knew was clearly illegal, which resulted in me getting kicked out with a nice pension. This was my protest. Cowardly, yes I sometimes feel that way, but I'm not sitting in a jail cell and I'm free to write my congressmen regularly as well as blurbs in other sites. I picked my battles, he is choosing his.
From 'They Thought They Were Free'
Full text here - http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.htmlNever again...yeah, right."What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know it doesn't make people close to their government to be told that this is a people's government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing to do with knowing one is governing.
What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.
"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.
Perhaps. But as a member of the military, he's disobeyed a direct order and has to suffer the consequences.kessel! wrote:
the war IS criminal. This man is a hero
When one joins the military, you agree to shut up and follow orders, feeling are not involved. If one feels the need to express their own feeling about the war, they should become a full time war protestor, not a member of the armed forces.ryan_14 wrote:
What, you get sent to jail if you have your own feelings about the war? That's BS right there.
Hey if he is willing to go to the brig for what he believes, I have respect for him. He even turned down a desk job when he refused to go. He had chances and he chose the hard route. Obviously the route that gives him a public platform to denounce the war on grounds of illegality. Say hello to the new Sheehan. Soon to be disgraced regardless of his previous military record.ATG wrote:
There are a bunch like him, people who joined hoping for some education and what they got instead was a war.
We have a army of free people who are not conscripts, but once they sign up I don't think they should be able to say what they are going to do or not.
If he just wanted out he could just say he was gay, or sucker punch another trooper one time too many, but no, the coward wants his army college fund money.
I have just one question for him;
Blindfold, ciggerette or both?pfft, go eat snow you silly Canuck, thats just ignorant.kessel! wrote:
the war IS criminal. This man is a hero