On Feb 21, 10:48 pm, David wrote:
On 21 Feb 2007 11:28:18 -0800, "tack" wrote:

The war is illegal and it is the soldiers' sworn duty to refuse to
fight for insane plots for world domination. I DO NOT support the
troops.

http://tvnewslies.org/html/pnac.html-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please elaborate on this "sworn duty". I do not recall such an oath
when I was active duty.

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors
risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY
disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime
to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer.
Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the
disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).

In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who
willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to
death.

Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given,
right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An
order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but
obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one
who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are
accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the
order was illegal.

"I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal
defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at
the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't
work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.

The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the
"I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the
War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize
ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams
wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that
Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French
port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's
instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying
Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship
sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won,
and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S.
Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when
obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm


You've done a bit of research on the UCMJ and a little history of
lawful orders. You copied the above, verbatim, from this website:
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm.

But what about my question? Please elaborate on this "sworn duty". I
do not recall such an oath when I was active duty, a sworn duty to
refuse to fight for insane plots for world domination. Any sworn duty
not to fight, regardless if the war .
Did you get your information from a liberal website? I've seen these
talking points before. Arguments that try to persuade military
members and the general population that the GI's need to disobey the
orders of their superiors because the oath taken at induction says (in
part): ". . . I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. . . 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 the regulations and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice." The reasoning goes something
like this: The UCMJ says that orders must be followed, and to follow
them they must be legal. Since the war is "illegal" , then any orders
pertaining to the war must be illegal. They also argue that the duty
of the military member is to the Constitution first, all else is
secondary. To try to prove that the war is illegal, liberals make a
lot of talk about The Hague Convention, Nuremberg, Military Tribunals,
Geneva Convention, all kinds of such things.

You should've copied off more of that website; you would've come up
with this information: The Court of Military Appeals held that "the
justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the
order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and
understanding would know it to be illegal." After part about
mistreating prisoners, this: ". . . there is no requirement to obey
orders which are unlawful. However, here's the rub: A military member
disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it's not
whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or
unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and courts) think the order
was illegal or unlawful." There is a lot of interesting information
on page 2 of that website.
There does not have to be a formal declaration of war from congress.
The President can utilize the armed forces, of which he is chief, when
he sees a requirement. Clinton did the same.

On 21 Feb 2007 23:13:31 -0800, "tack" wrote:


There does not have to be a formal declaration of war from congress.
The President can utilize the armed forces, of which he is chief, when
he sees a requirement. Clinton did the same.

That is so juvenile. Little Billy did it so it must be OK...

I did not support Clinton's adventurisms and I do not support Mr.
Bush's. Pre-emptive attacks on an mpotent sovereign nation
constitutes war crime. We are a rogue nation. The military is not
defending the country against the threat from within. Bush and Cheney
are a hundred times the threat that Saddam or Osama Bin Ladin ever
were.

We are finished.

On Feb 22, 7:51 am, David wrote:
On 21 Feb 2007 23:13:31 -0800, "tack" wrote:

There does not have to be a formal declaration of war from congress.
The President can utilize the armed forces, of which he is chief, when
he sees a requirement. Clinton did the same.

That is so juvenile. Little Billy did it so it must be OK...

I did not support Clinton's adventurisms and I do not support Mr.
Bush's. Pre-emptive attacks on an mpotent sovereign nation
constitutes war crime. We are a rogue nation. The military is not
defending the country against the threat from within. Bush and Cheney
are a hundred times the threat that Saddam or Osama Bin Ladin ever
were.

We are finished.

Juvenile? What are you talking about? define your terms, please. You
lack understanding. Where in my statement did I use Clinton's actions
to justify the use of military power. Clinton did things during his
presidency that Bush is criticized for; get the point? Did you not
read everything else I said? Can you not understand? You do not
understand. Latch onto my last sentence somehow get "Little Billy did
it so it must be OK" out of it. Prove the claims you made. If "Bush
and Cheney are a hundred times the threat that Saddam or Osama Bin
Ladin ever were", back it up with clear, reasoned evidence,
considering all facts, to include the fact that the United States
maintains a defense force equal to the rest of the world combined,
with only a tiny percentage of its GDP. Do you know what a "Rouge"
United States can do? Why does Chavez, Kim Il, and Castro still live?
Yes, You made it clear that you believe we are a rogue nation. You
are not capable of critical thought. Give us the criteria for a rogue
nation; Are there any other rogue nations about? And why? Do you not
understand, that if we were truly a rogue nation, what the country is
capable of? What would a really rouge United States look like? With
our vast economic and military might? You cannot reason, can you.
You are also a plagiarizer, copying a website as your own words.
Do not bring a knife to a gun fight. If you want to have a discussion
with people capable of thinking critically, come better armed than you
currently are. You are a hater, you hate and despise the greatest
nation, the GOODEST (I know that wasn't a real word) nation, to ever
exist. Instead of marching across Asia at the end of WWII, we
assisted in rebuilding our former enemies' infrastructure. Granted,
the QUALITY of the American people isn't the same in this generation
as in that one, (as evidenced by folks like yourself) there is still
a significant patriotic core. I will no longer have anything to do
with you. Having a reasoned discussion with your ilk is as pointless
as arguing with one who's mentally ill.

www.softwar.net (them klintoons)

I remember seeing Impeached nixon too,on tv,standing on that wall in
China,opening up China to America.
cuhulin

flash.net? A woman who retired from a Hospital in Arlington,Texas,I
think she used flash.net ISP.I can go check right quick,I still have
some of her old emails to me.She passed away a few years ago at only
fifty years young,cancer.
cuhulin

Yep,flash.net Glenda Lynn Titus,Texas.You want I should email a photo of
her to you,tack?
cuhulin

On 22 Feb 2007 12:01:08 -0800, "tack" wrote:


the QUALITY of the American people isn't the same in this generation
as in that one, (as evidenced by folks like yourself) there is still
a significant patriotic core.

http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/samheath/5990

On 22 Feb 2007 12:01:08 -0800, "tack" wrote:

...instead of marching across Asia at the end of WWII, we
assisted in rebuilding our former enemies' infrastructure...
the QUALITY of the American people isn't the same in this generation
as in that one...

X-No-Archive:

In article ,
David wrote:

On 22 Feb 2007 12:01:08 -0800, "tack" wrote:

...instead of marching across Asia at the end of WWII, we
assisted in rebuilding our former enemies' infrastructure...
the QUALITY of the American people isn't the same in this generation
as in that one...

The Marshall Plan was very unpopular in this country. But it benefited the U.S.
economy to do so, or we simply would not have done it.

If the U.S. had lost 17 million people in WWII, we would have done as the
Russians did after that war. Russia was just trying to rebuild themselves. But
they tried to rebuild eastern Europe..the western powers (us) did everything we
could to undercut the Russians and we used Nazis to do much of our dirty work.
They suffered tremendous damage to their country in WWII. The U.S. sustained
Pearl Harbor. The U.S. gets the 9/11 paper-cut and we go to war with two
countries ( one for reasons known at the time to be lies ) and threatened at
least two more. The U.S. does have plans to invade Korea and Iran. The U.S. has
many illegal Mexicans here doing nothing but the hard work Americans won't do.
They come here only to work. The U.S. starts building fences to keep them out.
You should know that. What the hell will we do if we sucessfully keep people
from Central and South America out??????

Now that I think about it, as I wrote before, Russia was busy fighting Germany
on their own before the Germans started the western front. And it's a damn good
thing the Russians _were_ fighting the Germans. The Allied Armies on the western
front were inferior to the German Army in terms of equipment, training, morale,
military strategy...in every battle where the odds were close to even, the
Germans prevailed. Russia was also fighting Japan on their Eastern border as
were the Chinese Communists. And the U.S. thumps their chest and claims to have
won the war(s). No they didn't! As is typical of the U.S., we did as little as
possible, make as few sacrifices as possible, declare victory, and go back to
homes and a country untouched by war.

Come up on current events if you want to even try to keep up with me. At least
pay attention to what I've written. Then read some books.

MM

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's
oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the
search for a superior moral justification for
selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith