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.