Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
Belief is not particularly relevant to Watada's case. He would have had to show that he not only believed the order to be illegal, but that it was. It is not something he was in a position to do.
|
Belief combined with evidence to support that belief is paramount to explaining any refused order. I've seen other cases like this one and they are about the reasoning of the officer. If it can be proven that the officer acted reasonabily, then the charges of CUOJ won't apply anymore because he acted in an honorable way.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
Also, it is really ridiculous to suggest that Watada's men would cease to obey him and instead take orders from his superiors. It doesn't work like that in the military. First nobody is going to obey orders to do what you suggest is happenning (though the military is like a cross section of our society so you have some criminals that need to be policed).
|
Maybe you can explian how it does work. If a Sgt. gives and order, and then his Lt. gives an order, aren't they required to follow the order of the Lt. because the Sgt. is outranked? Another option is of course that he is replaced with someone who won't question the orders. Either way, it's Watada's commanding officer that it responsible for Watada's soldiers taking orders from someone who will tow the line, and that was the bottom line. If the order comes down to Watada to enter a house at night and take the man inside and to open fire on the man's family if they show any signs of resistence and Watada refusethe order, the mission will still be carried out. Watada won't necessarily be made to obey, as he is confined to somewhere (I'm not 100% sure what the protocol would be in the field).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
Second, he would be relieved of his command before his superiors gave his men orders despite him. It doesn't happen. If his commander felt that Watada wouldn't faithfully obey an order he would be relieved on the spot. Also, to suggest that high-ranking officer are going to order a bunch of joes to commit war-crimes is preposterous. Not only would they most likely not obey, you would hear about it on the news right away. Just because someone isn't anti-war doesn't make them evil.
|
That's what I meant. Watada would have his command taken and the men would have to go do whatever it is they were going to do anyway. The idea is that the men, through Watada's replacement, would be obeying the wishes/orders of the commanding officer that Watada clashed with, and not Watada.
I'm not suggesting anyone is evil, btw (cept that psycho that raped and killed, but that was bad psych screening and I really can't blame his CO, though under command responsibility there could be trouble). War is hell though, and it's commonplace in war for there to be serious mistakes or bad decisions. The difference between a mistake or bad decision in my job and a mistake or bad decision in Iraq is that I don't have guns or tanks or naval and air support. When I make a mistake or bad decision, I may cost my company a few dollars. When a mistake or bad decision is made over there, a lot of people can be hurt of killed. It's the nature of war and it's one of the many reasons that war should only be a last resort if that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
And no, command responsibility doesn't go both ways. It just doesn't.
|
What I mean is that it does in both directions, Watada is resonbile for his underlings, and likewise there are people who are responsible for Watada.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
The UN security council does not, at this point in time, have to authorize a war for it to be legal. They have passed a resolution to eventually make that so, but it hasn't happenned yet. Furthermore, there is not, at this point in time, anything criminal about waging a war of aggression. Which would mean that there is nothing actually illegal about the Iraq war, even by your own standards.
|
I'm afraid that you either didn't read or didn't understand the information in my last few posts. Again, there are two circumstances in which it is legal to use force against another country, when they attack us or an attack is imminent, or when the Security Council rules it's in the best interest of international peace. You're right, the UN doesn't have to authorize a war to be legal, as is made clear by the first circumstance allowed. If the first circumstance is not met, then we are not allowed to go to war under the UN Charter. The UN Charter is as much US law as the Geneva Conventions or the Kremlin accords. It was, as of the moment we signed the UN Charter, illegal to commit a war of aggression. As we had signed the UN Charter before the 2003 Iraq War, we committed an unlawful act. I don't know how to make this more clear. I tried to bold a post, but people seemed fine skipping the information anyway. I'm beginning to get a taste of what happens to host every day, and it's really frustrating.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
The UN could pass something stating that you shouldn't wear cowboy boots. Unless they criminilize doing so it isn't a crime.
|
What are you talking about? The UN can't just pass something. There are dozens of levels that resolutions go through before being implimented. First the need for the resolution is studied and debated by legal experts. I doubt the cowboy boots would make it through this stage.
The bottom line is that we are a Charter member of the UN. As such, we are required by law to act as a member, which includes honoring our treaty with them. While breaking that treaty doesn't have any reporcussions, as the UN isn't poweful enough to take any action against the last superpower, it's still as wrong and illegal as breaking the Geneva Conventions or the Kremlin accords. You can't pick and choose which treaties to honor. You must honor all of them, and the UCMJ backs me on this conclusion.