Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I hope not. Breaking the Constitution, UCMJ, or any treaties that the US has signed is illegal, whether the President wants you to or not. Your allegiance to the President is commendable, but he/(she?) is not the ultimate authority. If President Bush made the determination that you should be quartered by civilians during a time of peace, he would be giving an unconstitutional order. You would be required to disobey that order. Similarly, the invasion of Iraq was in direct violation of the UN Charter, which is a legal US treaty. Since this treaty does not override any part of the Constitution, it is 100% legal. So, by my understanding, a military officer has not only the right, but the duty to refuse the order to deploy in Iraq.
|
Except that we did not violate the UN charter, the US was permitted to attack Iraq by UN Security resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. It is a very clear case of just because you are allowed to do something doesn't neccessarily mean you should do it.
Quote:
|
The Germans chose Hitler to be their leader, but I'd not want our military to unquestionably follow him.
|
And Godwins law strikes again! I fail to see how this is relevent. If a leader of the US ever removed the other branches of government and declared himself dictator, you would see the military rise against him, this has not happened yet...
Quote:
|
Justice in war and not laws of war...well it's not that cut and dry. You're right, I don't want to run off with the thread. If you want to continue elsewhere, I'll follow.
|
Jus ad bellum is not the laws of war (though it is sometimes erroniously lumped in with them), it is the justification used for going to war. The military is a tool of foreign policy, not a maker of foreign policy. The military has no place making policy in a republic.