Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
You're a veteran, yes. So in line with my beliefs, you should not be mistreated by the government, and they should not go back on their word to you. You sacrificed for the government, so if the government turns it's back on you you'll have 100% of my support. It's about fairness. Walter Reed was a travesty and was clearly unjust, I found that it was a cause worth championing. Likewise, I champion that the military should not make it so difficult to get all of the perks they promise, such as scholarships. This ties directly into this thread, though, because many military recruiters are knowingly promising things that the military will not or cannot provide.
|
And we have yet to see examples of this. What exactly does the military promise that it can't or won't provide? Certainly not college money, they give that away like it was air. Promise of non-deployablity, it's put into hundreds of contracts a day. What again was your point? Btw, the coast Guard does not fall under the DoD unless directed by the POTUS.
Quote:
|
His orders were in direct violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter. As he was actively disobeying what he understood to be illegal orders, what should have happened was an investigation to determine whether said orders were illegal or not. They skipped that. They assumed the orders were legal and even at the trial the judge ordered that the case not include arguments for his actions.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UN Charter Chapter VII, Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
|
Pardon my ignorance, but I see nothing above that makes his individual orders a violation of the charter (which binds nations, not individuals).
Quote:
|
You don't want the president to make his own decisions on what to do either, apparently, but that's moot. You follow the president and the president doesn't follow the people, therefore you're not serving the people. Being elected by the people is not the same as serving the people.
|
That is your problem as much as mine.
Apparently not.
Quote:
|
The Supreme Court is stacked. I stand a better chance of opening up the mind of a military officer than an old idiot hand picked by a member of the Bush family.
|
Because we are so close minded and simple in the military, right? And assuming you sweep me out of my servile, ignorant fog, what would you, willravel, have me do? Plant rainbows, sprinkle fairy dust on recruiting offices, or conduct a hasty attack on Crawford, Texas?
Quote:
|
He's not history, though. In fact, the military judge is in deep shit for ignoring double jeopardy and breaking several other laws. Google U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle for more details.
|
Legalese wins again. OJ was not guilty, too. He is history as far as the Army is concerned, and good riddance. We really don't need any more non-hackers, especially now.
Quote:
|
As Tully said, policy is only valid if enforced. It's useless if you can just break the UCMJ and get away with it. Kinda like the UN Charter.
|
You will find no arguments from me regarding how useless the UN charter is. As I stated before, the UCMJ is enforced, that's why those recruiters were removed.