Refuses deployment - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

lktknow · 05-17-2008, 01:34 PM

http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=q0tpxpudjy

allaboutmusic · 05-17-2008, 02:35 PM

That there takes guts.

RetroGunslinger · 05-17-2008, 04:22 PM

He's hot.

Erm, I mean, well, I think he's being very brave and doing (from what I can tell, I'm not too learned in the area of the war being illegal or the war crimes) the right thing. Good for him, but I can just imagine what they'd do to that pretty face in jail.

Willravel · 05-17-2008, 04:36 PM

Brave young man. Hopefully the judge in his trial will allow him to actually present evidence of why he thinks the Iraq War is illegal. The last well known guy to do this, Ehron Watada, wasn't even allowed to present why he thought the war was illegal.

Fotzlid · 05-17-2008, 04:40 PM

Ok. He served in Afganistan, Japan, Philipines and Europe but not Iraq.
He is refusing to go to Iraq based on what he has heard because he doesn't want to be party to war crimes.

As a photojournalist, wouldn't it make more sense to go and document the illegal activities then to refuse deployment?

Willravel · 05-17-2008, 05:20 PM

He wouldn't necessarily be doing just journalistic things. A good friend of mine was an engineer, but as soon as he was in Iraq he was on the ground with an assault riffle guarding fuel trucks along supply routes. Yes, he used his skills when the trucks broke down, but mainly he was just "a soldier".

Fotzlid · 05-17-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

he used his skills when the trucks broke down,

So why can't this guy use his skills when the opportunity presents?

Willravel · 05-17-2008, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

So why can't this guy use his skills when the opportunity presents?

He will... but that probably won't be the only thing he does. What I'm saying is that a military journalist isn't just a journalist, he also can be required to play an active role should he or she be needed.

What do you suppose would happen if he were on assignment and came under fire? He's trained as a soldier, after all.

Fotzlid · 05-17-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

He will... but that probably won't be the only thing he does. What I'm saying is that a military journalist isn't just a journalist, he also can be required to play an active role should he or she be needed.

What do you suppose would happen if he were on assignment and came under fire? He's trained as a soldier, after all.

Then he should act like a soldier. If the opportunity to expose the the war as illegal presents itself, then he can use his skills. Untill then, he is a soldier and has specific responsibilities as such.

Willravel · 05-17-2008, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

Then he should act like a soldier.

He is acting like a soldier who isn't just a robot that carries out whatever orders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

If the opportunity to expose the the war as illegal presents itself, then he can use his skills. Untill then, he is a soldier and has specific responsibilities as such.

The opportunity has been presented since before 2003. They asked him to be a part of the illegal war, and now it's his duty to not obey an illegal order to deploy. It's his responsibility as a soldier to follow the UCMJ, US law, US Constitution, and all signed treaties. He is doing so.

LoganSnake · 05-17-2008, 05:58 PM

Quote:

The right of all citizens to express their feelings freely and openly has only those limitations necessary to protect the rights of society. Soldiers have the same basic rights. These rights must, however, be consistent with good order and discipline and national security.

Unless I am completely wrong, refusing redeployment is not consistent with good order and discipline.

Willravel · 05-17-2008, 06:02 PM

"In good order" in that phraseology, means to do your job correctly. If it's his job to protect the US, and the illegal War in Iraq is jeopardizing the US, then it is in good order to disobey an unlawful deployment order. That also fits in with national security.

Manuel Hong · 05-17-2008, 06:03 PM

BRAVO!!!!!
Good for him.
Imagine if it becomes a trend...

LoganSnake · 05-17-2008, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

"In good order" in that phraseology, means to do your job correctly. If it's his job to protect the US, and the illegal War in Iraq is jeopardizing the US, then it is in good order to disobey an unlawful deployment order. That also fits in with national security.

He's yet to prove that it's illegal.

Fotzlid · 05-17-2008, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

He is acting like a soldier who isn't just a robot that carries out whatever orders.

The opportunity has been presented since before 2003. They asked him to be a part of the illegal war, and now it's his duty to not obey an illegal order to deploy. It's his responsibility as a soldier to follow the UCMJ, US law, US Constitution, and all signed treaties. He is doing so.

Bullshit.
Its not a war because congess never declared it as such. If it was a declared war then he would be accused of treason for speaking out against the government in a time of war. He signed up for whatever benefits were offered to him. The government owns his ass. Tough shit for him.

Willravel · 05-17-2008, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

Bullshit.
Its not a war because congess never declared it as such. If it was a declared war then he would be accused of treason for speaking out against the government in a time of war. He signed up for whatever benefits were offered to him. The government owns his ass. Tough shit for him.

Bullshit.
He's trained to follow the UCMJ, which requires him to disobey illegal orders. It's illegal for the US military to be on Iraqi soil. If the government didn't want soldiers to disobey illegal orders, they should have thought of that before writing the UCMJ. Tough shit for them.

Fotzlid · 05-17-2008, 06:47 PM

I'm just a civillain who doesn't understand legalese so please point out where the UCMJ says its an illegal war. Please take into consideration that the military action in Iraq is not a declared war.

Willravel · 05-17-2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

I'm just a civillain who doesn't understand legalese so please point out where the UCMJ says its an illegal war. Please take into consideration that the military action in Iraq is not a declared war.

It was a declared war in 2003, which broke the UN Charter. The UN Charter is a US treaty which makes it US law. Ever since US soldiers have been on Iraqi soil, we've been in violation of a US treaty. We will be until there is a new UN resolution or we leave.

Fotzlid · 05-17-2008, 07:42 PM

You didn't answer the question. Where does the UCMJ say the actions in Iraq constitue an illegal war?
Who declared war if congress didn't say it was such?
The UN is an ineffectual political entity that hasn't been able to impose its will anywhere. Why should its charter mean anything to this country if it means nothing anywhere else?

Willravel · 05-17-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

You didn't answer the question. Where does the UCMJ say the actions in Iraq constitue an illegal war?

The UCMJ says that we must follow all US law, which includes all treaties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

Who declared war if congress didn't say it was such?

This is a matter of opinion, apparently. Check out H.J. Res. 114. It's a congressionally passed declaration of military action in another country in order to remove it's government. What's the difference between this and war?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

The UN is an ineffectual political entity that hasn't been able to impose its will anywhere. Why should its charter mean anything to this country if it means nothing anywhere else?

Your opinion of the UN's ability is completely irrelevant. The treaty was signed and as such is valid US law.

blahblah454 · 05-17-2008, 09:22 PM

I seem to remember the UN denying the US the right to enter Iraqi soil and go to war. The USA basically said that there are terrorists that need to be stopped and we will do what it takes to stop them.

If my memory serves me correctly I believe will is right.

And kudos to the soldier for sticking up for what he believes in.

Willravel · 05-17-2008, 09:24 PM

The US asked for a vote and it was going to be no, so we skipped the vote, instead pretending like resolutions left over from right after Desert Storm still counted (they don't, of course).

ObieX · 05-17-2008, 09:25 PM

Slightly off topic, but has anyone else noticed the hair on the guy on the right? :P

blahblah454 · 05-17-2008, 09:26 PM

Yea I noticed it, and for some reason it made me think of American History X. Does a character in that movie have hair like that?

Willravel · 05-17-2008, 09:33 PM

He reminds me of one of the antagonists from the second Charlie's Angels movies. Yes, I saw it. I've got a soft spot for Demi Moore.

Fotzlid · 05-17-2008, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

This is a matter of opinion, apparently. Check out H.J. Res. 114. It's a congressionally passed declaration of military action in another country in order to remove it's government. What's the difference between this and war?

I suppose its a matter of semantics but as a lawyer I would suppect you already knew that.
As I see it, this person signed a contract with the government and is now trying to reneg on it solely because of what he has heard. He has no first hand knowledge of what is happening in Iraq. Seems to me that he didn't read the fine print regarding how and when he can be recalled for service.
The government owns his ass. Tough shit for him. You don't want to go to war, don't sign up with the military to begin with.

host · 05-17-2008, 10:31 PM

The military of a country invading and occupying another sovereign nation that has not first attacked the invading country, or even exhibited an imminent threat to attack, is a series of illegal crimes against humanity. It just isn't convenient to look too closely at what the US has done, and then object to it all.

Quote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AGNECVOEI1.DTL

BAY AREA
Anti-war sailor lifts foes of Iraq policy
Sentence for defying deployment orders less than expected

Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, May 28, 2005

....Paredes explained to the military judge, Lt. Cmdr. Bob Klant, that he thought the war was "random, unprovoked illegitimate violence," and that "any soldier who knowingly participates in a war can find no haven in the fact that they were following orders, in the eyes of international law."

While Klant didn't side with Paredes' legal reasoning, he didn't slap nearly as harsh a penalty on the sailor as the Navy had sought. Activists have been buzzing about a statement he made from the bench after allowing testimony from Marjorie Cohn, a law professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, and an outspoken war critic.

Cohn testified that U.S. involvement in conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia had no justification under international law, a position Navy prosecutors did not challenge on cross-examination. Afterward, according to published accounts, Klant said, "I think that the government has successfully proved that any service member has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal." The Navy has not released a trial transcript....

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1
War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

* Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
* The Guardian,
* Thursday November 20 2003

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".

Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.

"They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only when the law suits them that they want to use it." ....

Quote:

Eisenhower 1956

Quote:http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/pr...ments/2063.cfm

...The real point is that Britain, France and Israel had come to believe--probably correctly--that Nasser was their worst enemy in the Mid East and that until he was removed or deflated, they would have no peace. I do not quarrel with the idea that there is justification for such fears, but
I have insisted long and earnestly that you cannot resort to force in international relationships because of your fear of what might happen in the future.....

Opinion of former Nuremberg War Crimes Trials Prosecutor, a US Army Attorney at that time:

Quote:

http://www.benferencz.org/arts/93.html
A World of Peace Under the Rule of Law: The View from America†

Benjamin B. Ferencz*

Washington University Global Studies Law Review, Vol. 6, No 3 (2007)

..The most important point of Nuremberg was the conclusion that aggressive war, which had been a national right throughout history, was henceforth going to be punished as an international crime. That was a revolution in thinking. We’ve always had wars, and many would say that warfare was inevitable and immutable as part of some Divine eternal plan—“The big fish eat the little fish.” Well, Justice Jackson said, “No more!” Jackson was very explicit when he wrote to President Truman saying the time had come when we must hold accountable those leaders who hold the reins of power, so they will know that they will be answerable for their evil deeds, and warfare is an evil deed. It’s an evil thing. And they agreed that no matter what the reason, no matter what justification is offered, warfare would not be tolerated. International disputes could be settled by peaceful means only. That was the main point of Nuremberg. I was a combat soldier in World War II—from the beaches of Normandy to the final Battle of the Bulge. I know about war. Jackson’s call for a world of peace under the rule of law deserves universal support...

THE RULE OF LAW—THE CRIME OF AGGRESSION

.. It was not persuasive to the three American judges. They carefully considered the doctrine of preemptive self-defense, or anticipatory selfdefense. They held, unanimously, that it was not a valid defense that could justify the crimes. If everyone felt they could go out and attack their neighbor, and also kill their children and other perceived enemies, what kind of a world would we have? It was an echo of Justice Jackson’s famous phrase that has been quoted here about not passing the Germans “a poisoned chalice” lest we put it to our own lips as well. Law must apply equally to everyone.

In Telford Taylor’s closing statement, he said to accept preemptory self-defense as a justification for murder would be like saying that a man who breaks into a house can then shoot the owner in presumed selfdefense. Those who made that argument were found guilty and were hanged. I was a young man then, and it was clear to me that those innocent souls who were slaughtered by these Nazi extermination squads were killed because they did not share the race, or the religion, or the ideology of their executioners. I thought then that such thinking was pretty terrible. I still think it’s pretty terrible today. Of course, it affects my judgment when I come to consider the view from the United States....

..in July 2002. Leading British cabinet members discussing plans for an upcoming war with Iraq concluded that the United States was fixing the facts to match the policy. It seemed clear to them that the U.S. had made up its mind to go to war against Iraq, no matter what. The Americans were determined to bring about a “regime change.” When it was noted that doing so by force would be illegal, administration lawyers, adept at finding new interpretations of laws, came up with the argument that preemptive force would be justified as self-defense from an imminent nuclear threat. The U.N. Charter says a nation may defend itself against an armed attack. As far as I can make out, Iraq wasn’t engaged in or even planning an armed attack against the United States. So the creative lawyers stretched the law by arguing that since the Security Council of the U.N. was too politicized, it could be bypassed if necessary. A preemptive war followed......

....One of the delegates at the prep-coms and in Rome was the representative of the U.K., Elizabeth Wilmshurst, a very nice lady and British civil servant who occupied an important legal post in the Foreign Office. She was their expert on aggression. When she recognized that Britain and the U.S. were going to war against Iraq without Security Council approval she resigned. “I can no longer serve a government which is engaged in the crime of aggression,”(1) she wrote. That’s an exact quote. I have a copy of the letter. Britain’s legal officer says the U.K. and the U.S. are engaged in the crime of aggression. Britain’s top intelligence people say the U.S. is misleading the public about the proximity of a nuclear attack and that Iraq supports terrorists that bombed the United States. These are allegations that challenge the validity and legality of our going to war and they call for more detailed explanation than has been forthcoming.....

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4377605.stm
Last Updated: Thursday, 24 March, 2005, 10:22 GMT

Wilmshurst resignation letter
Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office, resigned in March 2003 because she did not believe the war with Iraq was legal. Her letter was released by the Foreign Office to the BBC News website under the Freedom of Information Act.

A minute dated 18 March 2003 from Elizabeth Wilmshurst (Deputy Legal Adviser) to Michael Wood (The Legal Adviser), copied to the Private Secretary, the Private Secretary to the Permanent Under-Secretary, Alan Charlton (Director Personnel) and Andrew Patrick (Press Office):

1. I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution to revive the authorisation given in SCR 678. I do not need to set out my reasoning; you are aware of it.

[The following italicised section was removed by the Foreign Office but later obtained by Channel 4 News]

My views accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this office before and after the adoption of UN security council resolution 1441 and with what the attorney general gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line.)

I cannot in conscience go along with advice - within the Office or to the public or Parliament - which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances which are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law.

2. I therefore need to leave the Office: my views on the legitimacy of the action in Iraq would not make it possible for me to continue my role as a Deputy Legal Adviser or my work more generally.

For example in the context of the International Criminal Court, negotiations on the crime of aggression begin again this year.

I am therefore discussing with Alan Charlton whether I may take approved early retirement. In case that is not possible this letter should be taken as constituting notice of my resignation.

3. I joined the Office in 1974. It has been a privilege to work here. I leave with very great sadness.

Willravel · 05-17-2008, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

I suppose its a matter of semantics but as a lawyer I would suppect you already knew that.
As I see it, this person signed a contract with the government and is now trying to reneg on it solely because of what he has heard. He has no first hand knowledge of what is happening in Iraq. Seems to me that he didn't read the fine print regarding how and when he can be recalled for service.
The government owns his ass. Tough shit for him. You don't want to go to war, don't sign up with the military to begin with.

You're acting as if he doesn't have years of dedicated military service under his belt. He has. Not only that, though, but he did what few soldiers do: he asked himself if his orders were legal.

Oh, in case you missed it, he's a military journalist. What he does is speak to soldiers who relay first hand experience. Are you going to call the soldiers he spoke to liars?

Two quick points about what is becoming rhetoric:
The government does not own him. He is under contract to be a solider, but as such he's required to follow US law. If he's given an order that contradicts the USMJ or US law, he has an obligation not only legally but ethically to disobey. Also, he was honorably discharged after serving his time. 4 years.

Can you stop saying "tough shit"? He's served in Afghanistan. Ask Crompsin if a-stan was a cake walk. It takes a man or woman tough as nails to survive being there. In other words, this guy is probably a lot tougher than you and I combined.

Fotzlid · 05-18-2008, 01:19 AM

All I'm saying is he signed a contract and is bound to it. If he didn't read the fine print that said he can be called back up then thats his problem.
Crompsin didn't want to go back either but he didn't call a press conference and refuse to go.

Shauk · 05-18-2008, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

All I'm saying is he signed a contract and is bound to it. If he didn't read the fine print that said he can be called back up then thats his problem.
Crompsin didn't want to go back either but he didn't call a press conference and refuse to go.

The U.S. Government can no more uphold a contract to break the law than You can uphold a contract to rob a bank.

The point here is, contracts, when they are leveraged to execute illegal acts, are nullified since the contract itself becomes inherently illegal

Plan9 · 05-18-2008, 01:38 PM

First off: Pussy needs a haircut. He's a dorky version of Patrick Bateman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

He is acting like a soldier who isn't just a robot that carries out whatever orders.

Meh, we're not robots... we're indentured servants. You sign up for what you sign up for: time doing slavery for the man. You don't sign up for morality because there is none to be found. You read the fine print and accept it or you ignore it and whine about it later. Turns out there is a lot of fine print that becomes helpful at times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

Crompsin didn't want to go back either but he didn't call a press conference and refuse to go.

And I would have gone if they told me I had to go. No sweat. Annoying, but not a big deal.

I did bitch and moan about it, though. I annoyed the gods into letting me be.

(Actually, so I just used their own exemption regulations against them)

...

Guy is a douchebag playing somebody special on TV.

...

What's that line? "There never was a good war or a bad peace."

Somebody show me a good war.

Ustwo · 05-18-2008, 11:59 PM

Guy with unsubstantiated claims and douche friends refuses to be a army journalist in Iraq.

Enjoy prison.

robot_parade · 05-19-2008, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

All I'm saying is he signed a contract and is bound to it. If he didn't read the fine print that said he can be called back up then thats his problem.
Crompsin didn't want to go back either but he didn't call a press conference and refuse to go.

While stop-loss (as far as I know) is legal, that doesn't make it right or wise for the government to use it. I'd argue that in the current situation it's both wrong and unwise for them to be using it. However, that isn't really the issue here. The issue is that the soldier in question considers his orders to deploy to Iraq to be illegal. A soldier has a duty (not a right, a duty) to refuse to obey an illegal order. For instance, if a soldier is ordered to execute a prisoner, that's an illegal order, and it's his duty to refuse. Now whether deployment to Iraq is an illegal order is up to debate, obviously, and I'm not a lawyer, so I can't make a judgement on that. From what I read, he's got some arguments on his side. We'll see how compelling they are, but I suspect he's in deep trouble. I'd be shocked if a judge decided that an entire war that thousands of troops are involved in, including the entire command structure of the army, is illegal.

blahblah454 · 05-19-2008, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

I have insisted long and earnestly that you cannot resort to force in international relationships because of your fear of what might happen in the future

Eisenhower was a smart man. Reading this kind of cracked me up, the whole preemptive strike is bush's entires policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bush

The terrorist nations may possibly contain nukes. Lets go to war and stop them! There is not middle ground, you are either against us or with us.

What, you don't want to go to war because you think we are wrong? Fuck you you terrorists!!

Oh, we didn't find any nukes? Well they were still bad people and we got em good!

05-17-2008, 01:34 PM	#1 (permalink)
lktknow Insane Location: here&there	Refuses deployment http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=q0tpxpudjy __________________ Never give up on something that you can’t go a day without thinking about. ~

05-17-2008, 04:22 PM	#3 (permalink)
RetroGunslinger eats puppies and shits rainbows Location: An Area of Space Occupied by a Population, SC, USA	He's hot. Erm, I mean, well, I think he's being very brave and doing (from what I can tell, I'm not too learned in the area of the war being illegal or the war crimes) the right thing. Good for him, but I can just imagine what they'd do to that pretty face in jail. __________________ It's a rare pleasure in this world to get your mind fucked. Usually it's just foreplay. M.B. Keene

05-17-2008, 06:03 PM	#13 (permalink)
Manuel Hong Addict Location: Land of the puny, wimpy states	BRAVO!!!!! Good for him. Imagine if it becomes a trend... __________________ Believe nothing, even if I tell it to you, unless it meets with your own good common sense and experience. - Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha)

05-17-2008, 09:25 PM	#23 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Slightly off topic, but has anyone else noticed the hair on the guy on the right? :P __________________ We Must Dissent.

05-18-2008, 11:59 PM	#32 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Guy with unsubstantiated claims and douche friends refuses to be a army journalist in Iraq. Enjoy prison. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

05-17-2008, 02:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
allaboutmusic Aurally Fixated	That there takes guts.

05-17-2008, 04:36 PM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Brave young man. Hopefully the judge in his trial will allow him to actually present evidence of why he thinks the Iraq War is illegal. The last well known guy to do this, Ehron Watada, wasn't even allowed to present why he thought the war was illegal.

05-17-2008, 04:40 PM	#5 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	Ok. He served in Afganistan, Japan, Philipines and Europe but not Iraq. He is refusing to go to Iraq based on what he has heard because he doesn't want to be party to war crimes. As a photojournalist, wouldn't it make more sense to go and document the illegal activities then to refuse deployment?

05-17-2008, 05:20 PM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	He wouldn't necessarily be doing just journalistic things. A good friend of mine was an engineer, but as soon as he was in Iraq he was on the ground with an assault riffle guarding fuel trucks along supply routes. Yes, he used his skills when the trucks broke down, but mainly he was just "a soldier".

05-17-2008, 06:02 PM	#12 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	"In good order" in that phraseology, means to do your job correctly. If it's his job to protect the US, and the illegal War in Iraq is jeopardizing the US, then it is in good order to disobey an unlawful deployment order. That also fits in with national security.

05-17-2008, 06:47 PM	#17 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	I'm just a civillain who doesn't understand legalese so please point out where the UCMJ says its an illegal war. Please take into consideration that the military action in Iraq is not a declared war.

05-17-2008, 07:42 PM	#19 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	You didn't answer the question. Where does the UCMJ say the actions in Iraq constitue an illegal war? Who declared war if congress didn't say it was such? The UN is an ineffectual political entity that hasn't been able to impose its will anywhere. Why should its charter mean anything to this country if it means nothing anywhere else?

05-17-2008, 09:22 PM	#21 (permalink)
blahblah454 Let's put a smile on that face Location: On the road...	I seem to remember the UN denying the US the right to enter Iraqi soil and go to war. The USA basically said that there are terrorists that need to be stopped and we will do what it takes to stop them. If my memory serves me correctly I believe will is right. And kudos to the soldier for sticking up for what he believes in.

05-17-2008, 09:24 PM	#22 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The US asked for a vote and it was going to be no, so we skipped the vote, instead pretending like resolutions left over from right after Desert Storm still counted (they don't, of course).

05-17-2008, 09:26 PM	#24 (permalink)
blahblah454 Let's put a smile on that face Location: On the road...	Yea I noticed it, and for some reason it made me think of American History X. Does a character in that movie have hair like that?

05-17-2008, 09:33 PM	#25 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	He reminds me of one of the antagonists from the second Charlie's Angels movies. Yes, I saw it. I've got a soft spot for Demi Moore.

05-18-2008, 01:19 AM	#29 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	All I'm saying is he signed a contract and is bound to it. If he didn't read the fine print that said he can be called back up then thats his problem. Crompsin didn't want to go back either but he didn't call a press conference and refuse to go.