It is an obligation as a leader to speak out against the willful misconduct at the highest level of the chain of command.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0616-31.htm
2006-06-16
13:17:51
·
26 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
netjr is upset, again... you can't answer the questions I ask, so why try, no self control... no intellectual ability. It is a question, try answering it, otherwise i'll assume (correctly) that you are incapable.
ya low functioning cretin.
2006-06-16
13:34:45 ·
update #1
I am unhappy they are there and they certainly are not doing it for ME, or the US people, they are in Iraq at the request of a small elite of people who have an oil agenda, that is not right. Every soldier should know that.
And also, sadly, this war will not be started by politicians and ended by the military... the military is being abused and will be there forever. Namely because once you start lying you have to keep lying and that is the one lesson of this war that should never be forgotten.
2006-06-16
13:39:06 ·
update #2
I hear you sister... I can't IM, sorry... I just think people here, in the States, need to wake the hell up, there is no politician, not Hillary not anyone who wants to leave that place, and it is leaving that we have to do. But the neo-cos won't give up thier treasure. We could leave, and it is logical to leave, because it is never going to work out, cut our losses and get out. That is why I asked this question, because soldiers have revolted before, in Vietnam there were many, and we need to have more support for those who have chosen to say this illegal war should be honorably opposed by those in the military. More and more troops do every month. An officer has. That means it is possible, we need to realize that this is wrong and should have never happened. The PEOPLE have to bring the troops home, see? These politicians won't... and they could, easily. The idea that staying is an absolute necessity is a lie.
2006-06-16
14:02:24 ·
update #3
Haditha weren't no lawful order. Nor was lying to Congress to get us in there in the first place. Nor were the many situations like Haditha that you and I both know are commonplace in Iraq. Nazis were hung for thier warcrimes at Nuremburg we are bordering on the same crimes... look at what they were tried for. Aggression... it has risen to that level in Iraq already. That is how history will judge this heist of Iraqi oil control I think.
2006-06-16
15:49:02 ·
update #4
No Soldiers, according to the book , have a duty to obey any illegal or immoral order or command. Thus no soldier can be compelled to act illegally or immorally. However a claim of an illegal war is defined by the seated government and the juxtaposition of the Geneva Accords & Conventions. As for the chain of command, the proper channels and protocals define proper obligations for tose initiated, like them or not!
2006-06-16 13:33:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by namazanyc 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
The resident of the United States ordered US troops into action, also sanctioned by congress, all of this in conjunction with the constitution. So, invariably, this was is not illegal. A soldier is obligated under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to dis obey an unlawful order. The UCMJ defines an unlawful order (not exclusively) as an order that is immoral, clearly wrong, or illegal. As military action has met the guidelines as outlined in the constitution, there is no violation of the law. An order from the president, by definition, and backed by congress is LEGAL, there fore your question is moot. Military action can be ordered by the president, unilaterally (Panama, Grenada, Desert Shield), without consent of congress and has been deemed to be lawful and fully legal through the course of this nation's history. So, I think in the end, an illegal war is more or less the point of view of the disaffected...to suggest otherwise comes close to sedition of the Armed Forces which IS illegal and a felony!!!! Yes, it is illegal to incite the armed forces to riot or disobey LAWFUL orders...think about it!! Amazing what people who NEVER served assume they know...in the end, they generally know JACK
2006-06-16 15:39:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
When a soldier signs those papers to go to basic training and he has those 3-5 years to go on in the military...His job is to listen and to obey the chief authorities...The president and his commanding officer...If they could bust the president's chops then why can't we?...Truth is...That man isn't going to listen to anyone besides his BB's...Believe me...I am a military spouse and if I could have stopped my man from having to go back to Iraq in March then I would have...But he would have been court marshalled and I would have been put in prison...No one can protest this thing because this man has the heart the size of a sperm...Not a sperm whale...But a sperm...Preferrably a goldfish sperm...I hate this war and I am sure any military family hates it as much as the regular civilians with no military family involvment...If there was anything I could do or anyone could do and get away with it...Then my girlfriends and I would have done it...Shoot...I'm sure military families before us would have done it...But if you can think of anything that maybe you could so without causing our families harm then call me up...Otherwise...We are all at a dead end road with war...Oh...One more thing...A soldier has no right to turn down where his destination is for his job...He is property of the gov't when he signs up to do basic...I would really love to talk to you on this subject...Call me on ims...
2006-06-16 13:43:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by *Panda* 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is a soldiers duty to follow the orders of his superior. If he believes there is misconduct at the top of the chain of command, then he should make his complaint to his immediate superior and if that superior wishes to forward the complaint, he may. For a soldier, commisioned or non commissioned to disobey orders from his superior is unlawful under the UCMJ. And for an officer to disobey and order, is even more grievous if the officers protests might endanger his subordinates. Basically, you do the job you are asked to do, when your mission is complete, then question the orders you were given.
2006-06-16 13:31:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
some of you people are unfreakinbelievable.. youve got some nerve to call what we are doing in Iraq illegal and say we are inflicting brutality against the Iraqi people.
WHY THE HELL DONT YOU GROW A PAIR! YOU IDIOT YOU DON"T DESERVE THIS COUNTRY..and WE SURE AS HELL DON"T DESERVE YOU. War is hell but i really do wish that just one time you had to fight for your life. Go through one night just knowing you weren't gonna make it..feel artillery and rockets lift your entire body off the ground while you piss your pants....have to run through automatic weapons fire so heavy you can't see anyway you can't be hit and be so scared you almost get blind and just have tunnel vision..firing at anything in your way. Don't you dare talk about an illegal war you chickenshit little sob. I thank God that these young men and women have not given up on this country for the likes of some of you.
2006-06-16 14:20:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by RunningOnMT 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
According to the Nuremberg principles (under which certain Nazis were found guilty of the mass killing of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and other innocent civilians and subsequently hanged):
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Therefore, soldiers have a moral obligation to say no to actions that are illegal, including going to war without a declaration of war, collective punishment of civilian populations, and the ongoing brutality to which the U.S. government is subjecting the Iraqi civilian population.
2006-06-16 13:55:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by S D 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
It would be a soldier's duty to refuse an illegal order. An order to participate in an 'illegal' war would count as an illegal order.
Now the big flaw in your question is that you seem to be assuming (without any sort of rational basis) that the war in Iraq is 'illegal.'
Clue for the clueless: If you cannot provide a quote from a law forbidding an act - that act is legal.
2006-06-17 05:10:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by MikeGolf 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
NO! heres a quote, the answer someone wrote to my question about www.impeachbush.com."Bush blew through Clinton's reservoir of excess funds faster than Clinton was able to make the surplus happen.
This war should be with the people who flew into our country and caused the 9/11 tragedy.
Iraq pissed off the oil money people that are friends and cronies of George and his daddy. They used to have parties together. Now they are annoyed and using our soldiers to settle their spat. Thankfully, there is the benefit of freedom for the Iraqi people. That makes this not a mistake, this makes their presence there worth while.
I just want to understand why we are not concentrating on the terrorists that started this. I have many loved ones serving over there, including my youngest child's father. I believe in what they are doing. I thank them for their zeal. I love my country, I cannot fight for it, I thank our veterans for doing what I cannot.
I do want to impeach Bush. He is a liar. He is a thief, and he is too confused and mentally lost to run our country. He "won" both elections with controversy. Why not a re-vote instead of a re-count? If he had won clean, I would say nothing, but two elections with controversy makes me wonder about the truth of the politics in Washington.
I want Clinton back. Hillary too. I want to have a paycheck and get my overtime. I want to take better care of our people here in America before we send money to other countries. I want to have the values of the government to come back closer to the constitution that our country is based on. Please give us a hero for a president. Not a c average screw off who obviously does not understand that you have to have a BUDGET! Some one in charge who understands that America wants to eat too. I was making 24000 a year when Clinton left office, I make 8000 a year now since Bush has been in. I have lost my house, my car, and filed bankruptcy. I never left my job. The American Dream will die if Bush has control much longer. I am not alone, my co-workers are many, and we have all lost. I am in human services.
My stock account has gone from 200 when Clinton took office, 44000 when Clinton left office. My stock is now worth about 12000. I cashed out not long ago before any more disappeared, in an attempt to avoid bankruptcy. Please give me a president who understands that the poor will rise up against an unfair system when it becomes too much of a burden. I fear for our inner cities, I fear for our children who have been slashed form the programs that Bush has removed. Clinton was able to help these people, why can't Bush? Answer, he doesn't care, he is lost, he is taking bad advice... "
2006-06-16 13:25:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by soulsearcher 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Enlistment oath below...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; 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 regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Notice it doesn't say anything about obeying poll numbers or popular opinions.
2006-06-16 13:26:55
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Define illegal war.
A soldier follows the orders of thier commanders. We swore an oath to do so. To not follow orders would be unethical. A paradox isn't it.
2006-06-19 02:09:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by fast f 2
·
0⤊
0⤋