Do the troops, who refuse to go to Iraq, have a Constitutional argument?

Question

Why don't their attorneys argue against the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution? If the resolution is unconstitutional, isn't the war? And if the war is unconstitutional, isn't it their duty, under their oath, to defy an illegal orders according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

Bumpo, thanks for your service, but you really need to read the UCMJ. Since you swore to abide by it, reading it might keep you out of trouble.

Hey Crabby, I'm sorry I accidentally gave you thumbs down, bad aim I guess. Thanks for the answer and for not dismissing my question.

Answer 1

I follow your logic--but that's not how the law works. Here's what I mean (admittedly thisis an oversimplification). Under the War Powers Act, the Commander-in-cheif (Bush) has the authority to order the troops to Iraq. Even if a legal challenge were to result in the overturning of the War Powers Act, actions taken by Bush--and hterefore orders given on that basis--would still be legally valid as long as they took place prior to such a court ruling. The reason for that is the constitutional provision that prohibits "de pst facto" laws. In this situation, if the War Powers Act were to be overturned, no further actions taken on that basis would be legal. But all actions taken by the military acting under that authority prior to such a ruling would considered to be legal. They woud have to be--otherwise any member of the military, even though acting in good faith (obeying the orders of superiors) would find themselves in the position of having acted illegally--and that's where the "de post facto" clause would kick in.

Consequently, the orders given to those members of the military sending them to Iraq are legal--and binding. Overturning the War Powers Act would only affect future deployments, but not the legality of current ones.

BTW--for the law to be internally consistant and fair--that's pretty much how it has to be. This particular instance shows why: the ast majority of military leaders have been acting in good faith--following order s they take to e legal. The de poste facto clause prevents them from being sanctioned in the future for actions they took that were legal at the time. And that also means the soldiers who have been ordered to Iraq have received legal orders they cannot refuse to obey---not unless they can find some other (and legal) objection to the orders.

Answer 2

this war had been deemed illegal by courts all over the world, therefore, a soldier should not be punished for refusing the order, as it is unlawful.

"Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.

Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal."

Answer 3

Absolutely not. The individual troops do NOT have the right to refuse a lawful order, and the unresolved issue of whether or not the war in Iraq is "lawful" is irrelevant. The order to go ITSELF was lawful; THAT is the order that was disobeyed, and THAT is the reason they should - and will - be punished.

Everyone who voluntarily enlists in today's armed forces VOLUNTARILY GIVE UP THEIR RIGHT TO REFUSE ORDERS when they enlist. They do NOT have the right to sit back and debate whether or not they're going to obey an order; they swore an oath stating that they would, and that's that.

Civilians just don't seem to "get" this...and some military folks don't, either...right, Sergeant?

And I sure would like to see a listing of the "courts all over the world" that have said the war in Iraq is illegal, Summer6975. Can you do that for me, please? Or was that just blowing smoke?

Answer 4

The War is illegal as the US signed the UN resoloution not to go to war without UN backing then did so. Therefor those soldiers refusing to go are the only ones not breaking the law and with it the constitution. However, the US is more powerful than the UN, a bit like a criminal who is in the position where he owns the police and all the judges and has frightened everyone on the jury, so they can do whatever they like. For now.

Answer 5

Because no one seriously disputes the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.

Answer 6

I really don't think they do. Neither Vietnam nor Korea were declared wars-- but people went and people were even drafted.

We have a volunteer military. They KNEW that at some point, the gods of war could be unleashed and they'd have to go. Military folks do what they're told-- that's it.

Answer 7

my boyfriend is a marine and so totally devoted to this country that I cannot even understand troops who fight against it. Here is the thing, now, unlike before, soldiers choose to be soldiers, they are not enlisted, they are not forced, they make a choice, knowing that if a war comes, whether they believe in the cause or not, they will stand with their unit, their corps, and the country through thick and thin. I know it is hard to fight for principles that don't make sense, but for most soldiers, they are fighting for their country, not for the principles-they fight for freedom, love and family. A true soldier never stands down, saying that kills me as my would-be-fiance prepares to take his 5 tour in Iraq, but that is who he is, a marine, and I love his devotion and commitment.

Answer 8

A little knowledge for you, the US and the UK were within the law when they moved in and removed Saddam from power. The officer that is refusing to go to Iraq will go to Afghanistan, my view is he is a coward. Flat out coward, then again most people who never served are cowards in my opinion.

Answer 9

War Powers are being greatly misused. Congress has to stop giving its power away...because its the closest thing we the people got as a voice in the government. When our congressmen start giving away their own power due to a lack of political courage it ROBS us of our voice in the Government. Congress, DO YOUR JOB...VOTE thumb up or thumb down on any future WAR. NO MORE unilateral empowerment of the PRESIDENT to DECLARE WAR! THAT is Un-Constitutional.

Answer 10

No. The president, as comander in chief has the authority & duty to deploy troops as he sees fit. Soldiers have the duty to obey all lawful orders.