Soldiers Miss Flights Back to Iraq!

[wyldwolf]

More than 30 soldiers who came home from Iraq for two weeks of leave have failed to show up for their flights back to the combat zone, military officials said yesterday.

The soldiers, among more than 1,300 troops so far in the first large-scale home leave program since Vietnam, have yet to be declared absent without leave -- a violation of military law, said Army Col. Paris Mack, the Pentagon official overseeing the program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56494-2003Oct20?language=printer

[deutsey]

1. If these troops are resisting

I hope Veterans for Peace and other peace groups come to their aid.

[HFishbine]

2. Wow

30 out of 1,300. That's more than I would have expected.

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

8. thats only 2.3 %

.

[Hep]

3. If Dubya can do it, why not all of us?

Bush is such a role model!

[zanana]

80. Will the media have the guts to point this out?

If people start comparing these soldiers to Bush, will be finally have to explain that missing year?

[OldSoldier]

4. AWOL won't be the charge

Missing Movement will be the charge--it's more severe.

The Office of Piling It On might throw in a desertion charge too, but Missing Movement will definitely be in there.

These 30 will probably cause Bushler to halt the leave program.

[Tinoire]

6. Missing Movement? This will be even worse

This is war time- the charge will be desertion :( I thing desertion will be the top charge.

These guys are in big trouble if the American public doesn't start screaming!

[Mairead]

11. But is it wartime? There was never a declaration

except for Smirk's that it was over.

[atreides1]

14. Please Calm Down

Desertion cannot be charged until these troops have been AWOL for 30 days, and contrary to myth the worst they are looking at is a dishonorable discharge.

We are not legally at war, only Congress has the authority to declare war, and the last time I looked they hadn't done it.

Missing movement is a serious charge, but nothing that will get you in front of a firing squad. At best UCMJ action, at worst a court martial.

[Tinoire]

78. The 30 day rule of thumb is a peace-time courtesy

Even absent of combat, you can be charged with desertion in less than 30 days if the intent is to avoid either important or hazardous duty. I don't like it any more than you do but we didn't write the rules...

[libertad]

37. They are in trouble regardless of what we do.

You can be executed for desertion or imprisoned for a long, long time.

[ComerPerro]

62. I don't agree that this is "war time"

This is not a war if Bush took a fucking month of vacation.

Maybe you were say that Republicans will say they were desserting, though. And if you were, I apologize.

[Tinoire]

75. That's exactly what I'm saying

I don't like this any more than anyone else does but, like it or not, the military regulations are chrystal clear on this subject. The climate in the military is not exactly tolerant right now and this is driven from on high. They will throw the book at these kids to try to stem this "dangerous" tide immediately. I seriously doubt that the military will be kind, lenient and understanding. The way the rules are written, if the military can prove that you had a clear intent to avoid "hazardous duty", you can be charged with desertion immediately. They even have something called "short desertion" they can throw at you when necessary during normal times. During combat, they really don't need that much to prove clear intent.

885. ART. 85. DESERTION

(a) Any member of the armed forces who--

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or

(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.

(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

On edit: Link http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/SUBCHAPTERX.html#885.85

[CityZen-X]

23. Emulating Their Commander and Theif!

They should fail to report for 14-month's just like their Commander and Theif did during the "Nam. Their defence should be Bu$h*t got away with why shouldn't we!

[theivoryqueen]

5. Soldiers Ripe to Resist

"It may not be long before GIs refuse to follow orders or ask for discharges based on their conscientious objection to the occupation."


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1020-06.htm

[northzax]

7. well, I hope they have good attorneys

soldiers who desert from combat are cowards. no other word for it. You are a soldier. it is your fucking JOB. you swore an oath to follow the orders of your commanders. if you aren't doing it, fuck you. I'm sorry if this upsets people, but we cannot have mass desertions from the military, it would, among other things, completely undermine the entire consitutional basis of the US.
If you want to CO, then do so. deal with the consequences, dot all the Is and cross all the Ts. follow the rules. don't just not show up.

[Mari333]

10. I hope they all desert

every damned one of them.
This is an illegal invasion. I hope they all go into hiding. Good for these young men and women who wont go back to that hellhole to fight for Bush's wealthy friends. Hurray for them, they are the real heroes .
www.mfso.org
www.bringthemhomenow.com

[Mandate My Ass]

12. the constitutional basis of the US

has been undermined repeatedly since 12/12/2000. I don't know that I'd write these soldiers off as cowards until I heard their side of the story.

[northzax]

17. ok

why hasn't one of them come forward. and said "look, I won't return to Iraq. and this is why... I know that I am breaking the law by refusing a military order, and I am willing to serve whatever sentence my court martial imposes on me. " that would make them a hero in my book. running away does not. if one wants to practice civil disobediance, one should be prepared to pay the legal price. I have more respect for the men who served jail terms for refusing induction during Vietnam than those who ran away and hid.

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

13. illegal & immoral war makes soldiers CO status a good stance

Nothing new at all.

Happened in Vietnam quite a lot.

Better have those who wont fight an illegal
war not shpw up, than to 'frag' their superiors.

------------------

READ THIS -

The Breakdown of the U.S. Army in Vietnam

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/%7Ergibson/girevolts.htm

-----------------

READ THIS -


Entire U.S. platoons refused to fight on live television during Vietnam

http://www.isreview.org/issues/09/soldiers_revolt.shtml

Acts of mutiny took place on a scale previously only encountered in revolutions. The first mutinies in 1968 were unit and platoon-level rejections of the order to fight. The army recorded 68 such mutinies that year. By 1970, in the 1st Air Cavalry Division alone, there were 35 acts of combat refusal.42 One military study concluded that combat refusal was "unlike mutinous outbreaks of the past, which were usually sporadic, short-lived events. The progressive unwillingness of American soldiers to fight to the point of open disobedience took place over a four-year period between 1968-71."43

The 1968 combat refusals of individual units expanded to involve whole companies by the next year. The first reported mass mutiny was in the 196th Light Brigade in August 1969. Company A of the 3rd Battalion, down to 60 men from its original 150, had been pushing through Songchang Valley under heavy fire for five days when it refused an order to advance down a perilous mountain slope. Word of the mutiny spread rapidly. The New York Daily News ran a banner headline, "Sir, My Men Refuse To Go."44 The GI paper, The Bond, accurately noted, "It was an organized strike...A shaken brass relieved the company commander...but they did not charge the guys with anything. The Brass surrendered to the strength of the organized men."45

This precedent--no court-martial for refusing to obey the order to fight, but the line officer relieved of his command--was the pattern for the rest of the war. Mass insubordination was not punished by an officer corps that lived in fear of its own men. Even the threat of punishment often backfired. In one famous incident, B Company of the 1st Battalion of the 12th Infantry refused an order to proceed into NLF-held territory. When they were threatened with court-martials, other platoons rallied to their support and refused orders to advance until the army backed down.46

As the fear of punishment faded, mutinies mushroomed. There were at least ten reported major mutinies, and hundreds of smaller ones. Hanoi's Vietnam Courier documented 15 important GI rebellions in 1969.47 At Cu Chi, troops from the 2nd Battalion of the 27th Infantry refused battle orders. The "CBS Evening News" broadcast live a patrol from the 7th Cavalry telling their captain that his order for direct advance against the NLF was nonsense, that it would threaten casualties, and that they would not obey it. Another CBS broadcast televised the mutiny of a rifle company of the 1st Air Cavalry Division.48

When Cambodia was invaded in 1970, soldiers from Fire Base Washington conducted a sit-in. They told Up Against the Bulkhead, "We have no business there...we just sat down. Then they promised us we wouldn't have to go to Cambodia." Within a week, there were two additional mutinies, as men from the 4th and 8th Infantry refused to board helicopters to Cambodia.49

In the invasion of Laos in March 1971, two platoons refused to advance. To prevent the mutiny from spreading, the entire squadron was pulled out of the Laos operation. The captain was relieved of his command, but there was no discipline against the men. When a lieutenant from the 501st Infantry refused his battalion commander's order to advance his troops, he merely received a suspended sentence.50

more............

[northzax]

18. ok, I am willing to consider CO petitions as legitimate

but none of these people, according to the article, have filed for CO status. The selection of CO is a serious business. The fact that our government allows such a thing is remarkable. And it should not be abused. If you have serious CO beliefs, stand up and be counted. If you are sentenced to prison, serve. Live your life the best way you know how. If the best way you know is to run and hide from trouble, then you certainly don'y qualify for hero status in my value system.

[atreides1]

15. They Are Not Cowards

But your hero George said that major combat was over. I was a soldier for 13 years my oath also was to defend the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

As far as undermining the entire constitutional basis of this country,
GUESS WHAT IT'S TOO LATE. This adminstration started doing that when they pushed through the first Patriot Act, and now want even more power granted to them by enhancing it.

As a matter of fact the first thing that you swear to, when you take the oath is to SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT'S BEFORE YOU SWEAR TO OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OR THE OFFICERS APPOINTED ABOVE YOU.

So here's an interesting question, which part of the oath do you adhere to, the part about SUPPORTING AND DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION OR OBEYING THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT.

And for your information these troops have already been in combat, they are not cowards, and you don't have the right to call them that,
and I don't care who you are.

[northzax]

16. oh my, you are right.

they are brave people, skipping out on their duty so someone else can die. my heroes.

I would like to point out two things to you.

first off: each and every one of these soldiers volunteered for the military. There is no draft. they signed up. you know what the military does? they kill people. that's kinda the point of having one.

second. This war is completely legal under our constitution. Under the War Powers Act, which has been repeatedly upheld, the President must ask Congress for permission to commit troops only after 90 days have passed. This President actually asked for permission before combat even began. The Congress gave him that authorization. Therefore, the order to enter Iraq, and the order to occupy it are completely legal. Please note that the moral or ethical decisions are not in their purview. They took an oath to the Consitution. The Constitution says that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Services. If the Commander in Chief, or his representatives, gives you a lawful order (we've already discussed why it's lawful and constitutional) then disobeying that order is an illegal act, one that flaunts the Constitution. The military in this country is under civilian leadership. Do you know what you have when the military doesn't listen to lawful orders from the civilian leadership of the country? a military coup. you really want that?

The Brave ones show up and do their duty the best they can. I do not believe that one can be a CO for a particular war. you either are, or you ain't. Why weren't they six months ago?

Like it or not. We are occupying a nation. Every single day out troops come under fire. Every single one who refuses to return to duty puts someone else in the firing line. sorry, but that isn't courage to me.

edited for spelling

[jmanjman]

19. Well said

EOM

[ima_sinnic]

21. so what would you say about nazis who ran away?

surely there were those who could no longer stomach what they were doing. how do you think an application for CO status would have been received by the fuehrer? as far as I know (which I admit is not a lot) CO has to be documented somehow by past actions, some sort of proof that one didn't "suddenly" develop CO sentiments simply to avoid service. I don't think someone can be CO for "this" war and not CO for another, and there does not appear to be a way to refuse service in an illegal, unjust, immoral, even UNDECLARED war that is for defense of privately stolen property. people who signed on as reservists or even full-time military did so knowing they could be called to combat and had no objections (hence they would not be considered CO) at the time--but they were right to assume that that combat would be justified and necessary. I say more power to them for refusing and I do hope they make it through okay. SCREW B*SHCO AND THEIR STINKING WAR FOR OIL.

we used to have a saying during Vietnam:

what if they declared a war and nobody showed up to fight it?

[northzax]

25. can we stop with the Bush Hitler comparisons already?

Bush is not Hitler. please don't diminish the evil of Hitler and his cronies by putting Bush in the same league as them. the comparison is absurd, and wins no points with anyone. I assume you have ceased paying taxes in support of these troops? I assume you have ceased all pariticpation in the economy? and in the political life of the US? If you are still paying taxes, you are funding this war, and you are as guilty as they are. Don't pay them. When the IRS comes calling, shoot them. that's resistane, that's showing that you are willing to take the same risks, and pay the same punishment as you are encouraging these people to do.

As long as you are living in the US community, contributing to it somehow (and benefiting from it) don't you DARE ask someone else to risk punishemnt for your beliefs. Stand up and be counted among the dissenters. You want a breakdown of consitutional law in this country? stop propping it up. The Federal Government is your enemy, I think. What the heck are you doing about it?

[beanball]

43. Compare

Villain #1 killed Jews,Villain#2 killed Arabs/Muslims,which one is evil,#1 or#2?.

[northzax]

47. in your comparison?

there is an equivalent evil. but your comparison is absurdly disingenuous. unless, of course, you are accusing Bush of a comprehensive plan to exterminate all Arabs/Muslims? Damn, if that's his plan, he really sucks at it.

[DealsGapRider]

63. It's called moral relativism.

Most liberals recoil at the phrase because it was coined by the Repubs. But that doesn't make it less accurate in describing people who cannot distinguish between Hitler and Bush.

[northzax]

65. really?

honestly, I had always defined moral relativism as believing that certain actions were acceptable in one sort of circumstance, and unnacceptable in another. How a certain culture might have freedom of speech, but another wouldn't. and that was ok, in the context of each country.

but I could be wrong, I like yours better/

[DealsGapRider]

69. I have always thought it was failing to make appropriate distinctions...

...between things / institutions / people, etc. For example, a remember relating to a friend how disgusted I was when I heard about a Pakistani girl who was ordered by a tribal court to be gang raped because her brother was seen walking with a girl from an opposing tribe. I remarked on the barbarity of many Muslims' treatment of women. My friend responded with a quip about how we mistreat women in this country by denying them access to affordable child care. As if the two can be compared. That's moral relativism. So is comparing a minor league incompetent like Bush with a mass murderer like Hitler.

[northzax]

72. then we are in agreement

(who thought I'd find that on this thread?) just coming at it from different angles.
thanks for the thoughts.

[mrgorth]

22. Get off it

He's an illegal president and this is an illegal war. F*ck the whole thing. If we say that Wehrmacht should've deserted their corrupt govt than ours should too.

[northzax]

24. fine

did you pay taxes last year? did you participate in the system at all? ten you are complicit in this 'illegal presidency' you should be in the streets, fighting for your country. Soldiers are the embodiement of government power. How many have you killed to get rid of the 'illegal president?' How many IRS agents, or homeland security agents? of FBI agents? none?

None? then you can't really think that the presidency is illegal, since you won't do anything possible to take it back. By participating in the system, you have legitimized it. By following the instructions of one single federal official, you have legitimized the current presidency. You are complicit in a felony. You are the reason those troops are dying in Iraq. Don't give me this baloney about how it's "Bush's Fault" and how this war is illegal. it isn't. deal with that. legal does not mean moral, but legal it is. You have made it so. It's all your fault. (and mine, by the way, we're equally to blame, but I accept my responsiblity, do you?)

say it loud and say it proud! MILTARY COUP. MILTARY COUP. TANKS IN THE STREETS. ARREST OR KILL ALL CIVILIAN LEADERS. MILITARY COUP. MARTIAL LAW UNITL FURTHER NOTICE. is that really what you want? it's what you're asking for.

[CityZen-X]

27. Taxpayer X

Good points! I am an X-taxpayer as a result of this illegal residency, I have, and will continue to take to the streets. My dissent may or not be subtle, but it is a commitment. I do not contribute to the Faustian machinations of this "Evil Empire" what so ever! Every day I think of different ways that I can throw my body into the gears of this vile, odious machine!

[northzax]

30. can I ask?

do you pay sales tax? or do you only pay in cash at merchants who will allow you to evade the tax?

[CityZen-X]

34. I Barter & Haggle

I barter alot, and alway's haggle over the price and alway's the sales tax. I make it a point to patronize businesses that have no sales tax day. Bartering for goods is a way of life here in the "Emerald Triangle."

[northzax]

36. there you go then

someone who walks the talk. nice to see.

whaddya give me for this nice pig?

[CityZen-X]

39. With Talent On Loan

The pig looks like he has talent on loan from Purdue Pharm.

When the pig gets cleaned out will you let him graze on your 40-acres?

[northzax]

46. man, hell no

I've been trying to offload that particular pig for years now.

[CityZen-X]

48. Purdue Pig

This Republiporker is offloaded as we speak. Although his image will alway's be an icon for corporate amerika.

[ShaneGR]

56. Kind of funny to watch 2 conservatives make a conversation...... LOL!!!!!!

Republican #1: I evade taxes all the time. Where is the wizard of oz?

Republican #2: You stinkin hippy bastard! You suck!

[Snow]

51. Isn't sales tax a state tax?

It might be a stretch to say a state tax supports war....

[northzax]

59. sure it does

all taxes support the status quo, which is what supports the current federal government, which I have been told is illegitimate. ergo, sales tax supports war.

as logical as anything else on this thread.

[Capn Sunshine]

29. Great. YOU guys go over and replace them.

Or STFU. Unless any of those who pursue this righteous indignate line of thought served with these lads, you have no right to sit on your comfy chair and pontificate over a keyboard. Well, technically you do. But morally , its a bankrupt argument.

Underground railroad being formed; pm me anyone interested.

[northzax]

31. gee, I don't recall

swearing an oath to do that. perhaps I did, but I certainly don't recall it. and yet I seem to recall that these people did. If they don't want to fulfill their oath, they should stand up and face the consequences of that.

Running from an oath is cowardice. deal with it.

[DoYouEverWonder]

41. When W is held to the same standard

that you wish to uphold, then so should everyone else. Until then, I don't see why any of them should be held to account.

Beside all these folks that volunteered (and W did volunteer in order to avoid going to Nam) swore to protect the USA not the US of Halliburton.

[northzax]

45. ahh, so past malfeasance at the highest level

excuses all that below?

[DoYouEverWonder]

52. Especially, if that person at the top

Happens to be the Commander-in-thief, who has refused to release his military records.

Why should those below him, be treated any differently?

[northzax]

55. ok then

the UMCJ bars members of the armed services from using cocaine. Given the high likelihood that President Bush once used Cocaine, would you support the lifting of this ban?

How about the one on adultery for officers? Clinton had an affair, it should be OK, right?

How about driving drunk? Bush did it, Let's all get plastered and hit I-95! Wahoo!

[DoYouEverWonder]

67. No, Bu$h should be prosecuted for his crimes

Just like anyone else.

However, by placing one particular group of people above the law, ie. members of Bu$hCo. does set a dangerous precident.

[northzax]

71. so justice should be withheld

until it can be meted out to everyone? there are unsolved crimes in the US every day, should all trials be held in abeyance until each and every crime coming before it has been settled?

[DoYouEverWonder]

74. There is overwhelming evidence

of multiple incidents of wrong doing by Mr. Bu$h. Considering the fact that he is the POTUS, he should be held to the highest standard of the law, not the lowest.

When Clinton was in office, the repugs went ballistic over any hint of wrong doing and did indeed impeach him. The crimes committed by W are far more numerous and serious than Clinton's failed real estate deal or even a bj. Besides, I didn't know it was a crime to make an investment and lose money on the deal?

[Mari333]

53. You arent in Iraq as a soldier, arent about to die

and obviously have no one you love in the service who has ever died, or might die in an illegal war based on lies.
Until you walk in those shoes, you have no clue as to what is happening to the families of these men and women, or to them personally.
There is no honour to this "war".
There is no oath that stands to continue supporting it. It is a joke, it is a fraud, and it is an illegal war.
Any man or woman who leaves the service during this time are true heroes.

[northzax]

61. hmm

so only military families get to make policy? what is this, North Korea?

I assume from this post that you do have a loved one in harm's way. And since the people leaving are the true heroes, are you implying that your loved one is a coward if he/she doesn't leave?

War sucks. But it is not the job of the military to say if we go to war, that is the job of the civilian leadership. As long as that structure is in place, all oaths to the Constitution are valid. That included military oaths.

Servicemen and Women are welcome to support anyone they want politically, but they do not have the right to disobey orders because they create a hardship on themselves or their families.

Every single one of them volunteered for the military. what did they think they were joining, the Boy Scouts? They signed up, as adults, and took an oath to obey command orders. The President and the Congress have given them an order. If they choose not to follow that order, they had better expect repercussions. My heroes are the ones who show up and take their punishment like Men and Women. Running away and hiding is cowardly. it's the very definition of cowardly. They are abandoning their collegagues to die, and aren't willing to face a court martial.

You don't like the decisions the government is making? work withing the system to change them. But I will always, alwaysl support civilian control over the military.

[RaulGroom]

38. You're missing one thing

The war is a violation of the United Nations charter, which, as a treaty entered into legally by the U.S. government, is the supreme law of the land.

So in fact, the war is illegal. Some relevant snippets from the U.N. Charter:

-------------
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
--------------

That's a passage from Chapter One. One could cite others.

Here's the relevant portion of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI):

------------------
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
------------------

Not really pertinent to whether the soldiers ought to be able to simply not show up for duty without being punished, but it's hard to see how this war is not illegal under the U.N. Charter and, therefore, the Constitution of the United States of America.

[northzax]

42. perhaps

but you could also argue that the UN was facing a defiance by Iraq of past resolutions, and that US action was permissable under Article 48.

so it's hardly clear cut.

[RaulGroom]

49. No, that's an evasion

That is a question for the Security Council, and the Security Council did not come to the conclusion you just expressed. The U.N. Charter doesn't say that member states have the right to interpret SC or GA resolutions on their own - that would be idiotic.

If you're accused of killing me, and you argue self-defense, the question of whether it really WAS self-defense is one for the jury. If you get convicted, you don't get to say "Well, I'm not going to prison because you could argue that it was self-defense." You DID argue it was self-defense, but nobody bought it.

Try again.

[northzax]

50. and yet the Jury

in this case the Security Council, has just unanimously aquitted the defendant of murder, by certifying the US occupation.

Face it, it may stink, but it's completely legal.

[RaulGroom]

68. Nope

Here's the full text of the SC resolution you're talking about. You should read it.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2003&m=October&x=20031016151238yesmikk0.6846125&t=usinfo/wf-latest.html

How do I know you haven't read the resolution? Because the first twelve words are:

Underscoring that the sovereignty of Iraq resides in the State of Iraq.

You didn't even read the first twelve words after the reaffirmation clause. So which part of the resolution did you feel retroactively authorized the invasion?

Here's an idea. Instead of replying to this immediately, take a day or two. Read up on international law. Read the relevant resolutions. Read the U.N. Charter. Read the U.S. Constitution. Then come back and we can discuss it. Right now you're just grasping at things to support your position that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was legal, which is based on faith, not fact.

Here's some more from the U.N. Charter, by the way.

The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council , with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.

The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.

[northzax]

70. read on, my friend

the resolution firmly establishes sovereignty in the "Governing Council" and authorises the "Coalition Provisional Authority" to enforce the "specific responsibilities, authorities, and obligations" under 1483.

so sovereignty rests in the governing council, but authority for administration rests in the CPA until an "internationally recognized, representative government is established and assumes the responsibilities of the Authority"

I give you article 6:

Calls upon the Authority, in this context, to return governing responsibilities and authorities to the people of Iraq as soon as practicable and requests the Authority, in cooperation as appropriate with the Governing Council and the Secretary-General, to report to the Council on the progress being made;


This is all recognition of the CPA as the current legal administrative power in Iraq until the world community says otherwise.

perhaps you read it differently, I'd be interested in that.

[bpilgrim]

20. or good hiding spots ;-)

i support any soilder who refuses to fight this ILLEGAL INVASION of a soverign nation for their OIL. :puke:

remember the nazis were just following orders as well... this stuff doesn't just happen over night it evolves and we are certainly on an imperial track that it is rightwing to boot fascism is a real possibility.

the earlier we resist the better :bounce:

more...
http://mall.globalfreepress.com

:hi:

peace

[northzax]

26. oh good, more nazi comparisons

come on, let's be a little realistic, shall we? the comparisons are simply not valid. stop pretending they are.

And yes, I would support anyone who deserted from any unit, in any war, who was ordered to kill civilians or unarmed prisoners. Desert out of principle, I've said I support that. but come clean with your principles, don't hide with them.

[kayell]

28. Would you have advised German soldiers the same

in WWII?

[northzax]

33. see my post #26

would you have supported US soldiers who were anti-semitic in WWII deserting as well?

[ParanoidPat]

40. Can you show me where in the Constitution.....

.....the doctrine of 'preemptive invasion' is covered? :shrug:

[northzax]

44. oh, strict constitutionalist, are we?

can you show me where it's banned?

sure looks to me like Article II, section 8 gives Congress the power to authorize the use of force:

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


now I'm no founding father, but it sure looks to me like that give the Congress pretty wide latitude.

let's see what it says about the President:

Article II, Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

I see no ban on preemption. let's read on:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
so basically, if you say this war is illegal under US law, you are saying that both the Congress and the President are illegitimate. Also, of course, the Judiciary. oops, there goes the entire country.

[NicoleM]

9. This is going to be a tough issue for Dubya.

He can't take the moral high ground on this one. I bet that these people are going to be dealt with "quietly."

[LalahLand]

32. Bush got away with it, so why can't they?

At least that would be my defense...LOL

[northzax]

35. yup. and OJ got away too

should be a warning to all ex-wives, right?

<<<<I's assuming that the lol implies you were joking a tad on this post?>>>>

[ShaneGR]

54. Uh, are you a Republican?

Simple question. What are your political beliefs?

[northzax]

57. why yes, I am

I've spent almost three years of my time, and several hundred dollars in donations, building up to 4000 posts, simply so I could suggest that those people unwilling to take responsibility for violating an oath to the Consitition are cowardly. you've sussed me out. nice work.

[ShaneGR]

60. You kind of seem like one

Are you sure you haven't stolen someone elses account? Is the true owner away at work?

[northzax]

64. really? where have I sounded like a republican?

when I quoted the Constitution? or the charter of the UN? or cited the principles of civil disobediance as laid down by Thereou, Ghandi and Dr. King?

or when I stated that I respected those who were willing to pay a price for their beliefs?

if that makes me a republican, bring on the Elephants.

by the way, I was making the exact same arguements when soldiers were refusing duty in Kosovo under President Clinton.

As for any statements defending Bush, at this time he is my President. I will not be the asshole who only listens to Presidents I agree with. When he issues a lawful order, I will follow it. I have also dedicated my life to ensuring that, come January 21, 2004, there is a President in office who I can respect. But I will only encourage that through completely lawful means.

[ShaneGR]

77. Uh, you kind of sounded like one right there........

But I'll provide another quote (And pick it apart in bold).

This war is completely legal under our constitution. Under the War Powers Act, which has been repeatedly upheld, the President must ask Congress for permission to commit troops only after 90 days have passed. This President actually asked for permission before combat even began. Actually, since he used faulty intelligence to bully the congress into the vote, I would hardly call this legal. The Congress gave him that authorization. Therefore, the order to enter Iraq, and the order to occupy it are completely legal. Like I said, perhaps if the justification for the war had been factual, but unfortunately Herr Bush decided to start making things up. So no go. Please note that the moral or ethical decisions are not in their purview. They took an oath to the Consitution. They took an oath to defend the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it say they are to fight when their president lies. The Constitution says that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Services. If the Commander in Chief, or his representatives, gives you a lawful order Not lawful, based on false evidence. This has been proven.(we've already discussed why it's lawful and constitutional) then disobeying that order is an illegal act, one that flaunts the Constitution. Technically it's illegal to send a country off to wars for personal gain, based on lies... but who's counting! And oh yeah, technically it is illegal to leak the name of covert CIA operatives too... but who's counting that? The military in this country is under civilian leadership. Do you know what you have when the military doesn't listen to lawful orders from the civilian leadership of the country? a military coup. you really want that? Not really, that's why it's pretty important to put Bush on his ass in 04.

[northzax]

79. wow, I had no idea

that Ghandi and Dr. King would be modern day republicans.

You can say that Congress failed to use due diligence (certainly true) and that their incompetance and unwillingness to stand up for what's right has cost soldier's lives, and I'd agree with you. The fact remains that, with the exception of the laughable Niger documents (discredited BEFORE the war) the best evidence at the time said that Saddam Hussein was pursuing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. You can argue about whether or not this was a good reason to go to war with Iraq (it wasn't, in my opinion) you can argue about whether or not Iraq was a threat to the US (it wasn't, IMHO) But the facts, as best we knew them, most of them collected under a Democratic Presidency, were on the table. Everyone saw them. Congress saw them. Congress chose to authorise a war based on those facts. That was, in my opinion, a mistake, but Congress was certainly within their legal, constitutionally granted, rights to do so. And just because something is proven after the fact to be based on incorrect evidence, doesn't mean the instruction was unlawful to begin with. Just because you don't like something, just because it is morally indefensible from my perspective, doesn't make it illegal.

Ambassador Wilson's wife is completely irrelevant to this discussionl.

And, just in case you didn't bother to read that entire paragraph, a summary: 1: I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. 2: I believe we currently have no choice but to rebuild Iraq as best we can. I firmly believe in the 'you break it, you fix it' school of thought. just because it was a bad idea to break something, doesn't mean we aren't responsible for fixing it. 3: I do not believe that the invasion and occupation of Iraq are the end of the United States of America as we know it. I believe the Constitution and our quasi-representative form of government can, and will, correct the errors of the past few years. I want this country in the best possible shape when a Democrat takes over January 21, 2004. Mass desertions from the Military, and the accompanying breakdown in discipline and abilities, will not help accomplish that.

Bush is an asshole and a coward. That doesn't excuse anyone else from being one as well.

[LalahLand]

76. OJ is Innocent!!

Cleared by a jury of his peers. Hey, thats the way our system works :-)

[joe_sixpack]

58. Second thoughts

I thought the idea of sending troops back to the states for R and R for the first time during a war was a good idea initially. But after talking to other military members I'm not so sure. The stress of having to go back to that hell hole might outweigh the short two week rest. Especially if you found out your family was having a difficult time of it while you were gone.

[Clark Can WIN]

66. I'd "miss" my freakin flight too

Pretty sure I'd "accidentally find myself on a flight to Mazatlan, or someplace where the dollar stretches till the next election.

[DrFunkenstein]

73. Rush Got A Deferral For An Anal Cyst. As For Bush...

Bush lost his flying privileges when he refused to take a med exam with a drug test.

<>