These brave men and women are broken. The forces we use to protect ourselves are falling apart. Thanks chimpy and dick. Thanks for shitting all over what was the greatest country on the face of the planet. These guys cannot be allowed to walk free.

"War bill helps Iraqis, may ignore Katrina victims":

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080608/ap_on_re_us/iraq_katrina;_ylt=AvpmsU...

Unity fist pound dawg.

Geez.

Wow... that's just... wow. I don't think I can come up with words...

The only thing I can think of is how much worse it would (will) be with a military draft.

someone should sent this to the McCain people and ask them why this is happening?

john @ 7:

someone should sent this to the McCain people and ask them why this is happening?

You mean the McCain "lobbyist team"?

If a guy is conscripted into the military against his will it might be possible to justify self-inflicted wounds to avoid service. However, when a guy volunteers for military duty and then decides to turn tail when the going gets tough...he deserves to get bitch-slapped by a reincarnated General George Patton.

orca @ 12:

If a guy is conscripted into the military against his will it might be possible to justify self-inflicted wounds to avoid service. However, when a guy volunteers for military duty and then decides to turn tail when the going gets tough...he deserves to get bitch-slapped by a reincarnated General George Patton.

Yeah, I agree. Especially after serving "only" 3 or 4 tours of duty in Iraq. Boy,
do we have a bunch of whimps serving in our voluntary army..

orca @ 12:

If a guy is conscripted into the military against his will it might be possible to justify self-inflicted wounds to avoid service. However, when a guy volunteers for military duty and then decides to turn tail when the going gets tough...he deserves to get bitch-slapped by a reincarnated General George Patton.

this ignores the larger reality, imho

yes, we have an "all volunteer" armed forces, but this misleading, as some see service as their only hope, due to economic reasons (among other reasons).

and the "going gets tough" is an unfair assessment of repeated tours, stop-loss, and all the clusterfucks the bush admin has cursed the troops with

15 marko Says: goat hussein sage @ 1:

Too bad they can’t turn their anger and fear against the spineless men and women who sent them to the Middle East in the first place based upon greed and a pack of lies.

they could!!!! wouldn’t a massive veterans march on washington be sweet!!! they could set up a tent city on the mall. they

could blockade the whitehouse and congress, they could tie up all the pizza delivery places and then congress WOULD shut down!!

Are you suggesting another bonus army?

The WH would find another mcarthur.

stop harming yourselves & start harming your commanding officers.
Anti-war actions at home had less to do with ending the Vietnam war than "fragging".
Once the consequences of issuing illegal & immoral orders are clear, the ruling class will see that finding individuals to issue them will become much more difficult.

orca @ 12:

If a guy is conscripted into the military against his will it might be possible to justify self-inflicted wounds to avoid service. However, when a guy volunteers for military duty and then decides to turn tail when the going gets tough...he deserves to get bitch-slapped by a reincarnated General George Patton.

Careful gang - tough guy in the house.

I was hoping that more soldiers would use less harmful ways of getting out of there, like the guy who shot at the Koran. Nothing against the muslim religion. If shooting a Bible would get them out of there, I'd be all for that as well.

This is really sad, but it makes perfect sense. I you are 11bravo (infantry) and headed to Iraq, or worse yet BACK to Iraq.....a bullet in the leg, a torn archilles, a damaged spine ....ALL are better than being dead or missing arms and legs.

I never considered this before, but it does make perfect sense. Sad. What are they fighting for??......nothing but their own lives. Sad.

IMPEACH these sons of bitches in the White House...NOW !!!!

My first husband shot himself in the big toe to keep from going to 'Nam. It must've worked.

PLO @ 11:

And that senile geezer McCain says providing them with an education is "too generous". Disgusting.

The fact that he's collecting a $58,000/year TAX-FREE disability payment from the gov't is more disgusting.

A scene at the end of PLATOON: A young soldier shoots himself in the foot in the aftermath of an incredibly vicious firefight that lasted nearly the entire night.

I can't imagine what these people are going through on a daily basis.

the shrub at the top and his wannabe clone are beyond words.

So this is the result of winning a war? McCain says the surge is working and we are winning. Winning what?

pissed off patricia @ 37:

So this is the result of winning a war? McCain says the surge is working and we are winning. Winning what?

occupation of a land rich in crude

Seriously though, as a vet, I do find the act of self-inflicted wounds to be cowardly, shameful, and borderline criminal. I do sympathize with these guys and hope and pray all our troops will be home very, very soon. However, as much as one may hate this war or their duty station, each of them swore to defend the constitution and obey the president (even though he is a complete arsehole). When I was on active duty, I would have never willing abandoned my brothers and sisters and would have expected the same from them. By taking yourself out of the war, that means a replacement will be required. This replacement may be less capable, less trained, and less seasoned...hence, the replacement can adversely effect the team, unit, squad, etc. The actions of one does indeed effect others.

Samson- @ 16:

orca @ 12:

If a guy is conscripted into the military against his will it might be possible to justify self-inflicted wounds to avoid service. However, when a guy volunteers for military duty and then decides to turn tail when the going gets tough...he deserves to get bitch-slapped by a reincarnated General George Patton.

this ignores the larger reality, imho

yes, we have an "all volunteer" armed forces, but this misleading, as some see service as their only hope, due to economic reasons (among other reasons).

and the "going gets tough" is an unfair assessment of repeated tours, stop-loss, and all the clusterfucks the bush admin has cursed the troops with

these volunteers were also told that they were going to be fighting/dying for freedom and to keep their homeland safe, not for halliburton and to privatize iraqi oil . . . so add feeling used to the clusterfuck

I was driving through rural Pennsylvania this past weekend and spotted a cemetery with a big flashy sign next to the road with stars and stripes on it announcing "Now with an expanded Veterans section". The bright happy look of the sign was very odd against its message, but then again, this was rural PA where death is celebrated and even wished for.
There's certainly no shortage of evangelical and Baptist churches that wish at every service for the wiping out of the entire planet because they think it'll bring the dead back to life.

orca @ 12:

If a guy is conscripted into the military against his will it might be possible to justify self-inflicted wounds to avoid service. However, when a guy volunteers for military duty and then decides to turn tail when the going gets tough...he deserves to get bitch-slapped by a reincarnated General George Patton.

So you are saying that these men are out of order.
YOUR WHOLE DAMNED SYSTEM IS OUT OF ORDER!
A man at 18 turns himself over to the war machine; his mind is not static and he does not relinquish to his commanders his morality. He continues to learn and grow. He will, with time & experience, find himself no more the enemy of the common fellow he has been sent to destroy, not withstanding some small differences in language or appearance.
"But he has signed a contract. He pledged to serve..." you will say.
In the interest of full disclosure I will admit that I can respect so such contract as binding when 1 party is a single man with only himself at his disposal & the other is the awesome edifice of the States' standing army: Were the most equitable of terms negotiated for him by a well organized soldiers' union? Was he able to fully consider all the eventualities and fine print of this contract before signing up for his "hitch"? If not I view this compact as having never been binding.
Granting that this pledge is enforceable (which i don't but most do), is it not an oath to "Defend the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic"? If so, it is not the soldier refusing orders that is breaking the oath, but the commanders sending them to defend nothing of the United States', but to take the offense in an aggressive war against a people that never had even the capacity to harm the United States. That simple truth, confirmed by recent congressional report, completely flips this subject. Those refusing "service" in Iraq are carrying out not only the spirit but the letter of their obligation, any that continue in the commission of that crime war have broken theirs.

Onward to the International Socialist Revolution!
NO STANDING ARMY BUT THE ARMED PEOPLE!

God bless our soldiers and please bring them home ASAP.

Dr. (terrorist fist jab) Matt @ 41:

Seriously though, as a vet, I do find the act of self-inflicted wounds to be cowardly, shameful, and borderline criminal. I do sympathize with these guys and hope and pray all our troops will be home very, very soon. However, as much as one may hate this war or their duty station, each of them swore to defend the constitution and obey the president (even though he is a complete arsehole). When I was on active duty, I would have never willing abandoned my brothers and sisters and would have expected the same from them. By taking yourself out of the war, that means a replacement will be required. This replacement may be less capable, less trained, and less seasoned...hence, the replacement can adversely effect the team, unit, squad, etc. The actions of one does indeed effect others.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you took the same oath that I took those many years ago, it was to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States NOT the president NOR the military NOR to anyone's friends in the military. I strongly suggest that you rent or purchase the powerful 2006 documentary Sir! No Sir! or David Cortright's classic work Soldiers In Revolt, which told the story of the GI movement during the Vietnam conflict. If you were to view Sir! No Sir! [In all likelihood, it should be available at Netflix], you would hear former Green Beret [that is correct, a former Green Beret] Donald Duncan state that:

"The problem I had was realizing that what I was doing was not good. I was doing it right but I wasn't doing right."

As director of Sir! No Sir! David Zeiger has said about the soldiers:

They "are just as capable as anyone of knowing right from wrong."

You can wave that flag all you want but it does not disguise the fact that those in the military did not leave their brains behind in the civilian world. As the closing lines of Bertolt Brecht's poem, General, Your Tank Is a Powerful Vehicle, makes clear:

General, man is very useful.
He can fly and he can kill.
but he has one defect:
He can think.

And that is the one thing that the higher-ups in the military are most terrified of, that, despite what you seem to believe, those in the military most certainly can think and to challenge and to question and, as Sir! No Sir! demonstrated, to defy any illegal orders that they are given [which the UCMJ, sections 809, 891 and 892, says that they can do, which is to obey only lawful orders].

Soldiers resist!- by saying NO to the U.S. war machine.

Erroll @ 54:

Dr. (terrorist fist jab) Matt @ 41:

Seriously though, as a vet, I do find the act of self-inflicted wounds to be cowardly, shameful, and borderline criminal. I do sympathize with these guys and hope and pray all our troops will be home very, very soon. However, as much as one may hate this war or their duty station, each of them swore to defend the constitution and obey the president (even though he is a complete arsehole). When I was on active duty, I would have never willing abandoned my brothers and sisters and would have expected the same from them. By taking yourself out of the war, that means a replacement will be required. This replacement may be less capable, less trained, and less seasoned...hence, the replacement can adversely effect the team, unit, squad, etc. The actions of one does indeed effect others.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you took the same oath that I took those many years ago, it was to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States NOT the president NOR the military NOR to anyone's friends in the military. .

You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong,

"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."

58 Doggiebobo

Stanley Milgram wanted to prove the Nazis and war-time Germany was an abberration. So at Yale University where he taught, he set up an experiment where volunteer students would be asked questions and for every wrong answer volunteer professors would shock them. They would be directed by the experimenters to increase the shocks, all the while the students were screaming and spasming violently.

The students were in on the experiments. They were faking being electrically shocked, although there was plenty of Strickfadden equipement about to add to the illusion. The professors turning the knobs increasing the "shocks" were not. They thought the shocks were real. Not one of the professors refused to shock a student or increase the power, but one who was a Nazi death camp survivor.

Milgram's conclusion was that Western Education creates an entire population of order followers, and authority pleasers, and that the Nazi's weren't unique.

But it backfired on Milgram however, because the University became liable to the professors psychological care expense, and made full disclosure to all parties what the purpose of an experiment is.

And made full disclosure to all parties what the purpose of an experiment is a legal requirement.

ysbaddaden @ 62:

And to get back to the topic of the thread, those who can look at such photographs and read reports of such desperation, and call them simple killers and thugs, are no better than when told how much the public was against the war chainey responded, "So?"

We concur totally and completely...

They are following the lead of their president, who said he would blow out his eardrum rather than go to Nam. But then Daddy got him that slot in the Guard....

Doggiebobo @ 64:

ysbaddaden@62: By the way, rather devasating fire at the Gov. Mansion here
in Austin wasn't it?

I read about it this morning. Frankly, I'm not sure why we have one. The Lt. Governor is the real power in Austin, because he sets the agenda for the Legislature. And the legislature is biannual, so they're all in Austin only every other year.

I wish presidents and governors had Number 10's instead, but I suppose as figurative heads of state they need something approaching a castle to maintain a certain air of authority and import.

#57

What you conveniently overlooked was my referencing the UCMJ, specifically sections 809, 891, 892, which, again, state that military personnel have not only a right but a duty and an obligation to only obey Lawful orders and, as Professor Lawrence Mosqueda of The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wa. has pointed out, they indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. As Prof. Mosqueda notes, "The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ."

During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. As Innoye made clear: "The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' Senator Inouye went on to say that "This principle was considered so important that we-we, the government of the United States, proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials."

Senator Inouye was referring to the Nuremberg trials in the post WW II era, when the U.S. tried Nazi war criminals and did not allow them to use the reason or excuse that they were only "following orders" as a defense for their war crimes which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent men, women, and children. In 1953, the Department of Defense adopted the principles of the Nuremberg Code as official policy of the United States.

One really expects to see such patriotic outbursts from a neoconservative or U.S. army web site instead of on a liberal blog. Thankfully, there are people such as those in the IVAW who do recognize that their duty is first to the Constitution instead of to the bogus orders that they were given by their chickenhawk president.

I pulled Mess Duty while stationed in Okinawa in the late 1980s and one day a big. strapping, grunt that got stuck in the Pot Shack with me hit his breaking point and gave himself a nice and deep gash on his hand.

In addition to the malingering charge he got hit with they also got him under 'causing destruction of Government Property.'

Please bear in mind that this was in peace-time, I can only imagine what the mentality has been among the Federal Military Contractors for the last few years during our dual occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan..

~Nyc

Erroll you conveniently overlooked the facts, my original statement, and that I was 100% correct.

Try again.....but you are going to fail again....

My statement: However, as much as one may hate this war or their duty station, each of them swore to defend the constitution and obey the president (even though he is a complete arsehole).

The Oath: “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.”

You only look like the fool attempting to refute these simple facts. But, you appear to be simpleton so far, so it's not a big surprise.

Face it, you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.............

66 Nyc La Brets

The Air Force brass was not pleased when airmen got tattoos and especially if they got infected and required treatment, under the damaging government property clause.

goat hussein sage @ 1:

Too bad they can't turn their anger and fear against the spineless men and women who sent them to the Middle East in the first place based upon greed and a pack of lies.

Why can't they? Why can't they simply sit down and refuse to go? Why can't they take that fear and miserable dread of returning to a pointless and illegal war and rather than take it out on themselves, simply refuse to do their duty? If enough of them used their heads and rejected that silly flag waving, God and Country baloney they are being force fed perhaps our leaders would be forced to take a better look at their decisions to send these people into war. Until that happens, I am not interested in any more "pity the poor troops" stories.

Doggiebobo @ 63:

karl @ 66:

there is a lot of borderline mental illness in this country some of these people join the service......and all that does exacerbate there illness......it's terrible and all of us will be paying for many years to come. the ones that don't receive treatment have the potential to commit serious crimes....some of these soldiers aren't recognized so they take it upon themselves to be recognized by a criminal act

Are you aware that before being qualified and accepted in any branch of the military
service, certain phycological tests are given in order to ascertain mental and physical
stability...so seriously question your view that many with "mental illness join the service."

ead my statement again dr.freud ...borderline mental illness....that gets exacerbated.......yes I'm aware I severed....these are people that undetectable at the time

71 innocent bystander

Actually the presumption is that the president wouldn't make an unconstitutional order, since he's bound by his own oath to uphold upon being sworn into office.

The same is true for all officers who also swear to uphold the constitution.

The illegal orders should be illegal prima facie, not based on mere disagreements.

Prosecutions should go from the top down, not the bottom up.

Otherwise it's like prosecuting the druggie or the pusher, but never pursuing the money-man or the importer.

I forgot to mention that in boosh's case he's been using the Constitution as just suggestions, with almost unlimited implied powers.

Funny thing is the constitution doesn't mention such implied powers, or balances it out with the other branches.

karl @ 72:

Doggiebobo @ 63:

karl @ 66:

there is a lot of borderline mental illness in this country some of these people join the service......and all that does exacerbate there illness......it's terrible and all of us will be paying for many years to come. the ones that don't receive treatment have the potential to commit serious crimes....some of these soldiers aren't recognized so they take it upon themselves to be recognized by a criminal act

Are you aware that before being qualified and accepted in any branch of the military
service, certain phycological tests are given in order to ascertain mental and physical
stability...so seriously question your view that many with "mental illness join the service."

ead my statement again dr.freud ...borderline mental illness....that gets exacerbated.......yes I'm aware I severed....these are people that undetectable at the time

They're not that extensive, it's like they ask, "Have you ever considered suicide?" You answer, "No," and they move on.

ysbaddaden @ 78:

karl @ 72:

Doggiebobo @ 63:

karl @ 66:
Are you aware that before being qualified and accepted in any branch of the military
service, certain phycological tests are given in order to ascertain mental and physical
stability...so seriously question your view that many with "mental illness join the service."

ead my statement again dr.freud ...borderline mental illness....that gets exacerbated.......yes I'm aware I severed....these are people that undetectable at the time

They're not that extensive, it's like they ask, "Have you ever considered suicide?" You answer, "No," and they move on.

yeah......it's not the MMPI they don't care they need ill people also ...Abu Ghraib

Doggiebobo @ 81:

ysbaddaden @ 78:

karl @ 72:

Doggiebobo @ 63:
ead my statement again dr.freud ...borderline mental illness....that gets exacerbated.......yes I'm aware I severed....these are people that undetectable at the time

They're not that extensive, it's like they ask, "Have you ever considered suicide?" You answer, "No," and they move on.

It's more extensive than that...They ask "Sex" and if you put down Male/Female
all is o.k., but if you say "Yes, and as frequently as possible", you undergo further
evaluation/testing.

I put down, "Yes, please."

Doggiebobo @ 63:

karl @ 66:

there is a lot of borderline mental illness in this country some of these people join the service......and all that does exacerbate there illness......it's terrible and all of us will be paying for many years to come. the ones that don't receive treatment have the potential to commit serious crimes....some of these soldiers aren't recognized so they take it upon themselves to be recognized by a criminal act

Are you aware that before being qualified and accepted in any branch of the military
service, certain phycological tests are given in order to ascertain mental and physical
stability...so seriously question your view that many with "mental illness join the service."

Don't you all know that we are all in some way or form mental unstable. Don't trust the numbers that are provided by doctors, but look at the outcome of mistreated or undiagnosed issues. Seriously, troops are headstrong and don't want to be identified as weak because they have some mental illness. How embarrassing as a soldier! This may be somewhat off topic, but doctors have to quit trying to push people through so fast and just give drugs without actually diagnosing the root of the problem. This is truly a corporate market now that these drugs are being pushed off onto soldiers.

Doggiebobo @ 83:

ysbaddaden @ 82:

Doggiebobo @ 81:

ysbaddaden @ 78:
It's more extensive than that...They ask "Sex" and if you put down Male/Female
all is o.k., but if you say "Yes, and as frequently as possible", you undergo further
evaluation/testing.

I put down, "Yes, please."

I had to put down "No, not recently" since I was entrapped for a week in Ft. Bliss.

Hell, I don't even remember mine. musta been all that weed I took along with me.

mudshark @ 86:

Doggiebobo @ 83:

ysbaddaden @ 82:

Doggiebobo @ 81:

I put down, "Yes, please."

I had to put down "No, not recently" since I was entrapped for a week in Ft. Bliss.

Hell, I don't even remember mine. musta been all that weed I took along with me.

LMAO...

ysbaddaden @ 74:

71 innocent bystander

Actually the presumption is that the president wouldn't make an unconstitutional order, since he's bound by his own oath to uphold upon being sworn into office.

The same is true for all officers who also swear to uphold the constitution.

The illegal orders should be illegal prima facie, not based on mere disagreements.

Prosecutions should go from the top down, not the bottom up.

Otherwise it's like prosecuting the druggie or the pusher, but never pursuing the money-man or the importer.

What you fail to address is what happens when that "presumption", as you put it, turns out to be false, if and when the president does indeed "make an unconstitutional order"? Are those in the military then bound to obey those unlawful orders? As my comment at #62 should have made abundantly clear, they are not. If you and commenter #66 do not believe this, then both of seem to be pretending that the GI movement did not happen during the Vietnam conflict or the stand that the IVAW has taken is taking place today.

It seems that every day I keep saying this but yet the flag waving liberals refuse to take my suggestion of renting or purchasing the 2006 documentary Sir! No Sir!, which chronicled the story of the GI movement during the Vietnam conflict. To see this film is to then understand not only how but why these soldiers did what they did. It also adds validity and legitimacy to the courageous acts that they performed during those traumatic times. Otherwise, what you are basically saying is that soldiers do not have the right to speak out, but Sir! No Sir! and the book Soldiers in Revolt persuasively makes the case that those in the military certainly have a right to question and to challenge and even to disobey their superiors when they have been lied to and ended up killing millions of innocent Vietnamese and Iraqi and Afghani people.

orca @ 12:

If a guy is conscripted into the military against his will it might be possible to justify self-inflicted wounds to avoid service. However, when a guy volunteers for military duty and then decides to turn tail when the going gets tough...he deserves to get bitch-slapped by a reincarnated General George Patton.

So true. Let's blame the troops for the 6 years of cluster-fucked strategy. I completely agree it's the troops fault their traitor in chief lied them into a war and then found it more lucrative to give his friends hundreds of billions of dollars in no bid war contracts. Oh, by the way, this is the same traitor that got his daddy to convert his hard time in Viet Nam into a holiday snorting coke off a prostitutes ass in the flight clubs back room back in Texas.

You must be one of those guys who served next to Kerry when he got his silver star then swift boated him for a case of Lone Star. More than likely, you never served anything other than a Big Mac.

Dr. (terrorist fist jab) Matt @ 50:

Erroll @ 54:

Dr. (terrorist fist jab) Matt @ 41:

Seriously though, as a vet, I do find the act of self-inflicted wounds to be cowardly, shameful, and borderline criminal. I do sympathize with these guys and hope and pray all our troops will be home very, very soon. However, as much as one may hate this war or their duty station, each of them swore to defend the constitution and obey the president (even though he is a complete arsehole). When I was on active duty, I would have never willing abandoned my brothers and sisters and would have expected the same from them. By taking yourself out of the war, that means a replacement will be required. This replacement may be less capable, less trained, and less seasoned...hence, the replacement can adversely effect the team, unit, squad, etc. The actions of one does indeed effect others.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you took the same oath that I took those many years ago, it was to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States NOT the president NOR the military NOR to anyone's friends in the military. .

You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong,

"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."

I'll assume the above is an accurate quote of the vow (It's been awhile since I swore it). Notice that supporting and defending the Constitution is the first thing, the ultimate goal. Obeying the orders of officials is assumed to be how the Constitution will be defended. But what should a soldier do when it becomes clear that the president and officers are intentionally subverting the Constitution?

Defending the Constitution comes first. George Bush and his cronies have by their acts become domestic enemies of the US Constitution, actively subverting several of the most important Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Under current circumstances, refusing to go to Iraq (an illegal war) is defending the US Constitution.

ysbaddaden @ 95:

When you have a gang of thugs writing up legal memos justifying torture, and unlimited war-time powers for the commander-in-chief and y'all would expect some kid fresh out of high school, if that, to untangle what is legal and what's illegal, what is constitutional and what isn't constitutional?

I had mentioned this on another post a few days ago but I think that it bears repeating. If a person who has been in the military say, five or six years, or just recently joined, and does not think to ask him or herself if the United States military has any business being either in Iraq or in Afghanistan, where it is terrorizing the citizens of those countries, then I submit that those people must be amazingly uninformed, terribly stupid, or incredibly indifferent to the plight of the Iraqi and Afghani people. If they simply believe that whatever the United States tells them is true, then they are really blinded and fooled by their superpatriotism. Of course this nation's leaders are responsible for dragging this country into illegally invading two third world countries. But to attempt to argue that the soldiers are to be left off their hook for their actions strikes me as being extremely disingenuous. As the director of Sir! No Sir!, David Zeiger, correctly observed:

[The soldiers] "are just as capable as anyone of knowing right from wrong", especially when they see innocent Iraqis' doors being smashed into and Iraqis being shot at checkpoints.

Erroll @ 90:

ysbaddaden @ 74:

71 innocent bystander

Actually the presumption is that the president wouldn't make an unconstitutional order, since he's bound by his own oath to uphold upon being sworn into office.

The same is true for all officers who also swear to uphold the constitution.

The illegal orders should be illegal prima facie, not based on mere disagreements.

Prosecutions should go from the top down, not the bottom up.

Otherwise it's like prosecuting the druggie or the pusher, but never pursuing the money-man or the importer.

What you fail to address is what happens when that "presumption", as you put it, turns out to be false, if and when the president does indeed "make an unconstitutional order"? Are those in the military then bound to obey those unlawful orders? As my comment at #62 should have made abundantly clear, they are not. If you and commenter #66 do not believe this, then both of seem to be pretending that the GI movement did not happen during the Vietnam conflict or the stand that the IVAW has taken is taking place today.

It seems that every day I keep saying this but yet the flag waving liberals refuse to take my suggestion of renting or purchasing the 2006 documentary Sir! No Sir!, which chronicled the story of the GI movement during the Vietnam conflict. To see this film is to then understand not only how but why these soldiers did what they did. It also adds validity and legitimacy to the courageous acts that they performed during those traumatic times. Otherwise, what you are basically saying is that soldiers do not have the right to speak out, but Sir! No Sir! and the book Soldiers in Revolt persuasively makes the case that those in the military certainly have a right to question and to challenge and even to disobey their superiors when they have been lied to and ended up killing millions of innocent Vietnamese and Iraqi and Afghani people.

and soldiers, like all persons of conscience, have the choice to disobey orders and accept punishment when they cannot at the time make out a prima facie case against their superiors . . . history is full of people in all walks of life who refused to follow the legally-sanctified order and were prosecuted and reviled by their contemporaries (the german officers who to plotted to assassinate hitler paid with their lives!) but vindicated by history

the alternative is to continue committing acts that you believe to be wrong and then live with the consequences, whether they are just in your head or at the hague

innocent bystander @ 98:

Erroll @ 90:

ysbaddaden @ 74:

71 innocent bystander

Actually the presumption is that the president wouldn't make an unconstitutional order, since he's bound by his own oath to uphold upon being sworn into office.

The same is true for all officers who also swear to uphold the constitution.

The illegal orders should be illegal prima facie, not based on mere disagreements.

Prosecutions should go from the top down, not the bottom up.

Otherwise it's like prosecuting the druggie or the pusher, but never pursuing the money-man or the importer.

What you fail to address is what happens when that "presumption", as you put it, turns out to be false, if and when the president does indeed "make an unconstitutional order"? Are those in the military then bound to obey those unlawful orders? As my comment at #62 should have made abundantly clear, they are not. If you and commenter #66 do not believe this, then both of seem to be pretending that the GI movement did not happen during the Vietnam conflict or the stand that the IVAW has taken is taking place today.

It seems that every day I keep saying this but yet the flag waving liberals refuse to take my suggestion of renting or purchasing the 2006 documentary Sir! No Sir!, which chronicled the story of the GI movement during the Vietnam conflict. To see this film is to then understand not only how but why these soldiers did what they did. It also adds validity and legitimacy to the courageous acts that they performed during those traumatic times. Otherwise, what you are basically saying is that soldiers do not have the right to speak out, but Sir! No Sir! and the book Soldiers in Revolt persuasively makes the case that those in the military certainly have a right to question and to challenge and even to disobey their superiors when they have been lied to and ended up killing millions of innocent Vietnamese and Iraqi and Afghani people.

and soldiers, like all persons of conscience, have the choice to disobey orders and accept punishment when they cannot at the time make out a prima facie case against their superiors . . . history is full of people in all walks of life who refused to follow the legally-sanctified order and were prosecuted and reviled by their contemporaries (the german officers who to plotted to assassinate hitler paid with their lives!) but vindicated by history

the alternative is to continue committing acts that you believe to be wrong and then live with the consequences, whether they are just in your head or at the hague

You bring up an interesting point about what soldiers should do. I would ask the same question of you. Would you be willing to stop paying your taxes because they pay for an illegal war? Would you risk prison, your job, your home and the well being of your family? Before you start judging others about what they would do, you need to ask yourself the same question.

100-diamondmc

What about those in the military who said NO, at or near military bases, both at home and abroad, during the Vietnam conflict? Should they be condemned because they dared to challenge the military and the government? On the contrary, they should be praised for taking the courageous positions that they did. You ask "Would you risk prison, your job, your home and the well being of your family?" But this is what those in the GI movement did and many indeed went to prison for their beliefs. I noted earlier the observation of David Zeiger, who directed Sir! No Sir!, who said:

[The soldiers] are just as capable as anyone of knowing right from wrong." Those words resonate just as powerfully today as they did some forty odd years ago.

Soldiers RESIST! by saying NO to the U.S. war machine.

For the record, the photo of the wounded soldiers you incuded in this post is from the Persian Gulf War. I do think if you are going to write a post specifically about the Iraq War that you ought not to use images from other conflicts. Also for the record, I am a diehard, anti-war, Democrat (and also and Iraq War vet); I just think it seems a bit disingenuous to use photos from other wars (as if the current one hasn't generated enough heartbreaking images of it's own)...

Erroll @ 105:

Diamondmc

I am not sure if this will answer your question but I will say that I suffer tremendous guilt for not having disobeyed the orders that I was given those many years ago while stationed in Vietnam. I believe that is called PTSD today. I do not know how much more trauma you believe that I should have to endure for not having spoken out. I am trying in my own little way to make up for that by offering support for those who have the courage and the awareness that I did not have when I was in Vietnam. That is why I believe that those who should be honored are not the ones who blindly went along with obeying, and are still obeying, illegal orders but rather those who understood that they could not in good conscience go along with those unlawful orders that they were then and are now given today, again, by their government.

Look, I also served in that fucked up war, but what I am saying is, its so easy to tell other people what they should do when you yourself are not willing to do the same thing. I wish all soldiers would lay down their arms and say no. I wish all Americans would stop paying their taxes which fund this war, but since I myself am unwilling to do that, I will not tell someone else to make that move. Talk is cheap when there is no threat to your way of life.

diamondmc @ 106:

Erroll @ 105:

Diamondmc

I am not sure if this will answer your question but I will say that I suffer tremendous guilt for not having disobeyed the orders that I was given those many years ago while stationed in Vietnam. I believe that is called PTSD today. I do not know how much more trauma you believe that I should have to endure for not having spoken out. I am trying in my own little way to make up for that by offering support for those who have the courage and the awareness that I did not have when I was in Vietnam. That is why I believe that those who should be honored are not the ones who blindly went along with obeying, and are still obeying, illegal orders but rather those who understood that they could not in good conscience go along with those unlawful orders that they were then and are now given today, again, by their government.

Look, I also served in that fucked up war, but what I am saying is, its so easy to tell other people what they should do when you yourself are not willing to do the same thing. I wish all soldiers would lay down their arms and say no. I wish all Americans would stop paying their taxes which fund this war, but since I myself am unwilling to do that, I will not tell someone else to make that move. Talk is cheap when there is no threat to your way of life.

Let us be clear about this, shall we? Your argument makes absolutely no sense at all. It would seem, that according to your less than rational statements, that those members in the IVAW and/or the VVAW would somehow resent those people who have not been to jail for their beliefs. I belong to the VVAW and it would seem, according to you, that they should not allow me in if I did not go to prison for not speaking out. That, of course, is not the case just as the IVAW does not look down upon those veterans who have not spent time in prison, like Camilo Mejia and Kevin Benderman. On the contrary, both organizations welcome those veterans who are speaking out against U.S. aggression regardless of whether they have been incarcerated or not.

So please do not try to hand me this garbage that I or anyone else do not have the right to speak out and to urge those in the military to speak out, especially, as I have mentioned, since the VVAW and the IVAW do not have a requirement that one must end up behind bars before one can protest or that one must stop paying one's taxes before one can challenge the government. Despite your fascist attitude, you simply do not have the right to claim that I cannot urge soldiers not to desert and not to allow themselves to be used as cannon fodder. Robert Fantina has written an important book called Desertion and The American Soldier 1776-2006. If he has not been in the military, are you going to try and claim that he does not have the right to state his beliefs in this book or that I should not support what he has written? Whatever credibility you may have had has been swept aside and revealed to be as transparent and insubstantial as gossamer wings.

Erroll must be one of the republican elitists that is pushing this nonsense that troops don't deserve higher pay, or a guaranteed education, and helps write for George Bush's radio addresses. Blame it on the little man, that way the people that make the decisions go unabated to the end of their term.

Pawn @ 110:

Erroll must be one of the republican elitists that is pushing this nonsense that troops don't deserve higher pay, or a guaranteed education, and helps write for George Bush's radio addresses. Blame it on the little man, that way the people that make the decisions go unabated to the end of their term.

WRONG!
your name is fitting.

Erroll @ 108:

diamondmc @ 106:

Erroll @ 105:

Diamondmc

I am not sure if this will answer your question but I will say that I suffer tremendous guilt for not having disobeyed the orders that I was given those many years ago while stationed in Vietnam. I believe that is called PTSD today. I do not know how much more trauma you believe that I should have to endure for not having spoken out. I am trying in my own little way to make up for that by offering support for those who have the courage and the awareness that I did not have when I was in Vietnam. That is why I believe that those who should be honored are not the ones who blindly went along with obeying, and are still obeying, illegal orders but rather those who understood that they could not in good conscience go along with those unlawful orders that they were then and are now given today, again, by their government.

Look, I also served in that fucked up war, but what I am saying is, its so easy to tell other people what they should do when you yourself are not willing to do the same thing. I wish all soldiers would lay down their arms and say no. I wish all Americans would stop paying their taxes which fund this war, but since I myself am unwilling to do that, I will not tell someone else to make that move. Talk is cheap when there is no threat to your way of life.

Let us be clear about this, shall we? Your argument makes absolutely no sense at all. It would seem, that according to your less than rational statements, that those members in the IVAW and/or the VVAW would somehow resent those people who have not been to jail for their beliefs. I belong to the VVAW and it would seem, according to you, that they should not allow me in if I did not go to prison for not speaking out. That, of course, is not the case just as the IVAW does not look down upon those veterans who have not spent time in prison, like Camilo Mejia and Kevin Benderman. On the contrary, both organizations welcome those veterans who are speaking out against U.S. aggression regardless of whether they have been incarcerated or not.

So please do not try to hand me this garbage that I or anyone else do not have the right to speak out and to urge those in the military to speak out, especially, as I have mentioned, since the VVAW and the IVAW do not have a requirement that one must end up behind bars before one can protest or that one must stop paying one's taxes before one can challenge the government. Despite your fascist attitude, you simply do not have the right to claim that I cannot urge soldiers not to desert and not to allow themselves to be used as cannon fodder. Robert Fantina has written an important book called Desertion and The American Soldier 1776-2006. If he has not been in the military, are you going to try and claim that he does not have the right to state his beliefs in this book or that I should not support what he has written? Whatever credibility you may have had has been swept aside and revealed to be as transparent and insubstantial as gossamer wings.

I don't think you are speaking to me, because if you are you missed what I was saying. Please reread what I posted and maybe you will understand what I was saying. What I was trying to say is, that I would never degrade someone for not doing something that I myself would not do. To ask soldiers to lay down their arms and risk prison and destroy their families lives when you yourself are unwilling to take the same risks I find strange. I fully support the soldiers who have had the courage to make that stand,but would not dismiss anyone who couldn't. I was a squad leader in Vietnam in a grunt unit and I never asked anyone to do something that I myself wouldn't do. Also, I was a member of VVAW when I got back and never put anyone down for not doing what they thought they couldn't do.

ysbaddaden @ 115:

I'm home on my dial-up, so this might not make it.

This is all that's come through so far.

Type faster.

"I don't think you are speaking to me, because if you are you missed what I was saying. Please reread what I posted and maybe you will understand what I was saying. What I was trying to say is, that I would never degrade someone for not doing something that I myself would not do. To ask soldiers to lay down their arms and risk prison and destroy their families lives when you yourself are unwilling to take the same risks I find strange. I fully support the soldiers who have had the courage to make that stand,but would not dismiss anyone who couldn't. I was a squad leader in Vietnam in a grunt unit and I never asked anyone to do something that I myself wouldn't do. Also, I was a member of VVAW when I got back and never put anyone down for not doing what they thought they couldn't do."

Right On!

Oh and by the way, if some one started calling you names, I'd stick up for you too!

mudshark @ 119:

Pawn @ 118:

"I don't think you are speaking to me, because if you are you missed what I was saying. Please reread what I posted and maybe you will understand what I was saying. What I was trying to say is, that I would never degrade someone for not doing something that I myself would not do. To ask soldiers to lay down their arms and risk prison and destroy their families lives when you yourself are unwilling to take the same risks I find strange. I fully support the soldiers who have had the courage to make that stand,but would not dismiss anyone who couldn't. I was a squad leader in Vietnam in a grunt unit and I never asked anyone to do something that I myself wouldn't do. Also, I was a member of VVAW when I got back and never put anyone down for not doing what they thought they couldn't do."

Right On!

Look, I was responding to your ludicrous name calling at Erroll. He is a veteran just like you and deserves the same respect. You started the name calling so don't give me your sanctimonious crap.
oh by the way,
I'm a vet too.

Once again reread my posts and show me were I called Erroll any names? I asked him a simple question, hoping it might give him another viewpoint on the subject of how we look at soldiers and what they do or don't do when it comes to the actions of this illegal war.

To clarify, boosh orders were an act of sedition on his part, and impeachable offenses, but on the surface appear to be legal, that a soldier cannot disobey.

For one thing, it's a practical matter. You can't just throw down your weapon and walk away when you're tens of thousands of miles from home, and dependent on the military to get you back there, if you're lucky enough to survive.

And if foreign citizens can disappear into foreign prisons, so can US soldiers.

mudshark @ 123:

diamondmc @ 122:

mudshark @ 119:

Pawn @ 118:
Look, I was responding to your ludicrous name calling at Erroll. He is a veteran just like you and deserves the same respect. You started the name calling so don't give me your sanctimonious crap.
oh by the way,
I'm a vet too.

Once again reread my posts and show me were I called Erroll any names? I asked him a simple question, hoping it might give him another viewpoint on the subject of how we look at soldiers and what they do or don't do when it comes to the actions of this illegal war.

ooopppssss. Hi diamondmc. How you doin today?

I'm fine, thanks for asking.

diamondmc @ 126:

mudshark @ 123:

diamondmc @ 122:

mudshark @ 119:
Once again reread my posts and show me were I called Erroll any names? I asked him a simple question, hoping it might give him another viewpoint on the subject of how we look at soldiers and what they do or don't do when it comes to the actions of this illegal war.

ooopppssss. Hi diamondmc. How you doin today?

I'm fine, thanks for asking.

If I would have known it was you, I wouldn't have been so harsh.
You don't really want me to go up thread and quote that comment do you?

Pawn @ 129:

mudshark @ 119:

Pawn @ 118:

"I don't think you are speaking to me, because if you are you missed what I was saying. Please reread what I posted and maybe you will understand what I was saying. What I was trying to say is, that I would never degrade someone for not doing something that I myself would not do. To ask soldiers to lay down their arms and risk prison and destroy their families lives when you yourself are unwilling to take the same risks I find strange. I fully support the soldiers who have had the courage to make that stand,but would not dismiss anyone who couldn't. I was a squad leader in Vietnam in a grunt unit and I never asked anyone to do something that I myself wouldn't do. Also, I was a member of VVAW when I got back and never put anyone down for not doing what they thought they couldn't do."

Right On!

Look, I was responding to your ludicrous name calling at Erroll. He is a veteran just like you and deserves the same respect. You started the name calling so don't give me your sanctimonious crap.
oh by the way,
I'm a vet too.

This is a touchy subject for all. That wasn't a name a**hole, or anything else. I pointing out something that is based on prior debates that I've had with this individual and calling them based on action. What's ludicrous is putting all of this on the shoulders of the soldiers. I honor and am grateful to all that have served on behalf of this country, right or wrong. But the fact remains is that Erroll is not offering solutions and is further polarizing the issue. It it looks and tastes like an apple, it's an apple. Here's a link to our prior debate. Where did it go? What was accomplished? What was said that created a meeting of the minds on his behalf? How about mine? So when this same argument is made, and there is no giving, why do you continue arguing it but to further your frustration. With that being said, does it really come across as disrespectful to you? Was what I said disrespectful to those that served? I say not! I have a stepson in Afghanistan, and has served a tour in Iraq, and I've had this conversation with him. He is scared, and don't look at that as an option! Do you want to call him names for it? If you do, that is truly ludicrous?

Pawn @ 110:

Erroll must be one of the republican elitists that is pushing this nonsense that troops don't deserve higher pay, or a guaranteed education, and helps write for George Bush's radio addresses. Blame it on the little man, that way the people that make the decisions go unabated to the end of their term.

This is what I'm talkin about. This is bullshit and we all know it. diamondmc, sorry bud. my mistake.I got you confused with this comment.

mudshark @ 130:

Pawn @ 129:

mudshark @ 119:

Pawn @ 118:
Look, I was responding to your ludicrous name calling at Erroll. He is a veteran just like you and deserves the same respect. You started the name calling so don't give me your sanctimonious crap.
oh by the way,
I'm a vet too.

This is a touchy subject for all. That wasn't a name a**hole, or anything else. I pointing out something that is based on prior debates that I've had with this individual and calling them based on action. What's ludicrous is putting all of this on the shoulders of the soldiers. I honor and am grateful to all that have served on behalf of this country, right or wrong. But the fact remains is that Erroll is not offering solutions and is further polarizing the issue. It it looks and tastes like an apple, it's an apple. Here's a link to our prior debate. Where did it go? What was accomplished? What was said that created a meeting of the minds on his behalf? How about mine? So when this same argument is made, and there is no giving, why do you continue arguing it but to further your frustration. With that being said, does it really come across as disrespectful to you? Was what I said disrespectful to those that served? I say not! I have a stepson in Afghanistan, and has served a tour in Iraq, and I've had this conversation with him. He is scared, and don't look at that as an option! Do you want to call him names for it? If you do, that is truly ludicrous?

Pawn @ 110:

Erroll must be one of the republican elitists that is pushing this nonsense that troops don't deserve higher pay, or a guaranteed education, and helps write for George Bush's radio addresses. Blame it on the little man, that way the people that make the decisions go unabated to the end of their term.

This is what I'm talkin about. This is bullshit and we all know it. diamondmc, sorry bud. my mistake.I got you confused with this comment.

Thanks again, I just went back and reread my posts trying to figure out if I had a brain fart or something.

Pawn @ 133:

mudshark @ 130:

Pawn @ 129:

mudshark @ 119:

This is a touchy subject for all. That wasn't a name a**hole, or anything else. I pointing out something that is based on prior debates that I've had with this individual and calling them based on action. What's ludicrous is putting all of this on the shoulders of the soldiers. I honor and am grateful to all that have served on behalf of this country, right or wrong. But the fact remains is that Erroll is not offering solutions and is further polarizing the issue. It it looks and tastes like an apple, it's an apple. Here's a link to our prior debate. Where did it go? What was accomplished? What was said that created a meeting of the minds on his behalf? How about mine? So when this same argument is made, and there is no giving, why do you continue arguing it but to further your frustration. With that being said, does it really come across as disrespectful to you? Was what I said disrespectful to those that served? I say not! I have a stepson in Afghanistan, and has served a tour in Iraq, and I've had this conversation with him. He is scared, and don't look at that as an option! Do you want to call him names for it? If you do, that is truly ludicrous?

Pawn @ 110:

Erroll must be one of the republican elitists that is pushing this nonsense that troops don't deserve higher pay, or a guaranteed education, and helps write for George Bush's radio addresses. Blame it on the little man, that way the people that make the decisions go unabated to the end of their term.

This is what I'm talkin about. This is bullshit and we all know it. diamondmc, sorry bud. my mistake.I got you confused with this comment.

You're beginning to get on my nerves, vet or not! What is your problem with what I have to say? You're not giving anything specific but making duragatory remarks yourself. This is the same one-sided conversation I had with Erroll. I try to give, you only take!

talk to the hand

Actually, I have my doubts about those who denounce our soldiers, but rarely if ever seem to hold any responisbility against booshco.

They're arguing like the republicans that somehow our soldiers don't deserve our "generosity", with what appears to be a pretense of liberalism.

They're aiding and abetting the republicans in holding our soldiers hostage to a bill they do not like because it includes this additional spending.

Our focus should be on passing this bill, so soldiers are well protected by proper personal and vehicle armor, providing the education needed for reassimilation back into society, and impeaching prince georgie and darth chainey for sedition against the US constitution.

For the record, I believe that the accompanying award-winning photo was taken during the Vietnam War.

Pawn @ 137:

diamondmc @ 135:

Pawn @ 131:

mudshark @ 120:

By the way, how is it okay for a vet to be calling those currently serving ridiculous names in the spirit trying to convince them that they have an option to put down their arms? Erroll has truly been disrespectful to those currently serving! Again, I don't believe my comments were in any form a ludicrous name bashing.

I understand were Erroll is coming from, I just think he could have said it another way. Once a soldier is in a combat zone he or she would do nothing to put his brothers or sisters in harms way. If a soldier is state side and makes a stand, I would support him or her 100% I respect Erroll for what he is going threw, but I do ask that if you think someone should do something that puts your life and your family in harms way you should also be willing to do the same thing. Attacking Erroll instead of his view point is two different things.

Thank you. Point taken, as I have allowed myself to lose the focus of the larger issue that is important to me. You have truly provided a sense of reason.

Soldiers truly need support from the people they believe they are fighting to protect. I do agree with Erroll in that soldiers can make the decision to put down their arms, not enlist, and refuse to be sent to a combat zone. To make this work there would have to be a mass education that can break through the training that the soldiers received. There has to be a network of people that will protect the soldiers when they do make a decision to do so. Fear is a hard thing to conquer. Erroll did state that there are groups out there doing this. I've done some searching, and have been unable to find anything. So if there are groups willing to do this, all of us that believe that the best thing for soldiers to do is to refuse their orders, we have to commit money to increase their visibility. The patriotism card is played heavily by this administration, we have to have an even greater counter.

See, you and Erroll are actually on the same side.
I just have a problem with someone throwing barbs at vets. That's all.

142 mudshark Says

I just have a problem with someone throwing bards at vets. That’s all.

Yeah, those lute wires can really hurt when they spring loose.

diamondmc @ 141:

IVAW is one group that does support and help service personal who make this hard choice.

Thank you, this is a group that I may be willing to support. They have 1000 members, so they are off to a good start. I want to research it further.

mudshark @ 140:

Pawn @ 137:

diamondmc @ 135:

Pawn @ 131:
I understand were Erroll is coming from, I just think he could have said it another way. Once a soldier is in a combat zone he or she would do nothing to put his brothers or sisters in harms way. If a soldier is state side and makes a stand, I would support him or her 100% I respect Erroll for what he is going threw, but I do ask that if you think someone should do something that puts your life and your family in harms way you should also be willing to do the same thing. Attacking Erroll instead of his view point is two different things.

Thank you. Point taken, as I have allowed myself to lose the focus of the larger issue that is important to me. You have truly provided a sense of reason.

Soldiers truly need support from the people they believe they are fighting to protect. I do agree with Erroll in that soldiers can make the decision to put down their arms, not enlist, and refuse to be sent to a combat zone. To make this work there would have to be a mass education that can break through the training that the soldiers received. There has to be a network of people that will protect the soldiers when they do make a decision to do so. Fear is a hard thing to conquer. Erroll did state that there are groups out there doing this. I've done some searching, and have been unable to find anything. So if there are groups willing to do this, all of us that believe that the best thing for soldiers to do is to refuse their orders, we have to commit money to increase their visibility. The patriotism card is played heavily by this administration, we have to have an even greater counter.

See, you and Erroll are actually on the same side.
I just have a problem with someone throwing barbs at vets. That's all.

Absolutely. I won't restate the problems I have in the his viewpoint. I left a message for IVAW, so we'll see where it goes from there.

Support our troops so they can come home and not have to fight a whole new battle!

Dr. (terrorist fist jab) Matt @ 66:

Erroll you conveniently overlooked the facts, my original statement, and that I was 100% correct.

Try again.....but you are going to fail again....

My statement: However, as much as one may hate this war or their duty station, each of them swore to defend the constitution and obey the president (even though he is a complete arsehole).

The Oath: “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.”

You only look like the fool attempting to refute these simple facts. But, you appear to be simpleton so far, so it's not a big surprise.

Face it, you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.............

Mr Troll, Erroll is NOT wrong, go check your facts with the nearest military manual and get back with us. K? Shaweeeeing

eag @ 73:

innocent bystander @ 69:

Dr. (terrorist fist jab) Matt @ 66:

Erroll you conveniently overlooked the facts, my original statement, and that I was 100% correct.

Try again.....but you are going to fail again....

You only look like the fool attempting to refute these simple facts. But, you appear to be simpleton so far, so it's not a big surprise.

Face it, you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.............

"obedience to the orders of the president" is clearly subordinate to the duty to uphold the constitution and tempered by "regulations and the uniform code of military justice" . . . as such, soldiers are not obligated to violate the constitution or commit war crimes just because the president orders them to do so

And who exactly is informing the soldiers as to the constitutionality of their orders?
I'm fairly positive those carrying out the orders aren't constitutional scholars, yet. Talk about communication breakdown.

I dunno how bout the manual they give you when your first looking into joining? You know that one? I got one in my Sophomore year of high school when I took the ASVAB.. Yeah that one, it says it right in there.. in PLAIN ENGLISH.. So unless you speak another language, I doubt you would have trouble understanding what your obligation is.