|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Meegook
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| What has W. Bush done to subvert the U.S. Constitution or anything else for that matter that would justify the revolution or the military coup d'etat that you and others are proposing, at least implicitly, here? |
Well, we could start with 9/11 then go to lying to get us into a war, then there's that five minutes that, after he was told the "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." Bush just sat there like the boob he is. In a nuclear age when an entire country can be destroyed in a matter of minutes and the Commander in Chief sits there in an elementary school classroom like a deer caught in the headlights for five minutes doing absolutely nothing qualifies for impeachment in my book.
Then there is the trashing of the Constitution, the torture, the stealing of the 2004 election, give me a minute and I''m sure I could think of a few more.
Ah, yes no more habeas corpus, throwing out the Posse Comitatus Act, taking control of the National Guard away from the States.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Meegook
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Reasons for impeachment?
LMHO
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah-ha. So your problem, just like the other one here, is that your politics have degenerated into what has become an all-consuming, personal hatred for the man.
That is really all that this is about, isn't it? Because all that I see above are conspiracy theories "backed up" by other conspiracy theories. Pathetic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meegook
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This 'man' and his cohorts are ruining America.
I should like what this man is doing to my and my children's and my grandchildren's country? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Meegook wrote: |
This 'man' and his cohorts are ruining America.
I should like this man? [edited later: "I should like what this man is doing to my and my children's and my grandchildren's country?"] |
Get ahold of yourself.
Disagree with him; vote against him; urge others to do so, if you please. But this campaign of yours here on this chatboard, faulting him for everything that is wrong under the sun, including perpetrating 9/11, is about as dysfunctional as it gets.
And, by the way: those personal problems of yours that I am still not going to specify...? It is not W. Bush's fault that those things happened to you. Stop projecting all of that onto him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know, I think the guy would have been better off to stand up to them and face the music by saying he disagreed with what was going on rather then running. By running it makes him look bad. If your going to stand up for your principals at least go down fighting for them.
Either way he'll probably end up in military prison for a long time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meegook
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| faulting him for everything that is wrong under the sun, |
Straw man.
Faulting Bush for what I listed, "not everything that is wrong under the sun."
Alleging that is dysfunctional.
| Quote: |
| those personal problems of yours |
All of us have 'personal problems' my friend and it's obvious you do too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've always felt anyone who signs up for the American military should be aware that every decade the military is used for some military operation that you might find morally objectionable. Why is your experience going to be any different?
You're going in with both eyes open. While I don't agree with the war, I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who joins up and then complains he might actually have to fight a questionable war.
One can call the war illegal but what does that really mean? Is the war illegal under American law? Has any American court ruled the war was illegal? While it's fine for citizens to form such a belief, I would be uncomfortable with men and women under uniform feeling empowered to declare a war illegal and then making their own choice whether or not they want to fight in a war they've unilaterally declared illegal.
Yes, it is the duty of every solider to disobey an illegal order. Some orders are clearly illegal:
"Kill all the women and children in this village."
"Shoot all the wounded prisoners."
However, merely being ordered to Iraq doesn't seem clearly illegal, given your President and Congress have approved your deployment. Even being asked to bomb a house where you have been told are belligerents who have declared themselves hostile to your forces doesn't seem manifestly illegal, given your President and Congress have approved these actions.
I guess he can offer himself up as a test case. If he believes the war is illegal, then he can have his day in court and argue his position. But him running seems to me to indicate he's not really confident in his own assertions.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:19 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
Canuckistan, I am in accord with you that one must consult one's conscience when serving in war. Yet, I do have a question. How many wars have soldiers where one doesn't see another soldier kill a civilian? It happens in every conflict. You might argue that the difference is that the U.S. government has ignored atrocities or war crimes by soldiers until CDs with photos come to surface. The military has covered up too many things. Also, the Iraq War violates the international law. However, it does not clearly violate the U.S. Constitution as Meegook stated. If this soldier was given the impression he would get a less than honourable discharge, and he has proof of that, then he should leave the U.S. and make Canada his home.
Half of Canadians do not want the soldiers in Afghanistan. I am sure some civilians have been killed by members of the NATO forces.
What if a Canadian soldier decides not to serve? Would you oppose his court-martial, even though the said soldier is not a pacifist per se? |
Well, I have served in the Canadian military. You confuse morality and pacifism. Sure, you could say I'm a pacifist, but I'd have no qualms killing an enemy combatant. Killing civilians would be out of the question.
You see, it was always stressed to us to ignore orders that we felt were immoral (I served shortly after the Somalia Inquiry). Orders that result in the death of civilians were always used to make that point come across. So, if a soldier has grounds to argue that serving in war is an immoral act because of rampant civilian deaths, I'd back him in his decision. Besides, it's estimated that there have been 500 000 Iraqui civilians that have died as a result of the war. Think about that. It isn't just a few civilians we are talking about here.
I think the American soldier has got international law on his side. According to the Geneva Convention, civilian deaths are never acceptable.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm |
Hollywood, I understand where you are coming from with this. However, there are people who are called pacifists who do not believe in killing.
Of course, a soldier can argue that there are too many indiscriminate deaths, and he opposes the war. The 500,000 number were not civilians killed by the U.S. per se. Thousands of those died from the insurgency and other causes, not only bombings and shootings by American soldiers.
We could argue for the sake of argument that 20% of the figure was directly related to U.S. actions which would be 100,000. How many German civilians were killed by the Allied Forces in World War II? You can refuse an illegal order. He is arguing that American actions are leading to civilian deaths. Some Israeli pilots argued the same when they refused to bomb Gaza. However, is there a war where only a civilians die?
I suppose Somalia. I don't think American troops killed many Somalis.
Someone was arguing that the war cannot be objected to by an American soldier since it is not illegal according to U.S. law. However, the U.S. is a signatory to the WTO, UN and part of a global community. A soldier can state that he supports international law and he will not serve in a war that violates international law. I don't believe that most American troops are out there killing Iraqi civilians indiscriminately. It does happen too often, perhaps, and the government was covering it up. I support the soldier based on it violating international law, the fact that Iraq never attacked the U.S., and many people thought they were sent there to defend
America not neo-conservative political goals. I wouldn't want to die for a neo-con, either, but rather the principals of "We hold these truths to be evident that all men were created equal". The war violates the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. It makes the U.S. troops look like the Red Coats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Meegook Im gonna say this again and I want you to quit evading this point.
World War II. WHy do you think not every invidiual soldier in the Nazi army was tried at the end? Only those who committed war crimes were. Why?
Ill tell you why, because no matter how legal or illegal a war might be, a SOldier is not committting a crime by fighting in it under orders so long as he fights with in the Law of Armed Conflict (Ie: No abusing prisoners, killing civilians without reason etc etc).
A order to a soldier to do so is still a legal order. One that must be obeyed. As long as that soldiers` Chain of Command does not order him to massacre civilians, etc etc he is obligated to obey, regardless of his opinion into the war.
Whhen you sig up for any branch of service you are stating that you know you can be called to fight and you will do so.
You keep refrencing defending the constitution. Well the constitution is still here so I think it is adequately defended.
Bottom line:Soldiers most obey.
This isnt a pick your fights as you see fit military. A military like that would be a complete in effective disaster.
Youd have troops with loved ones here in the states or other circumstances start to all of a sudden object to the war when its there turn to deploy.
That happens now, with people trying to all of a sudden claim COnscientous objector status when they find out it is there turn.
It's bull, and it doesn't fly in a modern military. This is something I dont know if you will ever understand Megook. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meegook
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Nazi soldier didn't swear an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.
The FIRST responsibility of a US soldier is to the Constitution, not to obeying illegal orders.
These are the war crimes as define by the ICC:
Notice that they include crimes that even ordinary soldiers are likely to commit.
Definition
War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:
1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
1. Wilful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
2. Torture or inhuman treatment
3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
7. Taking hostages
2. The following acts as part of an international conflict:
1. Directing attacks against civilians
2. Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Killing a surrendered combatant
4. Misusing a flag of truce
5. Settlement of occupied territory
6. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
7. Poison weapons
8. Using civilian shields
9. Child soldiers
3. The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
1. Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
4. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
5. Taking hostages
6. Summary execution
7. Pillage
8. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy
9. Child soldiers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meegook
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Under the Nuremberg Principles, it would appear that Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld could be charged with war crimes:
Under the Nuremberg Principles, the supreme international crime is that of commencing a war of aggression, because it is the crime from which all war crimes follow. The definition of such a crime is planning, preparing, initiating, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. Also, participating in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any such act constitutes such a crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Meegook wrote: |
The Nazi soldier didn't swear an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.
The FIRST responsibility of a US soldier is to the Constitution, not to obeying illegal orders.
These are the war crimes as define by the ICC:
Notice that they include crimes that even ordinary soldiers are likely to commit.
Definition
War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:
1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
1. Wilful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
2. Torture or inhuman treatment
3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
7. Taking hostages
2. The following acts as part of an international conflict:
1. Directing attacks against civilians
2. Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Killing a surrendered combatant
4. Misusing a flag of truce
5. Settlement of occupied territory
6. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
7. Poison weapons
8. Using civilian shields
9. Child soldiers
3. The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
1. Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
4. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
5. Taking hostages
6. Summary execution
7. Pillage
8. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy
9. Child soldiers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime |
Willful killing? Oh Please. Its a WAR with 2 sides shooting at each other. Trying to kill one another> It is perfectly legal to kill the enemy in a war. And bullets do cause bodily harm.
So I dont get what your trying to say.
As far as tyhe others goes any vioaltors of those you notice were courtmartialed.
Ill say it again.
A soldier is required to deploy when ordered. A order to deploy to a warzone, no matter the status of a war IS NOT AN ILLEGAL ORDER
why cant you grasp this? A Order to deploy isnt a illegal order, no matter the status of the war
WE DO NOT PICK our wars.
If you instituted that, you'd destroy our military.
The consitution grants control of the armed forces to the President. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meegook
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Willful killing? Oh Please. |
Out of 23 crimes, you pick the one that is doubtful and throw the rest out.
The point is NAVFAC, the military needs to grow some balls and stop obeying orders that go against the Consitution they swore an oath to uphold and defend.
Simple as that, and when they do, maybe this madness will stop.
Stop hiding behind, "lawful orders." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Meegook wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Willful killing? Oh Please. |
Out of 23 crimes, you pick the one that is doubtful and throw the rest out.
The point is NAVFAC, the military needs to grow some balls and stop obeying orders that go against the Consitution they swore an oath to uphold and defend.
Simple as that, and when they do, maybe this madness will stop.
Stop hiding behind, "lawful orders." |
I didnt throw them out. If you could read Id said the ones who violated the others were court martialed and imprisoned. and what of you? You are the one calling for a armed overthrow of the US government in your other thread about how "Its time" with regards to militias overthrowing the government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
