|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/15/2006 : 11:16:12 [Permalink]
|
Four letters: U.C.M.J. -- The Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The morality of his actions is immaterial; he is violation of of military law and the military will try him accordingly.
I won't try to predict what the decision of the courts martial nor the JAG appeal will be. Those things can surprise you, now and again.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 11:27:04 [Permalink]
|
| Of course, the U.S. does not want an international court, does not respect international law except when it suits the purposes of its "leaders." That is what we would expect from a criminal regime. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 11:29:02 [Permalink]
|
| I don't understand. Why would an international court be involved in the court martial of a US soldier? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 11:41:04 [Permalink]
|
| An international court would mean that the U.S. might have to obey the law. An international court (or some other international body with clout) would give soldiers the ability to appeal to international law in such cases. As it is, all they can do is cooperate or go to prison. They have no ability to obey international law when ordered to do otherwise. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 11:47:21 [Permalink]
|
| So basically a nation would give up its soveriegnty to an international law-giving body? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 11:58:39 [Permalink]
|
Yes. As the United States expects others to do - except when it suits their purposes to look the other way, as in the case of Israel.
I don't know if "sovereignty" is the correct word, but the United States is a member of the United Nations and by the Constitution is subject to its rules. It is a signatory to other treaties and conventions to which it is supposed to be subordinate. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 06/15/2006 12:00:47 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 12:00:41 [Permalink]
|
| What nation has the US expected to allow a soldier who refuses to fight to appeal to an internation body? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 12:01:56 [Permalink]
|
I saw your edit - so I would also ask where in the UN Constitution does it say the US has to allow a soldier who is being courtmartialed for not deploying the ability to appeal to an international body?
Edit- spelling |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 06/15/2006 12:02:43 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 12:04:19 [Permalink]
|
| You're reading things that I didn't say, Pleco. I don't know what you're talking about. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 12:15:31 [Permalink]
|
The point is that a reasonable international law could not both allow soldiers to fight in an illegal war, and say that a war is illegal. That doesn't compute. Either it is illegal or it isn't. The problem then becomes, what does a soldier do about that? If there is a real international law, then what would happen would be a structure would be created whereby soldiers could appeal to a higher body when faced with such a problem.
But, since the United States only cares about international law when it suits the purposes of its criminals in charge, then we won't see any of that happen. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 12:20:12 [Permalink]
|
I'm sorry, I guess I inferred that this thread was about this soldier, and you brought up international court, that somehow the soldier in question should have the ability to appeal to an international court. You then mentioned the US is a member of the UN, etc., so I asked where in the charter does it say the US has to allow a soldier to appeal to an internation court.
Now you say that "if there is a real international law"...which means that there is nothing currently written which says the US has to allow a solder to appeal beyond the laws of the nation.
I also asked when the US has ever required another country to do the same thing, since you mention that the US only cares about international law when it suits its purposes.
I am trying to be specific to this particular case, and not the actions of the US (or other countries) in general.
I apologize if I have misunderstood. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 13:36:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Now you say that "if there is a real international law"...which means that there is nothing currently written which says the US has to allow
That is correct and I never suggested such a thing. International law states that a soldier must disobey illegal orders, but gives them no real ability to do that. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 16:57:03 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo is, as usual on this topic, full of 
You brought up the international court, Gorgo.
Yet you can't show us a single case where an international court was used as a body for appeal for a soldier of any nation who refused the orders of his nation to go to war.
Sit down before you hurt yourself.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 17:43:54 [Permalink]
|
I respect this guy. I'm also glad I'm not in his boots.
The bottom line in any act of civil disobedience is that the person taking the action accepts suffering the legal consequences of his or her actions. Not that this was Ehren Watada's plan, but people should never set out to perform an act of civil disobedience with the expectation that they are going to somehow beat the rap. The entire trial strategy for such a person is to show, "Yes, this is what I had to do, and this was my reason. I accept the consequences." If the contemplation of such a trial is unattractive, one should not do the civil disobedience.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 18:41:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I'm also glad I'm not in his boots.
I don't think he was in them, either.
And by that I mean that I found it significant that Watada was not wearing a uniform in his video remarks. He was telling us, "I am an officer and I am doing my sworn duty to disobey illegal orders," but the lack of a uniform suggests to me that he wasn't so sure about that.
But let me say that I've never been in the military, and have no family that's been in the military (or at least, not that they've talked about). I do not know, then, when it is appropriate to wear a uniform (or which one). I'm just offering my perception based upon what I saw and what I heard. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
