Anti-War U.S. Marine Sentenced to Six Months in Jail

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Actually, no. The UCMJ doesn't give everyone in uniform their own special privilege to play guardhouse lawyer and second guess the President. An unlawful order in the UCMJ is one that specifically violates the UCMJ, the laws and customs of land warfare, etc. i.e. the summary killing of civilian prisoners, rape, etc.

Well the UN charter is part of US domestic law. Of course the SC would deny it direct effect.

[SlowwHand]

You can piss and moan and say it wasn't a cease-fire until you go hoarse; that changes nothing.
The simple fact is, it was a cease-fire.
I've posted it all here, and if you want to ignore it, feel free.
That makes you stupid, rather than ignorant.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Didn't we forget a little thing there? What was that... ah yes, self defense.

Kinda a streach to call that 'self defense'. I mean, if you got punched in the head, then found out who did it, and then walked up to him and punched him, that's battery, not self defense .

Aha, so for you 9/11 was a one time event, and there would be no more attacks coming about from this terrorist organisation harboured and sponsored by the Taliban?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Aha, so for you 9/11 was a one time event, and there would be no more attacks coming about from this terrorist organisation harboured and sponsored by the Taliban?

Were we certainly aware of any impending threats after 9/11? Self defense is very narrow. Taking out the Taliban is, I don't think, self defense. It was a 'get them before they get us again' move. I don't think that falls under the defintion.

And, of course, the Taliban, while harboring Al Queda, didn't exactly carry out the acts. Accomplis liability, sure, but they weren't the ones hitting us.

I don't think it was self-defense, but still justified.

[Ramo]

Very simply because the government wants greater penalties for violating your contract to it. It cares less for what happens when you violate your contract with others.

Except soldiers aren't the only people who make contracts with the government. Look at defense contracters, for instance. Why aren't they subject to legal prosecution when they break contracts?

And you still haven't explained why this is just. I'm arguing morality, not law.

Because the government wants to have specific performance, because it is a unique good (military service), but because of the 13th Amendment cannot. Thusforth, it decides jail time is best... and very nice as a deterrent. The government doesn't like it when you **** with it, for example see what the IRS does to you when you tell it you won't pay taxes.

So if the gov't wants a certain kind of bomber from a company (a unique service), why shouldn't its executives or stockholders be subject to prison time? Seems like a pretty good deterrent to me.

Because having a military force where the people who joined up can just say, nah, I don't like this war and not participate are deemed more harmful to the government. The government wants a military force that can't just 'opt-out' and they decide that it's important enough. Ergo, that's the way it is.

Yes, I can see why the state would want to do it. No doubt, Shrub would start conscripting people if he could pull it off politically. That's not what the argument is over. Why is it moral?

Then don't join the military, DUH! You think that every administration is going to agree with your 'war'. Yeah, right.

Some people may not have thought it out very well, or may not have studied history very much, or may not be very familiar with the political process before they enlist. If someone joins the army and abstains from the war out of moral considerations, why the hell should he have to go to prison instead of paying back the financial aid for college he recieved from the army?

Of course... he doesn't have to pay damages.

Why shouldn't he? Hell, why shouldn't he go to prison. Seems like a pretty good deterrent if he, as well as the stockholders would go to prison for doing such a thing.

[HershOstropoler]

"Self defense is very narrow."

Why? You are not limited to repel an actual or iminent attack, you can also take out the source of it. This is only losely related to the standards of domestic penal law.

As for the original:

"When the US signed on to the UN Charter there was no intention to have wars where the UN didn't give approval to be 'unlawful' under international law."

That was exactly the intent for every war that was not in self defense. What else do you think the Charter says?

And that is also the reason why self defense should not be interpreted too narrowly, cause then you get the result you assumed for Afghanistan.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Ramo


Sometimes I wonder how much you legalistic fanatics would enjoy serving time in a prison.

That is a stupid statement to make. No one that I have ever known would enjoy it.

I assume the reason that you are not in the military is that you find their rules and regulations unbearable and unjust. That's fine as long as you don't then go sign a contract that you will obey them and draw benifits.

It's very simple Ramo. So simple anyone should understand. If you can't take their rules, then don't put yourself under their authority.

[Ramo]

Bring back indentured servitude.

Edit: Didn't want to respond to this, but since apparantly Slow is being slow too:

That is a stupid statement to make. No one that I have ever known would enjoy it.

This was meant to be be a criticism on your opinion that it's justice these people got 6 months in prison, so I questioned how much some of you who enjoy throwing others in prison so much would stand up to 6 months. I was not saying that you thought prison is enjoyable.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why aren't they subject to legal prosecution when they break contracts?

Because the government can easily find someone with the same qualifications that will do the same job. It ain't that easy with people. Each person brings different qualifications into the fold, and of course, the government didn't help train the defense contractors.

And you still haven't explained why this is just. I'm arguing morality, not law.

It's just because we don't want a military where people 'volunteer' and get the benefits and then jump out when called upon to do their obligations. It is different because we want it to be.

It's moral because we don't want this crap to happen. Once you decide that you will fight for the country, you will fight for the country.

So if the gov't wants a certain kind of bomber from a company (a unique service)

Cause it ain't unique... can get it from someone else.

Some people may not have thought it out very well, or may not have studied history very much, or may not be very familiar with the political process before they enlist. If someone joins the army and abstains from the war out of moral considerations, why the hell should he have to go to prison instead of paying back the financial aid for college he recieved from the army?

Their fault. They should have reviewed the decision more carefully. The military is different than joining a private company. Once your in, you can't be 'exercising your opinion'. We want and require a military that does what it is told.

Why shouldn't he? Hell, why shouldn't he go to prison. Seems like a pretty good deterrent if he, as well as the stockholders would go to prison for doing such a thing.

You have a problem with sarcasm . Damages are usually big for breaking contract.

Why doesn't he go for prision? Because very long ago we decided that if it was economically efficient for a company to break a contract, they should do so if they can pay damages.

Soldiers are different. They ain't a private company. They are in the service of the United States. They volunteered their lives in service and we decided that once you do that, we don't want you to just say, nope. And it requires a greater deterant to prevent you from doing so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why? You are not limited to repel an actual or iminent attack, you can also take out the source of it.

In the case of Afghanistan, is the Taliban a 'source' of the attack? Al Queda undoubtably is, but is a country that harbors terrorists the source as well? If so, does that mean Israel can attack Iran tomorrow and call it self-defense because they harbor and support various terrorist groups in the West Bank?

[SlowwHand]

Enjoy serving time in prison.
Right. That's the intent. Give them something to enjoy.
Like a royal butt-reaming by the general population.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You can piss and moan and say it wasn't a cease-fire until you go hoarse; that changes nothing.
The simple fact is, it was a cease-fire.
I've posted it all here, and if you want to ignore it, feel free.
That makes you stupid, rather than ignorant.

Just for reference :
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm

The end of the war in 1991 was indeed considered a cease-fire by the UN.

1441 doesn't mention the end of the ceasefire. While it is not explicitely stated in the resolution that the "serious consequences" would have to be defined by the UNSC, it is yet crytsal-clear: the UNSC decides to "remain seized of the matter" (art. 14), i.e that it didn't delegate the matter to an individual country.

The UNSC didn't declare the end of the cease-fire, so the war had nothing to do with UN resolutions. There is no legal basis for the war, at least if you look that way.

[Ramo]

Because the government can easily find someone with the same qualifications that will do the same job. It ain't that easy with people. Each person brings different qualifications into the fold, and of course, the government didn't help train the defense contractors.

Honestly, how does 27 soldiers constitute some huge epidemic of USMC soldiers deserting service such that they're totally irreplacable. And every service is unique in some way. I don't see how soldiers are irreplacable, while every single other gov't worker is not (say, a very qualified teacher).

It's just because we don't want a military where people 'volunteer' and get the benefits and then jump out when called upon to do their obligations. It is different because we want it to be.

Why does that matter, if they pay back the military benefits?

It's moral because we don't want this crap to happen. Once you decide that you will fight for the country, you will fight for the country.

That's insane. So if I enlist to help in Afghanistan, if they drop me off in Colombia down the line to help the AUC, I should be thrown in prison if I refuse?

Cause it ain't unique... can get it from someone else.

Not necessarily. Not every business can produce anything. There may be some specific technology that only a few businesses have. And what makes soldiers that much more unique than models of bombers? If anything, I'd say that the latter is more unique.

Their fault. They should have reviewed the decision more carefully. The military is different than joining a private company. Once your in, you can't be 'exercising your opinion'. We want and require a military that does what it is told.

You may, but I don't. Like I said, some people value freedom.

You have a problem with sarcasm . Damages are usually big for breaking contract.

But the corporation pays, not the CEO.

Why doesn't he go for prision? Because very long ago we decided that if it was economically efficient for a company to break a contract, they should do so if they can pay damages.

Soldiers are different. They ain't a private company. They are in the service of the United States.

So are businesses that have contracts with the US gov't.

They volunteered their lives in service and we decided that once you do that, we don't want you to just say, nope. And it requires a greater deterant to prevent you from doing so.

So the more you volunteer to the country, the more it punishes you. That's how we ought to be treating the people who want to defend us.

[Oerdin]

The US declared the cease fire ergo the Us can undeclare a cease fire. Also, I believe the same resolution which authorized force in 1991 also put the US in charge of the situation. Since the US is the authorized party then it makes sense they can declare or undeclare cease fires at their pleasure.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Why? You are not limited to repel an actual or iminent attack, you can also take out the source of it.

In the case of Afghanistan, is the Taliban a 'source' of the attack? Al Queda undoubtably is, but is a country that harbors terrorists the source as well? If so, does that mean Israel can attack Iran tomorrow and call it self-defense because they harbor and support various terrorist groups in the West Bank?

El Quaida was closely intertwined with the Taliban government, politically and militarily. Its actions can easily be attributed to the Taliban.

As for the Iran example, I think their behaviour is sufficient to link them to the terrorist groups. Pretty clear with Hizbollah, I wouldn't be so sure with Hamas & co. But assuming that, the issue is what counts as an attack which justifies military self defense. On that I think a continuous trickle of terrorism is not different from one large scale attack, so the answer is yes.

[chequita guevara]

The war was clearly illegal under international law. The fact is, the US has not respected international law for quite some time. Quit trying to justify it under international law. You stand a better chance justifying by talking about how evil Hussein was/is.

[SlowwHand]

Spiffor, I like you so I'll say it one more time.
Hussein was to PROVE certain things in order to keep up his end of the cease-fire.
Inspectors should never have been required.
1441 cancels all existing resolutions, and yes, cease-fires.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The US declared the cease fire ergo the Us can undeclare a cease fire. Also, I believe the same resolution which authorized force in 1991 also put the US in charge of the situation. Since the US is the authorized party then it makes sense they can declare or undeclare cease fires at their pleasure.

Wrong, and wrong.

The ceasefire was negotiated by the US, but it was legally enacted by a SC resolution. The US and other countries were put into a evry limited role; even the legality of the no-fly zones has been unclear. And finally, undoing cease fires can be a use of force; whether it formerly qualifies as a declaration of war, a de facto start of war, or a resumption of hostilities is totally irrelevant. Not to mention that the old resolutions refer to the liberation of Kuwait, not the occupation of Iraq.

[Oerdin]

No it spoke about liberating Kuwait and neutralizing the Iraqi threat. The exact wording escapes me but I remember George Bush Sr. saying in an interview after the war that they purposefully wrote the resolution to be as broad as possible so that what ever happened he could claim he was authorized by the UN.

[SlowwHand]

And as far as the Che's of the world, call it illegal if you want, it doesn't matter since you're STILL wrong.
Bottom-line, this thread wasn't to convince anyone that the action was "legal", it's to say adios to a dumbass who thought he could milk the system.
He's screwed for life, and I'm glad.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Spiffor, I like you so I'll say it one more time.
Hussein was to PROVE certain things in order to keep up his end of the cease-fire.

And because of his violation he was being punishd. That's what the embargo was about. Have you forgotten the embargo?

The previous resolutions only authorized force in order to expell Iraq from Kuwait. Since Iraq was not in Kuwait, the US had no mandate to use force.

The war was illegal, for all that it's worth, snice no one would dare punish us.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
1441 cancels all existing resolutions, and yes, cease-fires.

I suppose you got to wrote on the draft with invisible ink ? No where it is written that the cease-fire is cancelled. I may change my mind if you back your argument; I'll trust Oerdin until proven otherwise. Maybe you can convince me with a minimum of backing your arguments ?

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
No it spoke about liberating Kuwait and neutralizing the Iraqi threat. The exact wording escapes me but I remember George Bush Sr. saying in an interview after the war that they purposefully wrote the resolution to be as broad as possible so that what ever happened he could claim he was authorized by the UN.

Was something like using all means necessary. So if Saddam had been toppled in the process of liberating Kuwait, tough luck for him. But with Kuwait being freed from Iraqi occupation, that one has been consumed.

I don't quite understand why you insist so much on the legality of this. Your people are quite safe from any legal consequences.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
I don't quite understand why you insist so much on the legality of this. Your people are quite safe from any legal consequences.

Because they don't just want to be successful, they want everyone to admit they were right all along, which is never gonna happen.

[HershOstropoler]

Well in that case, they really should worry more about the success-part.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Tingkai


What about a situation where a President orders troops to conduct a war without approval from the legislature, or in direct violation of a law passed by the legislature? Would that constitute an unlawful order?

That would be grounds for Congress to impeach the President, but the President is expressly declared by the Constitution to be the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, so his orders are binding, regardless of any "political" controversy within the government.

That doesn't change the fact that he is wrong. The call-up order was lawful. The decision to go to war was made according to the laws of the US. If this guy wants to pick and choose what wars he will fight, he shouldn't join the military in peacetime.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I suppose you got to wrote on the draft with invisible ink ? No where it is written that the cease-fire is cancelled. I may change my mind if you back your argument; I'll trust Oerdin until proven otherwise. Maybe you can convince me with a minimum of backing your arguments ?

Just some examples, ok.
It won't matter to most of the nay-sayers, and again, this thread wasn't SUPPOSED to be about just HOW legal this all was, but ok.
Go look up the cancelled resolutions if it will float your boat, but it says right here.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm (again)

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ramo


Sometimes I wonder how much you legalistic fanatics would enjoy serving time in a prison.

We're not deserters.

I suppose there's nothing wrong with, say, indentured servitude then? Once again, can you tell me how it's just that if a soldier breaks a contract he should get sent to prison, while if a CEO in a big corporation breaks a contract, he doesn't have to pay a single cent?

It's an oath, and the situation is incomparable. He volunteered, he knew what was expected, he knew what was required, and he refused.

Why is it so different? Given that there are serious ethical considerations that aren't existent in other contracts, it only makes sense that reneging on a contract with the USMC should carry lesser penalties than in other cases.

Personal "ethical" considerations are alien to any contract. He knew what he was signing up for. End of story. Don't like it, don't join up.

[DinoDoc]

Ramo: I'm not quite sure I understand your train of thought. If we are going to continue with the contract analogy, the penalties the soldier suffered these actions were spelled out before he even joined the Marines in the UCMJ. If he found those consequences unacceptable, he either should have reported for duty or not joined at all.

[Sprayber]

Why is it necessary to overly complicate this matter. We have a person that signed a contract after reading and getting a breifing on what would happen if he did not live up to his obligations and was quiet happy to draw pay and benifits until it came time to fullfill one of the requirments of his job. He obviously knew what was going to happen since he had is second excuse waiting in the wings.