On Feb 21, 7:35 pm, Moonlight Mile
wrote:
X-No-Archive:

In article ,





dxAce wrote:
Moonlight Mile wrote:

X-No-Archive:

In article ,

wrote:

September 11,2001 NavExpress. www.devilfinder.com blackday 911
The WAR on TERROR is Definetly LEGAL.
cuhulin

The, the "war" that "terrorists" fight _against_ the U.S. is also LEGAL. We
are,
after all, fighting them in their countries.

The U.S. has not declared war since WWII, but we have invaded and/or bombed
into
oblivion many countries. Undeclared wars are illegal. U.S. foreign policy
is why
the terrorists fight against us.

Oblivion?

NON-EXISTENCE! Other than that, you have no quibbles or major criticisms
regarding my post? Excellent.

Google on "Daisy-cutter", "phosphorus bomb", "napalm", and "cluster bomb". It
turns out that we can't build very good cars anymore, but we are very clever and
adept at building hi-tech weapons which kill many people indiscriminately. And
we no longer have to look them in the eye while we kill them in enormous
numbers. For recreation, you can also read a book by William Blum called "Rogue
State: A Guide To The World's Only Superpower". It's not very well organized
IMO, but it gets the basic idea across. I couldn't believe much of what is in
that book, but Blum documents U.S. misdeeds quite well. And I lived in the DC
area for 20 years, had access to a very good newspaper and watched news and
political talk shows as often as possible. Blum tells the truth. Sadly, U.S
foreign policy is the problem, not terrorists.

T.E. Lawrence responded, when asked why men go to war, with "because the women
are watching". Insightful!

DISCLAIMER: I am not responsible for any misspellings in any of my posts.

MM





Bush is an idiot and/or psychotic (delusional and out of touch with
reality). No
responsible person supported the recent and ongoing "surge", which is
actually
an escalation of hostilities by the U.S. And "NO"! We never intended to
withdraw
from Afghanistan or Iraq. We've built permanent and very large miliatray
bases
in both countries and we are there to stay.

MM

"The first casuality of war is truth!"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Hello, Moonlite Mile.
I believe in critical thought. Every idea must me examined in minute
detail, from every possible angle. Nothing is out of bounds, there
are no sacred cows.
You are attacking the US. Now tell us about America's greatness. Let
us know what is good about the US. What are our strengths. What is
our virtues.

Churchill said, "The Americans can always be counted on to do the
right thing........after they have exhausted all the alternatives."

On 21 Feb 2007 11:28:18 -0800, "tack" wrote:


The war is illegal and it is the soldiers' sworn duty to refuse to
fight for insane plots for world domination. I DO NOT support the
troops.

http://tvnewslies.org/html/pnac.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Please elaborate on this "sworn duty". I do not recall such an oath
when I was active duty.

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors
risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY
disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime
to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer.
Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the
disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).

In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who
willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to
death.

Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given,
right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An
order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but
obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one
who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are
accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the
order was illegal.

"I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal
defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at
the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't
work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.

The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the
"I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the
War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize
ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams
wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that
Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French
port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's
instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying
Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship
sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won,
and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S.
Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when
obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm

www.devilfinder.com Mississippi and Canada

There are some nice people in Canada,lots of beautifull territory in
Canada too.I have been to Cardston,Alberta,Canada before,in
1956.Canadians are good trading partners with America.
cuhulin

www.devilfinder.com RAO Bulletin Agent Orange

I get James F. Tichacek's regular email newsletters at one of my other
webtv user name thingys,I have been getting them for years,got my latest
one a couple of days ago.Unca Sam saw fit to send me to Vietnam,I wonder
if I ought to head on over to the G.V.''Sonny'' Montomery VA Center on
Woodrow Wilson Blvd here in Jackson and see if they can see fit that I
can get some bennies?
cuhulin

On Feb 21, 10:48 pm, David wrote:
On 21 Feb 2007 11:28:18 -0800, "tack" wrote:

The war is illegal and it is the soldiers' sworn duty to refuse to
fight for insane plots for world domination. I DO NOT support the
troops.

http://tvnewslies.org/html/pnac.html-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please elaborate on this "sworn duty". I do not recall such an oath
when I was active duty.

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors
risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY
disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime
to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer.
Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the
disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).

In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who
willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to
death.

Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given,
right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An
order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but
obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one
who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are
accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the
order was illegal.

"I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal
defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at
the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't
work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.

The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the
"I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the
War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize
ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams
wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that
Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French
port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's
instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying
Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship
sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won,
and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S.
Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when
obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm


You've done a bit of research on the UCMJ and a little history of
lawful orders. You copied the above, verbatim, from this website:
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm.

But what about my question? Please elaborate on this "sworn duty". I
do not recall such an oath when I was active duty, a sworn duty to
refuse to fight for insane plots for world domination. Any sworn duty
not to fight, regardless if the war .
Did you get your information from a liberal website? I've seen these
talking points before. Arguments that try to persuade military
members and the general population that the GI's need to disobey the
orders of their superiors because the oath taken at induction says (in
part): ". . . I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. . . 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 the regulations and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice." The reasoning goes something
like this: The UCMJ says that orders must be followed, and to follow
them they must be legal. Since the war is "illegal" , then any orders
pertaining to the war must be illegal. They also argue that the duty
of the military member is to the Constitution first, all else is
secondary. To try to prove that the war is illegal, liberals make a
lot of talk about The Hague Convention, Nuremberg, Military Tribunals,
Geneva Convention, all kinds of such things.

You should've copied off more of that website; you would've come up
with this information: The Court of Military Appeals held that "the
justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the
order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and
understanding would know it to be illegal." After part about
mistreating prisoners, this: ". . . there is no requirement to obey
orders which are unlawful. However, here's the rub: A military member
disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it's not
whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or
unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and courts) think the order
was illegal or unlawful." There is a lot of interesting information
on page 2 of that website.
There does not have to be a formal declaration of war from congress.
The President can utilize the armed forces, of which he is chief, when
he sees a requirement. Clinton did the same.

Moon {Light} Mile

How To Tell -IF- Someone is Suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome"
when they write things like : The, the "war" that "terrorists" fight
against the U.S. is also LEGAL. We are, after all, fighting them
in their countries.

- - - Love Yourself More Than The Enemy.

Comment - While every 'sane' American believes that it is better
to Fight the Terrorist Over There -then- HERE !

How To Tell -IF- Someone is Suffering from "Anti-American Syndrome"
when they write things like : The U.S. has not declared war since
WWII, but we have invaded and/or bombed into oblivion many countries.
Undeclared wars are illegal. U.S. foreign policy is why the
terrorists
fight against us.

- - - Love Your Fellow Americans First.

How To Tell -IF- Someone is Suffering from "Liberal Psychosis"
they write things like : Bush is an idiot and/or psychotic
(delusional and out of touch with reality)."

- - - Love The Truth -More Than- Political Rhetoric.

How To Tell -IF- Someone is Suffering from "Anti-War Psychosis"
they write things like : No responsible person supported the
recent and ongoing "surge", which is actually an escalation of
hostilities by the U.S.

- - - Love Peace -More Than- You Hate War.

How To Tell -IF- Someone is Suffering from "Anti-USA Psychosis"
they write things like : And "NO"! We never intended to withdraw
from Afghanistan or Iraq. We've built permanent and very large
miliatray bases in both countries and we are there to stay.

- - - Love Your Country {Homeland} First.
Save America and Save The World -Heroes-

How To Tell -IF- Someone is Suffering from "Chocolate Psychosis"
they sign their messages : "MM"

- - - Love Good Wholesome Natural Food -and- Eat Healthy.
Corporate Motto of the Soylent Corp. Circa 2022


The First Casuality of Terrorism is Freedom
and it is Replace by Fear. ~ RHF {ibid}.

"ve3..." wrote:

Churchill said, "The Americans can always be counted on to do the
right thing........after they have exhausted all the alternatives."

dxAce said, "The Canucks can never be counted on to do the right
thing........they have been mis-wired since birth."

On 21 Feb 2007 23:13:31 -0800, "tack" wrote:


There does not have to be a formal declaration of war from congress.
The President can utilize the armed forces, of which he is chief, when
he sees a requirement. Clinton did the same.

That is so juvenile. Little Billy did it so it must be OK...

I did not support Clinton's adventurisms and I do not support Mr.
Bush's. Pre-emptive attacks on an mpotent sovereign nation
constitutes war crime. We are a rogue nation. The military is not
defending the country against the threat from within. Bush and Cheney
are a hundred times the threat that Saddam or Osama Bin Ladin ever
were.

We are finished.

On Feb 22, 7:51 am, David wrote:
On 21 Feb 2007 23:13:31 -0800, "tack" wrote:

There does not have to be a formal declaration of war from congress.
The President can utilize the armed forces, of which he is chief, when
he sees a requirement. Clinton did the same.

That is so juvenile. Little Billy did it so it must be OK...

I did not support Clinton's adventurisms and I do not support Mr.
Bush's. Pre-emptive attacks on an mpotent sovereign nation
constitutes war crime. We are a rogue nation. The military is not
defending the country against the threat from within. Bush and Cheney
are a hundred times the threat that Saddam or Osama Bin Ladin ever
were.

We are finished.

Juvenile? What are you talking about? define your terms, please. You
lack understanding. Where in my statement did I use Clinton's actions
to justify the use of military power. Clinton did things during his
presidency that Bush is criticized for; get the point? Did you not
read everything else I said? Can you not understand? You do not
understand. Latch onto my last sentence somehow get "Little Billy did
it so it must be OK" out of it. Prove the claims you made. If "Bush
and Cheney are a hundred times the threat that Saddam or Osama Bin
Ladin ever were", back it up with clear, reasoned evidence,
considering all facts, to include the fact that the United States
maintains a defense force equal to the rest of the world combined,
with only a tiny percentage of its GDP. Do you know what a "Rouge"
United States can do? Why does Chavez, Kim Il, and Castro still live?
Yes, You made it clear that you believe we are a rogue nation. You
are not capable of critical thought. Give us the criteria for a rogue
nation; Are there any other rogue nations about? And why? Do you not
understand, that if we were truly a rogue nation, what the country is
capable of? What would a really rouge United States look like? With
our vast economic and military might? You cannot reason, can you.
You are also a plagiarizer, copying a website as your own words.
Do not bring a knife to a gun fight. If you want to have a discussion
with people capable of thinking critically, come better armed than you
currently are. You are a hater, you hate and despise the greatest
nation, the GOODEST (I know that wasn't a real word) nation, to ever
exist. Instead of marching across Asia at the end of WWII, we
assisted in rebuilding our former enemies' infrastructure. Granted,
the QUALITY of the American people isn't the same in this generation
as in that one, (as evidenced by folks like yourself) there is still
a significant patriotic core. I will no longer have anything to do
with you. Having a reasoned discussion with your ilk is as pointless
as arguing with one who's mentally ill.