82.0°F Fair [Forecast]
:: Thursday, July 29th, 2010My day
“… the future is not what it used to be.”Please visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
Alberto's Ristorante
Exquisite Northern Italian cuisine served in a casually elegant atmosphere. Main Street, Hyannis. (Hyannis)
Exquisite Northern Italian cuisine served in a casually elegant atmosphere. Main Street, Hyannis. (Hyannis)
eCape Web Design
eCape, Inc. is a Cape Cod website design and marketing company. We are Cape Cod's one-stop shop for all your Internet marketing needs. (Dennis)
eCape, Inc. is a Cape Cod website design and marketing company. We are Cape Cod's one-stop shop for all your Internet marketing needs. (Dennis)
A Real Anti-War Movement
12/19/09 · 12:06 pm :: posted by Mary
March Forward!, a group of veterans and active-duty members of the military, has called for all military personnel to refuse deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. Their objective is "to ensure that no more soldiers or civilians lose their lives in these criminal wars."
March Forward!'s December 3rd announcement came in response to President Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. By following in the footsteps of leaders of both major political parties who have been culpable over the years for instigating illegal wars, Obama's move signals that he, too, is choosing to put the interests of an imperial elite above the needs of those who elevated him to the presidency. No change here.
March Forward!'s call, on the other hand, represents a significant change from the failed strategy of peace organizations who have been petitioning our government to end these wars. March Forward! takes anti-war efforts to a new level by recognizing that we, the people of this nation, must take matters into our own hands.
March Forward! declares that they support "the right of all service members to refuse illegal and immoral orders. Orders to deploy to Afghanistan and Iraq are just that: illegal and immoral. We have no reason to fight in these wars, and we have every right to refuse to be a part of them."
Many Americans, however, have no understanding that there is a firm legal basis for opposing these wars of aggression.
A key component, then, to galvanizing a massive resistance, both within the military and without, might well be the launching of a national campaign that uses a documentary film to connect the violations of our Constitution to the misuse - and abuse - of our armed forces.
Such a film could interweave footage from the testimony of Winter Soldiers delivered at a veterans' gathering in Silver Spring, Maryland, in March 2008, with readings by ordinary Americans of pertinent sections from our Constitution and relevant excerpts from international agreements.
A recruit might open the film by reciting the oath of enlistment that every inductee repeats upon entering military service. There is a widespread belief, even among the armed forces, that a soldier's primary duty is to obey the commander-in-chief, the president of the United States. But the oath says otherwise. As has each president upon his inauguration, every inductee swears, first and foremost, to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Winter Soldier testimony would set the stage for reading Article I, Section 8, of our Constitution that clearly says that the legislative branch has the power to declare war. Article VI states that treaties signed by our presidents are the law of the land. This article binds us to the Charter of the United Nations that spells out the two conditions under which member nations may go to war.
A March Forward! vet might be the one to read the section from Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that tells us that the military is only obligated to obey lawful orders.
The Geneva Conventions of 1949, which have been incorporated into the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) are also pertinent because they specify what an occupying force may or may not do while on foreign soil. For instance, the execution of Saddam Hussein was illegal as were the indiscriminate bombings of Iraq, the selling off of state-owned enterprises, the construction of military bases, and the setting up of a puppet government. To name a few.
March Forward! undoubtedly speaks for the 50,000 military personnel (Pentagon figures!) who have gone AWOL since 2001 as well as the thousands who have been quietly discharged.
The film might conclude by asking civilians to organize solidarity rallies in their communities, to request that local governments pass supportive resolutions, to find churches that would agree to be sanctuaries, to set up discussion groups, and to demonstrate at embarkation points.
An informational campaign like this has never been undertaken. Even during the Vietnam War. However, we have new tools at our disposal. Let's use them. Put this film up on YouTube. Use FaceBook and Twitter to spread the word. Make DVDs to hand out wherever people gather.
When people both inside and outside the military share a common basis of understanding about the legal and moral issues confronting us then, and only then, will we have a resistance movement powerful enough to stop these crimes against humanity.
89 comments
Blog posts and comments are entirely the thoughts and ideas of the people who write them and in no way represent the views of CapeCodToday.com, eCape, Inc., or its employees or owners.
Mary [Member] writes:
Bartenderfrom hell: you need to actually read my post. And then you might want to read the Constitution.
bartenderfromhell [Member] writes:
I read your post and stand my ground.
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
I'm afraid that there are some confusions here about international law, although I freely admit the George W. Bush Administration does not help the situation.
Chapters I and VII of the UN Charter, if one compares them to the Kellogg-Briand Pact, are not as explicit on war as one might think. Article I of the Constitution gives the authority to make war, but not necessarily in the form of a declaration; there was an Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The Third Geneva Convention simply does not include all of the prohibitions you claim.
I supported the initial response in Afghanistan but disagreed, on strategic grounds, with Iraq. Nevertheless, try to keep ideology separate from law,
Chapters I and VII of the UN Charter, if one compares them to the Kellogg-Briand Pact, are not as explicit on war as one might think. Article I of the Constitution gives the authority to make war, but not necessarily in the form of a declaration; there was an Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The Third Geneva Convention simply does not include all of the prohibitions you claim.
I supported the initial response in Afghanistan but disagreed, on strategic grounds, with Iraq. Nevertheless, try to keep ideology separate from law,
Walker [Member] writes:
Brilliant idea, where does someone sign up to vacation at Leavenworth?
I'll defer this question to Jack or anyone else here who has been subject to the UCMJ.
Would you put an interpretation of the Constitution up against Article 94—Mutiny and sedition?
Were I still bound by it I'm pretty sure I'd take a pass on this one.
I'll defer this question to Jack or anyone else here who has been subject to the UCMJ.
Would you put an interpretation of the Constitution up against Article 94—Mutiny and sedition?
Were I still bound by it I'm pretty sure I'd take a pass on this one.
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
Bartender, do remember that treason is the only crime explicitly defined in the Constitution, and the criteria for proving it are extremely hard. Personally, while I'm a quite decent shot, I regard information warfare as far more likely to be useful, against tyrannical government, than privately owned guns. Everything has a place; a computer won't help me defend my cat against a coyote.
Monponsett [Member] writes:
Remember that the coyote has the advantage of being Wily, and most likely is using the computer himself.
notawonk [Member] writes:
While I'd prefer we were out of Afghanistan, and I don't wish to dispute your blog, I believe one of your references may be out of date. Out of curiosity I looked up FM 26-10 on google, and found only a mention of FM 26-10-1, Unit Field Sanitation, 1-Oct-89 in the first 50 returns. That can't be the manual you intended.
dolphin [Member] writes:
bartenderfromhell...not only do I agree with you but a majority of the nation does as well. Why are "The Oathkeepers" growing by leaps and bounds especially in the military.
The latest polls show the "Tea Party" leading both the dems and repubs. Maybe there is a little hope left for America after all.
The latest polls show the "Tea Party" leading both the dems and repubs. Maybe there is a little hope left for America after all.
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
"Laws of Land Warfare": FM 27-10.
Dolphin, what poll? The Rasmussen Poll of a week or so shows the Tea Party splitting the GOP but the Democrats still had more party-line voters -- although there were even more undecideds.
Dolphin, what poll? The Rasmussen Poll of a week or so shows the Tea Party splitting the GOP but the Democrats still had more party-line voters -- although there were even more undecideds.
Mary [Member] writes:
bartenderfromhell and dolphin:Here’s the first part of the oath: I, John Doe, do solemnly swear 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.” Military officers would, of course, like to have its members forget about this part. And it appears you did.
Mary [Member] writes:
heberkowitz: Under Article I, Section 8 reads “The Congress shall have Power To declare War.” An expert on international law, Professor Francis Boyle says, Congress failed to give Bush Jr. that -- and for a very good reason. If a formal declaration of war had been passed by Congress, it would have made Bush Jr. a “constitutional dictator” insofar as that, basically, Americans would now all be living under marshal law.” But the Authorization did give him immense power in the conduct of hostilities.
The UN resolution passed in May 2003 (after Bush declared Mission Accomplished) specifically requires the occupying powers to “comply fully with their obligations under international law including under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907.”
The UN resolution passed in May 2003 (after Bush declared Mission Accomplished) specifically requires the occupying powers to “comply fully with their obligations under international law including under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907.”
bittersweet [Member] writes:
Dolphin, just for interest...there is another group of people calling themselves The Real Oathkeepers...saying that the other group are not the real thing!
tried to go take a peek, realoathkeepers.org, but my computer went berserk.
Still waiting for a real tea party movement too...one that includes accountability for the past Republican administration. Without that, it's a partisan charade.
And I read something once where a group of mothers in Russia went to the front lines, grabbed their sons by the ears and said to the gvt.,"You are not getting my son!"
Don't know if it really happened, but knowing those Russian women (Lithuania--close enough), I wouldn't doubt it!
Then again, anti-war movements are usually ridiculed and demonized far more than any other....especially in this day and age.
People believe all the hype.
And there's a lot of it...you don't know what to believe.
tried to go take a peek, realoathkeepers.org, but my computer went berserk.
Still waiting for a real tea party movement too...one that includes accountability for the past Republican administration. Without that, it's a partisan charade.
And I read something once where a group of mothers in Russia went to the front lines, grabbed their sons by the ears and said to the gvt.,"You are not getting my son!"
Don't know if it really happened, but knowing those Russian women (Lithuania--close enough), I wouldn't doubt it!
Then again, anti-war movements are usually ridiculed and demonized far more than any other....especially in this day and age.
People believe all the hype.
And there's a lot of it...you don't know what to believe.
Mary [Member] writes:
heberkowitz: Going into Afghanistan was a blatantly aggressive act. Professor Boyle sums it up well: There is a magnitude of difference between an armed attack by one state against another state, which is an act of war, and a terrorist attack, which is not. Again, terrorists are dealt with as criminals. Terrorists are not treated like nation states. Terrorists are dealt with by means of international and domestic law enforcement. Terrorists are not given the dignity of special status under international law and practice.
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
I'd like to see a full citation for Boyle. You may want to look at citizendum dot org, and see articles I've written under "unitary executive theory"; I'm not a Bush fan, but that's a sweeping statement by Boyle. Just as a start, I suspect, it would run afoul of ex parte Milligan. A better test of martial law authority, in the presence of declared WWII, might be Korematsu v. US or ex parte Quirin; SCOTUS did not give such sweeping powers with a declaration. The unitary authority people like Addington say the President has such authority anyway, under Article II, and prererogative power, which which I disagree.
I have no problem with saying there was a GC obligation; it's just that some of the things you are saying are not in them. Also, see the latter sections of Iraq War, and the UN involvement, at citizendium, before saying "puppet state". Saddam was hung by the order of an elected Iraqi court.
I have no problem with saying there was a GC obligation; it's just that some of the things you are saying are not in them. Also, see the latter sections of Iraq War, and the UN involvement, at citizendium, before saying "puppet state". Saddam was hung by the order of an elected Iraqi court.
Buzz [Member] writes:
Mary,
Last time I checked it was still a voluntary Army fighting for your rights.
Why don't you and the peaceniks try your approach where it counts... Iraq, Afghanistan. I'm sure they'll appreciate your efforts.
Until then, thank you men and women for keeping this country safe.
Last time I checked it was still a voluntary Army fighting for your rights.
Why don't you and the peaceniks try your approach where it counts... Iraq, Afghanistan. I'm sure they'll appreciate your efforts.
Until then, thank you men and women for keeping this country safe.
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
Mary, again, where is Boyle and where is this published? Further, non-national terrorists are not covered by treaties the U.S. has signed; there is reference to them in the 1977 Additional Protocol II to the GC, not ratified. Hostis humani generis may apply.
The doctrine of hot pursuit is well-defined in customary international law, although Nixon preferred secrecy. If the Taliban would not give up al-Qaeda, even after a UN resolution, no cops are going to get them out.
I'll defend Afghanistan but not Iraq policy, and policymakers and troops are two different levels. See Harry Summers. There were also errors in the execution of Tora Bora.
The doctrine of hot pursuit is well-defined in customary international law, although Nixon preferred secrecy. If the Taliban would not give up al-Qaeda, even after a UN resolution, no cops are going to get them out.
I'll defend Afghanistan but not Iraq policy, and policymakers and troops are two different levels. See Harry Summers. There were also errors in the execution of Tora Bora.
Mary [Member] writes:
hcberkowitz:Google Boyle and you will find any number of documents pertaining to international law. Do you remember that the Taliban were willing to give up bin Laden, but Bush blew them off? And some members of the militaryhave said that they were carrying out a special assignment and were very close to capturing bin Laden at or near Tora Bora when they were called off. The question might then be asked, “Was bin Laden really behind this attack?” Bush’s macho boast about hunting him down and getting him dead or alive disappeared from the scene pretty quickly.
Buzz: You might want to hear what the Winter Soldiers have to say about their experiences — since they were there and all.
Buzz: You might want to hear what the Winter Soldiers have to say about their experiences — since they were there and all.
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
No, the Taliban were not willing to give up bin Laden. They offered to try him themselves, if the U.S. provided enough evidence for indictment. Realistically, though, it would have been a violation of the pashtunwali honor code to have given up a guest. Further, the Taliban had been recognized by only 3 world governments, 1 of which withdrew it, and they were not likely to consider international law.
Tora Bora is another matter, as is bin Laden's responsibility for 9/11. I've written on Tora Bora at Citizendium, and the situation was complex -- I don't believe the US made the right decisions there. The boasts disappeared because the Administration fixated on Iraq. Indeed, Wolfowitz and Feith had wanted to attack it first, with no particular evidence.
I have been offering case law and citations, not just saying "go Google," and have published on the subjects here so much more is available.
Tora Bora is another matter, as is bin Laden's responsibility for 9/11. I've written on Tora Bora at Citizendium, and the situation was complex -- I don't believe the US made the right decisions there. The boasts disappeared because the Administration fixated on Iraq. Indeed, Wolfowitz and Feith had wanted to attack it first, with no particular evidence.
I have been offering case law and citations, not just saying "go Google," and have published on the subjects here so much more is available.
Monponsett [Member] writes:
"It's up to you not to heed the call-up... I don't wanna die, I don't wanna kill!"
possee [Member] writes:
bitter
I linked your true oathkeepers and their entire slant is against Israel...
as the true reason we are fighting the so called terrorists in the middle east
The only concept I truly beleive is we have the enemy within..Washington...for starters.
Mere puppets for the international bankers.
To construct the Israelies as our real enemy is absurd..another divide and conquer psyop..
NWO is the only psyop.
possee
I linked your true oathkeepers and their entire slant is against Israel...
as the true reason we are fighting the so called terrorists in the middle east
The only concept I truly beleive is we have the enemy within..Washington...for starters.
Mere puppets for the international bankers.
To construct the Israelies as our real enemy is absurd..another divide and conquer psyop..
NWO is the only psyop.
possee
possee [Member] writes:
I recently read the transcripts from the website of Lt Colnel Craig Roberts.
Also, read and watch Gerald Celente.
I have read in earnest from these sites and more..
They all correlate to what my sources(family) told me 40 years ago.
We are in a world of shit ..yet to come.
Think for yourselves
Trust your gut feelings.
Be prepared for the worst..expect the best.
Do not trust any media.
possee
Also, read and watch Gerald Celente.
I have read in earnest from these sites and more..
They all correlate to what my sources(family) told me 40 years ago.
We are in a world of shit ..yet to come.
Think for yourselves
Trust your gut feelings.
Be prepared for the worst..expect the best.
Do not trust any media.
possee
bittersweet [Member] writes:
I only go with my gut possee....and after that 22 day massacre in Gaza...I need see no more.
Read the Doctrine written by PNAC if you want a blueprint for what is happening right at this moment.
But then again, there is the other side and their agenda too...Who knows how many sides there are!!
And how many agendas?
But Mary is really on to something here. Because even Oliver North talked about this--he said every time they got close to Bin-Laden, the brakes were put on...every time!
The Bin-Laden's and the Bushs's are in business together!! Hello! This whole shpeil about him being "the black sheep rebel", I don't buy it.
He got great notoriety after 9/11--but our high-tech,"best in the world" military can't find him? Bunk. And Bhutto said he's been dead for a long time anyway...plus he got healthcare at one of the foremost American military Hospital, for g's sakes!!
No--the robes are coming off. The emperor is going to be naked real soon.
As Sinead O'Connor sings,
"By their own words, they will be exposed. They have a serious case of the emperors new clothes."
Read the Doctrine written by PNAC if you want a blueprint for what is happening right at this moment.
But then again, there is the other side and their agenda too...Who knows how many sides there are!!
And how many agendas?
But Mary is really on to something here. Because even Oliver North talked about this--he said every time they got close to Bin-Laden, the brakes were put on...every time!
The Bin-Laden's and the Bushs's are in business together!! Hello! This whole shpeil about him being "the black sheep rebel", I don't buy it.
He got great notoriety after 9/11--but our high-tech,"best in the world" military can't find him? Bunk. And Bhutto said he's been dead for a long time anyway...plus he got healthcare at one of the foremost American military Hospital, for g's sakes!!
No--the robes are coming off. The emperor is going to be naked real soon.
As Sinead O'Connor sings,
"By their own words, they will be exposed. They have a serious case of the emperors new clothes."
Walker [Member] writes:
Hamas Covenant 1988 Article Seven
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
Hamas theoretically translates to "strength and bravery", unfortunately Hamas is a bunch of chicken shit terrorists using innocent women and children as human shields.
In responding to their unprovoked aggression, the Israelis have every right to bomb them back into the Stone Age. They have the ability to wipe out the entire Palestinian nation yet they don't, whereas it is Hamas' goal for total genocide.
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
Hamas theoretically translates to "strength and bravery", unfortunately Hamas is a bunch of chicken shit terrorists using innocent women and children as human shields.
In responding to their unprovoked aggression, the Israelis have every right to bomb them back into the Stone Age. They have the ability to wipe out the entire Palestinian nation yet they don't, whereas it is Hamas' goal for total genocide.
possee [Member] writes:
Peter
Notice the growing sentiment of anti-semitism...
A mirror of Eastern Europe during the early 40's....
Massive unemployment
Currency devaluation
Massive corruption
Public anger mounting
Wars and threat of war raging worldwide.
Find the scapegoat.
Your thoughts.
possee
Notice the growing sentiment of anti-semitism...
A mirror of Eastern Europe during the early 40's....
Massive unemployment
Currency devaluation
Massive corruption
Public anger mounting
Wars and threat of war raging worldwide.
Find the scapegoat.
Your thoughts.
possee
dkfalmouth [Member] writes:
Mary,
I tend to agree with the posters here who contend that the legal prohibitions against war that you mention are not as solid as you describe. But who, other than lawyers paid to analyze these specific issues, can really say? Interpreting law is tough.
So, rather than a documentary film and road trip, why not put all of your allegations in a lawsuit? Of course, you'd need good legal representation so funds would have to be raised. But that's the only way to have a real debate of the statutes, etc. that you reference.
If you'd rather stay with influencing public opinion then there's a much easier and time proven approach: Campaign against and then vote against Obama in 2012.
I tend to agree with the posters here who contend that the legal prohibitions against war that you mention are not as solid as you describe. But who, other than lawyers paid to analyze these specific issues, can really say? Interpreting law is tough.
So, rather than a documentary film and road trip, why not put all of your allegations in a lawsuit? Of course, you'd need good legal representation so funds would have to be raised. But that's the only way to have a real debate of the statutes, etc. that you reference.
If you'd rather stay with influencing public opinion then there's a much easier and time proven approach: Campaign against and then vote against Obama in 2012.
Mary [Member] writes:
Well, dkfalmouth, I go with our Constitution. Ask yourself why Bush went to the United Nations. Was it not because he thought he could get the same blessing and form the same type of coalition that his dad had gotten and formed in 1991? But he got turned down. The reason is that a terrorist attack is not on the same level as Iraq invading Kuwait. Nevertheless, Bush went ahead, anyway,and the US has killed many more innocent people than were killed on 9/11.
I am not interested in a legal suit. The way in which these stupid, murderous wars for the benefit of the rich will be stopped is if the troops refuse to participate.
The way to keep this country safe, possee, is not by making more enemies!
I am not interested in a legal suit. The way in which these stupid, murderous wars for the benefit of the rich will be stopped is if the troops refuse to participate.
The way to keep this country safe, possee, is not by making more enemies!
dkfalmouth [Member] writes:
Mary,
Re: "going with the Constitution" I'd ask: "The Constitution according to who?". Unless you're a lawyer I wonder if you're qualified to do the interpreting. I'm sure not.
Of course, we often opine on public policy without being trained experts don't we? That's what public debate, & obviously this blog, are all about. Am I suggesting that we all stop debating public issues because we're not trained experts? Obviously not. But I'll use Afghanistan as an example of the kind of public debate I'm comfortable participating in and why your approach on this issue makes me uncomfortable.
I oppose increasing troop levels in Afghanistan because I don't believe any levels will make us successful there. History tells us that Alexander, the Czars, the British Empire, and the USSR failed in Afghanistan. The American public has very limited patience. We should get out. I think my reading of history and experience watching public policy enables me to offer a decent opinion in this area.
But to interpret legal documents? That's much harder. Well beyond me. That's all I'm saying
Re: "going with the Constitution" I'd ask: "The Constitution according to who?". Unless you're a lawyer I wonder if you're qualified to do the interpreting. I'm sure not.
Of course, we often opine on public policy without being trained experts don't we? That's what public debate, & obviously this blog, are all about. Am I suggesting that we all stop debating public issues because we're not trained experts? Obviously not. But I'll use Afghanistan as an example of the kind of public debate I'm comfortable participating in and why your approach on this issue makes me uncomfortable.
I oppose increasing troop levels in Afghanistan because I don't believe any levels will make us successful there. History tells us that Alexander, the Czars, the British Empire, and the USSR failed in Afghanistan. The American public has very limited patience. We should get out. I think my reading of history and experience watching public policy enables me to offer a decent opinion in this area.
But to interpret legal documents? That's much harder. Well beyond me. That's all I'm saying
dkfalmouth [Member] writes:
Mary,
You say: "The way in which these stupid, murderous wars for the benefit of the rich will be stopped is if the troops refuse to participate."
I think what you're saying is that your reading of the Constitution and other documents tells you that such refusal would not be illegal.
If that's what you're saying, it's a very bold statement unless you're a lawyer qualified to interpret this stuff. If you're not, there's a very good choice that you're encouraging soldiers to break the law.
If, on the other hand, you acknowledge that refusal would be against the law then you're suggesting that soldiers risk years in Leavenworth.
No?
You say: "The way in which these stupid, murderous wars for the benefit of the rich will be stopped is if the troops refuse to participate."
I think what you're saying is that your reading of the Constitution and other documents tells you that such refusal would not be illegal.
If that's what you're saying, it's a very bold statement unless you're a lawyer qualified to interpret this stuff. If you're not, there's a very good choice that you're encouraging soldiers to break the law.
If, on the other hand, you acknowledge that refusal would be against the law then you're suggesting that soldiers risk years in Leavenworth.
No?
Mary [Member] writes:
dk: March Forward! members have looked at all the documents and, as I quoted them in my article, have concluded that these wars are immoral and illegal. Organizations like the Center for Constitutional Rights and prominent, internationally-known experts like Professor Francis Boyle have detailed why they are illegal. I cannot put all of their material into a 750 word article.
Does it give you cause to pause that the 50,000 AWOLs have not been hunted down and imprisoned at Leavenworth? Court-martials are ponied up against refusers like Lt. Ehren Watada because they did it PUBLICLY. But the military was not able to convict him after three years of trying and he was allowed to resign.
If you read the Uniform Code of Military Justice you will see that the word that most often precedes orders is “lawful.” “Just following orders” is not a defense against committing war crimes.
Does it give you cause to pause that the 50,000 AWOLs have not been hunted down and imprisoned at Leavenworth? Court-martials are ponied up against refusers like Lt. Ehren Watada because they did it PUBLICLY. But the military was not able to convict him after three years of trying and he was allowed to resign.
If you read the Uniform Code of Military Justice you will see that the word that most often precedes orders is “lawful.” “Just following orders” is not a defense against committing war crimes.
Mary [Member] writes:
dk: March Forward! members have looked at all the documents and, as I quoted them in my article, have concluded that these wars are immoral and illegal. Organizations like the Center for Constitutional Rights and prominent, internationally-known experts like Professor Francis Boyle have detailed why they are illegal. I cannot put all of their material into a 750 word article.
Does it give you cause to pause that the 50,000 AWOLs have not been hunted down and imprisoned at Leavenworth? Court-martials are ponied up against refusers like Lt. Ehren Watada because they did it PUBLICLY. But the military was not able to convict him after three years of trying and he was allowed to resign without spending a single day in jail.
If you read the Uniform Code of Military Justice you will see that the word that most often precedes orders is “lawful.” “Just following orders” is not a defense against committing war crimes.
Does it give you cause to pause that the 50,000 AWOLs have not been hunted down and imprisoned at Leavenworth? Court-martials are ponied up against refusers like Lt. Ehren Watada because they did it PUBLICLY. But the military was not able to convict him after three years of trying and he was allowed to resign without spending a single day in jail.
If you read the Uniform Code of Military Justice you will see that the word that most often precedes orders is “lawful.” “Just following orders” is not a defense against committing war crimes.
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
DK, for the record, I am not an attorney, but do have considerable experience with international law, especially in military and intelligence areas. Many articles, of which I'm the primary author, are at Citizendium dot org. As Mary says, you can't put the issues in a 750-word article, but you CAN link to specifics. In my historical and legal writing for record, I try to separate facts from such things as my opinion of neocon ideology.
So, recognizing that this site does not allow true links, it would seem appropriate to at least reference specific, detailed work by March Forward. I welcome people to join Citizendium (a real name site) and collaborate in approving articles.
Boyle is at the U. of Illinois law school, indeed a scholar, but not unique among those writing on the laws of war. I'll create a brief bio now on Citizendium.
So, recognizing that this site does not allow true links, it would seem appropriate to at least reference specific, detailed work by March Forward. I welcome people to join Citizendium (a real name site) and collaborate in approving articles.
Boyle is at the U. of Illinois law school, indeed a scholar, but not unique among those writing on the laws of war. I'll create a brief bio now on Citizendium.
dkfalmouth [Member] writes:
Mary and HCB,
Does Boyle say that refusing to go to Afghanistan or Iraq is legal? If not, you're still asking soldiers to risk Leavenworth for your and his convictions.
Does Boyle say that refusing to go to Afghanistan or Iraq is legal? If not, you're still asking soldiers to risk Leavenworth for your and his convictions.
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
DK, I haven't said refusing is legal. That's Mary's position. I am still researching Boyle and have the start of a biography at Citizendium. He's a respected international lawyer, but certainly not the ultimate authority.
Personally, I would find it quite hard for a soldier to lawfully refuse to deploy, especially to Iraq. One would have a better case arguing against specific orders there. Nevertheless, I believe the Iraq War was a blunder, but I consider, as Richard Haass put it, Afghanistan to be a "war of necessity" and Iraq a "war of choice".
Actually, I have one friend doing IED disposal in Iraq, and am helping his soldier wife get medical waivers to deploy. They are professional soldiers, in the best sense of the word.
I can disagree with policy and agree with operational legality. In Vietnam, the opprobium was directed at the implementers, not makers, of policy.
Personally, I would find it quite hard for a soldier to lawfully refuse to deploy, especially to Iraq. One would have a better case arguing against specific orders there. Nevertheless, I believe the Iraq War was a blunder, but I consider, as Richard Haass put it, Afghanistan to be a "war of necessity" and Iraq a "war of choice".
Actually, I have one friend doing IED disposal in Iraq, and am helping his soldier wife get medical waivers to deploy. They are professional soldiers, in the best sense of the word.
I can disagree with policy and agree with operational legality. In Vietnam, the opprobium was directed at the implementers, not makers, of policy.
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
I quote Mary, "I am not interested in a legal suit. The way in which these stupid, murderous wars for the benefit of the rich will be stopped is if the troops refuse to participate."
But what happens if troops decide to act against authority in other situations? Truman ordered racial integration over considerable protest. Edwin Walker was relieved after trying to get his German occupation troops to go and chase Communists. What if MacArthur had refused to be relieved by Truman? There were the Civil War draft riots, and large-scale desertions; Chamberlain might not have won Little Round Top unless he convinced soldiers, who believed their enlistments were over, to fight.
The U.S. has never had a military coup; which is the flip side of not having direct disobedience of orders, which does not preclude legal proceedings.
But what happens if troops decide to act against authority in other situations? Truman ordered racial integration over considerable protest. Edwin Walker was relieved after trying to get his German occupation troops to go and chase Communists. What if MacArthur had refused to be relieved by Truman? There were the Civil War draft riots, and large-scale desertions; Chamberlain might not have won Little Round Top unless he convinced soldiers, who believed their enlistments were over, to fight.
The U.S. has never had a military coup; which is the flip side of not having direct disobedience of orders, which does not preclude legal proceedings.
Walker [Member] writes:
I'll save you the trouble hc, Francis Boyle is an anti-Semetic moonbat who like Mary and bitter, still suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
He has declared that Iran should pre-emtively sue the US, Hawaii is a sovereign nation and that Dubya was frothing at the bit to unleash nukes and start WW III.
Read his writings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it's pretty simple to see where his head is at.
Just like Boyle, it is easy for someone like Mary to advise others to jeopardize their careers and lives from the safety of their keyboard.
He has declared that Iran should pre-emtively sue the US, Hawaii is a sovereign nation and that Dubya was frothing at the bit to unleash nukes and start WW III.
Read his writings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it's pretty simple to see where his head is at.
Just like Boyle, it is easy for someone like Mary to advise others to jeopardize their careers and lives from the safety of their keyboard.
possee [Member] writes:
"The week before Christmas"
‘Tis the week before Christmas and all through the land,
not a freedom is safe from Obama’s hand.
Bankers, bewildered, before him now bow,
while auto-makers, thankful, praise his cash cow.
With energy and health care nearing control,
his grasp on the nation is as he foretold.
The people are stirred by his escapades, ......
and are some are but shocked by the history they made.
Obama is not what he promised to be;
he brings to us all, instead,.. tyranny.
possee
‘Tis the week before Christmas and all through the land,
not a freedom is safe from Obama’s hand.
Bankers, bewildered, before him now bow,
while auto-makers, thankful, praise his cash cow.
With energy and health care nearing control,
his grasp on the nation is as he foretold.
The people are stirred by his escapades, ......
and are some are but shocked by the history they made.
Obama is not what he promised to be;
he brings to us all, instead,.. tyranny.
possee
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
Possee, not a blog thread is immune from attempted hijacking to rant about different subjects.
dolphin [Member] writes:
hc...your thought..."What if MacArthur had refused to be relieved by Truman?"
The world would be a better place.
The world would be a better place.
Mary [Member] writes:
Look, there is a difference between disobeying a lawful order and not obeying an unlawful one. And it is good to know the difference. MacArthur knew that Truman had the authority to relieve him of his command - so he faded away into retirement.
I am not the only person who is saying that refusing to be deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan is legal. The March Forward members are as well. And thouands have already done so and have not been imprisoned. I, and they, want thousands more to do so. I believe that making a film would be a way of spreading the word because the corporate-owned media are not doing so. Those owners are quite happy to see these military men and women spill their guts so they can bid for oil rights.
Seventeen soldiers are committing suicide EVERY DAY. Maybe we could save those lives if they knew that they could refuse to kill innocent people.
I am not the only person who is saying that refusing to be deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan is legal. The March Forward members are as well. And thouands have already done so and have not been imprisoned. I, and they, want thousands more to do so. I believe that making a film would be a way of spreading the word because the corporate-owned media are not doing so. Those owners are quite happy to see these military men and women spill their guts so they can bid for oil rights.
Seventeen soldiers are committing suicide EVERY DAY. Maybe we could save those lives if they knew that they could refuse to kill innocent people.
Walker [Member] writes:
Howard, considering the substance,(or lack thereof) in regards to this thread, reciting poetry ala Robert Byrd on the floor of the Senate, could be deemed acceptable.
bittersweet [Member] writes:
It is not anti-semitism to hate what Israel did to the Palestinians in Gaza. In fact,I would say any on who supports their actions has humane deficiency disorder.
That's why a Zionist Judge deemed it a war crime. You know, a crime against humanity--
Kind of like the Nazi's perpetrated against them...remember?
Did you support that too?
Or do you think it's ok to shoot children point blank in front of their parents?
Shoot pregnant women for sport?
Bomb the hell out of little babies?
Read what the IDF soldiers themselves said....if you can support that, you are no better than a Nazi.
And btw, the Palestinians who are born there are semites too. Much more so than the settler Jews moving there from the USA.
So in actuality, it is you who are an anti-semite...since you insist on throwing around labels...as always.
That's why a Zionist Judge deemed it a war crime. You know, a crime against humanity--
Kind of like the Nazi's perpetrated against them...remember?
Did you support that too?
Or do you think it's ok to shoot children point blank in front of their parents?
Shoot pregnant women for sport?
Bomb the hell out of little babies?
Read what the IDF soldiers themselves said....if you can support that, you are no better than a Nazi.
And btw, the Palestinians who are born there are semites too. Much more so than the settler Jews moving there from the USA.
So in actuality, it is you who are an anti-semite...since you insist on throwing around labels...as always.
Walker [Member] writes:
Was that the Fulford Zippy or the 17 cat Zippy?
I just want to make sure I'm addressing the right moonbat.
I just want to make sure I'm addressing the right moonbat.
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
Unless you are abandoning the Constitution, Mary, the only way legality will be determined is in court. No matter how many "people say it", it won't be resolved. Yes, I agree there is too much corporate media control -- but by the very fact of this communication, they don't stop it.
I'm afraid your view is that demonstrations and civil disobedience substitutes for a legal process, a view that simply doesn't work in the long term. As far as the legal analysis, I have, online, quite a bit of specifics; and would be delighted to hear specifics back.
There are also significant legal differences between Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan did involve both UN resolutions, and also the first invocation of Article V North Atlantic Charter. I won't say that oil is absolutely not a factor in Afghanistan; it's a possible pipeline route rather than having any oil.
Killing innocent people isn't the primary cause of PTSD, but losing unit members.
I'm afraid your view is that demonstrations and civil disobedience substitutes for a legal process, a view that simply doesn't work in the long term. As far as the legal analysis, I have, online, quite a bit of specifics; and would be delighted to hear specifics back.
There are also significant legal differences between Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan did involve both UN resolutions, and also the first invocation of Article V North Atlantic Charter. I won't say that oil is absolutely not a factor in Afghanistan; it's a possible pipeline route rather than having any oil.
Killing innocent people isn't the primary cause of PTSD, but losing unit members.
Mary [Member] writes:
he: A previous post of mine — And the Reason We Are In Afghanistan is … ? — lays out the evidence that indicates that the desire to have one or more pipelines across Afghanistan is precisely why we have troops there. If we can prop up Hamid and friends enough to get stability through buying off the warlords we can build the line. Dubious proposition.
Please read or re-read above comment about Lt. Watada. The government already knows that it will not win in court, but perhaps we can keep it a secret from the troops.
What treaties, precisely, are you thinking about that justify an invasion of that country?
Please read or re-read above comment about Lt. Watada. The government already knows that it will not win in court, but perhaps we can keep it a secret from the troops.
What treaties, precisely, are you thinking about that justify an invasion of that country?
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
First, the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force was adequate under U.S. law. There is no generally accepted U.S. court decision that says that U.N. permission is necessary.
For that matter, careful reading of the UN Charter, Chapter I, shows that while it deprecates attack, it does not prevent it. This is especially obvious when it is compared against the strict prohibition of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Chapter VII of the Charter does allow attack with Security Council approval, or in self defense (Article 51).
There was nothing this specific for Iraq.
Second, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373.
Third, Article V of the NATO Charter.
Oil isn't the only consideration; it's also Pakistani stability. Unfortunately, the Durand Line does not reflect political-ethnic geography. Afghanistan itself is nonstrategic.
For that matter, careful reading of the UN Charter, Chapter I, shows that while it deprecates attack, it does not prevent it. This is especially obvious when it is compared against the strict prohibition of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Chapter VII of the Charter does allow attack with Security Council approval, or in self defense (Article 51).
There was nothing this specific for Iraq.
Second, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373.
Third, Article V of the NATO Charter.
Oil isn't the only consideration; it's also Pakistani stability. Unfortunately, the Durand Line does not reflect political-ethnic geography. Afghanistan itself is nonstrategic.
Mary [Member] writes:
hc: I disagree. UN permission is necessary because under Article VI of the Constitution the UN Charter is a binding agreement and becomes the law of the land. You write, “Chapter VII of the Charter does allow attack with Security Council approval, or in self defense (Article 51)” Yes, they are the two reasons that a country that is a member of the UN may go to war. Since neither pertains to Afghanistan or Iraq, they are illegal wars — wars of aggression.
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
No, Mary. That is a common misconception. The language of Charter VII applies if and only if the matter has first been brought before the Security Council. Otherwise, the language of Chapter I advises against, but does not forbid war, if the matter has not been brought before the Security Council. If you think Chapter I bans, compare its language with that of Kellogg-Briand, which is a definite prohibition. If you were making an argument based on the ignored Kellogg-Briand, you might have a case linking that to the Constitution -- but Chapter I of the UN Charter doesn't do it.
Now, Iraq, but not Afghanistan, stretched Security Council approval. It was construed to be an extension of the No-Fly resolutions.
I'm afraid that the arguments that Chapter I forbids war, or that Chapter VII/Article 51, binds the U.S. against all wars tends to be an ideological argument of those opposed to all wars.
Now, Iraq, but not Afghanistan, stretched Security Council approval. It was construed to be an extension of the No-Fly resolutions.
I'm afraid that the arguments that Chapter I forbids war, or that Chapter VII/Article 51, binds the U.S. against all wars tends to be an ideological argument of those opposed to all wars.
Walker [Member] writes:
"Article VI states that treaties signed by our presidents are the law of the land. This article binds us to the Charter of the United Nations..."
You're kidding right?
Article 6, contains the “supremacy clause" (the one you are misinterpreting), which is the guarantor of a national union. It declares that the Constitution and federal laws take precedence over state law, primarily stating that all State and federal officials, must take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
But hey, don't take my word for it.....
In Reid v. Covert, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."
Perhaps bartenderfromhell is not the one who needs to “read the Constitution”.
You're kidding right?
Article 6, contains the “supremacy clause" (the one you are misinterpreting), which is the guarantor of a national union. It declares that the Constitution and federal laws take precedence over state law, primarily stating that all State and federal officials, must take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
But hey, don't take my word for it.....
In Reid v. Covert, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."
Perhaps bartenderfromhell is not the one who needs to “read the Constitution”.
bittersweet [Member] writes:
So Walker, you support the president on this?
Where are you all that always give war presidents the heads up?
Where are you all that always give war presidents the heads up?
Walker [Member] writes:
I’m guessing this is Cat 17 Zippy asking so here we go; do I support the President on what?
On delaying deployment and then short changing the Commander of the USFOR-A by 10,000 troops to make a statement that he is in charge?
You ask as the question as though the President is some great military strategist. I support those who have the experience to make the decisions and for those who don’t to be advised.
Doesn’t Obama have the same military experience as Dick Cheney and even less than GWB,where's that rant catwoman? Obama postured for the benefit of public opinion and the troops on the ground paid the price.
On delaying deployment and then short changing the Commander of the USFOR-A by 10,000 troops to make a statement that he is in charge?
You ask as the question as though the President is some great military strategist. I support those who have the experience to make the decisions and for those who don’t to be advised.
Doesn’t Obama have the same military experience as Dick Cheney and even less than GWB,where's that rant catwoman? Obama postured for the benefit of public opinion and the troops on the ground paid the price.
Ned [Member] writes:
Wow PW this is like if Dubya started geting confused about all the nicknames he made up for the Press Corps. My condolences! While we're on the subject... Is McChrystal a real Scots-Irish hillbilly name or some kind of made-up Scots-Irish hillbilly name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal This seems not to be Stanley's fault, as it goes back as far as his dad Herbert... but I don't see anybody in Scotland with that name.
Mary [Member] writes:
PW: Article VI says that this Constitution, and the laws of the United States and “all treaties made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.”
If your interpretation is correct then the treaties that our presidents have signed are not worth the paper they are written on.
If your interpretation is correct then the treaties that our presidents have signed are not worth the paper they are written on.
Mary [Member] writes:
PW: Article VI says that this Constitution, and the laws of the United States and “all treaties made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.”
If your interpretation is correct then the treaties that our presidents have signed are not worth the paper they are written on.
If your interpretation is correct then the treaties that our presidents have signed are not worth the paper they are written on.
Walker [Member] writes:
I believe his lineage goes back to Sir William Wallace and Princess Isabelle.
Walker [Member] writes:
It's not just my interpretation, it's the ruling of the SCOTUS. Go argue it in front of them.
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
Mary: it's not PW's interpretation. It is, among other things, the interpretation of the Supreme Court in Reid v. Covert. For a more recent one, Medellin v. Texas (2008).
Treaties are, indeed, worth the paper they are written upon--and the amount of national advantage they bring--when there is no mechanism of enforcement. The U.S. Constitution carefully sets out checks and balances; while the unitary authority people argue for unchecked Presidential power (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory), it's hard for me to imagine that the Supremacy clause, historically Federal vs. state, overturns in favor of international organizations.
Just to confuse things, the Treaty of Paris (1846) was the definitive international law of piracy, and indeed extensible to terrorism -- but few countries ratified it, yet most followed it.
If you do buy fully into unitary authority, then the President can override any law. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) seems to say otherwise.
There still remains the question if the UNC actually forbids war.
Treaties are, indeed, worth the paper they are written upon--and the amount of national advantage they bring--when there is no mechanism of enforcement. The U.S. Constitution carefully sets out checks and balances; while the unitary authority people argue for unchecked Presidential power (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory), it's hard for me to imagine that the Supremacy clause, historically Federal vs. state, overturns in favor of international organizations.
Just to confuse things, the Treaty of Paris (1846) was the definitive international law of piracy, and indeed extensible to terrorism -- but few countries ratified it, yet most followed it.
If you do buy fully into unitary authority, then the President can override any law. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) seems to say otherwise.
There still remains the question if the UNC actually forbids war.
bittersweet [Member] writes:
Here you go Walkman: *The Rant*
"Ever since the leaking of his confidential Afghanistan report in August, conservatives have used General Stanley McChrystal as a bludgeon against President Obama. Conveniently ignoring President Bush's repeated refusals to "listen to the commanders on the ground," GOP leaders in Congress continue to blast Obama for "dithering" in response to McChrystal's request for more troops. But lost in the predictable Beltway narrative about Obama and the generals in the wake of last week's escalation was a stern rebuke of Bush's failure to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. And it came from General McChrystal.
McChrysal's assessment came just days after Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee one week after a scathing report documenting the U.S. failure to capture Bin Laden when he was "within our grasp" at Tora Bora in December 2001"--Perrspectives web-site
Yeah, great strategists, those two (GW and Dkhead).
Guess we are all paying the price for their military genius.
"Ever since the leaking of his confidential Afghanistan report in August, conservatives have used General Stanley McChrystal as a bludgeon against President Obama. Conveniently ignoring President Bush's repeated refusals to "listen to the commanders on the ground," GOP leaders in Congress continue to blast Obama for "dithering" in response to McChrystal's request for more troops. But lost in the predictable Beltway narrative about Obama and the generals in the wake of last week's escalation was a stern rebuke of Bush's failure to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. And it came from General McChrystal.
McChrysal's assessment came just days after Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee one week after a scathing report documenting the U.S. failure to capture Bin Laden when he was "within our grasp" at Tora Bora in December 2001"--Perrspectives web-site
Yeah, great strategists, those two (GW and Dkhead).
Guess we are all paying the price for their military genius.
Mary [Member] writes:
Here is Professor Frances Boyle’s assessment of what our presidents have been doing for a while now. Also, why the US doesn’t have a case against bin Laden or for invading Afghanistan, etc., etc.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/CrimNukDetSI.html
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/CrimNukDetSI.html
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
Mary, Peter and I have offered just a few more references than one law professor. How about something from a more centrist site than ratical.org? Now, I'll use ratical, but I'll cross-check with more mainstream sources, just as I may see something on a David Horowitz site but again will confirm it elsewhere.
Boyle does seem to do a fair bit of representation of other countries, (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Francis_Boyle) but I can't find any Congressional testimony. He certainly has written books and articles, but he is principally quoted on radical websites.
Have you, incidentally, read any of the Citizendium links I have posted?
Boyle does seem to do a fair bit of representation of other countries, (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Francis_Boyle) but I can't find any Congressional testimony. He certainly has written books and articles, but he is principally quoted on radical websites.
Have you, incidentally, read any of the Citizendium links I have posted?
Walker [Member] writes:
Re: Zippy's Rant,(aka cats tap dancing on the keyboard).
Are you saying if George jumped off a bridge, Barry should too?
It's pretty pathetic to constantly resort to "Well George Bush did this and...."
You asked me about Obama not Bush, if you want to discuss that subject(GWB), have at it.
Loosen up on the foil already.
Are you saying if George jumped off a bridge, Barry should too?
It's pretty pathetic to constantly resort to "Well George Bush did this and...."
You asked me about Obama not Bush, if you want to discuss that subject(GWB), have at it.
Loosen up on the foil already.
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
I have read the Boyle document you stated. Before going on, let me comment that many analysts find a significant legal difference in the justifications for Afghanistan and Iraq, and lumping them together does not help reasoned discussion.
Apropos careful legal analysis, Boyle's article begins "George W. Bush was never elected President by the People of the United States of America. Instead, he was anointed for that Office by five Justices of the United States Supreme Court who themselves had been appointed by Republican Presidents. Bush Jr.'s installation was an act of judicial usurpation of the American Constitution that was unprecedented in the history of the American Republic."
Not exactly how a court decision, or even a Law Review, article begins. His section "Choosing Violent Resolutions for International Disputes" is disingenous at best, citing the obsolete Kellogg-Briand, and then SELECTED parts of UN Charter Articles.
How about some legal analysis rather than conspiracy theories and polemics? It exists.
Apropos careful legal analysis, Boyle's article begins "George W. Bush was never elected President by the People of the United States of America. Instead, he was anointed for that Office by five Justices of the United States Supreme Court who themselves had been appointed by Republican Presidents. Bush Jr.'s installation was an act of judicial usurpation of the American Constitution that was unprecedented in the history of the American Republic."
Not exactly how a court decision, or even a Law Review, article begins. His section "Choosing Violent Resolutions for International Disputes" is disingenous at best, citing the obsolete Kellogg-Briand, and then SELECTED parts of UN Charter Articles.
How about some legal analysis rather than conspiracy theories and polemics? It exists.
dolphin [Member] writes:
hc...I give you all the credit in the world for debating with a stone wall known as "Mary the Ma(i)niac".
Good luck and enjoy the holidays.
Good luck and enjoy the holidays.
Walker [Member] writes:
George Bush, Jr., September 11th and the Rule of Law by Francis A. Boyle
"George W. Bush was never elected President by the People of the United States of America..."
That was all I needed to read, thank you very much for your input Mary.
Only 10 days till the full moon, get your tinfoil ready!
"...stone wall..."? I was thinking more along the lines of a box-of-rocks.
"George W. Bush was never elected President by the People of the United States of America..."
That was all I needed to read, thank you very much for your input Mary.
Only 10 days till the full moon, get your tinfoil ready!
"...stone wall..."? I was thinking more along the lines of a box-of-rocks.
dolphin [Member] writes:
Dali provides the truth with one image. Says it all about war.
http://www.theartistsalvadordali.com/dalifaceofwar.jpg
PS...and with no dimples.
http://www.theartistsalvadordali.com/dalifaceofwar.jpg
PS...and with no dimples.
Mary [Member] writes:
hc: Boyle is a respected international lawyer. In regard to being quoted on radical sites, what difference does that make? It is what is said that is important. Mainstream has been proven to be wrong many times.
I did go to your web site but it was more than confusing and I could not find any articles posted by you. But I do not doubt your word that there have been.
I think that we are going to disagree on these issues. That’s okay. I will continue to support March Forward! because I want to stop the horrible outcomes for both sides.
I did go to your web site but it was more than confusing and I could not find any articles posted by you. But I do not doubt your word that there have been.
I think that we are going to disagree on these issues. That’s okay. I will continue to support March Forward! because I want to stop the horrible outcomes for both sides.
Ned [Member] writes:
My four-year-old could paint a better face of war than that face of war. If I had a four-year-old.
dolphin [Member] writes:
Neddy...for once we agree.
I am sure a four year old would paint a better face of war with their innocence.
Might you?
I am sure a four year old would paint a better face of war with their innocence.
Might you?
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
The Citizendium website is collaborative, so the links I gave were things on which I worked. You can see my specific contributions by clicking the "history" tab.
As far as radical sites, for either end of the political spectrum, I use the definition of "radical" to be that which essentially has abandoned the conventional political system, preferring rallies, protest, and drama rather than "policy wonking", legislative drafting, testimony, etc.
Given that perspective, it's less likely to find someone that is authoritative on legal analysis. When your cited Boyle article begins with a polemic about Bush, that's hardly addressing the legality of the points that you raised in your original post. You seem to brush off Supreme Court decisions with which you don't agree, but advise soldiers to put themselves in legal jeopardy.
War is a terrible thing. Sometimes it is the least worst choice. Iraq wasn't. I believe Afghanistan was in principle.
Could the material be confusing because it assumes too much legal background?
As far as radical sites, for either end of the political spectrum, I use the definition of "radical" to be that which essentially has abandoned the conventional political system, preferring rallies, protest, and drama rather than "policy wonking", legislative drafting, testimony, etc.
Given that perspective, it's less likely to find someone that is authoritative on legal analysis. When your cited Boyle article begins with a polemic about Bush, that's hardly addressing the legality of the points that you raised in your original post. You seem to brush off Supreme Court decisions with which you don't agree, but advise soldiers to put themselves in legal jeopardy.
War is a terrible thing. Sometimes it is the least worst choice. Iraq wasn't. I believe Afghanistan was in principle.
Could the material be confusing because it assumes too much legal background?
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
Peter,
What's this problem you have with cats on keyboards?
(signed...Mr.Clark and Rhonda, Howard's feline staff)
On the other paw, you don't need tinfoil for us, when there's http://www.bitboost.com/pawsense/
What's this problem you have with cats on keyboards?
(signed...Mr.Clark and Rhonda, Howard's feline staff)
On the other paw, you don't need tinfoil for us, when there's http://www.bitboost.com/pawsense/
Walker [Member] writes:
In response to "Captain Bottlenose",
as read by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia...
Little Neddy Sonntag
was never quite sure what was his bag
fat chix with dimples
cankles and pimples
he did so enjoy them to shag.
‘till one day online, he learned of the Cap
and something inside his head did indeed snap
as he fixated on mav’s stern
his imagination did burn
and his orientation did quickly unwrap
his lust however remains unrequited
but he never left it to be un-cited
as he professed it daily
in a manner quite gaily
but managed to get only himself incited
now the Captain didn’t want any part
of what Keebler held deep in his heart
for Ned was a feeder
while Jack was a breeder
and JA would remain his sweetheart
now this could go on and on forever
as the elf thinks he is just oh so clever
but he’s become a fly in need of a swat
and alas his efforts will all be for naught
for his goal shall be reached sadly never
as read by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia...
Little Neddy Sonntag
was never quite sure what was his bag
fat chix with dimples
cankles and pimples
he did so enjoy them to shag.
‘till one day online, he learned of the Cap
and something inside his head did indeed snap
as he fixated on mav’s stern
his imagination did burn
and his orientation did quickly unwrap
his lust however remains unrequited
but he never left it to be un-cited
as he professed it daily
in a manner quite gaily
but managed to get only himself incited
now the Captain didn’t want any part
of what Keebler held deep in his heart
for Ned was a feeder
while Jack was a breeder
and JA would remain his sweetheart
now this could go on and on forever
as the elf thinks he is just oh so clever
but he’s become a fly in need of a swat
and alas his efforts will all be for naught
for his goal shall be reached sadly never
Walker [Member] writes:
Great stuff Howard ;-D
You can buy PawSense(TM) by credit card, check, or money order. PawSense costs $19.99 (plus shipping and handling)
Hey Zippy,
you better watch out,
you better be nice,
he's makin' a list
and checkin' it twice.....
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You can buy PawSense(TM) by credit card, check, or money order. PawSense costs $19.99 (plus shipping and handling)
Hey Zippy,
you better watch out,
you better be nice,
he's makin' a list
and checkin' it twice.....
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Mary [Member] writes:
he: Here’s another lawyer writing about illegalities —
http://www.truthout.org/1221094
I find your notion that this war could be stopped by policy wonking, legislative drafting, or testimony avoids the realities of today’s inside the beltway corruption.
http://www.truthout.org/1221094
I find your notion that this war could be stopped by policy wonking, legislative drafting, or testimony avoids the realities of today’s inside the beltway corruption.
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
It might not be corruption, but, after 40 years in DC, the traditional mass marches have zero effect on policy. I've stood next to legislators looking out on the Mall and convincing themselves that none of THEIR constitutents are out there.
If one looks at the Phillipines and elsewhere, however, there's a more modern approach, if you do feel the need to show up in person. I've long believed that if 100 people showed up, simultaneously, at each Congressional district office in the country, it could not be ignored.
It is rather unrealistic to assume that, in the volunteer military culture, there will be mutiny -- which is what you are proposing if you think of it on a large scale. You're ignoring the nature of bonding in military units -- Janowitz and Huntington are the classic studies of military sociology. Pick a realistic approach if you want to affect things.
Your second link has exactly the same inaccurate impression of the UN Charter, and, indeed, the Afghanistan resolution that authorized force.
If one looks at the Phillipines and elsewhere, however, there's a more modern approach, if you do feel the need to show up in person. I've long believed that if 100 people showed up, simultaneously, at each Congressional district office in the country, it could not be ignored.
It is rather unrealistic to assume that, in the volunteer military culture, there will be mutiny -- which is what you are proposing if you think of it on a large scale. You're ignoring the nature of bonding in military units -- Janowitz and Huntington are the classic studies of military sociology. Pick a realistic approach if you want to affect things.
Your second link has exactly the same inaccurate impression of the UN Charter, and, indeed, the Afghanistan resolution that authorized force.
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
UNSC Resolution 1378, of 14 November 2001 (i.e., a month after the U.S. started military operations): "Supporting international efforts to root out terrorism, in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming also its resolutions 1368 (2001) of 12
September 2001 and 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001, Recognizing the urgency of the security and political situation in Afghanistan in light of the most recent developments, particularly in Kabul,
Condemning the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base for the
export of terrorism by the Al-Qaida network and other terrorist groups and for providing safe haven to Usama Bin Laden, Al-Qaida and others associated with them, and in this context supporting the efforts of the Afghan people to replace the Taliban regime..."
Hardly a condemnation of U.S. action, the action of the Afghan Northern Alliance, a statement of violation of the Charter...
There is no such support for Iraq.
September 2001 and 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001, Recognizing the urgency of the security and political situation in Afghanistan in light of the most recent developments, particularly in Kabul,
Condemning the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base for the
export of terrorism by the Al-Qaida network and other terrorist groups and for providing safe haven to Usama Bin Laden, Al-Qaida and others associated with them, and in this context supporting the efforts of the Afghan people to replace the Taliban regime..."
Hardly a condemnation of U.S. action, the action of the Afghan Northern Alliance, a statement of violation of the Charter...
There is no such support for Iraq.
dolphin [Member] writes:
Peter Walker...love your prose.
And thanks for the heads up...will stroll through Chatham with my anal chastity belt on.
Might the High-Fiver's bond and give the gift of love to Bittaaah? I think PawSense would make a great gift.
And while in the holiday spirit how about a box of crayons for the Nerd?
And thanks for the heads up...will stroll through Chatham with my anal chastity belt on.
Might the High-Fiver's bond and give the gift of love to Bittaaah? I think PawSense would make a great gift.
And while in the holiday spirit how about a box of crayons for the Nerd?
bittersweet [Member] writes:
Cats are much smarter than knuckle-draggers.
Sharper claws too.....
As far as "bringing up Bush"--
His time on office was the cause of much criminality. You think people "just forget"?
THINK AGAIN.
Maybe kool-aid drinkers like yourself, not real Liberty and Justice for All Americans.
Sharper claws too.....
As far as "bringing up Bush"--
His time on office was the cause of much criminality. You think people "just forget"?
THINK AGAIN.
Maybe kool-aid drinkers like yourself, not real Liberty and Justice for All Americans.
dolphin [Member] writes:
" real Liberty and Justice for All Americans ".
Better known as ACORN!
bittaaah! I would love a position in your ACORN precinct. I will be on time and fulfill the mission of the chapter.
Promise to bring a knowledge of drugs and prostitution. And I have had war experience.
But above all I love cats. The more the merrier.
Happy Holidays
Better known as ACORN!
bittaaah! I would love a position in your ACORN precinct. I will be on time and fulfill the mission of the chapter.
Promise to bring a knowledge of drugs and prostitution. And I have had war experience.
But above all I love cats. The more the merrier.
Happy Holidays
bittersweet [Member] writes:
I've had war experience too...was married! *drum-roll*
Any and all volunteers needed.
One caviat...must have a lot of HEART....JC type.
That whole Agapi Love thing.
Otherwise, go join a Tea Party.
Only loving those like yourself does not qualify.
Any and all volunteers needed.
One caviat...must have a lot of HEART....JC type.
That whole Agapi Love thing.
Otherwise, go join a Tea Party.
Only loving those like yourself does not qualify.
Walker [Member] writes:
Indeed Jack, Black Ops feline infiltration has just reached DEF CON 5, the cats have staged a coup d'état on bitter's keyboard once again, Oh the humanity!
Does that now make us "Knuckle-Dragging, Kool-Aid-Drinking, Slappy-Sounding, High-Fiving Trolls?
And so it was decreed in "The World According to Walker", Zippy is hereby elevated to "Queen Moonbat Extraordinaire", second only to King Benjamin Fulford from the planet Xerkon.
Does that now make us "Knuckle-Dragging, Kool-Aid-Drinking, Slappy-Sounding, High-Fiving Trolls?
And so it was decreed in "The World According to Walker", Zippy is hereby elevated to "Queen Moonbat Extraordinaire", second only to King Benjamin Fulford from the planet Xerkon.
Mary [Member] writes:
he: I am familiar with the male bonding that takes place in the military. But that has gone out the window with the 50,000 AWOLs-and-counting that have already taken place plus the large number that have been quietly discharged not to mention the number of suicides that are now exceeding the number of combat deaths. So much for unit cohesion.
Furthernore, I am not alone in advocating GIs refuse to deploy.
Your idea that mass marches are worthless is rubbish. How do you think we got the eight-hour day? Or formed unions? Etc.
Furthernore, I am not alone in advocating GIs refuse to deploy.
Your idea that mass marches are worthless is rubbish. How do you think we got the eight-hour day? Or formed unions? Etc.
hcberkowitz [Member] writes:
Male? Where did I say that?
I can assure you that my mother never male bonded in her military career. Even though I believe the Iraq invasion should not have happened, that doesn't distract from the bonding in a case like Raven 42--about as diverse a unit as one could create.
Yes, mass marches got unions and the eight-hour day. Obviously, nothing has changed. The methods used by the winners at Salamis should still work against the Seventh Fleet. No need for Constitutional amendments, since the Founding Fathers, without assistance from the Founding Mothers or the 2/3 person black fathers, got it all right.
Actually, quite a few social welfare improvements came from Bismarck's Germany, because they increased productivity.
What's your source for 50,000 AWOL, and for how long? AWOL can be a few hours.
I can assure you that my mother never male bonded in her military career. Even though I believe the Iraq invasion should not have happened, that doesn't distract from the bonding in a case like Raven 42--about as diverse a unit as one could create.
Yes, mass marches got unions and the eight-hour day. Obviously, nothing has changed. The methods used by the winners at Salamis should still work against the Seventh Fleet. No need for Constitutional amendments, since the Founding Fathers, without assistance from the Founding Mothers or the 2/3 person black fathers, got it all right.
Actually, quite a few social welfare improvements came from Bismarck's Germany, because they increased productivity.
What's your source for 50,000 AWOL, and for how long? AWOL can be a few hours.
Buzz [Member] writes:
Must have a wet nose and like milk out of a saucer.
notawonk [Member] writes:
Come on now, pw and buzz, your ad feminam snickers make you sound like dolts.
Buzz [Member] writes:
wonk....clarification, I was responding to a 6:40 post.
Walker [Member] writes:
Howard, her sources are:
www.truthout.org/1214091
&
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7223870
Kinda' says it all!
Buzz, if Zippy signed up on e-Harmony.com do you think she'd match/profile with Mary Ma(i)niac?
And nota, nothing sexist about it:
Everyone here is entitled to equal attention, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
And we're not dolts, we're Trolls dammit!
www.truthout.org/1214091
&
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7223870
Kinda' says it all!
Buzz, if Zippy signed up on e-Harmony.com do you think she'd match/profile with Mary Ma(i)niac?
And nota, nothing sexist about it:
Everyone here is entitled to equal attention, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
And we're not dolts, we're Trolls dammit!
Ned [Member] writes:
http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2009/12/preliminary_injunction_issued.php Things are looking Oak-y doke for ACORN. I'm picturing Captain Bottlenose strolling the snowy streets of Chatham in his Anal Chastity Belt... CapeCodToday is the BEST place for Plugging Your Business.
bittersweet [Member] writes:
Well, I'm glad to know about March Forward!, as well as the Winter Soldiers and the Oathkeepers.
Truly, the only reason this whole system works is because we all support it!
If we all just stopped going along, it would collapse like a male ego with limp bisquit.
If all the soldiers said no--what are they going to do, arrest all of them?
Same with paying taxes,would they arrest the whole country if we refused to pay?
Problem is some would go to jail, and who wants to be them?
High price freedom, huh? Hard to stand on principle and ideals, huh? Takes a lot of guts.
Well, I just had a puuurrrrrfectly yummy bowl of warm milk, so watch out world meeeooowww.
And for the holiday season, I prefer to think of you fivers as The Santa's Helpers Knuckledraggers.
....don't forget my catnip under the tree.
Truly, the only reason this whole system works is because we all support it!
If we all just stopped going along, it would collapse like a male ego with limp bisquit.
If all the soldiers said no--what are they going to do, arrest all of them?
Same with paying taxes,would they arrest the whole country if we refused to pay?
Problem is some would go to jail, and who wants to be them?
High price freedom, huh? Hard to stand on principle and ideals, huh? Takes a lot of guts.
Well, I just had a puuurrrrrfectly yummy bowl of warm milk, so watch out world meeeooowww.
And for the holiday season, I prefer to think of you fivers as The Santa's Helpers Knuckledraggers.
....don't forget my catnip under the tree.
r-five [Member] writes:
If members of the armed forces start taking take their oaths to the Constitution seriously, the de-facto occupation government is likely to be in for serious problems...
[albeit not the ones Mary's hoping for...]
R5
[albeit not the ones Mary's hoping for...]
R5
Please visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
Judy Keenan, Professional Kitchen Designer
Judy's goal is to design kitchens and baths for her customers that reflect their desires, fit their budgets and enhance the value of their homes. Please call or email to schedule a free consultation to discuss your ideas for your "dream" kitchen. (Hyannis)
Judy's goal is to design kitchens and baths for her customers that reflect their desires, fit their budgets and enhance the value of their homes. Please call or email to schedule a free consultation to discuss your ideas for your "dream" kitchen. (Hyannis)
Little Capistrano Bike Shop
Full service bike shop located in the heart of biking between two beautiful bike trails, The Nauset Trail & Cape Cod Rail Trail. Our new shop, Located at the start of The Famous Cape Cod Rail Trail in Wellfleet. Two great locations to start biking from! (Wellfleet)
Full service bike shop located in the heart of biking between two beautiful bike trails, The Nauset Trail & Cape Cod Rail Trail. Our new shop, Located at the start of The Famous Cape Cod Rail Trail in Wellfleet. Two great locations to start biking from! (Wellfleet)
IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR COMMENTORS & BLOGGERS: CapeCodToday now requires a one-time validation of your
account email. When logging in or registering for the first time, you will be emailed a link to click that will validate your
email and complete your login. The link in the email must be clicked in the same session when you are logged into the site for security purposes
(i.e. retrieve the email right away and do not close your web browser).
This is a one-time-only process (or if you change the email on your account), and will help CCToday keep out the spammers. If you cannot validate your email because it is invalid, and you are a legitimate user, feel free to contact us and we will update your account to your current email.
This is a one-time-only process (or if you change the email on your account), and will help CCToday keep out the spammers. If you cannot validate your email because it is invalid, and you are a legitimate user, feel free to contact us and we will update your account to your current email.
Please Login or Register to leave a comment. There are 4,881 registered commenters!
CapeCodToday requires readers register an account with us in order to post comments. Become a trusted commenter and receive the benefits of posting instantly throughout the site. It's quick and easy!
Please note: If you are a CapeCodToday registered blogger, you can use your blogger login. Your login for the blogs is separate from your CapeCodToday main site login (if you have one).
About This Blog
Mary Wentworth - Ma(i)niac in Massachussetts
Having been a Democratic candidate for Congress, a paid organizer in the women’s movement, a “no nuker” (it looks like that is going to be a do-over), a fighter for fair taxes, a vehement opponent of war, once a wife and ever a mother, now a columnist and author of a political memoir — you get the picture — I have my opinions.
Are they the same as yours? If not, where do we disagree? I’m looking forward to hearing from you.
Recent Comments
- Hey bitter,
Stran It seems I've been mysteriously placed on the
6 mins ago - Yes, what we need to figure out is who's interest
39 mins ago - "Also, lets not forget about the billions of dollars your
42 mins ago - Oh boy-you reminded me of something with that one crusader!
46 mins ago - Stupid immigrants....
47 mins ago
- site sponsors -
CCT Blog List
Blogs with posts in the past 60 days are listed here in order of newest posts. For a list of all blogs, visit Blogs A to Z
- Newest Blog Posts
- Newest Comments
- TRB
- Entering Bourne
- Joe's Blog
- Seufert's Scenes
- The Belly Check
- CapeCodToday Featured Event
- EXTRA...
- Long Bridge Runner
- Cape Cod History
- Cape Cod Rock Hopper
- Latimer on Law
- Fox Robbins Business Blog
- Cape Politics
- Police and Fire News
- Town Notes
- Politicalendar
- Soaring with David Gessner
- Bismore Park
- Cape & Islands News
- Travel Tales
- In My Footsteps
- Business on Cape Cod
- Letters to the Editor
- The Ballyard
- One Day at a Time
- Resolute
- Conservative's Conscience
- Entering Falmouth
- The Poet's Perspective
- Cape Yoga
- Off-the-Shelf
- Cape Cod Tracker
- Buckley's Blog
- Cape Eyes
- Trail Hound
- Cape Cod Performing Arts
- State of Cape Cod
- Editorial
- Ned Sonntag
- Wellfleet Bay Sanctuary
- Three plus lives
- Rob O'Leary's Blog
- Cape Native
- College Chat with Christine Chapman
- Dan Wolf's Blog
- My day
- Boston Cod
- Reflections on a Quarter-life Crisis
- Cape Cod Barrister
- Cape Wind Conversation
- On the Campaign Trail with Bill
- Cape Cod Book Reviews
- Sea Street
- Media Watch
- Cape Fine Dining
- Citizen Kane
- Mercy Otis
- Speaking Turtle's Cafe
- Cape Cod Pets
- Energy Media
- Housing Assistance Corporation Media Blog
- Op-Ed
Archives
- July 2010 (1)
- June 2010 (2)
- May 2010 (1)
- April 2010 (1)
- March 2010 (1)
- February 2010 (1)
- January 2010 (1)
- December 2009 (2)
- October 2009 (1)
- September 2009 (1)
- August 2009 (2)
- July 2009 (2)
- June 2009 (5)
- May 2009 (2)
Become a CapeCodToday Blogger!
Are you passionate about your community? Do you blog or at least harbor thoughts of doing so?
If so, CapeCodToday.com would like to host your blog on our CapeCodToday weblog publishing platform.
Blog Newsfeed
CapeCodToday uses standard web "newsfeeds" (RSS) to automatically update the latest blog entries in your browser or newsreader.
Use any of the links below in your newsreader or web browser to get "My day" postings delivered to you, or use the RSS icon in your browser's address bar.
I'm a gun owning private citizen myself and am totally prepared to defend my home and family against the government if I believe they are subverting the constitution.