Hold on... The Constitution is completely relevant as it establishes the Prez as the Commander-in-Chief. International Law is irrelevant as the officer in question swore to uphold and defend the Constituion, not international law. He also agreed to be bound to the UCMJ to follow all lawful orders. His superior officers (the President) ordered him to duty, and he is shirking that duty. However anybody feels about the war, he does have a duty to obey the orders. I don't necessarily think he should be given a dishonorable discharge (that's a very harsh punishment under the UCMJ, reserved for murderers and traitors). He has not deseted, he has "missed a movement". It's a similar but different situation, deserving of a "Bad Condust Discharge"
- Matt ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Galt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 1:54 PM Subject: RE: Tim, what's your thoughts on this? > Sure is, as is the constitution or any other crap someone wants to try and > make a part of this. > > The only thing that matters is UCMJ, and I'm sure he will be found guilty > under UCMJ. > > Hope he enjoys Leavenworth. I hear that they really love officers there. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chesty Puller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 9:04 AM >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: Re: Tim, what's your thoughts on this? >> >> International law is completely irrelevant. >> >> - Matt >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Gruss Gott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 8:52 AM >> Subject: Re: Tim, what's your thoughts on this? >> >> >> >> Ray wrote: >> >> How are the orders illegal exactly? >> > >> > Doesn't international law prohibit an attack or invasion of another >> > country without provocation? >> > >> > So in this case you could argue that while we did have provocation >> > (WMD), we were wrong and therefore shouldn't be there any more. The >> > fact that we are makes it an illegal occupation. >> > >> > The counter argument is that we're "guests" of the current Iraqi >> > government, however that government was only put in place a few weeks >> > ago and still isn't solid. Therefore the first argument, while weak, >> > would still hold. >> > >> > >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:210110 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
