I read that he deserted, so I made a mistake. Mea Culpa.
- Matt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chesty Puller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 1:57 PM Subject: Re: Tim, what's your thoughts on this? > 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:5:210112 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=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
