It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US war objector pleads not guilty

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   
He joined thinking that he was going to Iraq to fight Saddam, because he was led to believe that Saddam had ties to the 9/11 attack and Al- Queida. He states that after joining, and it was proven that there was no link, he didn't want to fight in a war that was illegal.




posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 08:08 AM
link   
It's the chain of command. In the army you are told to do something as stupid as marching into your own sure destruction - you don't think you just do it. They've got to make an example of him for all the guys who felt the same way but followed the chain of command. That's the blood sacrifice, the ritual of war that wins so much respect. The service unto death. Why men look good in uniform. Armies conquer cities and soldiers conquer self.

He wasn't drafted. Armies sometimes conduct coups.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Bottom line- Saddam violated the conditions of the Ceasefire of the first Gulf War, 17 times. We would have been within our rights to go after him after the first violation. The UN gave him notice, and the US Congress gave the president authorization. This war while unpopular with many, is not illegal. There is no world goverment, so the whole higher power than national sovereignty is a bogus argument.
Now as for this Lieutenant- he took the following Oaths of service-

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

No one forced him to become a commissioned officer in the US Military, so he has the choice of following lawful orders, or suffering the consequences.
The military in order to function can't allowing 1.2 million opinions to be taken into consideration everytime a decision has to be made. If the order is lawful, you obey it, period. Now on the flipside, it is the responsibility of subordinates to give advice to their superiors up until the decision point. This is the time for disagreements to be brought up, or suggestions for better courses of action. Once the leader decides though, based on taking these matters into consideration, it is the duty of his/her subordinates to carry out the orders.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   
There have been 18 (not sure if this is right saw it on the news) men from his company killed in his absence from Iraq and no one knows whether or not his presence would have changed that but he being an officer he would be responsible for the enlisted men under his charge in not being present those men may have been lacking in leadership adding to what could have been less loss of life for the soldiers of the company.

In refusing to serve with the people he trained with he has done a disservice to our country and to our men and women in uniform

The legality of the war asside you sign the contract you must adhere to it
I whole heartedly agree that this war was a mistake but if I were reactivated
(individual ready reserve here) would I go? you bet i signed the contract and I will honor it. at he very least what this man has done is dishonorable at the most this man has cost the US Army soldiers and more importantly has cost parents the loss of their children.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox

He has said he would have served in Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

news.bbc.co.uk...

He can't claim conscientious objector status because that requires that you object all wars. He can't pick and choose. Further, if his defense were to be allowed, it would break down the chain of command necessary in all military hierarchies. Lastly, he can't argue that the war is illegal because no court in the United States--or even internationally--has found it illegal.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
WRONG, the war is illegial under international law.

We've had this discussion before, and you've consistently failed to demonstrate this.

Just because the US Congress said 'lets go to war' does not mean that over-rules world LAW!

No international law was broken, and clearly a soldier can't legally refuse to participate in a war that congress has declared.

Get your brain in tact

So when unable to defend your position, you resort to name calling.

Good job.




CanadianGlasnost
It does mean that it over-rules World Law because the US doesnt recognise an higher autority apart from God maybe

The US government specifically doesn't recognize 'god' when it comes to its laws, and it has clearly stated that it is not a 'christian nation', the US only recognizes secular laws, and is a secular nation.
As far as international law, the US clearly recognizes that there are international restrictions on warfare, it does this by being a party to the various international treaties regulating war. The US could go to war and it could be illegal, but in this particular case, it simply isn't.


DJmessiah
He states that after joining, and it was proven that there was no link, he didn't want to fight in a war that was illegal.

Irrelevant. He joined the army, now he is legally required to go to whatever warzone it decides to send his unit to. He can refuse, and then be booted out of the army or thrown in jail, but he doesn't get to decide where the army sends him.

In the army you are told to do something as stupid as marching into your own sure destruction - you don't think you just do it.

A soldier does not have to obey an illegal order, indeed, they are legally required, by civilian and military code, to not obey an illegal order, such as firing upon unarmed civilians, etc.


geocom
The legality of the war asside you sign the contract you must adhere to it

If congress didn't declare war, and it was just the president going to war, you wouldn't be bound to go, that'd be an illegal war, and it wouldn't matter if there was a 'contract' signed.


df1

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
The US Constitution is specific on how a war is to be declared. These requirements have not been met. I suppose this is ok if you do not care whether we or not we are governed in a manner consistent with a constitutional republic or whether we are governed by capricious and arbitrary government fiat.

Ron Paul gets the constitutional requirements. Nobody has refuted him, they just refuse to cover the issue in the media.
Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   
ahh that is where you are wrong nygdan.
I have proved it you just find it easier to scream 'irelevant' like it actually makes you right.

The UN STATED the actiaons of the USA inregards to Iraq WERE ILLEGIAL
Congress does not dictate WORLD Law.

Deal with that.

Telling someone to get their brain intact isnt name calling by the way.
Its simply telling you to start using your noggin, before you start a talkin.. because the stream of BS that comes out of these 'pro-iraq-war' types is that mindnumbingly stupid, GW himself cannot even beleive your 'STILL' following what he said.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The UN STATED the actiaons of the USA inregards to Iraq WERE ILLEGIAL

False. Kofi Anan made a statement of his personal opinion. The UN has never stated that the Iraq War was illlegal. Period.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Kofi at the time was the SECRETARY GENERAL.
HE does not speak 'on the record, of his personal opinion'
And he is not the ONLY one who declares it ILLEGIAL.
And plus, your basis of it being LEGAL, is simply because congress approved of it.

That does not make the war LEGAL, outside of America.

I mean, when the German government approved of all the haneous crimes.. does that mean what they were doing was LEGAL ?



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
While I Do agree that the US Congress doesnt dictate world law...

This man, which is the current case, agreed, to Volonteer for the United States Armed Forces...

If I wanted to serve a pseudo World Government, I'd search for an UN Recruitment station


Because of the Gulf war in 1991, I'd say the current war in Iraq is perfectly Legal, while the reasons might be dubious, but I don't prononce myself on the right or wrong, only on the legality of the thing



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Kofi at the time was the SECRETARY GENERAL.
HE does not speak 'on the record, of his personal opinion'

Another falsehood.

No UN organization declared the war illegal, and Annan's statements are his own, they are not matters of UN policy.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

The US-led coalition’s war against Iraq is illegal, declared 31 Canadian professors of international law at 15 law faculties in an open letter issued Wednesday, just before US President Bush announced that the war had commenced


Wow 31 PROFESSORS of international LAW declare the war is illegial, but under your thinking.. this is irelevant. because you chose to ignore it.


"The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."



American officials have defended the war as an act of self-defense, allowed under the UN charter, in view of Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass destruction.


Being we USED false evidence, this speaks volumes.

did you get that,
NOT SANCTIONED BY UN,
NOT CONFORMED with the UN CHARTER
ILLEGIAL

but agian, you brush this of as irelevant simply because you find it hard for some reason to accept your country, lied, and committed and illegial act.
Blind patriotism, it will be the end of your country because people liek you have this inability to see reality.


The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal


Funny, the man en-trusted with investigating the WMD claim, hwo stated there was NO PROOF of WMDS and more time was needed.. .turns out he also believes it to be illegial.

Just imagine if we had of listen to him, and allowed further inspections..
but then again, this was NEVER the intention of the US government. Specially being the forces, and plans were well underway BEFORE the UN handed down its recomendations.


German court declares Iraq war violated international law


Even Germany Declares the war illegial.

but again, you brush this off as 'irelevant' because congress says differently.

Sorry Nydgan, no matter how badly you want to believe America is in the right,

what they did was ILLEGIAL, UNWARRANTED and UNESSECARY.

Thats probably why, your losing men daily, why iraq is devestated, with militia roaming the streets, outside countries influencing the outcome with no possible means of victory for your country.

But if it helps you to keep claiming alls good, in this 'legal' venture, by all means continue.

It just shows the sheer ... welll .. I spose ill leave it at that!


[edit on 6-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Wow 31 PROFESSORS of international LAW declare the war is illegial, but under your thinking.. this is irelevant. because you chose to ignore it.

This is a good example of the poor logic that you are following. The statements of professors is irrelevant. They are of the opinion that the US war was illegal.

So what? The UN has not stated that the war was illegal.


If Watada is hoping that the opinions of university professors are going to keep him out of jail, well thats a pretty silly hope to say the least.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
31 Professors who study international LAW all declare the actions of the US government illegial.
Germany's government declared it Illegial.
The Secretary General of the UN Stated that the USA's actions going by the UN Charter ARE ILLEGIAL

There's only so many times you scream irelevant without prooving them WRONG, until your position becomes irelevant.

The ONLY PEOPLE Who beleive this war is LEGAL, is Bush, Cheney and the blind patriots who follow, ignoring LOGIC!

Until you provide PROOF, that all these people ARE WRONG, and that CONGRESS does in FACT preside over INTERNATIONAL LAW, your opinion is irelevant, because CLEARLY, the ONLY PEOPLE who are EDUCATED and INVOLVED in the inner workings of INTERNATIOANL LAW, whom have a RIGHT to declare what it 'is, and isnt'

ALL CLEARLY STATE it is an


ILLEGIAL ACT



[edit on 6-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
31 Professors who study international LAW all declare the actions of the US government illegial.
Germany's government declared it Illegial.
The Secretary General of the UN Stated that the USA's actions going by the UN Charter ARE ILLEGIAL

The problem is that the people empowered to decide whether it is illegal, to wit, the courts, haven't decided that it is illegal. Until that time, it is merely someone's opinion.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
But they have.
The US set up the UN, to uphold world law.
The UN has shown this war to be illegial.
the US ignores it.

the UN, told the US, its claims were unfounded, and further inspections were needed to prove who was lying, and who wasnt.
Well, the US ignored that, and invaded.
When we found NO WMD's it showed who was lying and who wasnt.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The UN has shown this war to be illegial.
But no official UN body, in fact, has. There is no court, no resolution by the Security Council or General Assembly, or other action taken that invariably labels the action as illegal.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
The war is illegal in the sense that no legal precedence exists to justify it bar the dubious casus belli which at the time was incoherent with political and religious context in the Middle East. From the get go, 9/11, we've been fed conjecture with very little credible evidence. There was no thorough investigations taking place to substantiate claims that Osama Bin Laden was responsible and had ties to Saddam Hussain, only the hunch of Bush and Co who have been planning this war before 9/11 - you can look this info up and I know for a fact it's been touted here plenty of times. Watada is being punished for expressing his views which compromise this administrations perception, a perception that has led to the creation to a number of illegal institutions -GITMO- a number of illegal actions -Abu Graib- and by and by illegal tactics on the field of war - Napalm, precarious use of force, and scores more.

Luxifero



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by resistancia
I wish he was an anarchist like me and could find it in his heart to rebel against the orders he will be given.

Why the hell would an anarchist join the army in the first place???


I said I am an anarchist. He is not, and no he would not have joined the army if he were. No need to state the obvious.

Some people just have to nitpick everything I say just for the hell of it...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join