US soldier avoiding Iraq ordered to leave Canada, page 8
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9    10    11  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 12:06 AM by Midav
"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).


www.history.army.mil...

I can't feel sorry for this woman. Not only did she take the oath, she took it during wartime in an organization that is known to wage war... The US Army.

War, whether for the right or wrong reasons, is something terrible to have to live through (and something i hope i never have to see).

What part of that did she not comprehend? I don't mean that sarcastic, I mean it with all sincerity.



reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 06:20 AM by Cynic
Originally posted by mystiq
Originally posted by Cynic
Many here in Canada, including myself, believe she must be returned to face whatever fate she has made for herself. Follow the link below to todays' story in the Globe and Mail, and read the comments attached to it. While unfortunate, the fact that she is female and now has a Canadian born infant is of no consequence IMHO

She must get the boot, now.

www.theglobeandmail.com...



I would offer her sanctuary in my home and charge anyone who showed up with treason because so far, I don't like what they're doing in my country. I don't stand for heartless crap. Wanting to live and be free from militia is not a crime, but is a very important signal that she is growing up, evolving and waking up.




Tell us all would you, where do you get your halo polish? I can't seem to find it on any shelf at the grocery store. If you want her and her family living in Lotus Land with you, fine, just don't expect any support from this taxpayer who fully supports our own brave troops. Deal?


reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 06:50 AM by Exuberant1
reply to post by Midav



"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution "

That is precisely what she is doing by refusing to fight in an Undeclared War of Aggression (illegal under the Nuremburg Laws, 1949).

*Congress did not Declare War against Iraq. There were no WMDs. This Debacle is a result of the Bush Regime Ignoring the Constitution - they torture people too, and their children - sexually (Google: John Yoo torture memo).

Do you think torture suddenly becomes legal when the President authorizes it?


reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 08:00 AM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Mikey84



I certainly agree she should be deported. Regardless of the legal, moral and military considerations here, it is one more burden for the highly taxed citizen of this country to pay for. Further, I would be happy to have the rest of the illegals fast-tracked out of this country asap. We are now in a recession, people re loosing jobs, homes and hope, those here illegally need not add to the overwhelming cost to the average Joe by their very presence. While this country is seen as a soft touch by those wishing to use and abuse the system here, enough is enough.


reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 08:45 AM by BlueRaja
Originally posted by Shaker



Citing a source defining how aggressive the military should be during war? That's not the argument here. It's how aggressive the US should be. We shouldn't have a standing army in the first place, but there's nothing that says we can't, just that we "ought not" to. How the military wages it's war is determined by laws in place regarding Geneva, Hague, and our laws as well.


Not have a standing Army? You're in a very distinct minority view point there. It's certainly not backed up by either the Constitution or precedent.



The short item I wanted to point out was that, if the Iraq war didn't have a declaration of war from Congress, then the President can not wage said war. Congress only has the power to declare war. If they do not, then waging a war is illegal. Without that declaration from Congress, even if they fund the war, they are illegally providing funds to wage an illegal war, which then can be argued that being sent to an illegal war is not a lawful order, those giving said unlawful orders default on the contract.


The President has the authority as Commander in Chief to use the military regardless of whether a war is declared or not. This has nothing to do with legality. Congress has given their implicit approval, and the Supreme Court hasn't objected. You have all 3 branches of government in agreement that the war isn't illegal.

You may want to refer to these, to see that it's a bit more complicated than you're trying to make it-

www.usdoj.gov...

www.nytimes.com...

www.daveross.com...


To sum it up- if you're in the US military, you are obligated to follow the orders of the President and Officers above you. The ONLY time you're not obligated to follow an order is if you're ordered to commit a criminal act.



reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 09:14 AM by BlueRaja
Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to
post by Midav



"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution "

That is precisely what she is doing by refusing to fight in an Undeclared War of Aggression (illegal under the Nuremburg Laws, 1949).










Don't forget this part of the oath-

" 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."

You can't pick and choose which parts of the oath that you want to follow. Individual soldier's opinions on Foreign Policy are irrelevant with regards to their duties and obligations.

As for wars of aggression- there are other qualifications that need to be met, in order to meet the Nuremburg Law standard.

I doubt you'll find much international support against the action in Afghanistan.

As for Iraq- the UN Security Council unanimously agreed that Saddam had obligations to meet, and a timeline to meet them by. If he had cooperated, the outcome would have been different. He is to blame, not Bush.


reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 10:59 AM by Exuberant1
reply to post by BlueRaja



"You can't pick and choose which parts of the oath that you want to follow."

*The President can't pick and choose what parts of the constitution he will follow either.

Ordering Americans To fight in an Undeclared War of Aggression (Nuremberg, 1949) based upon False Pretenses (WMD's) is not legal or Constitutional.

Furthermore, any Oath to Support and Uphold the Constitution demands one refuse any such order - Especially when it from a Commander in Chief who Doesn't obey the Constitution and who has authorized the sexual torture of children (Google: John Yoo torture Memo).


reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 12:09 PM by muzzleflash
Originally posted by jd140

I give up.

The military is a modern day slavery buisness.

I'm glad you think that as soldiers we deserve everything without giving back........................wait thats welfare. Oh well, we should get all of these things and choose when we should serve and when we want to quit.


Sir, respectfully I believe your missing the point.

The point is that you give your life for your nation in the military, but the government treats the soldiers like garbage. I was taking up for the soldiers suggesting the Govt was wrong to treat them like slaves, And you defended their right to crap on soldiers all they want.

I am pro-soldier and anti-govt
Maybe im wrong but you were coming off anti-soldier and pro-govt

you cannot be both at the same time
(unless the govt starts treating soldiers like human beings)

either you support the rights of soldiers to be treated with respect and dignity , or you dont

and putting someone in the Brig for 3-5years over telling the govt to screw off is a very disrespectful thing(for the govt), and i support the soldiers right to tell them to shove it (as i respect all US military personell as long as they dont spread disinfo on forums lol)

if you dont support a the soldiers right to a human life, than you clearly support the governments right to own them as slaves

And yes if the military allowed me to come fight for a month, and go home whenever i pleased? YES I WOULD COME PITCH IN FOR A BIT
But since the military would not let me leave on my own will/behalf, I cannot join the military because they are not giving me a fair bargin

I want my freedom If im gonna fight for this god forsaken nation.
I refuse to GIVE UP that freedom just to fight for it??
That doesnt make any sense!

Why would I fight for freedom if they dont even allow me to ever have freedom agian?
See thats why that contract is illegitimate IMO

Hopefully now you better understand my POV on this, maybe It was my fault for not articulating myself more clearly

[edit on 9-1-2009 by muzzleflash]

[edit on 9-1-2009 by muzzleflash]

Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9    10    11  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 7 days ago with 83 member flags
Renowned Geophysicist Says Strange Sky Sounds Are Real
  Posted 2 days ago with 74 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 8 days ago with 72 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 7 days ago with 49 member flags
Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists
  Posted 14 days ago with 37 member flags