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.

 

Soldier Refuses To Return To Iraq For Immoral Duty

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
the way i look at it is like this, the guy wanted to improve his lot and didnt have much monies to get relivant certs .so,s say,s to himself i,ll join the military and get a driving lic lorry lic forklift cert or some other certification
he thinks to himself sure i,ll i,ll have to do my bit but hey it,s only a year in iraq/afghanistan then i,ll have my cert,s and happy days i,m sussed
get aproper civi job and progress .. in short this guy wants to be a productive citizen and live a desant secure life. hes done his year in pergatory, now he finds himself a political fooball.. I feel for the man hope its works out well forhim




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by Solomons

Incorrect. When you enlist in any military branch you must take the Oath of Enlistment. Federal law requires it.

"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."

By refusing his President's order he is violating his oath and is subject to courtmartial.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by sos37]


Yes but the thing is this is an illegal war, that Oath clearly states you will support the constitution. How is this supporting the constitution? Also the fact that the USA went to war with Iraq by breaking a UN charter and also don't forget the fact that, technically you are invading their country. If it was up to them i guarantee the majority would want all nations "forces" out of their country.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Well guess what, the money that was sent to him was all part of your taxes, so you played your part in funding this dictator. Also the they didnt realise it was a mistake and stop sending him money it was because he went to go it alone, he wanted to cut off his links with USA and guess what the CIA, etc didn't like it and fuelled an illegal war with false reports of WMD's etc. i wont disagree with the fact that Saddam deserved what he got even though it wont compare to the people he sent to their deaths but that still doesnt constitute a war breaking UN laws.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Looks like a retired Major General has joined the group.


On the heels of two active duty members of the U.S. military serving in Iraq calling for President Obama to prove his eligibility to be president, a retired major general has agreed to join the case, saying he just wants "the truth."

WND reported earlier when 1st Lt. Scott Easterling confirmed to California attorney Orly Taitz that he wanted to be a plaintiff in the legal action she is preparing on behalf of members of the U.S. military, both active and retired. A second soldier who asked that his name be withheld for now became part of the action just a day later.

Now retired Maj. Gen. Carroll D. Childers has submitted a statement to Taitz and her DefendOurFreedoms.us website, agreeing to be a plaintiff in her pending action.

"I agree to be a plaintiff in the legal action to be filed by Orly Taitz, Esq. in a petition for a declaratory judgement (sic) that Barack Hussein Obama is not qualified to be president of the U.S., nor to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, in that I am or was a sworn member of the U.S. military (subject to recall)," he wrote.



Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

* New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

* Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.

* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

* Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.


www.worldnetdaily.com...



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by WisdomInChains
The truth is the guy is scared and rightfully so, but he signed up for it what did he think being a soldier was? His job is to fight he dosnt get to choose where and when if he wants the war to stop mabey he should pettiton Obama, but a firefighter dosnt get to choose which fires he puts out, and a soldier dosent get to choose which war he fights in. If someone told him he had a choice then he was lied to like i siad he should of read the fine print.


No offense but you don't know what he saw in his last tours so you can't say what his motivation is.
We all know about the WRONG things that have went on in Iraq. Maybe he's seen too many of them and his conscience will not allow him to participate in those things anymore. Maybe the only way he can sleep at night is if he refuses to be part of it anymore.
What we know for sure is that he signed up to put his life on the line for freedom and already has toured in Iraq so lets give him the benefit of the doubt before we condemn his as a coward OK?
Are you/were you a soldier? If so, your opinion might carry some weight here. If not, to me, you're just another arm chair wanna be, but to afraid to be warrior.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
Originally posted by Solomons
I think he and many others who have done this have made a brave decision.He signed up to defend his country,not to wage wars in distant lands for corrupt individuals and their pursuit of geo-political influence.Good on him i say.


Incorrect. When you enlist in any military branch you must take the Oath of Enlistment. Federal law requires it.

"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."

By refusing his President's order he is violating his oath and is subject to courtmartial.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by sos37]
Well here's an interesting question.
Notice the part where it says I will support and defend the CONSTITUTION against ALL enemies foreign and domestic. What if, in his mind, the bush administration was a domestic enemy or had violated the CONSTITUTION because they created this war. In that case, the war would be something the enemy supported so by supporting the war, he is supporting the enemy and/or violating the CONSTITUTION himself.

The reality is that just because you posted the allegiance, doesn't mean it's black and white.

Ever hear of abu grab prison?
Where, in at least some cases, CIA personnel ordered lower ranking army personnel to mistreat prisoners and those personnel were put on trial because of it.

Here's an example,
Let's say officer so-and-so ORDERED his squad to kill a school full of children and rape a bunch of women. Do you honestly think that anyone who participated could use the excuse, "I was just following order" ?

Nothing is as black and white as you've tried to paint it in your post.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   


think about the REAL reason they are waging war (it sure ain't for protecting people or human freedom or anything like that..).


911 was a manipulated event probably orchestrated by the Bush Administration to get the Ameican People into a "fear mode".

Bush wanted to wage war and most of you dumb sheep bought it.

Wake up...........marching into another country and killing it's civililians is never right.

Our government waged this unjust war for the oil and as a personal vendetta for and in honor of "daddy Bush".

PROBLEM
REACTION
SOLUTION

(Look it up, David Icke spells this manipulation technique out quite clearly)



[edit on 27-2-2009 by ofhumandescent]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I'm curious. How would you deal with Terrorists and Dictators. Turn them a blind eye and ignore them? let them go on their merry way doing as they will to their people or to others? What is your answer to the Monsters of this world?


We need to go after terrorists FULL FORCE however, there are plenty of dictators on the planet. Are you suggesting we should attack every dictatorship/non-democracy on the planet? We're fighting a war on 2 fronts and losing the one in Afghanistan. How can we increase those number of fronts by attacking other countries, and not totally bankrupt the US morally and financially? Please post YOUR answer.

The reality is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
bush suppressed intelligence to start a war with iraq for whatever reason.
bush and his administration LIED about WMD's to start a war with iraq.

Trust me, I'm not a peace loving hippie.
al quada went after us, now we go after them until they don't exist or surrender. If someone else goes after us, we handle it the same way.
Frankly, I don't understand why we're not carpet bombing the afghan mountains 24/7, where the taliban and al queda are thought to be hiding.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mf_luder

Yeah - a lot of us don't agree w/ the war in Iraq. However we signed up under a contract. Part of that states we'll follow lawful orders.

You made an interesting point.
You said "follow LAWFUL orders".

If he believes this war is not lawful, then he cannot participate.
Now you're probably going to say it shouldn't be his decision to decide whether or not the war is lawful. Let's take that logic and apply it to the following example:
Let's say an officer gives a squad an order to kill a school full of children. Under the above logic, the troops must follow orders and kill the children or be punished. That being said, I'm guessing almost everyone here would say that the squad should NOT follow the orders because they are not lawful or moral.
Now the question is, "Is the iraq war lawful in his mind"?


Now - you state you think all of us should start deserting or refusing to go.

Imagine, if you will - if that kind of choice was allowed what would happen if we had to fight against an invasion and you had some people in the Army then who wouldn't fight because they "didn't believe in killing." Where's your protection?

There is a difference. Defending one's country is completely different then being part of an invading force.


The war may or may not be overall liked. Oh well. The only things we're morally and legally obligated to disobey are blatantly illegal orders - ie - killing civilians, stealing stuff - etc. The op order sending a unit to Iraq is not an illegal order.

It is if the war itself is illegal.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent


think about the REAL reason they are waging war (it sure ain't for protecting people or human freedom or anything like that..).


911 was a manipulated event probably orchestrated by the Bush Administration to get the Ameican People into a "fear mode".

Bush wanted to wage war and most of you dumb sheep bought it.

Wake up...........marching into another country and killing it's civililians is never right.

Our government waged this unjust war for the oil and as a personal vendetta for and in honor of "daddy Bush".

PROBLEM
REACTION
SOLUTION

(Look it up, David Icke spells this manipulation technique out quite clearly)



[edit on 27-2-2009 by ofhumandescent]

Do you honestly think "nucular" boy and his administration were smart enough to pull off 9/11??
Seriously, everybody in that administration were barely literate thugs let alone grand conspirators



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by WisdomInChains
To me this is just a guy refusing to do his job he signed a contract right? Well mabey he should have read the fine print.




First off, if you believe *anything* a recruiter tells you, I've got a real nice bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Second, given the average education level, I doubt the majority of our young people have the capability to understand it fully. What it amounts to is young people selling their soul for employment or job training.

Third, some time ago, I heard that at least one part of the contact says the government does not have to honor their promises to the applicant regarding the job description. Does this clause still exist? How many other declarations of non-performance does the contract employ?

Forth, there is a basic unequilness of the parties. These slick recruiters are backed by extensive resources and a serious PR campaign that sometimes extends all the way into our public schools. What these people don't tell the recruits is that they will be part of an organization involved in crimes and war-crimes in every continent on earth at one time or another. What the recruits aren't told is that the term "colateral damage" means the government thinks it's perfectly ok for non-combatent men, women and children to get turned into ripped up meat.

Make no mistake -- some of our best and brightest people are in the military. Also make no mistake about it -- those "best and brightest" are absolutely not the people running the show and calling the shots.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

We need to go after terrorists FULL FORCE ......




Maybe you show study US history a little closer. The US has been in state-sponsored terror for at least 60 years. The US has been involved with WHOLESALE smuggling of coc aine and heroin for almost as long. The sheer size of the US *empire* should be enough to make you look twice at accepted truisms.

Maybe you would not be so quick to wave-the-flag if you knew what you were talking about.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
If the USA sees themselves as the "world police" and are so good as to go into Iraq and take out that "nasty" dictator and free those nice iraqi people...why doesnt the USa go into zimbabwe and do the same? Oh of course..those poor people dont have oil. Why doesnt the USA keep to their own business...because they have become a total consumer economy. No better than the raping and pillaging of the past.
The people should get behind these soldiers once and for all. We all know its morally wrong..so they should have our backing.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You made an interesting point.
You said "follow LAWFUL orders".

If he believes this war is not lawful, then he cannot participate.
Now you're probably going to say it shouldn't be his decision to decide whether or not the war is lawful. Let's take that logic and apply it to the following example:
Let's say an officer gives a squad an order to kill a school full of children. Under the above logic, the troops must follow orders and kill the children or be punished. That being said, I'm guessing almost everyone here would say that the squad should NOT follow the orders because they are not lawful or moral.
Now the question is, "Is the iraq war lawful in his mind"?

He is not being told to break international laws. He is being told to defend military bases and fight and if necessary kill terrorists. He is not being asked to kill children and rape women. That would be against international law(although Saudi doesn't seem to know that), that would be a crime. What is happening here is someone who signed up to fight and now doesn't want to. It is not the same thing as someone being asked to commit atrocities. It is not up to him to decide whether the Iraq war is lawful. By following orders he is not breaking international law. If he was being told to rape and pillage then he would be in the right for disobeying orders. However he is not being told to do such things and even if he was he should not use that as an excuse to back out of an agreement he made.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubergrasshopper

Originally posted by jfj123

We need to go after terrorists FULL FORCE ......




Maybe you show study US history a little closer. The US has been in state-sponsored terror for at least 60 years. The US has been involved with WHOLESALE smuggling of coc aine and heroin for almost as long. The sheer size of the US *empire* should be enough to make you look twice at accepted truisms.

Maybe you would not be so quick to wave-the-flag if you knew what you were talking about.


Maybe you should realize in what I'm referring to before you open your mouth.
The US was attacked by terrorists on 9/11/2001. Those who supported those terrorists are whats known as our enemies which means I don't like them and want to see them dealt with.
Has the US sponsored foreign "terrorists" in the past. Of course, most larger countries have. By the way, what country are you from?
Terrorists didn't attack a US military target, they attacked civilians. Anytime this is done, no matter who does it including us (ie the US), it's wrong.
Please get off your high horse, the height can hurt if you fall



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by sueloujo
If the USA sees themselves as the "world police" and are so good as to go into Iraq and take out that "nasty" dictator and free those nice iraqi people...why doesnt the USa go into zimbabwe and do the same? Oh of course..those poor people dont have oil.

It has nothing to do with oil. If it did, we (the US) would be swimming in it right now. What it had to do with was create a staging ground for operations in surrounding countries.


Why doesnt the USA keep to their own business...

I'm all for that. I vote the US minds it's own business and so do MOST Americans.


The people should get behind these soldiers once and for all. We all know its morally wrong..so they should have our backing.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
Even though I believe you need to understand the difference between the bush administrations crimes and what the American people want, I'm giving you a big fat star for the last statement you made




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cauch1

Originally posted by jfj123
You made an interesting point.
You said "follow LAWFUL orders".

If he believes this war is not lawful, then he cannot participate.
Now you're probably going to say it shouldn't be his decision to decide whether or not the war is lawful. Let's take that logic and apply it to the following example:
Let's say an officer gives a squad an order to kill a school full of children. Under the above logic, the troops must follow orders and kill the children or be punished. That being said, I'm guessing almost everyone here would say that the squad should NOT follow the orders because they are not lawful or moral.
Now the question is, "Is the iraq war lawful in his mind"?

He is not being told to break international laws. He is being told to defend military bases and fight and if necessary kill terrorists. He is not being asked to kill children and rape women. That would be against international law(although Saudi doesn't seem to know that), that would be a crime.

That's why I called it an "analogy".


What is happening here is someone who signed up to fight and now doesn't want to.

And why doesn't he want to?


It is not the same thing as someone being asked to commit atrocities.

What if, in his mind, that's what he thinks he's being asked to do?


It is not up to him to decide whether the Iraq war is lawful.

Really? Then who decides that? Remember, he's not just a soldier, he's an American citizen. Are you familiar with the following
"WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"....
Take special notice the "We the people" part.


By following orders he is not breaking international law.

Depends on what those orders are now doesn't it ?


If he was being told to rape and pillage then he would be in the right for disobeying orders. However he is not being told to do such things and even if he was he should not use that as an excuse to back out of an agreement he made.

Wait a minute, people were tortured by US personnel in Iraq. Maybe he doesn't want to be part of that.
The bush administration KNOWINGLY suppressed intelligence to start the war with Iraq. What would you consider that? If the bush administration claimed the reason they were invading was because of WMD's and they KNEW there were no WMD's, doesn't that mean we weren't going to war for the security of the United States?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I disagree. This person may be observing unethical and immoral behavior on behalf of his superiors, and may fear that they know that he knows, and that putting himself in the killing zone he has more to fear from his own people and superiors than the enemy.

There is a good chance he is already ear marked for the ranks to be closed around in order to protect the offenders and not to raise public awareness of the problems.

It is time we stop our judgemental attitudes and give these people a voice in case there is something serious wrong with the system.




Originally posted by jd140
This is no differant from the soldier who refuses to do his duty because he thinks Obama isn't qualified to be his President.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Reply to Modern Academia:

There were members of the military during the Vietnam war who came back to the U.S. after their tour of duty and then protested what they came to believe was the immorality of the war and how it was being fought. John Kerry was one of them. Arguably it was a major reason why he wasn't elected president in 2004.

There were also many who were officially registered as conscientious objecters, those who dodged the draft in any one of a number of ways, and those who went to Canada or another country to avoid compulsory service. These were all actions taken before, or instead of, the fact of their military service.

There were not many who protested the war while they were in 'Nam, and those who did were dealt with very harshly. Some went AWOL but this was then, and is now, a serious offense. When the servicemen returned home they found that some of their fellow Americans considered them war criminals. But most Americans did not judge them for following orders.

It was not the number of servicemen who deserted or otherwise objected to the war, per se, but rather when the majority of the American people as a whole turned against it, that it was finally was ended.

Iraq is a somewhat different situation than Vietnam. First of all, there have been "only" about 4,000 American casualties in Iraq, whereas in Vietnam we lost over 55,000. Those numbers alone gave incredible strength to the resistance movement.

Secondly, military service is now voluntary. Those who want to get out of military service just shouldn't enlist. It's as easy as that.

It is very possible that the man in the OP thought he was doing the right thing when he went in but after being faced with the sober realities changed his mind. People with strong convictions against the barbarities of war (and there's no way I know of to conduct a war without atrocities) should--again--not enlist. There are also other ways of dodging one's duty like alcoholism, developing mental disorders or PTSD, etc.

Our soldiers are not dragged into service despite their conscience or their objections to violence. There just isn't as much sympathy for them as there was for the draftees of Vietnam.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I think perhaps a soldier becomes a soldier to defend his country from an enemy. The war in Iraq is not defence from an enemy. It is the destruction of a nation without reason.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join