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.

 

Veterans Group Calls for Refusal to Deploy to Afghanistan and Iraq

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
The New American



In what is sure to be a controversial call to action or inaction, the organization March Forward, a group of patriotic retired and active-duty servicemen, has recommended that soldiers refuse orders to deploy to Afghanistan and Iraq.

“We offer our unconditional support and solidarity,” reads a press release written by the organization dated December 3: “Join us in the fight to ensure than no more soldiers or civilians lose their lives in these criminal wars,” it continues. While noble in its message, March Forward is incorrect in its nomenclature, as only Congress is constitutionally-empowered (Article I, Section 8) to declare war and it has done so against neither Iraq nor Afghanistan. Therefore, the term "unconstitutional" would be more accurate than "criminal."

The message is attracting followers. Prysner reports consistent and remarkable growth in the two years since the movement’s inception. Prysner points to a noticeable spike in interest among currently enlisted military men and women ever since President Obama’s recent announcement of his intention to deploy 30,000 additional troops to fight in Afghanistan. “For many more years, we will be sent to kill, to die, to be maimed and wounded, in a war where ‘victory’ is impossible, against a people who are not our enemies,” reads the December 1 statement from March Forward.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


These soldiers know the true meaning of patriotism. It's not about following orders, it's about doing what is right.

These wars were not fought to protect Americans. They were fought to fill the pockets of the elites.

Americans do not want an empire. We want to live in peace with the rest of the world but our leaders refuse to listen.

Maybe if enough soldiers say "enough" the elites will finally have to listen.




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I honor these men for refusing these orders. this was an illegal war. Its nice seeing people, especially soldiers waking up to whats really going on.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
So shirking your duty and breaking your oath is patriotic now? I'm sure all the men and women currently over-seas will be thrilled to know that a group of veterans would rather they be abandoned with no incoming support or relief than have any more soldiers keep their oath and go on their deployments.

And yes Congress did vote in favor of using force against Iraq and those responsible for 9/11. So both the article and the group are wrong on that count.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists

The Iraq war was constitutionally approved by Congress. The one in Afghanistan is not a war on a country, it's a war on the group of morons who decided it was a good idea to fly planes into our buildings and kill our people with no justification. And it too was approved by Congress. Our troops are in Afghanistan because that is supposed to be where the morons are hiding and had Bush not ignored them for 7 years in favor of focusing on Iraq that war would have ended by now. Nothing illegal in either case.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Jenna]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 



An "authorization to use force" is not a declaration of war. Our troops should never invade another country without a Constitutional declaration of war.

American soldiers took an oath to defend the Constitution and protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic.

We went into Afganistan despite the fact the Taliban wanted to give us Bin Ladin. They were no threat to us.

Afgans wanted to turn over Bin Laden

Iraq never was a threat to the US. Don't even get me started on all the lies told to get us into that one.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by FortAnthem]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
“We offer our unconditional support and solidarity." What a joke.


That's really easy to say now, but what will they be saying when some E-3 decides to desert and gets arrested? What are they going to tell him once he's in jail? "We're behind you!". Yeah, that will go far when he's trying not to play "drop the soap" in a military prison.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Regardless of your feelings on the matter, or mine, Congress authorized force and that means that the President was fully within our laws to send troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Wishing that it was illegal doesn't make it so. Whether the intel those votes were cast on was true or not is another matter entirely and has no bearing on the fact that Bush didn't do anything illegal by sending the troops to either country.

You are quite right about the oath being to protect the rest of us from enemies foreign and domestic. The problem is that you and I don't decide who those foreign enemies are and it irritates me to no end that people think that just because they don't see someone as an enemy means that they aren't one.

Al Qaeda didn't offer to turn Bin Laden over to us. They offered to turn him over to a third party. Not the same thing by a long shot.

EDIT:

And since you obviously didn't read the links I provided:


The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.



The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), one of two resolutions commonly known as "AUMF" (the other being "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.


[edit on 17-12-2009 by Jenna]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
I honor these men for refusing these orders. this was an illegal war. Its nice seeing people, especially soldiers waking up to whats really going on.



There is no such thing as an "Illegal War". War is not a Law Enforcement matter, and therefore it cannot be "Illegal".

As for OEF, we were attacked on 9/11, and lest you forget such, that is a fully justified War (Unless of course you consider yourself to be a "Truther").



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Also from the original article;



As Teddy Roosevelt said, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”


Also,



The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.


What does that have to do with Iraq?

[edit on 17-12-2009 by FortAnthem]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


The first quote was from the first link, the second quote from the second link. Had you read the entire quote you would have read the very first sentence that specifically says "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists". It's the first 9 words of the second quote.

As for the Teddy Roosevelt quote, where did I say anything that even implied that we shouldn't criticize the President?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
had Bush not ignored them for 7 years in favor of focusing on Iraq that war would have ended by now.


I disagree. Afghan is not an easy victory, far from it.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pains Wisdom
I disagree. Afghan is not an easy victory, far from it.


Better said that the Afghan Campaign would be further along than it currently is now.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 




As for the Teddy Roosevelt quote, where did I say anything that even implied that we shouldn't criticize the President?


Here;


The problem is that you and I don't decide who those foreign enemies are and it irritates me to no end that people think that just because they don't see someone as an enemy means that they aren't one.

If I misunderstood your intent, I apologise.

I still hold that the war was unconstitutional. Only Congress has the power to declare war. They cannot delegate that authority to the President.

A proper declaration of war would have spelled out all of the grievances against the offending country, the diplomatic measures taken to resolve the dispute and the reason's the offending country's responce to diplomacy failed to address the grievances.

Writing out a declaration of war forces a country to present it's case to the world for the justness of it's cause.

"They won't hand over Bin Laden to us" is a weak justification for war. The Taliban were afraid Bin Laden would not have received a fair trial in the US and offered to turn him over to an impartial intermedeary country to ensure his rights would be honored. A valid fear considering America's blood lust after the WTC attack.

As for Iraq, Saddam had been working with the UN to comply with their inspection requests but, the US (Bush) was determined to see him gone, they created a smear campeign so transparent, the UN found we had no cause for military action.

In both cases, congress delegated the authority to the Presedint, knowing full well they could not put forth a compelling case for war if they had to stick to the facts.

Even if the "Authorizations to use force" were legal, the true reasons we went to war ARE criminal. The way in which we treated the enemy combatants and civilians of the invaded countries is criminal. The show trial and subsequent execution of Saddam Hussein is criminal according to UN and Geneva Convention standards.

Soldiers have a duty to refuse unlawful orders.

Invading a non-threatening country without a Declaration of War, as required by the Constitution, is an unlawful order.

Deploying to serve in the undeclared war is an unlawful order.

Soldiers have a duty to refuse to fight in an unlawful/Unconstitutional war.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by FortAnthem]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Pains Wisdom
 


Perhaps not finished but it would certainly be much closer than what it is now. Efforts there were largely ignored for the last 8 years. Sure we've had troops there the entire time, but the focus has been on Iraq instead of tracking down bin Laden & co.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
The questions is, if Congress was all for war with Iraq and Afghanistan, then they provide a "legal substitute" to a declaration of war?

Personally, I think it was because a declaration of war is a commitment to the total war doctrine, which hasn't been popular since before Korea. A declaration of war has clearly defined goals, while this resolution remains ambiguous, leaving it to the president to fill in the gaps.

It may or may not be Constitutional, they have rarely adhered to it recently anyway, due to the ability of modern legal folks to twist the law into any form and function it so desires almost.

However, one can not say that taking that oath should in any way prevent someone from taking a moral stance on circumstances that take place before knowledge of future actions is known.

A man who takes an oath to never strike his child would be foolish not to disregard it if said child grew up and came at the man with a knife.

Not a completely parallel analogy, but the point is that oaths do not preclude people from acting in opposition to that oath should circumstances become dire, reckless, or outside the bounds of reason.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

These soldiers know the true meaning of patriotism. It's not about following orders, it's about doing what is right.

These wars were not fought to protect Americans. They were fought to fill the pockets of the elites.



Hear hear.

It is an illegal war. Our soldiers are not `fighting for our freedoms'.
The current occupant of the White House is just continuing the misdeeds of his predecessor.

Support our troops: bring them HOME.
Try those responsible.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
As for Iraq, Saddam had been working with the UN to comply with their inspection requests but, the US (Bush) was determined to see him gone, they created a smear campeign so transparent, the UN found we had no cause for military action.


I'm raising the BS flag on this one. Saddam wasn't working with the UN; he was just pissing in their Wheaties any chance he got. He didn't give a flying crap about sanctions since he or his sons were being effected by them.


Originally posted by FortAnthem
Even if the "Authorizations to use force" were legal, the true reasons we went to war ARE criminal. The way in which we treated the enemy combatants and civilians of the invaded countries is criminal. The show trial and subsequent execution of Saddam Hussein is criminal according to UN and Geneva Convention standards.


How were we suppose to treat the enemy combatants during wartime?? I mean, besides kill as many as you can without inflicting losses to your own side?

Civilians were killed because Saddam placed legit military targets in places like hospitals, schoolyards, mosques, neighborhoods, etc.

And how was Saddams trial "criminal"?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by Pains Wisdom
 


Perhaps not finished but it would certainly be much closer than what it is now. Efforts there were largely ignored for the last 8 years. Sure we've had troops there the entire time, but the focus has been on Iraq instead of tracking down bin Laden & co.


Exactly. I have always thought that OBL was/is a power-play. The real course of action are/is hidden agendas. Our soldiers are dieing for a false cause, 30,000 more have just signed their death certificates, the economy is in a horrible state and the citizens are still being lied to. Either something very bad is about to happen or something very good.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I'm apologizing right now for the length of this post. I truly didn't mean for it to be this long.


Originally posted by FortAnthem
If I misunderstood your intent, I apologise.


Apology accepted. I don't see anything in that statement that implies we shouldn't criticize the president, and anything you see there was completely unintentional.


I still hold that the war was unconstitutional. Only Congress has the power to declare war. They cannot delegate that authority to the President.


Congress authorized Bush to use force in finding those responsible for 9/11 (seeing as how it's a group and not a country), and authorized it's use in Iraq. You don't have to like it, I certainly don't when it comes to Iraq, but there it is. It is constitutional no matter how many people feel otherwise.


A proper declaration of war would have spelled out all of the grievances against the offending country, the diplomatic measures taken to resolve the dispute and the reason's the offending country's responce to diplomacy failed to address the grievances.


Proper according to whom? The Constitution doesn't specify a format for declaring war. Neither do any of our Federal laws. And technically speaking neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are wars, they are authorized uses of force. Just one step shy of a war, but not quite there yet.


Writing out a declaration of war forces a country to present it's case to the world for the justness of it's cause.


According to whom?


"They won't hand over Bin Laden to us" is a weak justification for war. The Taliban were afraid Bin Laden would not have received a fair trial in the US and offered to turn him over to an impartial intermedeary country to ensure his rights would be honored. A valid fear considering America's blood lust after the WTC attack.


I should think that flying our planes into our towers and killing our citizens qualifies as justification for wanting the people responsible held accountable for their actions. Call it blood lust if you wish, but the fact of the matter is that our country was attacked, he claimed responsibility, and he's should be held accountable for that attack.

The Taliban offered to turn him over well before 9/11 even happened and changed their minds because they thought the people looked up to him after the embassy attacks. Not because of any sense of fairness or justice. After 9/11 they said they would with evidence. I'd say a taped confession counts as evidence. Yet they still refused. They never intended to hand him over, all they did was buy him some time to hide.


In both cases, congress delegated the authority to the Presedint, knowing full well they could not put forth a compelling case for war if they had to stick to the facts.


Oh? According to whom? The UN found we were completely justified when it comes to al Qaeda and Afghanistan.


Even if the "Authorizations to use force" were legal, the true reasons we went to war ARE criminal. The way in which we treated the enemy combatants and civilians of the invaded countries is criminal. The show trial and subsequent execution of Saddam Hussein is criminal according to UN standards.


Since when did the US stop being a sovereign country and start being controlled by the UN? UN standards have nothing to do with whether or not the authorizations are legal. You see the reasons as being criminal, the vast majority of Congress at the time those authorizations were passed disagreed with you. The law doesn't work the way you appear to want it to. If something is legal today and you do it, 8 years down the road it you can't be hauled off to jail because it's then decided it's illegal. What you believe is criminal may not in reality be criminal. I think the prices at the gas pump are criminal. Legally speaking, they're not.


Soldiers have a duty to refuse unlawful orders.

Deploying to serve in the undeclared war is an unlawful order.


That they do. And if that situation ever arises they will. Going on deployment when ordered is not following an unlawful order, expecially when those deployments are ordered because of the existing authorized uses of force.


Invading a non-threatening country without a Declaration of War, as required by the Constitution, is an unlawful order.


Not exactly. From USConstitution.net:

Q108. "Who has the power to declare war?"

A. There is a short answer and a much longer answer. The short answer is that the Constitution clearly grants the Congress the power to declare war, in Article 1, Section 8. This power is not shared with anyone, including the President.

The President, however, is just as clearly made the Commander in Chief of all of the armed forces, in Article 2, Section 2. In this role, the President has the ability to defend the nation or to take military action without involving the Congress directly, and the President's role as "C-in-C" is often part of the reason for that.

What this has resulted in is the essential ability of the President to order forces into hostilities to repel invasion or counter an attack, without a formal declaration of war. The conduct of war is the domain of the President.

[...]

It may be correct to say, then, that an act or war committed against the United States can place the United States into a state of war, if the United States wishes to see the act in that light. A declaration of war by the Congress places the Unites States at war without any doubt. Absent a declaration of war, the President can react to acts of war in an expedient fashion as he sees fit.


Constitutional law isn't quite as easy as it appears to be at first glance which is part of what is causing all the confusion over whether the Authorized Uses of Force are legal. Fact is, they are.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 




And how was Saddams trial "criminal"?


legality of Saddam's trial


BAGHDAD, Jan 25: Former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein can only be tried in Iraq when the country regains sovereignty due to Geneva Conventions restrictions, International Committee of the Red Cross officials said on Sunday.

ICRC spokeswoman Nada Doumani said that since Iraq is under occupation, it cannot fully recognise the Conventions under which Saddam, declared a prisoner of war by the Pentagon this month, must be tried.

"Because the United States gave Saddam Hussein the status of prisoner of war, it can hand him over to Iraqi jurisdiction only when it returns sovereignty to the country it occupies," Doumani told AFP from Amman.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




I'm raising the BS flag on this one. Saddam wasn't working with the UN;



Saddam Suddenly Looks Innocent



If you think about it, 18 months ago Saddam Hussein was sitting in his office, the duly constituted president and prime minister of Iraq, minding his own business. The United States did not have diplomatic relations with Iraq and so did not formally recognize him as head of state. But most of the rest of the world did, and Iraq had a seat at the United Nations and in its proper rotation could even take a seat on the Security Council. It was at this point that President Bush decided Saddam had weapons of destruction and was conspiring with Al Qaeda to menace peace-loving nations like the United States. He took his assertions to the UN Security Council and the Council agreed by a 15-to-0 vote to demand Saddam permit UN inspectors back into Iraq to search for the WMD. If you followed the U.N. proceedings over the following months, you will find that Baghdad fully complied with every demand made upon it by the Security Council.

Even if you missed the TV coverage, if you read the papers carefully you would find no instance where Saddam thumbed his nose at the Council. When he read of accounts from President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Powell that he was still hiding stuff from the inspectors that our CIA knew about, he said he would invite the CIA to come and look in every nook and cranny. Remember? And when the UN inspectors were given tips by the CIA on places to search for WMD, they did so and found no traces of WMD. Not a teensy weensy bit of evidence. So when President Bush asked the Security Council for a resolution backing a war with Iraq, the Council turned him down. The other members pointed out that U.N. diplomacy had indeed worked and that the inspectors could clean up the last bits and pieces in a few months and certify that Iraq was absolutely clean.




How were we suppose to treat the enemy combatants during wartime?? I mean, besides kill as many as you can without inflicting losses to your own side?


Declaring POWs to be "enemy combatants" then imprisoning them indefinately is unlawful. Also, there's the whole torture thing...



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
legality of Saddam's trial


That's just saying that the GC would have a problem recognizing the trial. Saddam was tried by an Iraqi court, not a US court. Heck, the Iraqis were pissed that the US said he was a POW, they wanted to have him on trial themselves.


Originally posted by FortAnthem
Saddam Suddenly Looks Innocent


Great. You do know that's just one persons opinion. Granted, he has a right to that, but it's not really a decent source.




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join