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.

 

Army "birther" pleads guilty to 1 of 2 charges

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rosha
If the military action is externally illegal to begin with, and so 'from the top down' is therefore a crime being justified and perpetuated internally, how does a convenient set of internal laws derivied by those same perpetrators of the crime 'make it right' ?

Rosha, I wasn’t addressing (or disputing) the question of legality, or not, of the Iraq (or any other) war in the context of international law. I was just pointing out that these are two separate issues.

I understand what you are saying but, first and foremost, the US military courts in question cannot rule on the legality of the Iraq (or any other) war. A question of that nature is outside their jurisdiction.

Then there is the practical matter that, even if the war was illegal the bodies that potentially have jurisdiction over that question haven’t ruled it so. Again, I’m not disputing or asserting the legality or not of the war.

And then, as another member has pointed out, Lt. Col. Lakin’s orders pertain to operations in Afghanistan. If we followed your rationale, that the external military action would ‘poison’ the legality of the orders, then the orders given to Lakin are undoubtedly legal: both from an internal perspective — Congress authorized operations in Afghanistan — and external as well — authorized by a UN resolution (contrary to the one in Iraq).

I hope I was able to explain myself efficiently.



Originally posted by Rosha

Originally posted by aptness
First, you are assuming Obama was not eligible and is holding office ‘illegally.’ When was this proven? Did I miss something?

No...I wasnt addressing that question.

Please accept my apologies that I misunderstood the reason why you claimed the orders were illegal.




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Rosha
If the military action is externally illegal to begin with, and so 'from the top down' is therefore a crime being justified and perpetuated internally, how does a convenient set of internal laws derivied by those same perpetrators of the crime 'make it right' ?

Rosha, I wasn’t addressing (or disputing) the question of legality, or not, of the Iraq (or any other) war in the context of international law. I was just pointing out that these are two separate issues.

I understand what you are saying but, first and foremost, the US military courts in question cannot rule on the legality of the Iraq (or any other) war. A question of that nature is outside their jurisdiction.

Then there is the practical matter that, even if the war was illegal the bodies that potentially have jurisdiction over that question haven’t ruled it so. Again, I’m not disputing or asserting the legality or not of the war.

And then, as another member has pointed out, Lt. Col. Lakin’s orders pertain to operations in Afghanistan. If we followed your rationale, that the external military action would ‘poison’ the legality of the orders, then the orders given to Lakin are undoubtedly legal: both from an internal perspective — Congress authorized operations in Afghanistan — and external as well — authorized by a UN resolution (contrary to the one in Iraq).

I hope I was able to explain myself efficiently.



Originally posted by Rosha

Originally posted by aptness
First, you are assuming Obama was not eligible and is holding office ‘illegally.’ When was this proven? Did I miss something?

No...I wasnt addressing that question.

Please accept my apologies that I misunderstood the reason why you claimed the orders were illegal.



Not a problem. No apology necessary. Its good to be challenged and I comprehend the intricacies and difficulties well enough to hear what your saying.....Im just having an emotional reaction....one of frustration mostly.

It's just that from the outside looking in..Bush was right...all that bill of rights stuff, the constitution etc..are just seeming to be just bits of useless paper in the absence of action to uphold them in practice.. There doesnt seem to be many people " living it" only using them as a slingshot when it comes to demanding rights sans responsibility and many more groups and people seem so intent on undermining those that are trying to live it, who are upholding and practicing the principles inscribed.

Maybe its different inside looking out..maybe...I dont know.

Thank you for your considered reply.

Rosha



new topics
 
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join