Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: vaskidmark on September 05, 2013, 12:38:48 AM



Title: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: vaskidmark on September 05, 2013, 12:38:48 AM
http://tinyurl.com/m95nkjm

Not having anything to do with Facebook I was totally unaware that there was such a beast as "Troops Tea Party" and that active duty servicemembers were going there to voice concerns about an upcoming Syria action.

It is a permanent conundrum that when you join up to protect the Constitution agains enemies foreign and domestic you lose many of the rights that document ensures the rest of the country can enjoy.  It is not confusing at all (at least to me) why that is so and why it must be so.  The most wonderful (as in full of "wonder" meaning to ponder) part of this building kerfuffle is that the troops either do not understand how easy it should be to ID them or that they do not care.  If the former, they deserve whatever happens.  If the latter, then I am conflicted between admiration for personal bravery and saddened by the lack of personal integrity.

I am not through contemplating this phenomenon , but what I have done leads me towards being both opposed to what these servicemembers are doing and concluding that their actions would constitute giving aid and comfort to the enemy if there was a  state of war and an actual enemy.

What I need is the collective wisdom of APS to help me decide if I am being too harsh.  If so, understanding why would be helpful, too.

stay safe.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: HankB on September 05, 2013, 05:04:38 AM
From their signs, I'd say the servicemembers are expressing an opinion that they didn't join the military to fight for Al-Qaeda in the Syrian civil war. Seems reasonable.

At the moment, with no Congressional approval as of yet, the C-in-C is still making noises about taking unilateral military action, purely on his own authority, against a villainous regieme that is fighting against an equally villainous enemy which includes the islamofascists of the Moslem Brotherhood and various Al-Qaeda types.

As even uber-leftist Denis Kucinich said, bombing Syria means we'd be acting as Al-Qaeda's air force . . . and considering what Al-Qaeda has done to us, it's understandable that US troops are reluctant to intervene on the wrong side. (Not that Assad & Co. would be the right side either; I see no good guys there.)

When you have bad guys fighting bad guys in a long-running civil war, do you REALLY want to intervene on one side or another & hand them a victory?


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: RoadKingLarry on September 05, 2013, 05:39:05 AM
Quote
I see no good guys there

Time for you religious folks to start praying for an asteroid =D


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Tallpine on September 05, 2013, 05:46:19 AM
Time for you religious folks to start praying for an asteroid =D

If God was just, He would have destroyed the District of Criminals a long time ago   ;)


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 06:12:30 AM
Political activity in uniform has been prohibited by the UCMJ since rocks were soft.

"protesting" anything in uniform is, quite simply, not legal per the UCMJ.

"protesting" while giving the appearance of representing an official position is also forbidden, although they haven't quite crossed that line yet.



They're right. They didn't join to fight for al qaeda. They joined to support and defend the consittution of the united states (which hasn't been violated WRT Syria... yet), obey the orders of the president, and the orders of the officers appointed over them.

I wholeheartedly disagree with Syria intervention.

I also wholeheartedly support UCMJ action for these folks posting anonymous (and cowardly) protests in uniform.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 05, 2013, 06:27:16 AM
If God was just, He would have destroyed the District of Criminals a long time ago   ;)

I lurvs that you chose Mordor on the Potomac as the first target for $deity to smite. =D


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: HankB on September 05, 2013, 06:27:48 AM
Political activity in uniform has been prohibited by the UCMJ since rocks were soft.
And yet POTUS habitually trots out his uniformed generals to drum up POLITICAL support for his decisions.

Here's an NYT story about the people we'd be helping if we bomb Syria, with an embedded video. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?hp&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?hp&_r=0)

And calling the soliders "cowardly" for protesting this way is nonsense - they KNOW their enemy on this issue, so maintaining their anonymity is about as cowardly as ducking down in a foxhole when under fire.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 06:34:36 AM
And yet POTUS habitually trots out his uniformed generals to drum up POLITICAL support for his decisions.

Here's an NYT story about the people we'd be helping if we bomb Syria, with an embedded video. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?hp&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?hp&_r=0)

And calling the soliders "cowardly" for protesting this way is nonsense - they KNOW their enemy on this issue, so maintaining their anonymity is about as cowardly as ducking down in a foxhole when under fire.

The POTUS has that luxury because he's the president. His opinion on the syrian situation CAN, legally, be the opinion of the US Armed forces.

And yes, it's cowardly to "fight the man" and protest , knowingly breaking rules, if you're hiding your face.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 05, 2013, 06:39:43 AM
And yes, it's cowardly to "fight the man" and protest , knowingly breaking rules, if you're hiding your face.

You share that opinion with any of your DHS fast response teams regarding their balaclavas?


Very interestingly, TSA and airport security have no problem whatsoever with all us libertarian anti-Statist folks protesting at the security gates at the airport.  They do, however, throw a HUGE conniption fit if any of us wear anything that covers our face.  Stops their ability to use facial recognition software and electronic surveillance on us and track who is present at what protest.

I've got no problem with guerrilla activism.  No one got hurt here, except authoritah.  And authoritah needs hurtin' nowadays.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 06:44:44 AM
You share that opinion with any of your DHS fast response teams regarding their balaclavas?


Very interestingly, TSA and airport security have no problem whatsoever with all us libertarian anti-Statist folks protesting at the security gates at the airport.  They do, however, throw a HUGE conniption fit if any of us wear anything that covers our face.  Stops their ability to use facial recognition software and electronic surveillance on us and track who is present at what protest.

I've got no problem with guerrilla activism.  No one got hurt here, except authoritah.  And authoritah needs hurtin' nowadays.

Yes, I believe that civilian law enforcement conducting operations masked is cowardly.



The UCMJ exists, and the provisions against political activity in uniform exist, for a reason. If you want to protest, fine. Hold up your signs, go to anti war rallies, whatever.

Don't do it in uniform. Pretty simple stuff.

Breakdown of order and discipline is a very bad thing. So far, the president has not violated the constitution with his actions regarding syria. If he does, the issue could be raised about violating the orders...




Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 06:55:39 AM
Additionally, every discussion on this elsewhere seems to get godwinned, so I'll do it preemptively.


THere are many of these soldiers saying "I WILL NOT"


Horseshit. You will, or you'll go to jail.

Quite simply, no one is asking these troops to round folks up and gas them. If approved by congress, this military engagement is perfectly legitimate. You don't get to refuse orders because a decision is stupid. You only get to refuse orders of the orders are ILLEGAL.

And these jackholes know this, that's why they are hiding their faces like cowards, because they would (rightly) get punished for it.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 05, 2013, 06:59:19 AM
So, let's full on Godwin this thing.

Nuremberg defense.

Assuming Congress says "go to war in Syria."

Now let's play it out to its absolute possible worst scenario.  This turns into a WWIII scale proxy war with Russia, ultimately involving nuke exchanges, loss of cities, sinking of fleets, etc. 

The US loses to Russia.

Russia gets to have its own equivalent of Nuremberg with US soldiers on trial.

"Just following orders of Congress."

Sounds a lot like those Nazis, doesn't it?


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 07:05:44 AM
So, let's full on Godwin this thing.

Nuremberg defense.

Assuming Congress says "go to war in Syria."

Now let's play it out to its absolute possible worst scenario.  This turns into a WWIII scale proxy war with Russia, ultimately involving nuke exchanges, loss of cities, sinking of fleets, etc.  

The US loses to Russia.

Russia gets to have its own equivalent of Nuremberg with US soldiers on trial.

"Just following orders of Congress."

Sounds a lot like those Nazis, doesn't it?

First, any "proxy war" with russia is not going to involve nuke exchanges and sinking fleets. That would be a "war."

Second, nuremburg is really not comparable here. Maybe if we invaded canada for no reason, then rounded up all their <insert ethnic / religious group we want to exterminate here> and murdered them, it would be a valid comparison.

Instead of resorting to laughable hypotheticals, try making an actual rational argument.

Are you suggesting that US Soldiers should be allowed to disobey orders they don't agree with? Versus the current situation where they can only violate illegal orders?


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Tallpine on September 05, 2013, 07:06:11 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYEsFQ_gt7c


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 05, 2013, 07:08:21 AM
You're right, it starts as a proxy war while we kill the Syrians we like least, and the Russians kill the Syrians they like least. 

But let it escalate to what I described.

And suspend your disbelief that the US could ever lose to Russia.

Put a US Soldier on trial in a foreign court for "war crimes" for a Congressionally authorized war, in context of Nuremberg Defense.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 07:12:25 AM
You're right, it starts as a proxy war while we kill the Syrians we like least, and the Russians kill the Syrians they like least. 

But let it escalate to what I described.

And suspend your disbelief that the US could ever lose to Russia.

Put a US Soldier on trial in a foreign court for "war crimes" for a Congressionally authorized war, in context of Nuremberg Defense.

My disbelief isn't that the US could lose to russia. It's disbelief that this will escalate to a full on war with russia, especially since Russia is now softening to US intervention.


If a US soldier commits war crimes, then those crimes are perfectly valid reasons for the victors to charge those people.

Are you making the leap from "US launches missiles at syria" to "full on WWIII, with US soldiers rounding up civilians and gassing them"?


There are a whole lot of "what ifs" in between those two, rendering your hypothetical, as I said, ridiculous.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: roo_ster on September 05, 2013, 07:12:50 AM
I doubt all of these folks are actually in .mil.  Am I the only one who recalls the numerous times a "decorated war veteran against the Iraq war" ended up not to have served or got booted out of basic?

I am generally on-board with the "no politics in uniform" prohibition right up until the the brass drags out folks in uniform to use as political props.  "Brass" meaning any .mil policy makers from POTUS on down.  So, if current POTUS has not used troops in uniform as political props, these guys ought to get some heat.  If POTUS has used uniformed servicemen as political props, they should receive the same discipline POTUS got.

One set of laws / rules for all or it is illegitimate.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 07:14:55 AM
I doubt all of these folks are actually in .mil.  Am I the only one who recalls the numerous times a "decorated war veteran against the Iraq war" ended up not to have served or got booted out of basic?

I am generally on-board with the "no politics in uniform" prohibition right up until the the brass drags out folks in uniform to use as political props.  "Brass" meaning any .mil policy makers from POTUS on down.  So, if current POTUS has not used troops in uniform as political props, these guys ought to get some heat.  If POTUS has used uniformed servicemen as political props, they should receive the same discipline POTUS got.

One set of laws / rules for all or it is illegitimate.

There's actually quite a bit of speculation that some of the pics are not actual soldiers. Although the first one, the CPO, seems to be accurate enough, just based on a cursory examination of the awards, order of precedence, and likelihood of a current CPO participating in the campaigns for which he has ribbons.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 05, 2013, 07:16:03 AM
Quote
Are you making the leap from "US launches missiles at syria" to "full on WWIII, with US soldiers rounding up civilians and gassing them"?

I'm saying to suspend the following two components of disbelief:
1. That the US could lose to Russia or some other power
2. That US Soldiers could face trial for something that you feel is just a fact of war, but the victor of that war feels is a war crime.  Intervening in a civil war in a foreign nation, for example.  Whatever.  Maybe a soldier J-walked while attempting to secure a city.  Doesn't matter.  He's on trial for it now.

The thing to focus on here is the defense.

The foreign court isn't going to care if the soldier's justification for participating in the war was "because Congress said so."  They're going to say "where was your moral compass?"


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 07:17:24 AM
And, AZ, if a US soldier committed war crimes, then our current military policy does not ALLOW for them to use "following orders" as a defense. Again, soldiers have a duty to obey illegal orders. Wanton killing of civilians, intentional bombing of hospitals, use of biological agents, blah blah blah. Those are all illegal orders.

I'm currently unaware of anything the russians consider war crimes that are not already illegal for OUR soldiers to do. If you have an example, feel free to use it. Otherwise, it's a useless exercise.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 05, 2013, 07:21:49 AM
And, AZ, if a US soldier committed war crimes, then our current military policy does not ALLOW for them to use "following orders" as a defense. Again, soldiers have a duty to obey illegal orders. Wanton killing of civilians, intentional bombing of hospitals, use of biological agents, blah blah blah. Those are all illegal orders.

I'm currently unaware of anything the russians consider war crimes that are not already illegal for OUR soldiers to do. If you have an example, feel free to use it. Otherwise, it's a useless exercise.

"War crimes" is defined by the prosecution.  Could be "violating the will of Allah" or something like that, depending on whom the prosecutor is.

I'm saying to examine the "Congress told me to do it" angle in context of "my lieutenant told me to do it" or "the major told me to do it" or "the general told me to do it."

It's still going to be weighed in context of lawful versus moral... the moral compass held by someone else.

Your comment here:

Quote
If approved by congress, this military engagement is perfectly legitimate.

Leaves a blanket assumption that Congress' moral compass is infallible, and Congress can issue no immoral/illegal order.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Tallpine on September 05, 2013, 07:25:21 AM
Russia is softening  ???

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/05/putin-greets-obama-with-syria-threat/


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 07:26:58 AM
"War crimes" is defined by the prosecution.  Could be "violating the will of Allah" or something like that, depending on whom the prosecutor is.

I'm saying to examine the "Congress told me to do it" angle in context of "my lieutenant told me to do it" or "the major told me to do it" or "the general told me to do it."

It's still going to be weighed in context of lawful versus moral... the moral compass held by someone else.

Your comment here:

Leaves a blanket assumption that Congress' moral compass is infallible, and Congress can issue no immoral/illegal order.

No, it doesn't. Congress has not ordered any war crimes. A strike against syrian chem weapon delivery systems wouldn't violate any of our laws, nor would it be immoral. It's just incredibly stupid.


"War crimes" are defined in pretty concrete terms by international law. And I'd suspect that russian law defines them as well.


Are you suggesting that US troops should violate any order that may put them opposite of someone else's moral compass?


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 07:28:53 AM
Russia is softening  ???

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/05/putin-greets-obama-with-syria-threat/

Yes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57601235/putin-russia-might-let-u.n-ok-strike-against-syria/


Sounds to me like Russia (much like us) doesn't really know yet what it's gonna do.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 05, 2013, 07:31:43 AM


Are you suggesting that US troops should violate any order that may put them opposite of someone else's moral compass?

US troops are the ones that are going to be answerable for their actions if they lose a war.  Either by dying on the battlefield or facing trial in a foreign court or at the mercy of the victor.

They have a right to put their voice into the debate.  And if they do it in uniform, it doesn't bother me at all.

Seeing uniforms opposed to lunacy might encourage Congress to make smarter decisions.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 07:35:24 AM
US troops are the ones that are going to be answerable for their actions if they lose a war.  Either by dying on the battlefield or facing trial in a foreign court or at the mercy of the victor.

They have a right to put their voice into the debate.  And if they do it in uniform, it doesn't bother me at all.

Seeing uniforms opposed to lunacy might encourage Congress to make smarter decisions.

No, they DON'T have that right. When you join the military, you lose some of your rights, especially in regard to criticizing your leadership and your nation. There are ways they can do it without running afoul of the UCMJ. This is not one of them.


Bad decisions kill soldiers.

Public, uniformed opposition (by NCOs, no less) to those decisions kill even more soldiers once the action kicks off. If I criticize my Commander's actions and my troops see it, they will lose confidence, which degrades the ability to perform in combat.

Should a soldier be able to say "no" to an attack on, say, an afghani insurgent safehouse just because he thinks it's a bad idea? After all, the Taliban may capture him and behead him


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: HankB on September 05, 2013, 08:02:41 AM
So far, the president has not violated the constitution with his actions regarding syria...

Quite correct. Verbally rattling the saber against Syria is not unconstitutional. Stupid, yes, but not a violation of the law.

. . . If approved by congress, this military engagement is perfectly legitimate. You don't get to refuse orders because a decision is stupid. You only get to refuse orders of the orders are ILLEGAL.

Congressional approval of military action changes the entire character of the debate, as well as the legality of the action itself. What is setting people off is Obama's expressed intent to unilaterally, on his personal authority ALONE, to initiate military action against a nation that has not attacked the US or its allies. If Congress were to explicitly vote AGAINST military action, a very strong argument could be made that a POTUS decision to proceed anyway, in defiance of Congress, would be an illegal order.

If Congress says "NO" to Obama, rest assured, our military will know it; they're well informed. And they will know about the questionable legality of such an order under those circumstances.

Are military members obligated to obey illegal orders?


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: RoadKingLarry on September 05, 2013, 08:51:43 AM
Quote
If Congress says "NO" to Obama, rest assured, our military will know it; they're well informed. And they will know about the questionable legality of such an order under those circumstances.

Interesting dilemma.

Is Obama arrogant enough to defy congess? If he does how would that affect the legality of an order to engage in military action in Syria?


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 09:14:38 AM
Quite correct. Verbally rattling the saber against Syria is not unconstitutional. Stupid, yes, but not a violation of the law.

Congressional approval of military action changes the entire character of the debate, as well as the legality of the action itself. What is setting people off is Obama's expressed intent to unilaterally, on his personal authority ALONE, to initiate military action against a nation that has not attacked the US or its allies. If Congress were to explicitly vote AGAINST military action, a very strong argument could be made that a POTUS decision to proceed anyway, in defiance of Congress, would be an illegal order.

If Congress says "NO" to Obama, rest assured, our military will know it; they're well informed. And they will know about the questionable legality of such an order under those circumstances.

Are military members obligated to obey illegal orders?

No, they aren't.

All I'm saying is that, at this point, it's unlawful to refuse to comply, and it's unlawful to voice opposition while in uniform.



If the president goes anyway, after congress says no, then military refusal of orders is perfectly legitimate in my mind. Although I myself will not refuse, because I have this zany sense of obligation to my troops.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 09:16:20 AM
Interesting dilemma.

Is Obama arrogant enough to defy congess? If he does how would that affect the legality of an order to engage in military action in Syria?

THe argument could certainly be made that defiance of congress would make a presidential order to attack illegal.


If it was never brought to congress, then it becomes murky, mostly because of precedent.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Šg151337 on September 05, 2013, 09:26:50 AM
First, any "proxy war" with russia is not going to involve nuke exchanges and sinking fleets. That would be a "war."

Second, nuremburg is really not comparable here. Maybe if we invaded canada for no reason, then rounded up all their <insert ethnic / religious group we want to exterminate here> and murdered them, it would be a valid comparison.

Instead of resorting to laughable hypotheticals, try making an actual rational argument.

Are you suggesting that US Soldiers should be allowed to disobey orders they don't agree with? Versus the current situation where they can only violate illegal orders?

I don't agree with disobeying lawful orders. But then again, i don't believe if it did come down to post war trials if we lose, we may not get the same fairness(mostly fair at least) in trials from the Russians as we gave the Nazis. After all, Russia is notorious for being one of the guilty until proven innocent governments.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Balog on September 05, 2013, 09:31:44 AM
Everyone is responsible to their own consciences. If Congress orders the troops to fight for the same terrorists that have been fighting America and beheading infidels then it may  be "legal" but I don't know that it'd be moral. And the legal (as opposed to justice) system would be right in prosecuting those folks who refused. Course sometimes going to prison rather than doing something evil is the right thing.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 09:33:42 AM
I don't agree with disobeying lawful orders. But then again, i don't believe if it did come down to post war trials if we lose, we may not get the same fairness(mostly fair at least) in trials from the Russians as we gave the Nazis. After all, Russia is notorious for being one of the guilty until proven innocent governments.

It's certainly a risk. However, if troops refused to deploy to any country in which the enemy might do horrid things to them upon capture, then we may as well not have a military. It's another one of those risks you accept when you join.




Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 09:34:54 AM
Everyone is responsible to their own consciences. If Congress orders the troops to fight for the same terrorists that have been fighting America and beheading infidels then it may  be "legal" but I don't know that it'd be moral. And the legal (as opposed to justice) system would be right in prosecuting those folks who refused. Course sometimes going to prison rather than doing something evil is the right thing.


This, I'd tend to agree with, actually. I can certainly agree with this line of thinking. Especially considering the IED that hit my truck came from some extremist group in Syria.

However, I still feel that my obligation to my troops outweighs this feeling. If these guys feel differently, fine. It's still cowardly to hide your face while engaging in such a noble protest, though.

THey want to be "heroes" without any actual negative consequences for their heroics.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Balog on September 05, 2013, 09:36:55 AM
Yeah, they agreed to no protests in uniform and there's no good excuse to do so now.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 09:38:13 AM
I hope that, if congress says no and Obama goes anyway, more people than just some Chiefs and sergeants stand up and say "no."

In order for it to have weight and seriously cause America to raise hell, it would have to have some higher ranking folks involved.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 09:44:30 AM
OK, this made me ROFL

(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1229966_10201890574449001_749853132_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: HankB on September 05, 2013, 10:08:47 AM
I don't agree with disobeying lawful orders. But then again, i don't believe if it did come down to post war trials if we lose, we may not get the same fairness(mostly fair at least) in trials from the Russians as we gave the Nazis. After all, Russia is notorious for being one of the guilty until proven innocent governments.
A full fledged US vs Russia war? We wouldn't lose. We might not win (remember MAD?) but neither side would be in a position to put the other on trial. And as for Russian justice . . . didn't Soviet Russia frequently send people to the gulag on charges that actually read something like "unwarranted exercise of constitutional rights?"


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Tallpine on September 05, 2013, 10:14:23 AM
A full fledged US vs Russia war? We wouldn't lose. We might not win (remember MAD?) but neither side would be in a position to put the other on trial. And as for Russian justice . . . didn't Soviet Russia frequently send people to the gulag on charges that actually read something like "unwarranted exercise of constitutional rights?"

Everyone will be dead anyway  ;/


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: freakazoid on September 05, 2013, 01:53:12 PM
Quote
It's still cowardly to hide your face while engaging in such a noble protest, though.

Cowardly, or smart?


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 01:54:48 PM
Cowardly, or smart?

Cowardly. If you want to stand up to the man, but you hide your face to avoid the consequences, you're a coward. Period.

They KNOW they're breaking the rules, yet they do it anyway. But they hide their faces because they don't want to actually deal with the consequences of their actions.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 05, 2013, 02:30:02 PM
Cowardly. If you want to stand up to the man, but you hide your face to avoid the consequences, you're a coward. Period.

They KNOW they're breaking the rules, yet they do it anyway. But they hide their faces because they don't want to actually deal with the consequences of their actions.

And if Sam Adams and John Hancock did it in Boston in the 1760's, is it still cowardly?


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 05, 2013, 02:41:25 PM
Interesting dilemma.

Is Obama arrogant enough to defy congess? If he does how would that affect the legality of an order to engage in military action in Syria?

He has done so on other things...


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: JN01 on September 05, 2013, 04:35:14 PM
Intellectually, I understand the necessity to muzzle certain opinions of military members for the sake of good order and discipline, but I can't help but have a knee-jerk reaction of anger when I hear about their liberties being restricted.

No free speech, limits on association and assembly, very restricted RKBA (outside combat zones), increasing infringement on religious practices, high probability that your vote from overseas won't be counted, etc.  It just seems wrong that those who fight for our freedoms have theirs so seriously curtailed.

Yeah, I know, they volunteered, but still.....

Go through the hell of war with its potential life long physical/mental effects (or get killed) and your reward is having less rights than a prison inmate in some respects.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: HankB on September 05, 2013, 04:39:47 PM
And if Sam Adams and John Hancock did it in Boston in the 1760's, is it still cowardly?
Fitz, were the Sons of Liberty - who carried out the original Boston Tea Party in 1773 - also cowards for disguising themselves as Indians?


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 05, 2013, 05:00:06 PM
So, let's full on Godwin this thing.

Nuremberg defense.

Assuming Congress says "go to war in Syria."

Now let's play it out to its absolute possible worst scenario.  This turns into a WWIII scale proxy war with Russia, ultimately involving nuke exchanges, loss of cities, sinking of fleets, etc. 

The US loses to Russia.

Russia gets to have its own equivalent of Nuremberg with US soldiers on trial.

"Just following orders of Congress."

Sounds a lot like those Nazis, doesn't it?

Surely you jest? You're comparing possible escalated military action to rounding up millions of..."jooz" as you're so fond of calling them? 
I mean....wtf?
You really can't be that dense?


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Scout26 on September 05, 2013, 05:03:38 PM
I'm saying to suspend the following two components of disbelief:
1. That the US could lose to Russia or some other power
2. That US Soldiers could face trial for something that you feel is just a fact of war, but the victor of that war feels is a war crime.  Intervening in a civil war in a foreign nation, for example.  Whatever.  Maybe a soldier J-walked while attempting to secure a city.  Doesn't matter.  He's on trial for it now.

The thing to focus on here is the defense.

The foreign court isn't going to care if the soldier's justification for participating in the war was "because Congress said so."  They're going to say "where was your moral compass?"

Both of those are a bridge too far.

1.  I sincerely hope that the American People, via the US congress, would say "Whoa!!" to deploying US troops to fight Russians in Syria.  As it stands right now, it doesn't look like the votes are there in the House to approve the Use of Force.
2.  There's a reason we insisted on a SOFA agreement in places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.  (We also have them with all our NATO allies, Japan and South Korea among others.)   Even if #1 did come to pass, the Russians aren't the Soviets.  Shooting, hanging, gassing, etc, American Service members would be very bad for business.

AZ, you utter and complete lack of knowledge of the US military, the UCMJ, it's people and leadership is completely underwhelming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 05:22:34 PM
The comparisons to the founders aren't valid. I'm not quite even sure how to respond. If you can't see the difference , I don't know what to tell you.


Apparently, we want a military where people can ignore orders if those orders make them uncomfortable or might put them in danger
It's impossible to run a military that way.

And yet, this very same board bemoans the degradation of our military's toughness .


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 05, 2013, 05:40:38 PM
Surely you jest? You're comparing possible escalated military action to rounding up millions of..."jooz" as you're so fond of calling them? 
I mean....wtf?
You really can't be that dense?

Read the scenario, and accept all of its realities.

US armed forces delivering nuclear payloads to enemy sites designated by the CinC.

The US loses.

The victor holding Nuremberg style trials over US servicemen, from sergeants to generals, involved in everything the victor perceives as a war crime.  Mosques were hit by nukes, it was an affront to Allah, proletariat strike on the bourgeoisie, take your pick.

Yes, it's highly possible that if the US loses a war with some power later on in the cycle of history, that that power will have a vastly different moral compass.

The Germans felt that following orders was a suitable defense for their actions.  History doesn't show that.

And keep in mind, that massive global-scale wars have a tendency to rewrite the rules after the fact.


(Anyways, I just spent two hours rallying in front of Flake and McCain's offices in PHX, protesting any use of force in Syria.  Not that it'll do any good. =|)


Title: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 05:44:42 PM
Well, I Appreciate you taking the time to protest

I plan on spending some time on Capitol Hill

Not in uniform


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 05, 2013, 05:47:42 PM
If we trade nukes with Russia, we've got bigger problems.
And the losers are often tried and convicted and executed in history. 


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Tallpine on September 05, 2013, 06:23:53 PM
If we trade nukes with Russia, we've got bigger problems.

Yeah, you can't get paid if you're dead.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Boomhauer on September 05, 2013, 06:29:52 PM
If we trade nukes with Russia, we've got bigger problems.


Like there's not going to be much of anybody on either side left to put on trial once the dust settles if a nuclear war happens like it's planned too.



Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 06:47:10 PM
Accept ALL MY HYPOTHETICALS

What if, by striking syria, we activate a homing beacon implanted by the reptilian aliens.

Then, that beacon malfunctions, sending a signal back that the aliens interpret as an order to invade.

MASSIVE global war with aliens, possibly with pulse rifles. the world units and mounts a counter insurgency, but it's ineffective. We try to nuke their ships to no avail.

Then, at the last minute, we come across an ancient vault

We open the door

get on the floor


everybody walk that dinosaur.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: charby on September 05, 2013, 06:52:59 PM
Read the scenario, and accept all of its realities.

US armed forces delivering nuclear payloads to enemy sites designated by the CinC.

The US loses.

The victor holding Nuremberg style trials over US servicemen, from sergeants to generals, involved in everything the victor perceives as a war crime.  Mosques were hit by nukes, it was an affront to Allah, proletariat strike on the bourgeoisie, take your pick.

Yes, it's highly possible that if the US loses a war with some power later on in the cycle of history, that that power will have a vastly different moral compass.

The Germans felt that following orders was a suitable defense for their actions.  History doesn't show that.

And keep in mind, that massive global-scale wars have a tendency to rewrite the rules after the fact.


(Anyways, I just spent two hours rallying in front of Flake and McCain's offices in PHX, protesting any use of force in Syria.  Not that it'll do any good. =|)

What ever late night talk show radio host you listen to or whatever back page obscure internet news articles you read, I'd suggest you quit them and find something a tad bit more mainstream.

Also do you ever reread what you post? Many times there is so much incoherent armchair warrior babbling. US to drop Nukes? Seriously?


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 06:56:35 PM
What ever late night talk show radio host you listen to or whatever back page obscure internet news articles you read, I'd suggest you quit them and find something a tad bit more mainstream.

Also do you ever reread what you post? Many times there is so much incoherent armchair warrior babbling. US to drop Nukes? Seriously?

Nah brah.

See, if the military just refuses any orders that may have negative consequences, we're good, see?


BRB... telling all my soldiers to refuse to go to A-stan because they might get captured and beheaded.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: RoadKingLarry on September 05, 2013, 07:34:56 PM
. . . didn't Soviet Russia frequently send people to the gulag on charges that actually read something like "unwarranted exercise of constitutional rights?"

Sometimes seems we aren't too far from that here these days.



Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Levant on September 05, 2013, 07:58:58 PM
Intelligence gathering capabilities and the ability to spy on citizens was pretty minimal in 1787 yet protesters had the need to remain anonymous.  http://www.constitution.org/afp/centin01.htm

The Obama administration has proven that they will go after those who protest against them: http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/proof-that-obama-met-secretly-with-irs-to-target-perceived-opponents so those who actively protest have reason to hide.

But those on active duty know that they are not allowed to protest and for good reasons.  Losing a stripe or a month's pay for each of them might drive that point home.

On the other hand, ex-military have a long tradition of protesting while wearing their uniforms as a demonstration of their standing to protest.  Active duty - no.  Ex-military - OK.



Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Boomhauer on September 05, 2013, 08:02:05 PM
Quote
On the other hand, ex-military have a long tradition of protesting while wearing their uniforms as a demonstration of their standing to protest.  Active duty - no.  Ex-military - OK.

*Cough* John Kerry *cough*

Who is quick to condemn war...unless it's desired by the Chosen One...



Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: freakazoid on September 05, 2013, 08:14:24 PM
Quote
Apparently, we want a military where people can ignore orders if those orders make them uncomfortable or might put them in danger

Quote
BRB... telling all my soldiers to refuse to go to A-stan because they might get captured and beheaded.

I'm pretty sure no body is suggesting they protest because they might get hurt or worse, more like protesting the orders that have you aiding and abetting of the enemy.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 05, 2013, 08:35:29 PM
Accept ALL MY HYPOTHETICALS

What if, by striking syria, we activate a homing beacon implanted by the reptilian aliens.

Then, that beacon malfunctions, sending a signal back that the aliens interpret as an order to invade.

MASSIVE global war with aliens, possibly with pulse rifles. the world units and mounts a counter insurgency, but it's ineffective. We try to nuke their ships to no avail.

Then, at the last minute, we come across an ancient vault

We open the door

get on the floor


everybody walk that dinosaur.

 ;/


"Terrorism" is a nifty little label that gets to be applied to the loser in any war.

Siding with Al Qaeda and losing, brands the US as terrorists.

There's your war crime, in Bush era logic.  You're either with the terrorists, or with us.  Right?  But Russia gets to interpret the label of terrorist, rather than us.

Meh.  Whatever.  I ain't going, and I've let my bottomfeeder critters know I don't want them to so much as allow a sailor to spit in the general direction of Syria, let alone BotG, air strikes or anything else.

The likelihood of the US losing any war in the next 20 years is pretty dang small.

But the defense of "Congress said to do it" still rings hollow in my ears, if a soldier is somehow held accountable for actions that a foreign court doesn't like.  A failed assassination attempt on Assad, for example.  Or a bombing strike on a target that was supposed to be a military bunker but turns out to be just an ordinary mosque/madrasa, and the bomber gets shot down and the pilot captured.  Or deliberately bad intel from AQ "allies" makes us do something horrible, and we later have to answer for it.



Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 08:39:47 PM
I'm pretty sure no body is suggesting they protest because they might get hurt or worse, more like protesting the orders that have you aiding and abetting of the enemy.

That's PRECISELY what AZR said. Go back and read.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 08:42:10 PM
;/


"Terrorism" is a nifty little label that gets to be applied to the loser in any war.

Siding with Al Qaeda and losing, brands the US as terrorists.

There's your war crime, in Bush era logic.  You're either with the terrorists, or with us.  Right?  But Russia gets to interpret the label of terrorist, rather than us.

Meh.  Whatever.  I ain't going, and I've let my bottomfeeder critters know I don't want them to so much as allow a sailor to spit in the general direction of Syria, let alone BotG, air strikes or anything else.

The likelihood of the US losing any war in the next 20 years is pretty dang small.

But the defense of "Congress said to do it" still rings hollow in my ears, if a soldier is somehow held accountable for actions that a foreign court doesn't like.  A failed assassination attempt on Assad, for example.  Or a bombing strike on a target that was supposed to be a military bunker but turns out to be just an ordinary mosque/madrasa, and the bomber gets shot down and the pilot captured.  Or deliberately bad intel from AQ "allies" makes us do something horrible, and we later have to answer for it.



You don't get what I'm saying.

If congress authorizes a war, the military has a duty to obey.

Without that duty, there's no point whatsoever in having a military. The military does not get to pick and choose which lawful engagements they participate in.

Everything you've described are possibilities. Some quite absurd. Doesn't change the fact that, as a soldier, you have the duty to obey orders that are in line with the constitution.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 05, 2013, 08:51:52 PM
That's PRECISELY what AZR said. Go back and read.

Not really.

I'm focused more on the moral clarity of the war's justification, in light of actions perceived as war crimes by the victor.  Not the safety of the soldier.  War is really dangerous.  Duh.

Nuremberg demonstrated that German soldiers accepted "my command structure told me to do it" was an appropriate response, but the US does not accept that as a defense in the event of war crimes.

Soldiers firing rifles and grenades and tanks and missiles at other opposing soldiers are not going to be put on trial.  Soldiers shooting everyone inside a madrasa that's supposed to be an NBC silo in disguise (due to bad intel), might be put on trial.

Fighter/bomber pilots carrying NBC ordnance, might.  Officers on sunken/captured Aegis Destroyers or missile subs, might.  SpecOps units that destroy controversial targets, might.

"Congress told me to do it" is no different than "mein fuhrer told me to do it."  It still passes the buck of accepting moral responsibility for the action being called a war crime.


Title: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 05, 2013, 09:05:44 PM
Not really.

I'm focused more on the moral clarity of the war's justification, in light of actions perceived as war crimes by the victor.  Not the safety of the soldier.  War is really dangerous.  Duh.

Nuremberg demonstrated that German soldiers accepted "my command structure told me to do it" was an appropriate response, but the US does not accept that as a defense in the event of war crimes.

Soldiers firing rifles and grenades and tanks and missiles at other opposing soldiers are not going to be put on trial.  Soldiers shooting everyone inside a madrasa that's supposed to be an NBC silo in disguise (due to bad intel), might be put on trial.

Fighter/bomber pilots carrying NBC ordnance, might.  Officers on sunken/captured Aegis Destroyers or missile subs, might.  SpecOps units that destroy controversial targets, might.

"Congress told me to do it" is no different than "mein fuhrer told me to do it."  It still passes the buck of accepting moral responsibility for the action being called a war crime.

I never said that Congress ordering war crimes was legit.

You posited that "war crimes" are determined by the victors. You posited that soldiers could be tried for war crimes if they lose.

How is this functionally different from a soldier getting captured by the taliban, tried for "crimes against islam" and beheaded?

Protip, it isn't.

Soldiers cannot avoid fighting in a conflict because their actions might have repercussions if the US loses. That's lunacy


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: HankB on September 06, 2013, 04:30:11 AM
The comparisons to the founders aren't valid. I'm not quite even sure how to respond. If you can't see the difference , I don't know what to tell you.
Translation: Undercuts my argument about only cowardly soldiers hiding their identities when protesting. Must ignore.  ;/


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 06, 2013, 05:21:12 AM
Not really.

I'm focused more on the moral clarity of the war's justification, in light of actions perceived as war crimes by the victor.  Not the safety of the soldier.  War is really dangerous.  Duh.

Nuremberg demonstrated that German soldiers accepted "my command structure told me to do it" was an appropriate response, but the US does not accept that as a defense in the event of war crimes.

Soldiers firing rifles and grenades and tanks and missiles at other opposing soldiers are not going to be put on trial.  Soldiers shooting everyone inside a madrasa that's supposed to be an NBC silo in disguise (due to bad intel), might be put on trial.

Fighter/bomber pilots carrying NBC ordnance, might.  Officers on sunken/captured Aegis Destroyers or missile subs, might.  SpecOps units that destroy controversial targets, might.

"Congress told me to do it" is no different than "mein fuhrer told me to do it."  It still passes the buck of accepting moral responsibility for the action being called a war crime.


 ;/


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 06, 2013, 06:15:12 AM
Translation: Undercuts my argument about only cowardly soldiers hiding their identities when protesting. Must ignore.  ;/

The crux of it is: the soldiers agreed to follow lawful orders from the president. They hide their faces because they know that they are failing to fulfill their obligations. So far, there is nothing the government has done that hasn't been in line with the agreement they willingly entered into.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: charby on September 06, 2013, 06:40:29 AM
The crux of it is: the soldiers agreed to follow lawful orders from the president. They hide their faces because they know that they are failing to fulfill their obligations. So far, there is nothing the government has done that hasn't been in line with the agreement they willingly entered into.

+1000


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Balog on September 06, 2013, 07:16:26 AM
AZRed: people in the .mil signed a contract. They are in violation of their contract. Why is a voluntaryist supporting people violating their contracts, not because they are being forced to do something morally wrong but because they want you to know that they don't want to do something morally wrong? You sure do have a low view of the sanctity of contracts for someone who wants to replace the .gov with voluntary contracts.

And all the "might be tried for war crimes" stuff is true. Any person on the losing side of a war can be tried for anything the victor feels like. I really don't see how that's cogent.

Translation: Undercuts my argument about only cowardly soldiers hiding their identities when protesting. Must ignore.  ;/

The Founders were trying to start a rebellion and overthrow the existing .gov, which is a wee bit different than a bunch of folks who try to garner the legitimacy of wearing uniforms to protest in a way they have specifically agreed not to.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 06, 2013, 07:23:59 AM
AZRed: people in the .mil signed a contract. They are in violation of their contract. Why is a voluntaryist supporting people violating their contracts, not because they are being forced to do something morally wrong but because they want you to know that they don't want to do something morally wrong? You sure do have a low view of the sanctity of contracts for someone who wants to replace the .gov with voluntary contracts.


OK, you win.  At least for voluntary enlistees.  Draft hasn't been used in a long time, but I don't acknowledge the validity of that same argument for draftees.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Boomhauer on September 06, 2013, 07:33:18 AM
The "Troops Tea Party" people are no different than the idiots that whine about deploying, or desert before deployment and then defend their actions as "I didn't know I was going to have to go to war, I only signed up for college money!"

That don't work, hoss.

Quote
OK, you win.  At least for voluntary enlistees.  Draft hasn't been used in a long time, but I don't acknowledge the validity of that same argument for draftees.

And we aren't drafting people.

And do let me point out that back in WWII we sided with a very evil country that helped start WWII. A country that made the Muslim Brotherhood look like nothing.

Now should we involve ourselves in Syria? *expletive deleted*ck no.




Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: HankB on September 06, 2013, 07:49:40 AM
The crux of it is: the soldiers agreed to follow lawful orders from the president. They hide their faces because they know that they are failing to fulfill their obligations. So far, there is nothing the government has done that hasn't been in line with the agreement they willingly entered into.
Correct - the operative phrase being so far.  POTUS at this point HAS NOT used the US military to support Al-Qaeda, as far as we know. (Though there is some question about which "rebel" groups in Syria we're aiding - and how.)

But when POTUS has indicated an intent to embark on a course of action that legal opinion seems to strongly suggest is not only illegal but unconstitutional, I hardly think persons who object are failing to fulfill their obligations.

If Congress ultimately approves attacking Syria, the legalities will have been satisfied, at least insofar as American law is concerned, which will change the dynamic of the debate, and the attack orders will be lawful; foolish, but lawful.



Title: Re: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: lupinus on September 06, 2013, 08:27:02 AM
It's simple really.

Attacking Syria would be monumentally stupid. Attacking Syria without congressional approval would also be completely illegal and I would fault no soldier who refused to do so.

But, attacking Syria if congress gives authorization would be perfectly legal, just stupid. The military makes folks do all manner of stupid things, and no one gets to say no just because the order is stupid.

It's a completely different and separate discussion from if we should in the first place.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: SADShooter on September 06, 2013, 08:35:59 AM
Likely no decision/movement until next Tuesday, when we can evaluate the relative influence of scripted oratory against that of extemporaneous gasbaggery. =|


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 06, 2013, 09:42:56 AM
Correct - the operative phrase being so far.  POTUS at this point HAS NOT used the US military to support Al-Qaeda, as far as we know. (Though there is some question about which "rebel" groups in Syria we're aiding - and how.)

But when POTUS has indicated an intent to embark on a course of action that legal opinion seems to strongly suggest is not only illegal but unconstitutional, I hardly think persons who object are failing to fulfill their obligations.

If Congress ultimately approves attacking Syria, the legalities will have been satisfied, at least insofar as American law is concerned, which will change the dynamic of the debate, and the attack orders will be lawful; foolish, but lawful.




They ARE failing to fulfill their obligations. One of those obligations is not making political protests in uniform.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 06, 2013, 09:49:14 AM
Fitz:  When the CinC fails to meet his obligations by declaring he may go to war over Congress' explicit vote of "No," doesn't that then present an opportunity for troops to do as they are doing here? 

CinC/POTUS is essentially saying his contract with COTUS is not worth honoring.  If that contract isn't any good, what good is any subordinate contract (i.e. enlistment contract)?


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 06, 2013, 09:59:11 AM
Fitz:  When the CinC fails to meet his obligations by declaring he may go to war over Congress' explicit vote of "No," doesn't that then present an opportunity for troops to do as they are doing here? 

CinC/POTUS is essentially saying his contract with COTUS is not worth honoring.  If that contract isn't any good, what good is any subordinate contract (i.e. enlistment contract)?

It has not happened yet.

I don't get to break the rules because of something that hasn't happened yet.

And if the president DID do that, it STILL wouldn't be time to break the rules until congress fails to start impeachment proceedings.



It is not time, until it's time. Until it's time, soldiers have DUTY. We don't get to shirk our duties based on POSSIBILITIES.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Scout26 on September 06, 2013, 01:19:07 PM
I'll try again to see if we can get AZ to grok this.

If Congress approves and the president orders, then Fitz salutes, says "Three Bags Full" and goes to Syria.

If Congress does not approve and the president still orders then Fitz salutes, says "Three Bags Full" and goes to Syria.


However, in scenario #2 above, hopefully those officers appointed over him say "Hold on a second Mr. President, I think that's an illegal order."  Hopefully, it's officers with stars on their shoulders (not bars or leafs).  That being the case, the USSC will get to decide what the War Powers Act really means, and as to whether it's an illegal order or not.  Or they could simply salute, say "Three Bags Full" and let Congress defund the mission.  Again, more than likely bringing in the USSC and the meaning of the War Powers Act.  Yes, Obama has tried to do end-arounds of Congress before (*cough* recess appointments), and been slap by the courts.  


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 06, 2013, 01:32:57 PM
It's important to note that NEITHER scenario means I want to be there. My obligation to my troops is strong


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 06, 2013, 01:33:28 PM
Puff...puff....
Dude....so like what if they had a war.....and nobody showed up....?


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: lupinus on September 06, 2013, 02:07:35 PM
I'll try again to see if we can get AZ to grok this.
Good luck and godspeed


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 06, 2013, 02:18:02 PM
(http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p17/azredhawk44/i-wash-my-hands-o.gif) (http://s124.photobucket.com/user/azredhawk44/media/i-wash-my-hands-o.gif.html)


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Balog on September 06, 2013, 02:33:33 PM
So, just to be clear, .mil personnel abiding by the contracts they voluntarily signed instead of pre-emptively breaking them in order to make a symbolic protest, is the same as 1. Nazi soldiers slaughtering Jews and 2. Pontius Pilot sending Jesus to be crucified. Gotcha.

You really are dedicated to expanding the use of hyperbole aren't you?

Also, care to answer why, as a voluntaryist, you're so eager and supportive of folks breaking their contracts?


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 06, 2013, 02:45:38 PM
So, just to be clear, .mil personnel abiding by the contracts they voluntarily signed instead of pre-emptively breaking them in order to make a symbolic protest, is the same as 1. Nazi soldiers slaughtering Jews and 2. Pontius Pilot sending Jesus to be crucified. Gotcha.

You really are dedicated to expanding the use of hyperbole aren't you?

Also, care to answer why, as a voluntaryist, you're so eager and supportive of folks breaking their contracts?

Wow.

It's an animated gif of some dude washing his hands.  Settle down.

#1 is just so far off-base from what I said that I'm not going to respond.

I already conceded the point about contracts.

(http://data.whicdn.com/images/27651232/gif-tinkerbell-Favim.com-239800_large.gif)

(No, I'm not calling anyone a fairy with this gif... that's just Tink washing her hands.) ;/


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Balog on September 06, 2013, 02:47:20 PM
You're right, somewhere in your repeated analogies of Americans losing a war to Russia and being tried like the Nazis at Nuremburg I must have mistakenly gotten the impression that you were comparing American soldiers to Nazis. No idea where that came from.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: vaskidmark on September 06, 2013, 03:42:17 PM
Ever since WWII the world has agreed to an outline of what constitutes a crime against humanity and ever since 18__ agreed to what constitutes a war crime.  At the bottom we have the Geneva and Hauge convention agreements, along with several decisions in "the world court of opinion" that those conventions are considered binding even if your country is not a formal signatory.  It just takes getting to the end of the physical conflict before applying the standards against the losing side.

Somewhere there is a quote about the military being what one country applies against another country to make that second country agree with the first country when talking about it while wearing formalwear has not been successful.  In this case it is how POTUS intends to carry out his political policy about something.  To me it looks more like POTUS wanting to rub Syria's nose in the mess created by somebody using chemical weapons in order to make Syria not want to do thata\gain.  But like training puppies and children, the longer the delay between the act that p'd you off and the rubbing of the nose in the mess the less meaning said nose rubbing has.

But the most the military can do is share their considered opinion on how sucessful the proposed action will have on achieving the proposed outcome.  POTUS is supposed to have political advisors that do the same thing from that perspective.  Then once POTUS makes up his mind the military puts on its collective socks and ties its collective boots, while the political advisors consider whether or not they should start looking for new jobs.  As I understand it, officers have the option of resigning their commission, but the non-commissioned ranks (NCO and lesser ranks) do not have that option, so when new officers are commissioned the troops are under contract to obey them until and unless a specific illegal order is given.

That would be along the lines of "Bomb the Damascus Main Hospital where we know civillians are being housed and treated" as opposed to "Our best intelligence suggests X (that we are wanting to destroy because of its military value) is located here, so bomb the crap out of right here", or an order to "take no prisoners" or to "shoot all civillians even if they are not armed and are not offering any resistance".

Since POTUS usually does not micromanage the application of tactical military might (as opposed to approving the use of political might for the purpose of attaining political goals) it would be difficult for POTUS to give an illegal order.  The best he might be able to do is tell the Joint Chiefs to tell the troops to kill all ragheads with red rags on their heads, but leave ragheads wearing any other color alone - unless the red rag signified the uniform of "the enemy".  But then the Joint Chiefs could either share their considered wisdom or quit and hope anybody appointed to replace them shares the same opinion about the proposed carrying out of political goals by application of military might.

But let us get back to the analogy of the puppy.  What can POTUS accomplish to further his political goals by waiting until next Tuesday to do something?

stay safe.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Boomhauer on September 06, 2013, 04:25:56 PM
Quote

It's an animated gif of some dude washing his hands.  Settle down.

Uh huh sssssssuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeee




Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Ryan in Maine on September 06, 2013, 06:51:22 PM
 :facepalm:


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: charby on September 06, 2013, 07:39:04 PM
Wow.

It's an animated gif of some dude washing his hands.  Settle down.

#1 is just so far off-base from what I said that I'm not going to respond.

I already conceded the point about contracts.

(http://data.whicdn.com/images/27651232/gif-tinkerbell-Favim.com-239800_large.gif)

(No, I'm not calling anyone a fairy with this gif... that's just Tink washing her hands.) ;/

(http://www.webpulp.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/5414660_8716bf615a.jpg)


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Scout26 on September 06, 2013, 10:15:46 PM
AZ hat seems to think that if Congress says "Simon Sez", then should the Syrians or the Russians captured US Servicemembers then they cannot be tried for warcrimes by those capturing powers.    Unlike what the Norks did to the crew of the Pueblo or what the North Vietnamese did to US fighter pilots.  I mean even though Congress gave Truman to police Koreaand then gave LBJ the Tonkin Gulf Resolution (a go to war permit), they didn't hold warcrimes trials or violate the Geneva and The Hague Conventions.   Nosiree.


And  if you are trying to play dumb with the Ponitas Pilate gif, it's very convincing.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: cordex on September 07, 2013, 07:46:33 AM
AZ has been off base, but haven't Fitz and others said that even if lawful orders were given to conduct operations against citizens of this country there would be a right and proper refusal to do so?  I seem to recall some approving discussion about keys being left in armored vehicles where they might be found by the opposition ...

Obviously there are some differences between the scenarios, but there is at least some acceptance by the same people who are proclaiming the importance of enforcing military obedience to unpopular orders about refusing lawful orders if they seem unjust or wrong.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 07, 2013, 08:01:26 AM
That wouldn't be a lawful order


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 07, 2013, 08:01:47 AM

And  if you are trying to play dumb with the Ponitas Pilate gif, it's very convincing.

I think he is merely implying that he is "washing his hands" of this discussion?


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 07, 2013, 08:18:55 AM
AZ has been off base, but haven't Fitz and others said that even if lawful orders were given to conduct operations against citizens of this country there would be a right and proper refusal to do so?  I seem to recall some approving discussion about keys being left in armored vehicles where they might be found by the opposition ...

Obviously there are some differences between the scenarios, but there is at least some acceptance by the same people who are proclaiming the importance of enforcing military obedience to unpopular orders about refusing lawful orders if they seem unjust or wrong.

I have a lot more to say about this comparison, let me get to a computer


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 07, 2013, 09:14:00 AM
OK, I'll try to lay this out the best I can, bearing in mind that some may disagree.

To me, a war in Syria authorized by congress is legal. That's probably not in dispute. Stupid? Sure. Illegal? Nope.

A war denied by congress, but pursued anyway, is not legal in my mind. As I said previously, I'd probably obey anyway (while writing my representatives asking them to start impeachment proceedings.) This has nothing to do with the legality of the order, and everything to do with my troops. Also, the folks protesting in uniform? I will no longer have an objection to that if congress says "no" and Obama goes anyway. Such an order will be , in my mind, illegal and unconstitutional, and I cannot fault a man for standing up against that, even if I won't myself.


An order to use military force against American citizens in any of the scenarios we are warned about in fiction, I would not obey. Even if authorized by congress, mass confiscations of weapons, suppression of dissent, etc etc.... those things are all unconstitutional. Again, it's like simon says. Congress and the president can give all the orders they wish, but if they're unconstitutional, I have not only the RIGHT to deny, but the DUTY.

Some may ask why the disparity. Why would I obey an unconstitutional order to invade Syria after denied by congress, but refuse an order (even duly authorized by congress) to, for example, collect all weapons from private citizens and melt em down, round up <insert group here> and put them in camps, etc?

Quite simply, my loyalty to my troops ends where my loyalty to the American public begins. Although I love my troops, they know that if there's ever an occasion where the US military is called to oppress citizens and violate their human rights, take their weapons, etc... then they better hope they don't see me again, because it'll be them looking down my rifle barrel.

I'm willing to sacrifice my duty to the constitution to go invade Syria if necessary, because I care about my troops, and they need me. I have no loyalty to Syrians on either side, and to me conducting a war there is a small price to pay to take care of my troops.

I am not, and never will be willing to sacrifice my duty to the constitution in order to conduct a war against Americans, gun owners, jews, christians, or whatever group they want me to stomp under a jackboot. My troops will either come with me, or they'll become my enemy. Authorized by congress or not, such a campaign renders my committment to the country null and void, IMHO.

I DO realize that this makes me a hypocrit. However, it's a hypocrisy I can live with.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: cordex on September 07, 2013, 09:28:29 AM
Fitz,

Sounds fair and honorable to me. Thanks for taking the time to write that.


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Fitz on September 07, 2013, 02:19:54 PM
Lol!!!

(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/09/08/ry4a7uba.jpg)


Title: Re: Troops Tea Party seems upset
Post by: Bigjake on September 07, 2013, 04:20:09 PM
What Fitz said.   

What those people are doing is illegal, as far as our oath goes. The president may well be full of *expletive deleted*it,  but anyone that took that oath should know better.

That being the case,  If ordered,  I'll go.  I wouldn't agree with it,  but my Marines don't get to choose,  why should I? 


ankara escort ata┼čehir escort pendik escort ┼či┼čli escort kurtk├Ây escort ankara escort ankara escort avc─▒lar escort istanbul travesti escort bayan escort avc─▒lar escort antalya escort ankara escort istanbul escort t├╝rk porno ─░stanbul Escort Ankara Escort Bayan taksim escort maltepe escort Ankara Escort Eros Porno Bah├že┼čehir Escort ankara escort Sincan Escort Bayan Etlik Escort Kurtk├Ây Escort Demetevler Escort ├ťmraniye Escort Escort ankara Keci├Âren Escort Escort Ankara Kad─▒k├Ây Escort Escort bayanlar Ankara Escort Bayan Kurtk├Ây Escort Eryaman Escort Kurtk├Ây Escort Escort ─░zmir Escort beylikd├╝z├╝ Beylikd├╝z├╝ Escort ├çankaya Escort escort izmir Ankara escort Antalya escort Ankara Escort ankara escort Altyaz─▒l─▒ Porno T├╝rk├že Altyaz─▒l─▒ Porno Beylikd├╝z├╝ Escort istanbul escort Bah├že┼čehir Escort Ankara escort Porno izle izmir escort Pendik escort Bostanc─▒ Escort Anadolu Yakas─▒ Escort Umraniye Escort mersin escort kocaeli escort izmir escort izmir escort Altyaz─▒l─▒ Porno fmovies casino siteleri yabanc─▒ dizi ankara escort PORNO buca escort