SkyDekker 1,465 #101 December 9, 2004 Quotethat would be an unlawful order, and soldiers are not required to obey unlawful orders... if you'd been thru basic training even you would have been educated on the difference. It was me asking the question....and i have been slammed by better people But I have now heard two different answers from two people who have been at least through basic training and according to you should therefor have the basic mental capacity to answer my question. One gives me the line about an unlawful order, the other says a soldier just should do what he is told. Question remains, who decides what an unlawful order is. What makes it unlawful? Or is any order coming down the proper chain of command lawful? I know it might be hard to undstand, but some people do like to learn from time to time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #102 December 9, 2004 QuoteThe war is not illegal. Good luck trying to get that through a court martial. So, if a soldier refuses to follow an oder based on him/her claiming it is unlawful it ends up in front of a courtmartial. If the court decides it was lawful, the soldier immediately gets punished for not following the order? sounds like the system is certainly in favour of just blindly doing what you are told? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #103 December 9, 2004 I take back all I said about putting these folks to death and agree that they should be punished in accordance with the UCMJ. Yes, I am a flip-flopper. BTW most desserters, peacetime and wartime do less than 5 years in prison."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
white_falcon 0 #104 December 9, 2004 Sky, My reply, was knee jerk. It pissed me off royally, as I am sure you could tell. Anyway as I am sure you have ascertained, I am in full agreement w/ fryin the bastard. And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming, while I lurk in the background again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #105 December 9, 2004 Quote Question remains, who decides what an unlawful order is. What makes it unlawful? Or is any order coming down the proper chain of command lawful? The UCMJ and the Code of Conduct. Every soldier is expected to know and understand them... they can always ask their leadership (or other avenue if the leadership IS the problem) for clarification. As to 'doing what your told' the leaders are expected to follow the exact same standard, and if they are ,then they will not be putting their soldiers in any position where there is a need to question orders.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #106 December 9, 2004 QuoteSo, if a soldier refuses to follow an oder based on him/her claiming it is unlawful it ends up in front of a courtmartial. If the court decides it was lawful, the soldier immediately gets punished for not following the order? Probably (in the more extreme circumstances). Quotesounds like the system is certainly in favour of just blindly doing what you are told? Not really. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #107 December 9, 2004 Thanks pajarito and zenister for your replies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #108 December 9, 2004 QuoteThat side being the U.S in the present war SH had 12 years to comply and never did. The UN was a bunch of spinless idiots that were lining their pockets with money. And if the "Insurgents" did't fire, and allowed elections we would already be gone."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #109 December 9, 2004 QuoteWell, we didn't really give Iraqis much of a choice, considering we invaded their homeland. They we're already there. There is nothing making them fight us...The fastest way for them to get us to leave is to stop fighting and elect who they want to run the country."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #110 December 9, 2004 True...and I'm sure if some country invaded the US to overthrow Bush and force us to elect new leaders, you'd stay home, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AMax 0 #111 December 9, 2004 QuoteI may be wrong but I feel your a UN supporter. So I will use the internationally legal example. On paper the war in Iraq is legal, weather you agree or not, the US has a UN security council authorization. If your not a UN supporter I do appalogize. But the war is legal as far as the UN is concerned and the 2 trials I have heard about in the tirbunal have agreed. (I read about them while i was in Iraq but can't remember if it was Time, or US news and Worl Report but it was a real small blurb in a magazine like that, almost like the ydidn't want you or I to know, but still quilify them selves as fair and unbiased by reporting all sides of the news). Matt Do you think it is a shame to support UN? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #112 December 9, 2004 QuoteTrue...and I'm sure if some country invaded the US to overthrow Bush and force us to elect new leaders, you'd stay home, right? If my life was as crappy as the peoples in Iraq...Maybe. But it is one reason I support the 2nd. Why is that your plan with the midgets? BTW they like to be called Height Challenged-Americans."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #113 December 9, 2004 Quote If my life was as crappy as the peoples in Iraq...Maybe. But it is one reason I support the 2nd. _____________________________________________________ Such a (simple) reply from you, Ron? I'm surprised. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #114 December 9, 2004 QuoteThe UN was a bunch of spinless idiots that were lining their pockets with money. together with those american companies who were on that list. However, your administration blacked out those names, so we don't really know who those companies are..... So let's say Haliburton is on that list, it would have been during Cheney's time there. Does that make him a spinless (sic) idiot too? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #115 December 9, 2004 Quotetogether with those american companies who were on that list. However, your administration blacked out those names, so we don't really know who those companies are..... So let's say Haliburton is on that list, it would have been during Cheney's time there. Does that make him a spinless (sic) idiot too? there is a big difference between a COMPANY that is in business to make money, and an ORGANIZATION that is supposed to be a governing body. If a public figure is using his position to become rich...He is breaking the law. If a CEO is running a company to become rich...He is doing a good job."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #116 December 9, 2004 Quotethere is a big difference between a COMPANY that is in business to make money, and an ORGANIZATION that is supposed to be a governing body. And there's a big difference between the actions of individual members of an organization and what that organizations goals are. The UN did not do anything wrong. Individual members did. QuoteIf a CEO is running a company to become rich...He is doing a good job. Even if he's purposely and illegally setting up offshore shell corporations with the sole purpose of circumventing sanctions designed to insure national security? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #117 December 9, 2004 QuoteAnd there's a big difference between the actions of individual members of an organization and what that organizations goals are. The UN did not do anything wrong. Individual members did. At least you can admit that. QuoteEven if he's purposely and illegally setting up offshore shell corporations with the sole purpose of circumventing sanctions designed to insure national security? 1. Got proof? 2. Did he get charged? If so what was the outcome? 3. If nothing or close to nothing, then it seems to not be a big deal huh? And again HB was one of the few companies that could handle contracts that large."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #118 December 9, 2004 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml Not talking about what HB is doing in Iraq now. Talking about what they were doing pre-war while sanctions were in place. It is not disputed that Halliburton sold equipment to Iraq through foreign subsidiaries while US law prohibited US companies from doing so. So no, he wasn't indicted, because it wasn't illegal. It's pretty shitty of an American company to deliberately circumvent laws in place for national security reasons. If you think that's not a big deal, fine. But it's not in dispute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #119 December 10, 2004 Quote1. Got proof? 2. Did he get charged? If so what was the outcome? 3. If nothing or close to nothing, then it seems to not be a big deal huh? What a crock o shit that is. So if some one got murdered, but nobody got charged since they can't find proof tying one person to the murder......it means the murder wasn't a big deal. I guess in your world breaking the law is only bad if you get caught. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #120 December 10, 2004 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Got proof? 2. Did he get charged? If so what was the outcome? 3. If nothing or close to nothing, then it seems to not be a big deal huh? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What a crock o shit that is. So if some one got murdered, but nobody got charged since they can't find proof tying one person to the murder......it means the murder wasn't a big deal. I guess in your world breaking the law is only bad if you get caught. No the murder is still a big deal, but I am not going to assume a certain person did it with out PROOF. You however are free to go on a witch hunt. But I am glad the LAW in the US agrees with me that you can't just punish someone with out proof that THEY did the crime."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #121 December 10, 2004 QuoteBut I am glad the LAW in the US agrees with me that you can't just punish someone with out proof that THEY did the crime. Unless it is someone who was arrested for armed robbery. I recall you saying something along the lines that if there's video showing someone that looks like the accused robbing a store and shooting the clerk, there shouldn't be a trial, they should just be executed. Seems there are a bunch of witnesses and documentation here. Not enough for a trial, but with your desire for swift justice for others, seems you might think that it's worth investigating. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #122 December 10, 2004 Quotethen it seems to not be a big deal huh That refers to the act, not the person. so, were you wrong the first time, or the subsequent opposite explanation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #123 December 10, 2004 Nice try...I said if no one presses charges, or the courts don't convict, or there is now penalty, then its not a big deal... Nice try to twist my words..but you failed...again."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #124 December 10, 2004 QuoteUnless it is someone who was arrested for armed robbery. I recall you saying something along the lines that if there's video showing someone that looks like the accused robbing a store and shooting the clerk, there shouldn't be a trial, they should just be executed. Um I said video, eye witnesses and the guy was arrested walking out of the store with the gun that was used. Nice try."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #125 December 10, 2004 In this case you have documentation, witnesses, and an admission by the man himself with the execuse that he was unaware it was going on. The witnesses and documentation refute that. You don't think that warrants investigation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
SkyDekker 1,465 #114 December 9, 2004 QuoteThe UN was a bunch of spinless idiots that were lining their pockets with money. together with those american companies who were on that list. However, your administration blacked out those names, so we don't really know who those companies are..... So let's say Haliburton is on that list, it would have been during Cheney's time there. Does that make him a spinless (sic) idiot too? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #115 December 9, 2004 Quotetogether with those american companies who were on that list. However, your administration blacked out those names, so we don't really know who those companies are..... So let's say Haliburton is on that list, it would have been during Cheney's time there. Does that make him a spinless (sic) idiot too? there is a big difference between a COMPANY that is in business to make money, and an ORGANIZATION that is supposed to be a governing body. If a public figure is using his position to become rich...He is breaking the law. If a CEO is running a company to become rich...He is doing a good job."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #116 December 9, 2004 Quotethere is a big difference between a COMPANY that is in business to make money, and an ORGANIZATION that is supposed to be a governing body. And there's a big difference between the actions of individual members of an organization and what that organizations goals are. The UN did not do anything wrong. Individual members did. QuoteIf a CEO is running a company to become rich...He is doing a good job. Even if he's purposely and illegally setting up offshore shell corporations with the sole purpose of circumventing sanctions designed to insure national security? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #117 December 9, 2004 QuoteAnd there's a big difference between the actions of individual members of an organization and what that organizations goals are. The UN did not do anything wrong. Individual members did. At least you can admit that. QuoteEven if he's purposely and illegally setting up offshore shell corporations with the sole purpose of circumventing sanctions designed to insure national security? 1. Got proof? 2. Did he get charged? If so what was the outcome? 3. If nothing or close to nothing, then it seems to not be a big deal huh? And again HB was one of the few companies that could handle contracts that large."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #118 December 9, 2004 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml Not talking about what HB is doing in Iraq now. Talking about what they were doing pre-war while sanctions were in place. It is not disputed that Halliburton sold equipment to Iraq through foreign subsidiaries while US law prohibited US companies from doing so. So no, he wasn't indicted, because it wasn't illegal. It's pretty shitty of an American company to deliberately circumvent laws in place for national security reasons. If you think that's not a big deal, fine. But it's not in dispute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #119 December 10, 2004 Quote1. Got proof? 2. Did he get charged? If so what was the outcome? 3. If nothing or close to nothing, then it seems to not be a big deal huh? What a crock o shit that is. So if some one got murdered, but nobody got charged since they can't find proof tying one person to the murder......it means the murder wasn't a big deal. I guess in your world breaking the law is only bad if you get caught. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #120 December 10, 2004 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Got proof? 2. Did he get charged? If so what was the outcome? 3. If nothing or close to nothing, then it seems to not be a big deal huh? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What a crock o shit that is. So if some one got murdered, but nobody got charged since they can't find proof tying one person to the murder......it means the murder wasn't a big deal. I guess in your world breaking the law is only bad if you get caught. No the murder is still a big deal, but I am not going to assume a certain person did it with out PROOF. You however are free to go on a witch hunt. But I am glad the LAW in the US agrees with me that you can't just punish someone with out proof that THEY did the crime."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #121 December 10, 2004 QuoteBut I am glad the LAW in the US agrees with me that you can't just punish someone with out proof that THEY did the crime. Unless it is someone who was arrested for armed robbery. I recall you saying something along the lines that if there's video showing someone that looks like the accused robbing a store and shooting the clerk, there shouldn't be a trial, they should just be executed. Seems there are a bunch of witnesses and documentation here. Not enough for a trial, but with your desire for swift justice for others, seems you might think that it's worth investigating. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #122 December 10, 2004 Quotethen it seems to not be a big deal huh That refers to the act, not the person. so, were you wrong the first time, or the subsequent opposite explanation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #123 December 10, 2004 Nice try...I said if no one presses charges, or the courts don't convict, or there is now penalty, then its not a big deal... Nice try to twist my words..but you failed...again."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #124 December 10, 2004 QuoteUnless it is someone who was arrested for armed robbery. I recall you saying something along the lines that if there's video showing someone that looks like the accused robbing a store and shooting the clerk, there shouldn't be a trial, they should just be executed. Um I said video, eye witnesses and the guy was arrested walking out of the store with the gun that was used. Nice try."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #125 December 10, 2004 In this case you have documentation, witnesses, and an admission by the man himself with the execuse that he was unaware it was going on. The witnesses and documentation refute that. You don't think that warrants investigation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
