I didn't know Taymelo was Hawaiian

[Zip Goshboots]

The problem with this is that when you join the military, you sacrifice many rights. One of those rights you sacrifice is to decide what you deem as a "just war".
You know GOING IN that you may be asked to sling a weapon and shoot people or drop bombs on them. The choice is not yours anymore. You gave that up when you took the oath. It is an example of people who look at the military as a job, or join for their own selfish reasons other than to defend their country. You may join to get training, and to prepare for a better life afterward. However, while in, you make the decision that you are willing to lay down your life for your country, right or wrong, and you know that that decision is not yours anymore.
The time to protest is before you join.
You don't pick the war you fight in. You don't pick your own enemy. You don't decide who to shoot at. It is decided for you, and you accept that when you place your hand over your heart and accept the offer of the United States to sink alot of money into you and to provide you with a livelihood for X amount of years.
It is pure cowardice not to back up your committment, because no one asked you to join. Your time for heroics is to use this as a platform to denounce war afterward, after you have witnessed the evil that men do, and after you have done your part to return the service that many people have supported you with.

[Uncle Mxy]

"just war" is one thing. Legally, we're not at "war". Bush asked for war, but only "force" was authorized in Iraq, not "war", though it was tied to the War Powers Act. Heaven forbid we legally call it a war. <groan>

"lawful order" is another matter.

My sense is that the orders are lawful, at least by U.S. law. (They're clearly illegal in terms of U.N./international law.) But, the military hasn't acted as if they were lawful orders. They didn't put the fucker in jail pending trial for violating a lawful order. Instead, they've gone to great lengths to charge him with extraneous crap. Why the fear? Hell, one of the judges involved doesn't think he can question the lawfulness of the war...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._watada5m.html

Within the next week, military Judge Lt. Col. John Head is expected to issue a written decision on whether to hold a special hearing on evidence about the U.S. conduct of the war. At Thursday's hearing, he appeared troubled by the prospect of putting the war on trial in his courtroom.

"Where do I have the authority, and where is the case law that gives me the authority to discuss — to consider — whether the war in Iraq, or any war for that matter, is lawful?" Head asked.

...even though the UCMJ specifies that everyone mustn't obey unlawful orders.

Somewhere along the way, someone needs to evaluate what's lawful and what's not. Our courts, including the Supreme Court, have rejected all efforts to evaluate the legality of the war, even though there's some legitimate legal questions (especially because of just how the Iraqi Resolution is tied into the War Powers Act). The most our Supreme Court has said is in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, which isn't enough. It's fucked. Hell, the firmest legal reasoning for our current presence I've read involves treating it as a "continuation" of the Gulf War from 1990.

I want all three branches of our government to buy into what our "war" is or isn't, explicitly, without a whole lot of deflection or other bullshit. Is that unreasonable?

See: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060717/brechersmith

[Comrade]

Good luck in the sandbox, dude. You'll need it, and you have my prayers.

Thanks man, I appreciate it. But those are better used on my guy's like my brother, who are doing 2+ tours.

[Uncle Mxy]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...587056,00.html

[WTFchris]

Thanks for the update Mxy. That's a pretty important case for them to possibly blow like that. Whether you agree with him or not, this case is pretty major because it sets a precident.