|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 04/28/2009 : 15:49:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Gorgo
"Deployed" as used by the US military is to station personnel in a foreign country. This is no euphamism.
|
And what do you have to add to the discussion besides your opinion?
|
It's a definition, Gorgo.
You don't want it to be.
Too bad.
|
Sorry if I said something wrong. When I asked you to back up your opinion, I wasn't talking about this particular definition. I was talking about the entire conversation.
(edited to correct a sentence)
|
Very well.
Basis
Under UCMJ Article 2(d)(4) he, as IRR, is subject to the UCMJ when in active duty or inactive training. He was informed that he was returned to an active status and therefore qualifies. This is not disputed by Sgt. Chiroux.
UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)
Article 87 - missed movement. By his own admission, he refused to move with his unit on purpose.
Article 92 - Failure to obey an order. Lesser of the two charges.
MCM (Manual of Courts Martial)
Rule 202(a) - lists jurisdiction of the matter. As he was returned to active duty from the IRR, he was subject to the tribunal.
Part IV(11)(e)(1) - maximum punishment for Article 87 by design. 2 years confinement and a dishonorable discharge. Whether he is sentanced this maximum amount or not, it shows as a felony conviction on his criminal record.
Part IV(16)(e)(2) - maximum punishment for Article 92. 6 months confinement and a less than honorable discharge. Shows as a misdemeanor on his criminal record.
The movement order was legal. His command structure had suffiecient authority to so order the movement which the Sgt missed by design. He had no basis to claim the movement order was illegal.
He is (and was found) guilty of an Article 87 violation by design. He is also guily of a lesser charge of failure to obey an order.
As the theater of operations was not declared illegal by his command structure and the orders contained no orders to murder civilians, the movement order was proper and legal.
I acknowledge that your belief is that all wars are a crime against humanity. However, I do not agree with that statement and that statement has no international concensus in the UN or member nations. Hence, calling Sgt. Chiroux's intentional missed movement justified due to a soldier's duty to refuse illegal orders does not logically follow nor does it have a basis in UCMJ case law.
Had Sgt. Chiroux been ordered to rob a bank, murder civilians, or commit rape, he could refuse that order due to the illegality of the order itself. Part of the contract you sign to be in the military says if they tell you to move with your unit, you move with your unit.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 16:26:33 [Permalink]
|
Under UCMJ Article 2(d)(4) he, as IRR, is subject to the UCMJ when in active duty or inactive training. He was informed that he was returned to an active status and therefore qualifies. This is not disputed by Sgt. Chiroux.
UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)
Article 87 - missed movement. By his own admission, he refused to move with his unit on purpose.
Article 92 - Failure to obey an order. Lesser of the two charges.
MCM (Manual of Courts Martial)
Rule 202(a) - lists jurisdiction of the matter. As he was returned to active duty from the IRR, he was subject to the tribunal.
Part IV(11)(e)(1) - maximum punishment for Article 87 by design. 2 years confinement and a dishonorable discharge. Whether he is sentanced this maximum amount or not, it shows as a felony conviction on his criminal record.
Part IV(16)(e)(2) - maximum punishment for Article 92. 6 months confinement and a less than honorable discharge. Shows as a misdemeanor on his criminal record.
The movement order was legal. His command structure had suffiecient authority to so order the movement which the Sgt missed by design. He had no basis to claim the movement order was illegal.
He is (and was found) guilty of an Article 87 violation by design. He is also guily of a lesser charge of failure to obey an order.
As the theater of operations was not declared illegal by his command structure and the orders contained no orders to murder civilians, the movement order was proper and legal.
|
So, what you seem to be saying is that Chiroux stood to lose something by telling the army he wasn't going to support the war?
I acknowledge that your belief is that all wars are a crime against humanity. However, I do not agree with that statement and that statement has no international concensus in the UN or member nations.
|
Of course it doesn't. Why would you think I thought it would? What I've said, is that it is a violation of international law to attack other countries. You've said nothing to refute that.
It was and is the intent of the U.S. government to impoverish and murder the people of Iraq. History agrees. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 16:58:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
No apologies necessary. I have said that I don't rule out war totally, but that I have been a member of the War Resister's League for a while. In order to join now, you have to agree with this statement of purpose: |
So I read this to mean that you intellectually understand that war might be justified, but you are unable to think of a specific case in which that would be.
If that is your point of view, I understand and respect it. I am fairly certain that would not be enough to qualify you as a Conscientious Objector, but it means (to me) that you have that level of introspection necessary to understand there is no unilateral answer. If that's not your point of view, I would appreciate if you clarify it.| Having said that, until the causes for war are removed (if that's possible) there may be some large scale military actions that could be necessary, but still a "crime" against humanity. Not crime in the legal sense, but in the sense that we have failed as a society if war seems necessary. War (in the sense of a large group of people trying to kill or control another large group of people) is always a crime in the sense that it is unjust, disgraceful and senseless. It leaves the poor poorer, the sick sicker, and the living deader. |
I recommend you use a word other than "crime" to describe this; you would likely have fewer disagreements. The word "crime" necessarily implies a violation of codified laws. With that in mind, however, I share you essential dislike for it and sincerely hope we never have to participate in any further warfare.
Unfortunately, the threat of military action is often required to ensure the success of political discourse.
In the case of former Sgt. Chiroux, there are several ways in which he could have fulfilled his contractual obligation and honored his oath without conducting any illegal acts. HalfMooner's example illustrates that quite clearly. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 17:08:24 [Permalink]
|
| If that is your point of view, I understand and respect it. I am fairly certain that would not be enough to qualify you as a Conscientious Objector, but it means (to me) that you have that level of introspection necessary to understand there is no unilateral answer. If that's not your point of view, I would appreciate if you clarify it. |
That's probably close. Nothing to brag about. Life doesn't have easy answers, especially when one is as ignorant as i am.
I recommend you use a word other than "crime" to describe this; you would likely have fewer disagreements. The word "crime" necessarily implies a violation of codified laws. |
Yeah, well it's not a term that I picked, it's the WRL's term, and it does not necessarily mean a violation of codified laws. It's a crime that words have more than one meaning, but they do.
With that in mind, however, I share you essential dislike for it and sincerely hope we never have to participate in any further warfare.
|
"We" is an interesting term.
| Unfortunately, the threat of military action is often required to ensure the success of political discourse. |
Usually pretty stupid political discourse.
In the case of former Sgt. Chiroux, there are several ways in which he could have fulfilled his contractual obligation and honored his oath without conducting any illegal acts. HalfMooner's example illustrates that quite clearly.
|
To knowingly participate in an illegal act, that is, this war, seems by definition an illegal act. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 17:18:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Under UCMJ Article 2(d)(4) he, as IRR, is subject to the UCMJ when in active duty or inactive training. He was informed that he was returned to an active status and therefore qualifies. This is not disputed by Sgt. Chiroux.
UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)
Article 87 - missed movement. By his own admission, he refused to move with his unit on purpose.
Article 92 - Failure to obey an order. Lesser of the two charges.
MCM (Manual of Courts Martial)
Rule 202(a) - lists jurisdiction of the matter. As he was returned to active duty from the IRR, he was subject to the tribunal.
Part IV(11)(e)(1) - maximum punishment for Article 87 by design. 2 years confinement and a dishonorable discharge. Whether he is sentanced this maximum amount or not, it shows as a felony conviction on his criminal record.
Part IV(16)(e)(2) - maximum punishment for Article 92. 6 months confinement and a less than honorable discharge. Shows as a misdemeanor on his criminal record.
The movement order was legal. His command structure had suffiecient authority to so order the movement which the Sgt missed by design. He had no basis to claim the movement order was illegal.
He is (and was found) guilty of an Article 87 violation by design. He is also guily of a lesser charge of failure to obey an order.
As the theater of operations was not declared illegal by his command structure and the orders contained no orders to murder civilians, the movement order was proper and legal.
|
So, what you seem to be saying is that Chiroux stood to lose something by telling the army he wasn't going to support the war?
I acknowledge that your belief is that all wars are a crime against humanity. However, I do not agree with that statement and that statement has no international concensus in the UN or member nations.
|
Of course it doesn't. Why would you think I thought it would? What I've said, is that it is a violation of international law to attack other countries. You've said nothing to refute that.
It was and is the intent of the U.S. government to impoverish and murder the people of Iraq. History agrees.
|
What you have shown in your link does not say it is a violation of international law to attack other countries. It does list the objections that were held in 2004 by the Secretary General of the UN. I have heard no such sactioning proceedings started against the US for this "breach" of UN charter.
The UN has chartered quite a few wars. The little dust up in French Indochina that Mooner was a part of, for instance. You have not presented evidence that no country may attack another.
I have seen no evidence that it is the intent of the US government to do any such thing. Your interpretation of history agrees. Interpretation of history by others do not agree. It was the stated intent of the US government to prosecute Resolution 1441 by force. Whatever posturing by Bush 43 to serve his little vendetta against Sadam Hussein is largely immaterial. The US government as a whole was not looking to impoverish the Iraqi people nor to murder them.
Wars are ugly, violent things and civilians do get caught in the middle of things. This is not murder. It is the product of armed conflict in general. There is no logical reason to ascribe malevolent intent where there is no such evidence of it by the whole of the US Government. Bush 43 was not the entire US Government.
As Commander in Chief, he issued no such orders to murder civilians. The military, acting in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 1948, sought to minimize civilian casualties.
Interesting thing about the Geneva Convention, it never says that you have to completely eliminate civilian casualties, only that you limit them by all reasonable means necessary.
Do you have any empirical evidence to support that the murder of the Iraqi people was the goal of the US Government?
Do you have any empirical evidence to support that the impoverishment of the Iraqi people was the goal of the US Government?
I have seen no such evidence. Nor have I seen you present any thus far in this thread. I have heard emotional appeals to agree with unsupported claims. I chose not to do so without empirical evidence. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 17:36:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
So, what you seem to be saying is that Chiroux stood to lose something by telling the army he wasn't going to support the war? |
Upon further investigation, it seems once his orders have been received and placed in effect, he becomes subject to the UCMJ. This means that he is legally and ethically bound to follow legal orders.
By refusing to deploy as ordered, he has violated the terms of his contract and perjured himself.
| Of course it doesn't. Why would you think I thought it would? What I've said, is that it is a violation of international law to attack other countries. You've said nothing to refute that. |
How about these:
US Congressional JOINT RESOLUTION ON IRAQ, October 11, 2002: The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to...enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Link
Here is a list of UN Security Council Resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein prior to March 20, 2003.| It was and is the intent of the U.S. government to impoverish and murder the people of Iraq. History agrees. |
I don't understand why you presume to know the "intent of the U.S. government" here, especially since it's completely contrary to the stated political and military objectives.
It might be best to discuss the legality (and supposed intent) of the US Military actions in Iraq in a separate thread, since it is tangential to former Sgt. Chiroux's situation and we are starting to remove ourselves from that discussion. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 18:00:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Originally posted by Gorgo
So, what you seem to be saying is that Chiroux stood to lose something by telling the army he wasn't going to support the war? |
Upon further investigation, it seems once his orders have been received and placed in effect, he becomes subject to the UCMJ. This means that he is legally and ethically bound to follow legal orders. |
That's why some people are avoiding the receipt of those orders. once the army has some evidence that the orders were received, they are subject to the UCMJ? So, Chiroux's public defiance was proof he committed, may I say it, a crime?
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 04/28/2009 18:14:58 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 21:53:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Originally posted by Boron10
Originally posted by Gorgo
So, what you seem to be saying is that Chiroux stood to lose something by telling the army he wasn't going to support the war? |
Upon further investigation, it seems once his orders have been received and placed in effect, he becomes subject to the UCMJ. This means that he is legally and ethically bound to follow legal orders. |
That's why some people are avoiding the receipt of those orders. once the army has some evidence that the orders were received, they are subject to the UCMJ? So, Chiroux's public defiance was proof he committed, may I say it, a crime? |
I would call it such. An Other Than Honorable Discharge is considered a Misdemeanor.
Since he was using his GI Bill benefits, his contact information is on file and there is no way he could have claimed a failure to receive his orders.
So, once again, he did nothing remarkable. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 22:05:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Originally posted by Gorgo
So, Chiroux's public defiance was proof he committed, may I say it, a crime? |
I would call it such. An Other Than Honorable Discharge is considered a Misdemeanor. |
But Chiroux didn't get an Other Than Honorable discharge. He got a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions.| So, once again, he did nothing remarkable. |
Indeed. But he's trumpeting his unremarkable actions as heroic. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 23:33:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Boron10
Originally posted by Gorgo
So, Chiroux's public defiance was proof he committed, may I say it, a crime? |
I would call it such. An Other Than Honorable Discharge is considered a Misdemeanor. |
But Chiroux didn't get an Other Than Honorable discharge. He got a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions. |
My mistake. He did not receive an Honorable Discharge. Instead, he received a discharge that said, in effect, "he is an asshole, but not a criminal."
Here is a .pdf of the US Military's guidance on discharge. If you do not have an Honorable Discharge, you may not be eligible for certain federal programs. In former Sgt. Chiroux's case, since he had been Honorably Discharged from Active Duty, his General Discharge will likely have a significantly smaller effect than if he'd been discharged from Active Duty (vice IRR) with a General Discharge. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2009 : 00:15:42 [Permalink]
|
US Congressional JOINT RESOLUTION ON IRAQ, October 11, 2002: The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to...enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Link
Here is a list of UN Security Council Resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein prior to March 20, 2003.| It was and is the intent of the U.S. government to impoverish and murder the people of Iraq. History agrees. |
I don't understand why you presume to know the "intent of the U.S. government" here, especially since it's completely contrary to the stated political and military objectives.
|
There were no resolutions authorizing the U.S. to attack Iraq. The UN Charter says that you do not attack another country except to remove an imminent threat. If there is no imminent threat, then the problem should be taken to the UNSC. The UNSC is an anachronistic, undemocratic, Cold War relic, but this is the law of the land, and this is backed up by the Constitution of the United States,which Chiroux and the President have sworn to support. I wish there were better, more just laws, but there are not, and the U.S. can't even abide by those horrible laws (which the U.S. can, and does, veto its way out of).
The last 18 years show that the U.S. government (or factions thereof) intended to either take over completely (see Bremer) or simply murder and impoverish their way to splitting up the state as to make it easier for corporate America to take over. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2009 : 01:20:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I acknowledge that your belief is that all wars are a crime against humanity. However, I do not agree with that statement and that statement has no international concensus in the UN or member nations. |
I never got the impression that Gorgo meant all wars are a crime. In a sense all wars are crimes against humanity, but that's not a legal argument. I always thought that the argument (against USA's war of aggression against Iraq) was that it was/is against International Law.
The war in Iraq 1991, Desert Storm, was a legal war, because it was UN sanctioned response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The current invasion was not, and during current occupation, USA has miserably failed to uphold the responsibilities an occupying force have, to uphold law and order in the occupied territories.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2009 : 17:59:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
| The UN Charter says that you do not attack another country except to remove an imminent threat. |
So you assume there was no imminent threat. What is the definition of imminent threat you are using, and do you agree that with any definition there is a great deal of interpretation?
Also how do you know that you know everything about the situation? Or are you just presuming to have complete knowledge?
I'm not trying to claim there was an imminent threat. Only that you, Gorgo, are not in a position to claim with the amount of certainly you seem to possess that there wasn't.
Just because a citizen believes the war is illegal does not make it so. You can't have a functioning army if your troops are allowed to disobey the order to deploy without a recognized body declaring the action/war illegal.
|
An imminent threat is just that. You see a plane flying across your border and you shoot it down. Iraq, after 40 days of carpet bombing and several years of inspections and sanctions was not about to attack the U.S. or anyone else. They couldn't beat Iran without help from the U.S. who were they going to attack at that point?
How omniscient do you have to be to understand that Bush wanted to murder and impoverish some people, as Clinton and Bush I before him? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2009 : 18:27:28 [Permalink]
|
What happens if international and national law conflict? Does the (American) Constitution not establish the supremacy of national laws as far as the US government is concerned? I would certainly agree with this in the general sense (though I may disagree with specific cases) because totalitarian and theocratic nations are part of the UN and have influence over the laws.
Would the illegality of the actions by the solider not be determined by US law (as far as the US government itself is concerned)? Then, I assume the congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution not make the war legal under US law, which I think would make the orders legal under US law. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Refuses illegal war
