Officer refuses to serve in Iraq

Much of it wasn't any worse than fraternity hazing... at least in my college days.

Ever seen the arm of an Omega Psi Phi commonly known as "Q dogs"? One of their last rites of inititiation is to be branded repeatedly with an omega symbol.

Was anyone branded or permanently disfigured at Abu Ghraib by those we tried and convicted?

That said, it was illegal. It was in violation of military law, orders, policy, and probably the convention that covers the treatment of prisoners if I am not mistaken.

Did it rise to the levels that both sides used in WW2 at various times? Probably not. Does it matter? No. All that had to happen is disobedience of an official policy or order.

Part of the problem is that "torture" is a somewhat subjective term. Liberals have defined it as any attempt to gain information that causes the prisoner discomfort or doesn't include a "pretty please" at the end.

Grayer? No. Speculative? On the second part, yes.

When our people violate rules/laws/orders then they should be tried and punished accordingly. We should not be making up unreasonable, politically correct, liberal standards however.

OTOH, my perspective on justice is most certainly superior to those who dance in jubilation when innocent men, women, and children are killed. It is certainly superior to those we are currently facing in Iraq whose cowardice primarily has them attacking civilians trying to go about their daily lives.

I don't believe that. However, I don't start out on every issue assuming that America did something wrong. I'd rather let the facts speak first.

Barely... and then only as a passing afterthought.

As do I. As well as the "Don't accept responsibility for things that you didn't do or else weren't a crime to start with" group.

 

And much of it was worse.

The main difference between the part that wasn't worse and fraternity hazing is that the hazed were there voluntarily and knew that it wouldn't last for more than what, a week? It's akin to the difference between consensual sex and rape - or are you one of those who consider those to be the same?

Were they branded with or without their consent and cooperation? Were they rewarded by becoming members or were they thrown into a prison cell and threatened with drowning afterwards?

Not branded that I am aware of, but disfigured, crippled and killed as well as induced psychosis through prolonged sensory deprivation and solitary confinement.

That there is the big question - was it disobedience to policy? Why did the many of same practices occur in prisons in Afghanistan?

Yeah? Is that how you really believe liberals have defined it or are you making strawman fallacies again? That would contrast with Morales' anything goes short of major organ failure.

Better than unreasonable, politically atrocious, vicious standards. Of course, we could just go with international laws and treaties - or would that be too "liberal" for you?

Well, I would rather think so. How's your sense of justice concerning spreading false rumors of people dancing in jubilation over murder?

Again, I would assume so.

Is your sense of justice disturbed by killing, as foreseeable collateral damage, a hundred thousand civilians trying to go about their daily lives or do you kinda just shrug at that?

What? That the ACDNW mindset automatically skews perspective?

We have something in common then.

That's where we differ - something doesn't have to be a crime to be injust. And even just actions can have unintended consequences which we should take responsibility for if we were the cause or the agent.

 

Again, the question you raised was about the nature of the abuse... and specifically not whether it was voluntary or not.

Also, your answer shows no consideration for the rest of what I said. I said it was wrong and we ARE IDEOLOGICALLY SUPERIOR as demonstrated by the fact that we treat our people who do this as criminals- and rightly so. They treat theirs that do this and much, much worse as heroes.

Were some of our people accused of or tried for murder? Do you have sources for your claims that Americans at Abu Ghraib crippled and disfigured prisoners?

What would be appropriate treatment of prisoners and interrogation subjects to you? This is where you go way too far IMO.

Whether you like it or not, when someone joins up to fight a war being taken prisoner and subjected to various means of interogation come with the commitment. You can be killed, wounded, or captured... and your comfort isn't guaranteed in any of those things.

Quite conceivably because some of them ARE NOT illegal nor against policies that have stood for years prior to Bush and Iraq.

When I went through OBC at the Infantry School about 20 years ago, we were specifically taught how to handle prisoners and why. We were told that physical violence hurt our chances of getting useful info and that torture induced testimony was very unreliable. Even so, we were told that isolating them from their comrades and depriving them of things like sleep or sunlight were "in bounds" (something not for us but for the intel guys to do). One of the objectives of getting useful info from someone who doesn't want to give it is to simultaneously disorient them and befriend them.

No. I am being somewhat facetious... though you haven't stated an alternative.

Ummm. No.

No. But apparently it would be far too harsh for you. You don't even seem to know that some of the things you are protesting are allowable under those laws and treaties.

Pretty good since I have seen the pictures and videos personally.

Oranges and apples... and if you really don't see that then you are simply unreasonable.

No one said it did. But men who must make automatic judgments don't get to sit in the comfort of their NY home and make a deliberate analysis. They need standards and boundaries to guide them.

That simply isn't the reality of the world Daisy. When you go to war, there will be civilian collateral damage. Iraq has been about as minimal as it could possibly be. We decimated Germany. We intentionally fire bombed cities to induce civilian casualties and destroy industry. Firebombings of Tokyo killed far more people than either nuke.

The Union raped the South- literally at times and figuratively... not to reduce some military capacity but solely to destroy the South's will to fight on.

We have specifically endeavored to avoid collateral damage in Iraq as much as possible. Men have died being extra careful not to destroy things or endanger civilians unnecessarily... and YES this is a policy driven effort... as was Lincoln's mission to Sherman... and Churchill's/FDR's mission to the allied bombing forces.

You have done well to illustrate why liberals are wrong on things like this. You apparently hold a set of unrealistic standards and parameters that you cry foul over when you sense they are violated.

 

“I refuse to be silent any longer. I refuse to be party to an illegal and immoral war against people who did nothing to deserve our aggression. My oath of office is to protect and defend America’s laws and its people. By refusing unlawful orders for an illegal war, I fulfill that oath today.”
- U.S. Army First Lt. Ehren Watada

• List of June 27th participating events nationwide
• Complete organizing kit
• National Day of Action PDF leaflet - use it to organize your own local action!
• Video interview with Lt. Watada with June 27th call to action
• More information: www.CourageToResist.org
• SOURCE

 

I refuse to be party to an illegal and immoral officer who joined after this war started and now wants to violate the oath he took.

 

Amen!

Where will it end? It won't...

I am on my 20th year of serving at the age of 38. Does anyone want to guess how many times I have wanted not to follow orders? But you just can't do that...

 

Oh, good a service man on here.
I have a question for you.
On the one hand, I agree that we should not be in this war. On the other hand, I agree that disobediance to a command in the military is a serious thing.

But here is my question, did you or did you not take an oath to uphold the constitution when you made you oath?

I have heard that is what happens. I would like to know first hand.
Thanks

 

Late 10-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 10:30 p.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle
Moderator

 

If this war were unconstitutional, then this guy might have a leg to stand on.

 

Again, whether it was voluntary or not goes specifically to the nature of it.

Well, now you've gone and switched the "we" and "they" without linking the pronoun to who it is you're referring to. A moment ago, the "we" were Americans of your political ilk (however it is that you identify yourself) and "they" were the BAFers, but now I have to guess that "we" who are so SUPERIOR IDEOLOGICALLY referes to the USA as a whole and "they"....well, who do you consider "them" to be? Moslems? Terrorists? Iraqis? Arabs? Anyone not "us"?

Yes, some of our people were accused of and tried for murder, although as far as I know, none were convicted of anything more than manslaughter, most considerably less if convicted at all.

No torture - besides the inhumane and illegal aspects, the information obtained is notoriously unreliable.

Well, duh.

I'm not talking about THOSE.

You object to me being against "induced psychosis", is that it? Do you get reliable info from someone in psychosis?

Well, how about not making strawmen and try to talk about the actual issues instead of making up false ones?

It actually does contrast despite your rather inane denial.

Again, you don't like my being against "induced psychosis"?

Ok, identify them. Were they representative of the population or even the neighborhood as a whole or was it a few ignorant rowdies and fans of Bert?

Do the apples disturb you as much as the oranges? To the victims, it comes to the same thing - fruit.

So you just shrug your shoulders in Missouri and disclaim all responsibility?

Not literally. The Union is not a person nor is the South. You're anthropomorphizing political entities.

Which is a good thing.

You have done well to illustrate that those who are whatever it is that you are prefer strawmen and hyperbole to discussion of actual ideas.

 

Yes he did. He also swore :

"THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. "

The President is constitutionally appointed as his commander-in-chief.

Your argument is lame.

 

U.S. Army First Lt. Ehren Watada

Officers oath.

http://www.army.mil/usapa/eforms/pdf/A71.PDF

 

Carpro,

He's right. The oath you quoted is the enlisted oath, not the officer's oath.

Nevertheless, officers also are required to obey the lawful orders given them, the President is still their Commander-in-Chief, and this war has been authorized by Congress. If he doesn't wish to do so, he can sit at the green table in a court martial and face the consequences. As I've said before, I give him some credit for being willing to do so, but he's no hero. I think I'm safe in assuming that a court martial will be far less forgiving an officer's refusal to obey orders than an enlisted. As it should be.

 

Sorry.

I had forgotten that officers take a different oath.

I wonder which oath takes precedence when officers come out of the enlisted ranks, since they will have affirmed both oathes.

Either way, this officer(to loosely use the term) is on very shaky ground and his reasoning is still lame for the reasons you stated, FTR.

 

Closed, per previous warning. LE