US Army prevents marriage to Iraqis

[Drake Tungsten]

This is what I was referring to when I said, "who cares what they think." And I meant it in general. I wasn't referring to local moderates or conservatives. Yes, we SHOULD care what they think. The extremists will hate us and shoot at us regardless.

I agree. I'd be more opposed to this if I thought the majority of the Iraqi population considered America to be an evil "crusading army", but I haven't seen any evidence of this as of yet. Those beliefs seems restricted to extremists and **** what they think.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Out of curiosity, is there any way to contend that the order, assuming it was given, was unlawful?

It's a very "interesting" area of military law. That's why you usually Art. 15 these guys and ream 'em that way, or else give them an SCM and take a stripe or two, but don't admin sep them or less than honorable them.

Just going out for fun and ****ing the locals can be clearly regulated as service discrediting and detrimental to good military order and discipline under the General Article of the UCMJ - either for officers or for enlisted.

Marriage with a foreign national of age and local legal ability to consent is a bit tougher, because it is in general a universally recognized and sanctioned relationship. The legal argument for proscribing unauthorized marriage or requiring command authorization rests on whether there's a service discrediting or order and discipline contravening issue within the meaning of the UCMJ General Article - that's the only possible source of authority.

The problem there is two-fold. One, is the activity in question clearly in a prohibitible category under the General Article? AFAIK, marriage to a consenting adult has never been found to be a clearly prohibitible act.

The second, tougher part, is how far does command authority stretch to make a marginal or even arguable incorrect determination that an act could or should be prohibited under the General Article?

In military law, an order from proper authority is presumed to be valid and lawful unless shown otherwise, and the burden of proving the order invalid or unlawful is on the party who would disobey that order. That means that marginal or questionable orders will be viewed in favor of the command authority. There's always a line somewhere, between "questionable judgment" and "clearly unlawful" but where that line falls is a pain in the ass to determine.

I would expect that a legal challenge to the permission to marry requirement would be resolved in favor of the command authority, on the basis that the order and discipline needs of the service and it's mission outweighs individual rights, but I wouldn't bet my life savings a military court or CMR or CMA would rule that way. I'd give it 10:1 odds, but not absolute.

There's also a whole political question, especially with these guys being reservists, which is why violations of this rule are almost never prosecuted.

The one thing that is for sure is that the military can not void the marriages or deny their legitimacy, unless there's actual evidence of a sham marriage. (same as immigration law in that instance)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It still takes two...

It does, but in human poker, a pair of gonads usually beats a pair of brains.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

This is what I was referring to when I said, "who cares what they think." And I meant it in general. I wasn't referring to local moderates or conservatives. Yes, we SHOULD care what they think. The extremists will hate us and shoot at us regardless.

I agree. I'd be more opposed to this if I thought the majority of the Iraqi population considered America to be an evil "crusading army", but I haven't seen any evidence of this as of yet. Those beliefs seems restricted to extremists and **** what they think.

word

[Drake Tungsten]

Just tryin' my best to represent, dawg.

[Ted Striker]

Maybe you should bust a cap in General Cockblocker's azz.

[The Mad Monk]

I think that would definately violate the UCMJ.

[Drake Tungsten]

Real gangsta ass niggas don't worry 'bout no UCMJ.

Far East side!

[Ted Striker]

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Theben
... homo sapiens/neanderthals, etc.

Neantherthals were another species. That would be like screwing a gorilla.

[The Mad Monk]

As if that ever stopped this species.

[Chemical Ollie]

Not stopped us from screwing, maybe, but marriage?

[The Mad Monk]

Don't make me run the required Google search.

It won't be pretty -- trust me.

[DRoseDARs]

*Sigh*

Ted, Drake

Anyway, you're missing the point about the extremists and what they think. What matters is, even if they ARE in the minority, that their numbers might be large enough that they can influence how the goverment of Iraq forms and thus its policies and attitudes, let alone those of the general population. The most vocal voices are the ones that often end up shaping things, regardless of general sentiment.

You seem to enjoy naively dismissing the possiblility that the extremists living in Iraq could be influential enough to cause problems down the line. That will cost lives down the line as well. We need to be careful in how we antagonize the radical forces. Building upon the secular foundation of Iraq's former government is obvious, but the religious culture is what we must be warry of. Extremists have a way of converting fence-sitters based on seemingly minor incidents.



F*** what other people think, eh? Gee, that sounds familiar...hmm..oh yeah, that's what got the US into this in the first place WITHOUT broad international support (prior to the war AND on-going), costing us a great deal of diplomatic capital. Yeah, maintaining that mentality will really help us in the future, especially if the rest of the civilized world should one day get fed up with it...

Brilliant policy.

[Drake Tungsten]

You seem to enjoy naively dismissing the possiblility that the extremists living in Iraq could be influential enough to cause problems down the line.

You're missing the point that these extremists are going to cause problems down the line no matter what. Why tear some fine-ass honeys away from their soldier boys in order to placate some crazys that are going to hate us no matter what we do? Seems rather non-sensical to me.