Cindy Sheehan Has No Moral Authority

[notyoueither]

dp

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Yup, which is why so many people are willing to give Bush a pass, but it was broke before and we had a hand in that as well. I've been tolerant of Bush because of the greater good Az sees, I see it too. But then I see Cindy Sheehan and I see Bush lied, or was duped so extensively his incompetence cannot be rewarded with further employment. This is far worse than what Clinton did to get impeached.

Yes, but it's the people of Iraq that are going to have to live with this long after Bush is gone in a little over three years from now.

Unfortunately, Bush passed his performance review.

Your country is still facing one.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
GePap (while somewhat biased source):

http://www.counterpunch.org/mosqueda02272003.html

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. As Inouye stated, "The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' This principle was considered so important that we-we, the government of the United States, proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials." (Bill Moyers, "The Secret Government", Seven Locks Press; also in the PBS 1987 documentary, "The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis")

And how does that apply to the Iraq situation? Congress gave the president the Authority to utilize military force, while during Iran Contra the President was violating laws passed by the Congress.

[Az]

[q=NYE]
Yes, but it's the people of Iraq that are going to have to live with this long after Bush is gone in a little over three years from now.

Unfortunately, Bush passed his performance review.

Your country is still facing one.



Yes, but it's the people of Iraq that are going to have to live with this long after Bush is gone in a little over three years from now.

Unfortunately, Bush passed his performance review.

Your country is still facing one.
[/q]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
And how does that apply to the Iraq situation? Congress gave the president the Authority to utilize military force, while during Iran Contra the President was violating laws passed by the Congress.

Abu Ghraib... unless you do think it was just 7 (or however many) really bad people.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Abu Ghraib... unless you do think it was just 7 (or however many) really bad people.

NO, I think prisoner abuse was endemic. Of course, the legal vaccum in Iraq makes such situation pervesive.
I don't really view it though as fitting under the rubrick of not obeying illegal orders. I doubt at any time superiors ordered soldiers to torture and abuse-they simply allowed abuses to go unchecked and created an atmosphere for them to flourish.

[Berzerker]

I think soldiers swear to obey lawful orders of their officers and chain of command, all the way up to the president. Correct me if I am wrong.

The determination of lawfulness falls to your Congress and courts.

In reality thats true even with Imran's point in mind, in practice or theory our system was individual based with each man making his own judgements and by challenging Congress and the courts to agree. Cindy Sheehan has made the challenge, she will lose because the government is too corrupt to see she's right.

It is for them (Congress and the courts, not enlisted personnel) to decide what is lawful or not. Right?

The conscience is an individual thing, the Founders were really big on that. They acknowledged, even endorsed, the right of man to challenge (even repel) abuses by the authority. Frankly, we the people are to blame. We elect people who bribe us with other people's money and freedom, not people who display a thorough understanding of the Constitution.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Your country is still facing one.

From whom? You and Az?

I doubt your viewpoint is particulalry popular worldwide anyways. People already have judged the actions a failure, and passed the judgement that entails on the administration.

[notyoueither]

Yourselves, more than anybody else.

But yes, by others as well.

If the US stays the course and things turn out for the average Iraqi, the nabobs of negativism will be discredited. Those who oppose the US, no matter what you do good or ill, will be dealt a defeat.

If, on the other hand, the USMC is chased out of Iraq by your own public opinion (forget about opposition on the ground) and the place ends up a **** hole worse off than before you went in... then your country will find leadership a very difficult thing to try to assume or maintain.

[Az]

NYE

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yourselves, more than anybody else.

But yes, by others as well.

If the US stays the course and things turn out for the average Iraqi, the nabobs of negativism will be discredited. Those who oppose the US, no matter what you do good or ill, will be dealt a defeat.

If, on the other hand, the USMC is chased out of Iraq by your own public opinion (forget about opposition on the ground) and the place ends up a **** hole worse off than before you went in... then your country will find leadership a very difficult thing to try to assume or maintain.

You've conveniently left out the most obvious possibility: the US stays the course, and the place ends up a **** hole worse off than before we went in. What then?

And BTW, it's "nattering nabobs of negativism." If you can't surpess teh bizarre compulsion to quote Spiro Agnew, of all people, at least quote him accurately...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker


In reality thats true even with Imran's point in mind, in practice or theory our system was individual based with each man making his own judgements and by challenging Congress and the courts to agree. Cindy Sheehan has made the challenge, she will lose because the government is too corrupt to see she's right.

The conscience is an individual thing, the Founders were really big on that. They acknowledged, even endorsed, the right of man to challenge (even repel) abuses by the authority. Frankly, we the people are to blame. We elect people who bribe us with other people's money and freedom, not people who display a thorough understanding of the Constitution.

I really feel that you do not have a governable country whenever police, firemen, or soldiers, are expected to individually question every order to do whatever might come up.

Yes, question orders that violate basic decency, like shoot those unarmed people, or beat those prisoners, but not orders to do what every law giving authority has endorsed.

Your ideas of governance might work with 30 people, but not with 30 or 300 million.

[Berzerker]

Yes, but it's the people of Iraq that are going to have to live with this long after Bush is gone in a little over three years from now.

Unfortunately, Bush passed his performance review.

Your country is still facing one.

Nope, we flunked ours when he passed his.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yourselves, more than anybody else.

But yes, by others as well.

If the US stays the course and things turn out for the average Iraqi, the nabobs of negativism will be discredited. Those who oppose the US, no matter what you do good or ill, will be dealt a defeat.

"stays the course"? What course!!???!!?!?!?!?!?!?
All the US can do is try to keep the chaos down. In the end it will be Iraqis and Iraqis alone that decide whether the country turns stable and democratic, stable and undermocratic, or collapses in any variety of ways.

If, on the other hand, the USMC is chased out of Iraq by your own public opinion (forget about opposition on the ground) and the place ends up a **** hole worse off than before you went in... then your country will find leadership a very difficult thing to try to assume or maintain.

The notion of the US going in anyweres alone to "bring democracy" has already been utterly discredited, The administration has already been totally discredited. The neo-cons as well.

Most people around the world no longer look to the US for leadership, and Iraq is exactly why-not becuase after 2 years of chaos Americans are starting to have doubts about their government's policies, but because it TOOK two whole years for people to start waking up to the reality of their administration's incompetence.

But of course, you still probably think the WMD's were hidden in the Syrian desert.....

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

You've conveniently left out the most obvious possibility: the US stays the course, and the place ends up a **** hole worse off than before we went in. What then?

Then you won't have turned tail and ran out on a situation of your own creation.

But here's the thing, do you seriously think it would get better if the support for the nascent Iraqi state (the US and UK) suddenly exited stage left? How much cred do you think Western Liberalsim would then enjoy throughout the Arab world?

And BTW, it's "nattering nabobs of negativism." If you can't surpess teh bizarre compulsion to quote Spiro Agnew, of all people, at least quote him accurately...

I bow to your greater experience on the subject.