Saving Journalists?

[David Floyd]

You seem to disagree. Why?

[Felch]

Probably because the UCMJ wipes its ass with the Constitution.

[David Floyd]

The UCMJ and US Constitution are two different documents. How the hell do you maintain a viable military if the soldiers are protected by the Bill of Rights?

[Lonestar]

No, that's extreme. However, I think the UCMJ should apply to anyone entering a combat zone.

Also, Lonestar, you say the primary duty is to protect citizens. But what if, in the course of saving one life, you place many more lives at risk? Or what about, in the case of the US government refusing to print German warnings against sailing on the Lusitania because it was carrying munitions to Britain (which it was), in the case where protecting lives runs contrary to US foreign policy? Where do you draw the line?

Buddy, you are barking up the wrong tree if you think I like anything Woodrow Wilson did. Behind Buchanan and Jackson he sits at the #3 spot for "worst President ever".

[Dinner]

If US law doesn't apply how can you "ban" them? Shoot on sight?

I've got two extra mags just in case.

[Wezil]

You seem to disagree. Why?

Actually, I wasn't advocating a position. I was just curious how you get from "a" to "b".

Does UCMJ apply to civilians? I have no idea of the legalities of your proposal.

[David Floyd]

Lonestar,

Buddy, you are barking up the wrong tree if you think I like anything Woodrow Wilson did. Behind Buchanan and Jackson he sits at the #3 spot for "worst President ever".

Oh, I hate Wilson too, and think we were on the wrong side of WW1. That wasn't the point, though.

Wezil,

Does UCMJ apply to civilians? I have no idea of the legalities of your proposal.

Me either. In my opinion, if a civilian volunteers to go into a war zone, the UCMJ should apply to them, rather than domestic US law.