Dust off the Nuremberg Files

[*d*]

Maybe we should have followed the UN and done nothing. Indeed, had the UN done anything, it would have been done with US troops anyways. Or maybe World Pope Kofi Annan has a secret snake charmer's flute, with which he might have lured the viper from its den.

By inaction, Plan B would have been guaranteed. Unfortunately this would have executed after a potentially staggering loss of life - nobody knows what a homemade nuke (or other) might do in a major city. The consolation prize is that at least it would be a majority of leftists destroyed in the attack.

Tell me this, o wise warriors of the leftist pen. If the current inaction concerning Iran results in the production of a bomb, what then? The mullahs have vowed to nuke Israel at the first available opportunity. Israel of course will retaliate, emptying the bulk of their arsenal into the Mahometan world and quite possibly Europe, given their culpability in the course of foreign affairs via the UN.

Then what?

What if? What if? What if?
Such wild speculations are not grounds for war.

 

[Truncador]

Sounds like the defence team for the Nuremburg trial. Sorry, but preventive war is not self-defence and is not a natural inherent right.

Yes, it is an inherent right of Sovereigns. It is confusing the standing of Sovereigns with that of private individuals that lies behind this error. Private individuals submit to authority in exchange for protection; they may only fight when directly attacked, since they forfeit the full natural right of defense to the Sovereign authority that protects and rules over them. Sovereigns neither acknowledge nor are protected by any authority higher than themselves; they are on their own, and don't have to wait until actually attacked, since they alone are the judge of what comprises self-defense in their own cases. This is logically airtight, and any attempt to get around it is simply error. Specifically, the error confuses the UN, ICC, etc. with a world government that has an effective monopoly on the use of force.

Though the International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq has no authority to charge Bush, they at least had the legal know how to expose him. Under the Geneva Convention and according to the ICTI, Bush is guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity. They include the use of indiscriminate weapons, cluster bombs and depleted uranium on civilians. Remember the disgraceful mess in Falluja?
http://www.icti-e.com/GeneratedItems/2005 ICTI Final Judgment.pdf

I'm reminded of the ridiculous attempt on the part of the Montana Militia to indict Pres. Clinton in their "common law courts." Let this ICTI enforce its "laws" and "judgements"; until they can, they're in no position to dignify their irrational emotional ejaculations with the name, "law". The dialogue between God and Job comes to mind:

Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself?...Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor, and clothe yourself in honor and majesty. Unleash the fury of your wrath, look at every proud man and bring him low, look at every proud man and humble him, crush the wicked where they stand. Bury them all in the dust together; shroud their faces in the grave. Then I myself will admit to you that your own right hand can save you (Job 40: 8-14)

In other words, might makes right- and that's not as bad as it sounds. Note how justice is built into the very concept of irresistible Sovereign might. Since the ICTI lacks might, it lacks universality, and is inherently partial, biased and irrational as a result. No true justice can come from mere private opinion alone.

 

[irlandais9000]

The government should sue this "tribunal" in a civil court for libel (and nail this Goodrich fellow for his flagrantly illegal speech).

Illegal speech, huh? Your anti-democratic ideals show through again.

 

[Truncador]

Illegal speech, huh? Your anti-democratic ideals show through again.

Nope.

Activities affecting armed forces during war


(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or

Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

The democratic law of the land, as passed by Congress and signed by the President.

 

[*d*]

Yes, it is an inherent right of Sovereigns. It is confusing the standing of Sovereigns with that of private individuals that lies behind this error. Private individuals submit to authority in exchange for protection; they may only fight when directly attacked, since they forfeit the full natural right of defense to the Sovereign authority that protects and rules over them. Sovereigns neither acknowledge nor are protected by any authority higher than themselves; they are on their own, and don't have to wait until actually attacked, since they alone are the judge of what comprises self-defense in their own cases. This is logically airtight, and any attempt to get around it is simply error. Specifically, the error confuses the UN, ICC, etc. with a world government that has an effective monopoly on the use of force.

But the US signed a treaty with other sovereign states to insure sovereign equality. It's called the UN charter. Sovereign states are limited by such treaties and international obligations and are not legally permitted to commit aggression at will. Absolute freedom of a sovereign state is, and should be, a thing of the past. The UN is today considered the principal organ for restraining the exercise of sovereignty. And this includes restraints within the circle of Security Council members. So unless you believe death and destruction from unilateral US military might is somehow superior to the peaceful principles of the UN and international law. Than lord help us all.

I'm reminded of the ridiculous attempt on the part of the Montana Militia to indict Pres. Clinton in their "common law courts." Let this ICTI enforce its "laws" and "judgements"; until they can, they're in no position to dignify their irrational emotional ejaculations with the name, "law". The dialogue between God and Job comes to mind:

In other words, might makes right- and that's not as bad as it sounds. Note how justice is built into the very concept of irresistible Sovereign might. Since the ICTI lacks might, it lacks universality, and is inherently partial, biased and irrational as a result. No true justice can come from mere private opinion alone.

Sorry but I'd rather listen to a judgement based on a variety of laws accepted by the masses and influenced by reason, before I'd listen to one scripture of one theology.

 

[irlandais9000]

The democratic law of the land, as passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Except that connecting the speech you are talking about to this law is hardly automatic.

 

[Peeping Tom]

World Pope Kofi Annan and his horde of internationalist sycophants might well be reminded by the President of the classic adage:

You and what army?

Until he has something to answer, America is a sovereign State. Better for the President to remind him about the perils of being dragged to the White House in leg irons.

 

[Truncador]

Except that connecting the speech you are talking about to this law is hardly automatic.

Former pilot Tim Goodrich said US troops should realize they were taking part in an illegal war and resist.

"There are some people that have, there are pieces of resistance that people don't know about... some soldiers who refuse to go on a mission," he said.

If he's telling soldiers to "resist" by refusing to go on missions, it's hard to see how he couldn't be committing a rather serious offense.

 

[WoodPeckr]

If he's telling soldiers to "resist" by refusing to go on missions, it's hard to see how he couldn't be committing a rather serious offense.

USA UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

States it is moral and just to refuse illegal orders while serving in the US military.
Following illegal orders, or being a party to illegal campaigns could result your court martial.

 

[someone]

World Pope Kofi Annan and his horde of internationalist sycophants might well be reminded by the President of the classic adage:

You and what army?

Until he has something to answer, America is a sovereign State. Better for the President to remind him about the perils of being dragged to the White House in leg irons.

I’ve noticed that some of the less extreme republicans are posting much less often or not at all. Reading posts like this, I’m starting to wonder if it is because they don’t want to be associated with people like you and Tunc. If the U.S. ever did anything like you are suggesting, they would lose even their most loyal and unquestioning allies (e.g. Australia and Britain). Moreover, as uneducated as the average American is, I can’t see even imagine the average American supporting the kidnapping of the Secretary-General of the UN.

 

[Truncador]

USA UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

States it is moral and just to refuse illegal orders while serving in the US military.
Following illegal orders, or being a party to illegal campaigns could result your court martial.

Text and legal citation please.

 

[Truncador]

Old wives' tales

USA UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

States it is moral and just to refuse illegal orders while serving in the US military.

This urban myth is part of a rich American tradition of pseudo-legal folklore concerning imaginary individual rights and limits on the power of the State. Other examples include, variously: that Texas can legally secede from the Union, that the way the Constitution was ratified makes it illegal for the Federal government to raise taxes (there's even a Canadian variant of this myth), and that Anglo-American common-law enables citizens to opt out of the social contract if they so choose (a favorite of the Montana Militia). I'll leave it to cultural anthropologists and folklorists to ponder the origin and significance of these myths (beyond speculating that this one almost certainly originated with the Quakers and made its way from them to the anti-war movement through the militia movement and back to the anti-war movement)

For legal purposes, the myth has been soundly refuted by the courts. Cf. the ruling in U.S. v. New, 99-0640, 2001 (link):

Appellant argues that (1) the UN insignia violates Army uniform regulations (AR 670-1) by transferring his allegiance to the United Nations, 50 MJ at 734, and (2) the order stems from an illegal deployment of the Armed Forces because President Clinton misrepresented the nature of the deployment to Congress and failed to comply with the United Nations Participation Act [UNPA]. These arguments fail because they would unacceptably substitute appellant’s personal judgment of the legality of an order for that of his superiors and the Federal Government.

This Court has held that an Air Force Captain disobeyed a lawful order when he refused to fly as a training instructor on a fighter plane that was used in Vietnam. The Noyd court noted that "[m]ilitary service is . . . a matter of status," like becoming a parent, rather than just a contractual relationship and that status establishes special duties between the soldier and the Government.. It further noted that "the fact that a person in a military status determines that he has undergone a change of conscience does not, at that instant and from that time on, endow him with the right to decide what orders are compatible with his conscience.".

[...]

It is not a defense for appellant to claim that the order is illegal based on his interpretation of applicable law. An order is presumed to be lawful and the defense has the burden to prove illegality unless the order is "palpably illegal on its face." This does not, however, allow a soldier to disobey an order because he believes it to be palpably illegal. A case remarkably similar to this one is United States v. Wilson. Private Wilson was denied conscientious-objector status and, after an unauthorized absence, wrote a statement explaining, in part, "I will refuse to wear the uniform of a soldier ever again. I am doing this out of my deeply felt convictions . . . and because the Army has given me no other alternative." When he later refused to obey an order to wear his uniform, he was charged with willful disobedience. This Court upheld an instruction that personal scruples were not a defense. Citing United States v. Noyd, supra, the Court in Wilson reasoned that personal beliefs could not justify or excuse disobedience by a soldier of a lawful order.

His position is like that of the civilian whose religion or conscience is in conflict with lawful orders of the Government . . . [T]o allow scruples of personal conscience to override the lawful command of constituted authority would "in effect . . . permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.". As Noyd indicated, the freedom to think and believe does not excuse intentional conduct that violates a lawful command.The Court in Noyd also noted that allowing private judgment by a soldier as to which orders to obey would be "unthinkable and unworkable," and would mean that "the military need for his services must be compromised.". Appellant’s arguments are essentially the same ones that were made there, and they should be rejected on the same basis.

We recently reiterated the limited nature of the grounds upon which the lawfulness of an order may be challenged in the context of denied conscientious-objector status. We determined that there was no constitutional right or statutory provision that gave an appellant "authority for a self-help remedy of disobedience.".

 

[happygrump]

If he's telling soldiers to "resist" by refusing to go on missions, it's hard to see how he couldn't be committing a rather serious offense.

Trunc is absolutely right here, but it's worth remembering that every army, in every war, has had it's share of refuseniks. There are probably people carrying out the insurrection in Iraq saying to their commanders, "Wrap dynamite around my chest and blow myself up in a bank? You're outta your F*CKING MIND!!"

</fondly remembering Cheech and Chong skit>

 

[red]

This urban myth is part of a rich American tradition of pseudo-legal folklore concerning imaginary individual rights and limits on the power of the State. Other examples include, variously: that Texas can legally secede from the Union, that the way the Constitution was ratified makes it illegal for the Federal government to raise taxes (there's even a Canadian variant of this myth), and that Anglo-American common-law enables citizens to opt out of the social contract if they so choose (a favorite of the Montana Militia). I'll leave it to cultural anthropologists and folklorists to ponder the origin and significance of these myths (beyond speculating that this one almost certainly originated with the Quakers and made its way from them to the anti-war movement through the militia movement and back to the anti-war movement)

For legal purposes, the myth has been soundly refuted by the courts. Cf. the ruling in U.S. v. New, 99-0640, 2001 (link):

while your quotes are edifying, they do not make the original post an urban myth. none of the cases cited were in relation to illegal orders. As you rightly stated, it is the defences charge to prove the order was illegal. An order to rape a civilian would be an example, as it is an order to perform an illegal act. An order to attack an enemy combatant during a time of war could not be construed to be an illegal order.

 

[Peeping Tom]

Yea right, gimme a friggin break already

I’ve noticed that some of the less extreme republicans are posting much less often or not at all. Reading posts like this, I’m starting to wonder if it is because they don’t want to be associated with people like you

You would be wise to consider that,

a)

What I wrote is not extreme at all - it is a witty simplification of the reality involved, and that;

b)

Most conservatives support this and would likely laugh, whether they be Whig or Tory.

In any case, conservatives not in agreement are free to challenge, or blast, my position.

More to the point, if conservatives are leaving the board, it is probable that a certain three rabid leftists are the reason. Three who, in substitution for the lack of their own analytical and literary skills, do nothing but paste dubious to garbage articles; the same tired crap from the same extremist sources, which would embarrass a serious Democrat (as I once was), and run without discussing said crap. Three who substitute endless personal attacks in place of sound reasoning skills, often insulting a poster in the opening line of their "response", one of which whose sole purpose here seems to be as insult machine. I don't suppose I have to name them.

As is required for online discussion, I have a thick skin. Tell me off and I'll reply in kind, or more often than not, simply not bother. Others inclined more towards civility might question whether being here is a waste of time.

I'll leave you to justify what you wrote below (emphasis mine) - indeed, you would have had to work hard to give me a better example.

Moreover, as uneducated as the average American is,

 

[someone]

What I wrote is not extreme at all - it is a witty simplification of the reality involved, and that;

Most conservatives support this and would likely laugh, whether they be Whig or Tory.

They might laugh but I don't think it is because they take the idea of kidnapping the secretary-general of the UN seriously. There is a difference between laughing with someone and laughing at them. It was like your boiling in oil post.
Edit: if by "witty", you mean you were joking and not serious, I will retract as we are all guilty of making bad jokes from time to time.

In any case, conservatives not in agreement are free to challenge, or blast, my position.

Well, I usually don’t like thinking of myself in left right terms but given that most people who know me consider me to be right wring you have a challenge here. BTW my post referred to republicans not conservatives. I realize that in the U.S. the terms are used interchangeable, but they are not really interchangeable. For example, real conservatives don't run massive budget deficits that will have to be paid by future generations.

I'll leave you to justify what you wrote below (emphasis mine) - indeed, you would have had to work hard to give me a better example.

I have posted on this issue at length in other threads both in my experience at teaching in the American university system, living in the U.S. as well as U.S. performance on international standardize tests and other indicators of low levels of education. I am not going to repeat those lengthy posts. If you are interested, I suggest you make use of the search function.

 

[Peeping Tom]

Well, if you can't understand that writing insults, might be, well, offensive ... where does one go from that. It does seem that you write but without style - hence the unconcious manner of political expression. Or, you really mean it.

Anyways, enough of this, until the need to metaphorically boil someone in oil.

 

[Truncador]

while your quotes are edifying, they do not make the original post an urban myth. none of the cases cited were in relation to illegal orders. As you rightly stated, it is the defences charge to prove the order was illegal. An order to rape a civilian would be an example, as it is an order to perform an illegal act. An order to attack an enemy combatant during a time of war could not be construed to be an illegal order.

The urban myth aspect is that extremists like this guy (link) will cite the USCMJ in order to convince soldiers that they can simply opt out of following orders the extremist believes to be "illegal"- without telling them the full story (i.e. that they will be court-martialled and convicted if the judge doesn't happen to agree with the crackpot theory, as New apparently found out to his cost).

 

[someone]

Well, if you can't understand that writing insults, might be, well, offensive ... where does one go from that. It does seem that you write but without style - hence the unconcious manner of political expression. Or, you really mean it.

Anyways, enough of this, until the need to metaphorically boil someone in oil.

If by insulting you mean my stating that Americans are on average uneducated, compared to others in Western countries. That was meant as a positive statement that can be backed up with evidence (for example, in another thread I posted a link to OCED test results). I'm sorry if it offended you. However, given some of the posts you have made about Canadians, I think that this is a bit like a certain pot and kettle. Nonetheless, I'm happy to drop it.

 

[onthebottom]

If by insulting you mean my stating that Americans are on average uneducated, compared to others in Western countries. That was meant as a positive statement that can be backed up with evidence (for example, in another thread I posted a link to OCED test results). I'm sorry if it offended you. However, given some of the posts you have made about Canadians, I think that this is a bit like a certain pot and kettle. Nonetheless, I'm happy to drop it.

Our OCED test score are pathetic, especially when you consider there are only two countries that spend more than we do per student on education (Canada and another small country in Europe). Thats K-12 education, I think our University system is the best in the world - by a long way.

OTB