I take that as an admission by the Court that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. Interesting.
I read the Wiki article on him but it did not state what type of discharge he received? Anyone know? Honorable, General, Dishonorable?
You take their refusal to issue a decision as a decision?
I take their refusal to say the invasion was legal as a tacit admission that it wasn’t.
For the record, though, I still don’t think this guy had a right to refuse his orders.
I take their refusal to say the invasion was illegal as a tacit admission that it was.
That makes no sense. They would never have a problem saying that it was legal. There would be no consequences or fallout for that. A reluctance to say it’s legal is very significant. Also, it was factually illegal.
You take the court’s finding that retrying Watada after his mistrial would constitute double jeopardy as an admission that the war was illegal?
That’s… uh… quite a set of connect-the-cots.
No, I was specifically referring to their unwillingness to rule on the legality of the war. The disposition of Watada himself is neither here nor there, as far as I’m concerned.
This is an enormous abdication of judicial responsibility to ignore the question of the legality of war. If this is the case then what, legally, would prevent all similar cases from ending in mistrials in the future? It’s like they’re trying to pretend that the 800 pound gorilla in the room doesn’t exist.
Are you familiar with the doctrine of justiciability, specifically the doctrone of a political question.?
This is not “unwillingness,” in some particularized sense. It’s the correct application of the doctrine.
Uh huh.
In the United States, there is a law stating the Military Service Obligation (MSO). Currently, the MSO is eight years for all personnel, commissioned and enlisted. There is also something called OBLISERV (Obligated Service). OBLISERV attached due to a number of things, such as accepting promotion, receiving education (such as attendance at the Defense Language Institute), assignment overseas, or various other actions.
I’m hoping the prosecution has a field day with this particular officer during his court-martial. I’d think the biggest hurdle for the accused (that’s the military’s word for defendent) will be the number of times the accused has signed orders sending other soldiers to Iraq.
Instead of discussing at length the UCMJ, I’ll just link to it. The legal protections afforded the accused are still grounded in the Constitution of the United States. Here is the link.
I forgot something. The President of the United States alone does not enter into treaties with other countries. The President signs the treaty after Senate approval. If there were such a treaty involving the US and Germany as postulated upthread, then the treaty would, per the Constitution, have the force of law.
As of July tenth, I’ve spent half my life in Canadian Forces Reserve.
It’s of no relevance, I just thought I’d tell somebody.
You snipped too much of my quote … or too little, however you want to look at it. My real fantasy is that the military simply refuses to do what the Commander in Chief orders, rendering him and his VP militarily powerless, forcing them to step down and letting the Speaker of the House assume control and command. Like I said, it’s pure fantasy, but of the “for want of a nail, a shoe was lost” variety. I wouldn’t have posted something like this in Great Debates – maybe I should have gone for Mundane Pointless etc.
[/QUOTE]
Except that it’s the Military that ordered him there, not the President. In fact, the Military, in general, are in favor of this war.
Thus, when SCOTUS recently did not hear or decide to overrule a Appelate Court ruling that overturned a murder verdict, they were ruling that murder is legal, right?:dubious:
The actual ruling is mostly to do with fine legal points about stipulations and double-jeopardy.
What actually decided the case was the Obama administration deciding to go no further with the appeal.
Although he did have witnesses who argued the War was illegal, it was on a basis of International Law, not US law. No sane person thinks that war is illegal under US Law. Under International Law, it is de facto legal, due to the fact that the US can veto anything in the Security Council. Thus, whether or not it is a violation of International Law is a matter entirely of opinion, not fact. I concede many legal luminaries have offered the opinion that it is illegal.
Other than honorable, which is a discharge given for misconduct or security reasons. Since most veterans benefits are made conditional on the receipt of an honorable discharge, Watada is locked out of them.
As I’ve understood International Law is applicable in the US by US Law.
The security council is of no consequence, it doesn’t come into play. Wars of agression are already illegal.
So it all depends on wether this war was a war of agression.
And I don’t think any sane person would deny it as such.
Of course international law is applicable. Even under the US Constitution it’s applicable under the Supremacy Clause. The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by Congress. That makes it US law. The invasion of Iraq was a straight up violation of the UN Charter. It is illegal to overthrow another government for any reason but immediate self defense. We toppled another government for no defensive reason. That make it illegal. The only rebuttal the Bush apologists have is the argument that the UN doesn’t physically have the ability to punish the US for it, which is lame. That’s not a criterion for whether something is illegal.
Even under US law, a ratified treaty is “the supreme law of the land,” on a par with a Constitutional Amendment. The attack on Iraqi sovereignty was illegal any way you slice it.
Sure, International Law has validity in the USA, however, it does come after the Constitution.
The Invasion of Iraq was justified by the “self-defense” loophole. Now, your opinion (and that of many others) may think that the US claims there are pretty bogus. However, only the UN Security Council may fine that the actions of the USA were illegal. They have not done so (nor are they likely to do so), thus that means that the actions of the USA are not illegal in fact.
For example, let us say a powerful politician shoots a man, and claims self defence. Due to his political prominence, no charges are ever brought. Although you can say that **in your opinion **“he’s a murderer”, but *in fact *the law sez otherwise. Thus, like it or not, the man is not guilty of any crime, even though it may be clear only his political power protects him from being arrested.
You seem to have a problem disassociating opinion from fact.
It is *your opinion *that the actions of the USA are illegal, but *in fact *they are not illegal. I admit that it’s pretty clear that the USA had not had to try to defend its action due to it’s political power, but no charges have been brought forward, nor has any body with legal standing made any such decision. That is the ONLY criterion of whether or not something is illegal- whether or not a legal body with standing has ruled on it. No such body has. A MB poster is not the World Court or the Security Council.
This line is disengenous “*The only rebuttal the Bush apologists have is the argument that the UN doesn’t physically have the ability to punish the US for it, which is lame. *”. Whether or not they can punish the USA is meaningless. The fact is, they have not ruled against the USA. **No body of standing has ruled the USA’s actions were illegal. **