?
I don’t see a question there. That entire bit of blathering is based around the idea that he has somehow proven that I, and the entire US Armed Forces, are war criminals. It’s just a loaded series of statements with question marks after them.
Just putting a question mark at the end of a sentence doesn’t make it a question? I think you’re both a couple of fucking idiots?
They are three coherent questions, each directed at you and within the context of this thread. If everything you’ve said so far is correct, you should have no difficulty in answering them. If you cannot answer them, then the claim that you do not unquestioningly obey orders becomes highly suspicious.
Handwaving commencing in: 3…2…1…
Participation in a war of aggression does not make you a war criminal. Precipitating one, maybe. But the participants are deemed do be devoid of guilt if they are acting in good faith and comport themselves properly, i.e. do not commit any crimes in the performance of their duties. Were all Germans war criminals during World War II? Absolutely not. Only their leaders and those who committed atrocities, as evidenced by the Nuremberg tribunals. Now, you can try to make that stick to President Bush (and good luck with that), but I respectfully suggest that trying to make that stick to the common soldier is folly.
Again, that’s a question that applies to leadership, not the military.
See above.
No. They are not. And repeating yourself over and over and over again isn’t going to magically change the fact that his statements all revolve around the idea that he has proven that I’m a war criminal, which he hasn’t.
Does it bother you that I have proven that the moon is made of green cheese?
Answer no and you are saying that it doesn’t bother you that I have proven that the moon is made of green cheese.
Answer yes and you are saying that it does bother you that I have proven that the moon is made of green cheese.
With each answer you acknowledge that I have proven that the moon is made of green cheese.
Does that make sense to you you dumb fucks? Quit fighting just to fight you little bitches.
Are you really claiming that the forces involved in the invasion, let alone with subsequent deployments, were unaware of the huge questions over the legality of the war?
OK, let me rephrase the questions into a form you may be able to answer:
Did you at any point prior to the invasion of Iraq contemplate the possibility that the invasion of a country was not legal? If not, why not?
Irrespective of the above, Are you aware of subsequent revalations about intelligence, which may affect the judgement of the legality of the war?
If you had doubts, and decided to not look into them further, why not?
If you cannot answer these questions, then you have proven that you are simply an automaton.
Absolutely not. We were given a legal order, and at the time there was no basis to question the order (from a soldier’s point of view). Now the die is cast and even if the order that precipitated the war was illegal (which is entirely up to you) it falls upon us to do the right thing and follow through on it.
Why are you trying to make it look like the common soldier is a war criminal? I realize that you despise the war, but John Q. Soldier is hardly responsible for its cause.
At the time, there were questions being raised as to the legality of any war. How can there be no basis to question the order (or to contemplate questioning it)?
There are standards for the illegality of an order, such as gunning down civilians indiscriminately. Any questions preceeding the war were sufficiently vague that if I had decided that they were illegal and didn’t follow them I’d be sitting in Leavenworth right now. “What if” is not suffcient justification for refusing to follow a lawful order.
So, why don’t you answer my question? I did ask one, you know. If I’m going to dance to your tune the least you could do is respond.
“Why are you trying to make it look like the common soldier is a war criminal?” - because a certain poster of these boards seems unaware that it is even possible for a common soldier to become a war criminal. Some of us would like him to realise that it’s possible for any member of the military to commit crimes by obeying illegal orders, and he pays lip-service to this.
Here’s a question for you Gor.
Let’s assume that the entire population of the USAF thought that moving into Iraq was not justified. Let’s say that some didn’t agree, at all, with why we were moving into that country.
What should the common soldier have done? The war machine was in motion. We have NO CHOICE but to participate. You’re thinking “Concientious Objector” (spelled wrong) aren’t you? Well, can’t do that. In order to play that card you must object to War period. Not a particular war. Every war. We don’t pick and choose.
That’s why when you join the (US) military you sign up for long periods of time with the (very real) threat of jail time if you decide not to “work”. Militaries don’t function if they’re made up of people who can just “quit” when they don’t like the duty they’re assigned.
Orders are there to be followed. Period.
I order you to fuck off Gorillaman.
It is absolutely possible, but only in individual cases like Abu Ghraib. The bigger question does not fall upon us because the orders we are receiving are still lawful orders.
I repeat: if you wish to try to ring President Bush up on war crimes it’s your call. However, I am following lawful orders in good faith. That’s the bottom line.
I challenge you to find the posts where I went against anything you said here dipshit.
God you fucking suck.
Answer the questions, boy. Ask your own when you’re done.
Nice dodge you fucking pansy.
You’re a joke.
Thank you, not least for providing some coherent replies! However, I’m still concerned by the idea that once the orders reach the lower ranks, they’re to be automatically and unquestioningly deemed lawful. At which stage does the buck stop?
Separately: I can follow the argument that the orders, when received, have to be seen as lawful. Are military personnel given any advice on their rights/obligations regarding orders they would know to be wrong? (I’m thinking this would more involve orders given in the field)
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh the irony.
Here’s the UN’s definition itself.
Here’s the BBC’s take on the issue.
If the order was illegal, then the right thing is to follow through on it? That’s a typo, right? You meant to type “not follow through on it?”
While enlisted men may not be liable for prosecution, does that make it any better? “John Q. Soldier was just participating in an illegal war of agression, so, like, it’s no big deal.”
If a soldier does not have a legal duty to refuse, would they not have a moral duty?
“Leaders or organizers” would include officers, would it not?
Quote anywhere in the law I cited which says anything close to that. A war of agression is, in and of itself a war crime. You don’t have to commit any further war crimes, you don’t get a ‘commit one war crime and get out of jail free.’ card.
Many of the statutes were created after WWII and largely as a result of Neurenberg precedent.
Is an officer who orders his men to do something a leader? What semantic nitpicking do we need to engage in to parse the ‘true [del]scotsmen[/del] leaders’ from the ‘not quite leaders.’ Just following orders is not a defense, right?
As I understand it, the law I cited does not refer to common soldiers. But officers would seem to be very much in leadership and organization positions and responsible for the creation and dissemination of orders. On a side note, I’d love nothing more than to see Bush hauled to the Hague to defend himself against charges of war crimes… but ah well, I doubt it’ll ever happen.
Also, individual, normal soldiers, can be responsible for actions that they commit which are war crimes, even in the context of a larger illegal war. Kidnapping Iraqi civilian families, for instance, is a war crime.
And to the military leadership, along with others.
Finally, it’s somewhat odd to hear as a defense that one participated in an illegal war, but at least they can’t be held legally responsible. Even if you can’t be charged under the statutes, is it not wrong to participate in an illegal war?
I just want to disassociate myself from the frieghtening turn this thread has taken. I never implied that LT AF was, could be, should be some kind of war criminal. Nor do I think it is appropriate for soldiers in the field to contemplate policy questions. A soldier is not responsible for being in a place, only his actions in that place. I would not like to see soldiers question whether they sould be involved in a military action. That freedom was relinquished when they enlist. They can and should question their own actions while there.