Well, the death penalty trials down in Guantanamo are being run under some sort of mutated version of UCMJ.
IIRC, we’ve got some civilians incarcerated down there
The military tribunals we’re trying people in were set up by a specific act of Congress, not the UCMJ.
ETA: Though modeled on UCMJ provisions…so I guess mutated may be accurate in some sense.
Article 2 of the UCMJ lists who’s subject to it:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/ucmjart2.htm
In summary,
- Members of the armed forces
- Cadets and midshipmen
- Reservists on inactive duty training/members of the National Guard when it’s federalized
- Retired members entitled to pay
- Retired reservists entitled to pay
- Members of the Fleet Reserve
- People in millitary custody serving a sentence handed down by court martial
- Members of the other Uniformed Services, when assigned to the armed forces
- POWs in millitary custody
- In time of war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.
- Subject to treaty, people employed by the armed forces outside the US
- Subject to treaty, people living on land leased by the armed forces outside the US.
Yeah, I read that section myself, but I thought maybe **Moto **has some new theory I hadn’t heard.
Oh, I think the notion of charging the Code Pink crew with sedition is enough novelty for one day, don’t you?
The Berkeley city council is meeting tonight.
They’ll be debating whether to rescind their letter.
Streaming video is available: The City of Berkeley
It sounds to me like it’ll be about half an hour before they get to the “issue of the day.”
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2387
Activities affecting armed forces generally
**(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.**
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term “military or naval forces of the United States” includes the Army of the United States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such vessel.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2388
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.**
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
© Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.
Don’t tell soldiers to disobey their orders. There are plenty of other ways to oppose this or any other war.
Regarding Section 2388, I think maybe you missed post #79.
Your 2387 argument is stronger, since it applies in peace time and has an intent requirement which may survive modern First Amendment jurisprudence.
But it has never been used under the modern First Amendment doctrine, which differs from the older “clear and present danger” standard. Now, the government must prove (1) express advocacy of law violation; (2) the advocacy must call for immediate law violation; and (3) the immediate law violation must be likely to occur. (2) is the sticking point for many laws that were found constitutional under the older standard.
Obviously the application would depend on the facts, but it is equally obvious that it wouldn’t apply to most instances of someone arguing that Marines in general ought to disobey orders.
No one is protesting Rumsfeld? Germany wants to try him for war crimes. I would think he has a top notch security system.
Appealing to racial superiority was the message the fascists wanted to convey. What techniques did they use to convey this message?
Apparently you are unfamiliar with what qualifies as a message and what is a propaganda technique. Maybe you will find the link helpful. Do schools still teach civics in the 9th grade?
This isn’t to say that we haven’t developed techniques of our own such as “swiftboating.”
I asked how you knew that Ellsberg’s purpose was not to inform you but to scare you.
Ravenman
I think that carries the essence of your answer. For what possible purpose would Daniel Ellsberg want to scare you? What would he have to gain from it? Now if he were “nuts,” as you say, I would be still more inclined to believe that he was sincere in his presentation and simply mistaken in what you claim that he said.
Do you think that the lawyers with him also had the impression that he was nuts and trying to scare you? Did you have an impression of what their motives were?
As a general guideline, it’s a good idea to remember to stay away from thinking that we know what other people’s motives are. I couldn’t know for sure why you didn’t specify which Gulf War was taking place when you wanted to be very clear.
Are some of you saying that keeping an oath is more important than refusing to take a life unjustly? That is what you will be doing if you participate in an unjust war.
Meanwhile, back in the States: Who are we to criticize as long as we continue to pay our taxes? (And I do – or at least my husband does.)
I think there’s a difference between what’s legal (what Moto’s arguing) and what’s moral. Serving in an immoral war may be legal, but its not right.
This is where we disagree, Zoe. The brush is too broad that you’r painting with. Technically then I’m supporting an unjust war even though I haven’t been to Iraq for years. By virtue of being on Active Duty I’m helping take lives somewhere. Should I have just quit my post because I feel that the president’s orders are unjust? Should I have encouraged my coworkers to not come to work today? We all took an oath to follow the lawful orders of the Commander in Chief. We can’t pick and choose which orders. We have a chance every four years to pick which Commander in Chief.
Its unrealistic to think that the entire US military should quit or revolt. People want the war to stop and the troops to come home? Go see the government representatives. Blame the people that sent the troops there.
Oh, I’d agree with that, and I said it once. After all tax dollars pay for the military. So if blame is going to put on the forces it should go to everyone who pays them. Why ask the servicemen to violate their oath and face jail time if you’re not at least willing to withhold paying your taxes? As you can imagine, that wasn’t a popular suggestion.
Let’s get to the heart of this: do you believe that fascist propaganda techniques are distinguishable from propaganda techniques used by communists, democrats, or anyone else? If so, what is the sine qua non of fascist propaganda and how do the Marines use it?
I would say that fascist propaganda generally includes the element of racial superiority over an imagined enemy – a boogeyman – fictionalized to have extensive power. In order to achieve power for the state – which is the real message of the propaganda – the superiority of a people must be proven against an aggrandized threat of outsiders. That technique of pitting race against race is, IMHO, a technique, not a goal or message, as the message is to support the consolidation of state power through the exercise of violence. This immediate technique is to pit group against group, hero vs enemy.
Marine recruiting propaganda seems to rely very little on the group-vs-group struggle, and is virtually absent of a characterizable enemy. Instead, the ads seem to greatly focus on the individual characteristics of the Marine, and the struggle of the individual to excel beyond his capabilities. The most well-known Marines ads feature an individual who is transformed into a Marine by passing some crucible. The only enemy in the last several decades I can think of that has appeared in Marine recruiting ads has been some kind of weird robot-knight kind of thing appearing on a chessboard. There is no identifiable enemy that I can recall in any popular Marines recruiting campaigns – the efforts do not include the villanization of Muslims or any other group, it is the aggrandizement of an individual to achieve personal goals for the benefit of a group with no specific, discernible enemy: “We’re looking for a few good men.”
I’ll back up: I consider Ellsberg one of a number of important figures in American history for his courageous actions in standing up to the Nixon administration. But like other important figures – Pierre Salinger comes to mind – their later actions indicate that their earlier glory has, at some point, come to a spectacular end.
Ellsberg has a remarkable ability to see every war as Vietnam, every President he disagrees with as Nixon, and every conspiracy as having a Pentagon Papers, and every complex event as boiling down to a conspiracy of power-hungry American elites. It’s a broken record that indicates to me that he is incapable of seeing the world as anything but a replay of his experience in the early 1970s. Just like Paris Hilton thinks the whole world revolves around her, Ellsberg in these talks (and elsewhere as well) relates virtually everything that occurs in American foreign policy as revolving around Vietnam. He apparently sees 9/11 as a conspiracy like Watergate. If you cannot acknowledge the complexity of new events, you’ve taken your first steps toward nuthood.
As far as his motives to scare us, he was against the war and, IIRC, active in organizing local anti-war movements. I’m sure he was trying to motivate others to join his cause. I can’t believe your thinking is so facile to believe that there was no agenda behind a full day of school events with exclusively anti-war or anti-military speakers. Was he mistaken? Of course. Did he have an agenda? You’ve got to be a complete fucking moron if you can’t acknowledge that Daniel Ellsberg, certainly one of the leading anti-war voices of the past 35 plus years, does not have a agenda. Get a grip.
I don’t recall the lawyers being nuts, while I disagreed with their viewpoint, they seemed generally competent and well-informed. I believe they were probably trying to appeal to the fear of a bunch of 17 and 18 year olds who didn’t want to be forced to go to war in order to generate more opposition to the war, and also relate some actual legal advice.
If I’m hit in the face with a frying pan, I don’t need you to argue that it could have been a sautee pan and that I shouldn’t jump to conclusions.
The Gulf War is the Gulf War. Stop blaming me for your ignorance of a well-known name for a particular war. I don’t feel compelled to explain to you the meaning of the terms “gulf,” either. Perhaps in your next post you can claim that you are confused because you thought I was referring to the Gulf of Mexico, and then accused me of being insufficiently specific.
Disapproves of needless wars? What a fuckin’ weirdo!
Berkeley takes it back, sort of.
The recruiters can stay – not that the council ever had the power to make them leave – but Berkeley still hates war. Flags were burned, misdemeanor arrests were made, and a good time was had by all.
Don’t see the reference to flag burning. Cite?
An American flag was set aflame outside the City Council chambers, damaging a pair of bicycles, police said.
**
-Note to Republican senators**
The nation needs an amendment to make bicycle burning unconstitutional.
First of all, who gets to decide what war is immoral? You? Me? The UN? The Congress? The Imperial Japanese Army and the Wehrmacht?
Morality is a highly subjective matter. And while it certainly has its place, I don’t know if we really have the right to force moral decisions on others if they are in conflict with their legal responsibilities and even conflicting moral demands. Even in an “immoral” war, a soldier can do some good, and an officer or a noncommissioned officer can greatly help soldiers he has responsibility for and command of return home safely.
For a soldier to resist deployment, he risks imprisonment and dishonorable discharge. I don’t think any of us have the moral right to ask him to take that on, and I think that is especially true of those of us who might make those requests and risk nothing themselves.
LHoD, what have you done to oppose the war? Do any of your actions place you in any real danger of a loss of personal freedom or employment? Because that’s what you would demand of these soldiers, and frankly that’s not fair.
Some would say that a woman having access to an abortion may be legal, but it’s not right either, because it’s also immoral.
I’d prefer it if you let me make my own determination as to what is moral, thanks, and that you not attempt to impose your personal morality upon me. I’m guessing many Marines would feel the same.