What is Wrong With Out Country...SCREW THE UN!!!

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by sailor *
OK, time for technicalities. If you read that carefully it seems to say (and I could argue that it does, in fact say) that it is illegal to enlist in a foreign army while in American jurisdiction or to travel to a foreign jurisdiction with the express intent of circumventing this. It seems to me if you are abroad for any other purpose and decide to enlist, then this would not be forbidden by this law.

You are correct, sir!! If Joe American was over in Paris, whether living there or traveling, and there decided “Hey, that French Foreign Legion sounds like a cool gang! I’m joining!”, Joe American is not in violation of s. 959. (However, if you join the armed forces of a nation at war with a nation with which the U.S. is at peace, you are in violation of 18 U.S.C. 960, and there may be immigration and naturalization laws you are violating as well.)

Why the difference? For explanation, we go to case law. (Monty, if you was case cites, trust me, I’ll provide them). The purpose behind 18 U.S.C. ss. 958-960 is to preserve the neutrality of the United States. If the U.S. allowed citizens or residents to enlist in a foreign army while in the U.S., or to leave the U.S. with the intent of joining a foreign army, it may lead foreign nations to conclude that the U.S. supports said foreign army. It could have stopped its residents and it chose not to. However, if the person is already outside the U.S. when he/she decides to enlist, the U.S. can legitimately say that it had nothing to do with the U.S., and in no way does it imply the U.S. supports foreign army X.

Sua

[andros]

*Originally posted by Wildest Bill *
**

*Originally posted by Qadgop the Mercotan *
**WildestBill, are you coming back? **

What for? **

Maybe to say “thank you?”

[Lemur866]

I think Sua is right. The law means that foreign governments can’t set up recruiting stations in the US, and the purpose is to preserve US neutrality, and avoid thinly veiled american foreign legions.

But, if you want to sign up, we can’t stop you. The “intent” part is to avoid technicalities where you wouldn’t actually join up until you left the US. It is still treason to serve in the military of a country the US is at war with, though. And it is a problem to serve as an officer, that is more serious than being enlisted.

One question about the French Foreign Legion…are the officers French, or foreign? I thought only the enlisted personel were foreigners, kind of like the black units the US used to have.

[sailor]

I was reminded of the Lincoln Brigade which fought in the Spanish civil war. I found it interesting that American passports had been invalidated for travel to Spain. I am not sure what law you would break, if any, if you would travel to a country where your passport says is not valid. OTOH, if you are taking the risk of getting killed, I guess bureaucracy is not much of a concern.
From www.usnews.com

Noble though their intentions may have been, there was a catch, which would haunt the Lincoln Brigade’s veterans for decades: It was organized by, and took many of its recruits from, the Communist Party in America. And, ultimately, some 70 percent of the Brigade’s members identified themselves as such, many simply because “it was the only way for many of them to get into the fight,” says Peter Carroll, chairman of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade Archives. Carroll notes that at the time U.S. passports had been invalidated for travel to Spain–and that the only way in for most Americans was through France, where Communists helped them sneak over the Pyrenees mountains at night into Spain.

[SuaSponte]

sailor, during the McCarthy years, Red-hunters created a phrase for those who joined the Lincoln Brigade that deserves to be in the double-speak/bureaucratese Hall of Fame - “Premature Anti-Fascists”, or PAFs.

Lemur, my recollection is the same - the officers of the French Foreign Legion are French nationals. I checked around a bit on the Web, but wasn’t able to confirm this. The best I could do was on the French Embassy site, which listed out pay and benefits for Legionnaires. The only listed pay for ranks up to chief corporal - no officer pay amounts given. Persuasive, perhaps, but definitely not compelling.

Sua

[Wildest_Bill]

*Originally posted by andros *
**

*Originally posted by Wildest Bill *
**

*Originally posted by Qadgop the Mercotan *
**WildestBill, are you coming back? **

What for? **

Maybe to say “thank you?” **

Ok ok…Thank ya’ll for your very intelligent responses. How was that Andros?

[SuaSponte]

You ain’t going to acknowledge me here, I’ll see you in the Pit

[Ben]

*Originally posted by Wildest Bill *
**

*Originally posted by Qadgop the Mercotan *
**WildestBill, are you coming back? **

What for? **

If you started a thread, doesn’t that indicate that you have an interest in, you know, hanging around to discuss the topic?

WB, what do you think of what people have said here? Has your position on New changed at all? Why or why not?

-Ben

[Morrison_s_Lament]

Can you say: “T-I-M M-C-V-E-I-G-H?”

— G. Raven

[sailor]

Sua, maybe I am missing something but I don’t understand why you got so hot under the collar, especially when we were all having so much fun piling on the OP. The only serious mistake in this thread was that I was responding to a post by Manhattan and I called him “Chronos” by mistake.

I think we all agree pretty much on the substance of this issue. Both you and Monty have posted relevant and correct information which added to the better knowledge of the substance of the issue we are discussing here. So this is not a matter of which side is right or wrong on the substance.

It seems you took serious offense when Monty said "You know, Sua, it’s generally frowned upon to use the “…” to change the meaning of the stuff quoted. " and then quoted the same source more completely. Kimstu noted (and I agree) that the material added by Monty, does not change the meaning of what was already quoted. So it is just possible two people are reading the same thing differently, but that is not the issue now.

I do not know Monty and I do not know if there are other issues here but it seems to me you overreacted a bit. Unless malice was shown, I think Monty’s words, while may be not entirely polite or diplomatic, do not necessarily prove an intent to insult or disrespect you. We have all been misunderstood like that sometime. At least, I know I have. Somebody takes offense at something where no offense was meant.

Sua, maybe it is the lawyer in you but you did come across to me like taking offense where possibly none was meant. Maybe a less confrontational approach would have defused rather than escalated the situation.

I do not know why Monty has not come back. It could be that he has missed or forgotten this thread. It has happened to me sometimes. Sometimes I’ll suddenly realize I lost track of some thread I was interested in. It could be that when he saw your bellicose tone he preferred not to start a brawl. I know I have walked away from a few threads where I thought any attempt at understanding was a waste of time. He may have been more inclined to offer an apology and an explanation if your tone was not so confrontational but he may have felt your tone prevented him from doing so without losing face. If he feels his only two options are fighting and walking away, I do not think refusing to fight should be considered cowardice and he would be doing us a favor as the board does not benefit from fights. Even if he may have started it by error, he would be right in not escalating it and i do not think it is right to keep provoking him if he has chosen to let it go. If you want, consider it your victory but there’s no need to continue provoking him into a fight.

In any case, I would like to do what I can to defuse this situation. I would ask you to consider that, even though you may see it differently, possibly no offense was meant by Monty in spite of his language. If he wants to offer any further explanation, we should take it at face value. If he prefers not to, then I would ask you to let it go and not assume cowardice or lack of respect.

Your contributions to this board are interesting and valuable and it detracts from the value of this board if we get involved in squabbles over minor things. Let’s all try to get along. We were all having fun picking on the OP and even he has come back quite a sport and not taken offense. That says something for him.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by sailor *
**Sua, maybe I am missing something but I don’t understand why you got so hot under the collar,
It seems you took serious offense when Monty said "You know, Sua, it’s generally frowned upon to use the “…” to change the meaning of the stuff quoted. " and then quoted the same source more completely. Kimstu noted (and I agree) that the material added by Monty, does not change the meaning of what was already quoted. So it is just possible two people are reading the same thing differently, but that is not the issue now.

I do not know Monty and I do not know if there are other issues here but it seems to me you overreacted a bit.

You are more than likely correct, sailor - I probably did overreact. I think the reason I did was because Monty and I have never had any other issues, and out of the blue came what I perceive to be an attack on my integrity. Perhaps it wasn’t meant that way, but it certainly seemed so.
I think was annoyed me the most was that Monty had the opportunity to correct himself before I came back into the thread and chose not to. Kimstu pointed out to him that I hadn’t changed the meaning of the citation, but Monty ignored that post, and went on chanting “Sua’s wrong, Sua’s wrong”.
So yeah, I was irritated. If I possessed the grace of Polycarp or tomndebb, I would have simply posted the information demonstrating that Monty was relying on bad information and let it go, but I’m (overly) proud of my self-image as a fair dealer with an open mind. I took Monty’s posts as an attack on that, and I went off half-cocked.

Sua

[manhattan]

*Originally posted by sailor *
** The only serious mistake in this thread was that I was responding to a post by Manhattan and I called him “Chronos” by mistake.
**

Shhhh! I don’t like it when people correct the mistakes that make me look good.