Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Putting the Iraq War on Trial

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,788
    Thanks
    35,476
    Thanked 50,287 Times in 27,095 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default Putting the Iraq War on Trial

    Short version: Soldiers have a right and the duty to disobey an illegal order from the Commander in Chief

    Putting the Iraq War on Trial
    By Eli Sanders
    Time Magazine

    Friday 18 August 2006

    An army officer who refused duty in Iraq goes to court with a novel argument: he had a duty to disobey because the war is illegal.

    When he refused to deploy to Iraq in June, Army Lt. Ehren Watada said he was following his conscience and upholding his duty not to obey illegal orders. But that didn't impress military officials, who promptly charged him with violating Army rules and sent him on a path toward a likely court-martial.

    In doing so, they set up an unusual collision between a man who is believed to be the first officer to refuse duty in Iraq and a military justice system that is now effectively being asked to rule on the war's legality.

    In a packed hearing room on this Army base south of Seattle Thursday, lawyers for Lt. Watada used the opportunity to put the war itself on trial, trying to prove he was right to see the war as "manifestly illegal," and as a result, to refuse to participate. "A soldier has an obligation to disobey illegal orders," said Francis Boyle, a Harvard-trained professor of international law who testified on behalf of Lt. Watada and whose mentor wrote the Army's field manual for land warfare. "Under the circumstances of this war, if he had deployed, he would have been facilitating a Nuremberg crime against peace."

    Boyle, along with a former United Nations Undersecretary-General and a retired army colonel, argued that the U.S. decision to attack Iraq in 2003 without U.N. authorization made the war illegal from the beginning. He went further, arguing that the failure of the Bush administration to find either weapons of mass destruction or a provable link between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks showed that Congress was persuaded "by means of fraud" when it voted to authorize the war..............

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...8779%2C00.html

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,013
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default



    Can't wait to see the outcome of this one!

    Amazing the excuses one will use to hide it's cowardice ways. Very simply he could of complied, and then made the charges of it being illegal.

    Ok, blast of with the million ways the war is illegal, and perhaps by the end of the thread we can figure out why Bolton is the worst.....

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,815
    Thanks
    1,515
    Thanked 691 Times in 465 Posts
    Groans
    138
    Groaned 71 Times in 64 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I'll agree with SE on this. Bottom line, this guy should NEVER have enlisted.

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,013
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Runyon View Post
    I'll agree with SE on this. Bottom line, this guy should NEVER have enlisted.
    Good thing ya said so, I forgot ol' cyphilis added me to his ignore list! Just one of the fans I've made thus far.....

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,815
    Thanks
    1,515
    Thanked 691 Times in 465 Posts
    Groans
    138
    Groaned 71 Times in 64 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Evil View Post
    Good thing ya said so, I forgot ol' cyphilis added me to his ignore list! Just one of the fans I've made thus far.....
    LOL, then I'm sure to have made it. I'm way less tolerant of aholes than ¥øu! Not sure if the props go to me or you?

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,013
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Runyon View Post
    LOL, then I'm sure to have made it. I'm way less tolerant of aholes than ¥øu! Not sure if the props go to me or you?
    Well kinda hard to ignore me once I'm quoted ya know!......

    Nonetheless shall be an entertaining thread for sure..

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,788
    Thanks
    35,476
    Thanked 50,287 Times in 27,095 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Runyon View Post
    I'll agree with SE on this. Bottom line, this guy should NEVER have enlisted.
    But, that's not the issue the court will look at. Its irrelevant.

    Its an interesting legal question. He'll lose, for sure. But, numerous international law experts, including bush's own top advisor Richard Perle, say the Iraq war was illegal under international law (and therfore, by extention, the US Constitution).

  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,013
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Don't matter what a million people say about it's legality, bottom line is it happened and ain't nobody gonna make an issue in the courts about it.
    What makes it illegal anyway, UN standards?

    Ok Runyon, wanna quote me so my point gets across?....

  9. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    85,117
    Thanks
    2,507
    Thanked 16,531 Times in 10,535 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 578 Times in 535 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Evil View Post
    Don't matter what a million people say about it's legality, bottom line is it happened and ain't nobody gonna make an issue in the courts about it.
    What makes it illegal anyway, UN standards?

    Ok Runyon, wanna quote me so my point gets across?....
    The Constitution is clear on this. If a treaty is properly ratified by 2/3 of the Senate (as these were) it "becomes the law of the land"...

    Basically it is part of the Constitution. As all States are required to follow it according to the Constitution...
    Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but rather we have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
    - -- Aristotle

    Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.
    - -- The Buddha

    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    - -- Aristotle

  10. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,788
    Thanks
    35,476
    Thanked 50,287 Times in 27,095 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
    The Constitution is clear on this. If a treaty is properly ratified by 2/3 of the Senate (as these were) it "becomes the law of the land"...

    Basically it is part of the Constitution. As all States are required to follow it according to the Constitution...
    Correct.
    Article VI, I believe.

    All treaties ratified by the senate, become the law of the land.

Similar Threads

  1. The Rezko corruption trial
    By evince in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-24-2008, 03:06 PM
  2. It must be the trial lawyers fault!
    By uscitizen in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-09-2008, 10:17 AM
  3. Trial lawyers rejoice...
    By Cancel 2016.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-22-2007, 04:40 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-05-2006, 01:53 PM
  5. Andrea Yates Trial
    By Brent in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-27-2006, 01:51 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •