Why I No Longer Support the Troops - Explained

[Jester_11218]

http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=140

Our military is now in the hands of enemies domestic and they are doing nothing to fight this enemy. As a matter of fact they are not even willing to examine the question of whether or not enemies domestic exist. That in itself is clear evidence that our military is not protecting us and has betrayed us by refusing to act as a sentinel and guard us from enemies domestic. They are ignoring their sworn duty and they are betraying us by this inaction.

MUCH More here:
http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=140

[Texasgal]

1. OH WONDERFUL.

Not this shit again....

[RandomKoolzip]

2. Who's got the popcorn?

This should be amusing. :popcorn:

[Maddy McCall]

3. What are they supposed to do? Exactly what do you expect them to do?

Please elaborate.

I can't WAIT to read your response.

[Jester_11218]

6. It's in their oath

They are supposed to protect this nation. They are supposed to protect our Constitution. When you have leaders who are assaulting the Constitution they are attacking out nation. Who is supposed to protect us from this?

There are provisions in our laws and in our military laws that permit them to take action. They have the obligation to act when our Constitution is endangered.

What should they do...their job.
I am tired of watching them cheer the man who is destroying this nation and sending them to their death.

If they do not do their job and protect us, who will?

[Maddy McCall]

7. Too vague...give me the specifics.

Which "provisions in our laws and in our military laws?"

What "actions" are they supposed to take?

[Maddy McCall]

14. And I'm still waiting...............

[Jester_11218]

16. Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4956414#4956542

[MildyRules]

18. That doesn't say ANYTHING

What actions are you talking about?

[MildyRules]

10. You post that...

"There are provisions in our laws and in our military laws that permit them to take action"

What are they? List them.

[Tyler Durden]

31. Try these:

From "The Crisis Papers (they already put them together for me):

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

The United States Constitution makes treaties that are signed by the government equivalent to the "law of the land" itself, Article VI, para. 2. Among the international laws and treaties that a U.S. pre-emptive attack on Iraq may violate are:


· The Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 1899, which was reaffirmed by the U.S. at the 1946 Nuremberg International Military Tribunals;

· Resolution on the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons and Prevention of Nuclear War, adopted UN General Assembly, Dec 12, 1980;

· Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; December 9, 1948, Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the UN General Assembly;

· Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Adopted on August 12, 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War;

· Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 1108 U.N.T.S. 151, Oct. 5, 1978; · The Charter of the United Nations;

· The Nuremberg Principles, which define as a crime against peace, "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for accomplishment of any of the forgoing." (For many of these treaties and others, see the Yale Avalon project. Also see a letter to Canadian soldiers sent by Hamilton Action for Social Change). at )

As Hamilton Action for Social Change has noted "Under the Nuremberg Principles, you have an obligation NOT to follow the orders of leaders who are preparing crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. We are all bound by what U.S. Chief Prosecutor Robert K. Jackson declared in 1948: he very essence of the Charter is that individuals have intentional duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state." At the Tokyo War Crimes trial, it was further declared "nyone with knowledge of illegal activity and an opportunity to do something about it is a potential criminal under international law unless the person takes affirmative measures to prevent commission of the crimes."

[soleft]

4. Check your in box.

[mattclearing]

5. God, another "not supporting the troops" post?

I don't even support the military, but how many times are we going to open this can of flamebait?

[Jester_11218]

9. I was not aware

I did not realize that this was discussed before...but I think you should read the blog...it is quite detailed as far as an explanation goes.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. This doesn't even sound like a anti-support-the-troops post.

It sounds more like an advocating-military-overthrow-of-civilian-government post, which is a weird thing to see on DU.

[Maddy McCall]

13. No shit.

It's kind of funny. In a weird sort of way.

[bryant69]

8. What's funny

Is the original poster probably feels like he or she has done something trangressive - like he or she is taking a stand. Presumably hasn't considered how tedious these kinds of posts have become to many of us, because they appear so regularly.

I do support the troops incidenty, in the sense that I wish them well, and I feel sorry for them being put in harms way by that idiot Bush.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Jester_11218]

12. I did not know

I did not know that they appear regularly. I do think that the entire blog entery makes a clear statement and regardless of how many times this is discussed it needs to be said. It needs to be discussed more and in more venues.

I am tired of hiding behind a false flag and I am tired of false patriots who have no idea what patriotism is.

We need to face the facts. There are provisions in our laws that allow for action to be taken against enemies.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. You ARE joking, right? n/t

[Jester_11218]

19. Not in the least

We are living under a coup. We are not living in America anymore. We have been occupied. We are losing our freedoms and America is being transformed into a fascist state.

I am not joking. We are in seroius trouble.

Sorry to rile everone but this is serious and it goes beyond politics.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. This is ridiculous.

This is simultaneously the worst argument I've ever heard for not supporting the troops, and the worst suggestion I've ever heard for what should be done about Bush. Your solution is the very antithesis of democracy.

[Texasgal]

20. Have you been to the "rules" area yet?

You may want to take a visit there.

You are breaking the rules, dude. :eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating violent overthrow of the government of the United States.

Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating violence or military defeat against the United States, the U.S. military, US service people, or the people of the United States.

Do not post broad-brush smears against US service people. Do not blame the troops for the mistakes of their officers or their Commander-in-Chief. Show the appropriate level of respect to those individuals who have put their own lives on the line to defend this country.

Do not post unpublished information on troop movements, military maneuvers, or any other information which may compromise US national security.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MildyRules]

25. And where is that "job"

spelled out?

[Texasgal]

28. You are BREAKING the rules....

PERIOD.

This thread is getting ready to go *poof*. But before it does, you must KNOW that we do not tolerate this kind of crap. That's why the RULES are there.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. From your post #15

"They should sieze control" - that is advocating the violent overthrow of the US government (violent, because you're asking the military to do it - if you were advocating a non-violent method, you wouldn't need the military).

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

32. Who knows...

Maybe he's suggesting that the troops organise a teach-in.

[Tyler Durden]

21. They have a legal duty and legal grounds to disobey:

http://www.crisispapers.org/texts/UCMJ.htm

Obeying Unlawful Orders was technically what Oliver North was pardoned for.

I swore an oath to protect the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic when I joined the Navy, but the Uniform Code of Military Justice states in black and white that if I obeyed an UNLAWFUL order, I was as guilty as the officer who issued it.

As the protectors of our Constitution, the Military has the Right and RESPONSIBILITY to respectfully REFUSE to obey UNLAWFUL ORDERS, and bears responsibility if they choose to OBEY UNLAWFUL ORDERS.

This is either the true route the Military must follow, or the Nuremburg Trials were conducted in vain, and "I WAS JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS" will once again be uttered in the halls of International Justice.

[MildyRules]

24. While true,

This has nothing to do with the OP's post.

[applegrove]

23. Well - you are blaming the sheep. That is big of you.

[Jester_11218]

27. I changed it...to MILITARY . Not TROOPS

You have a point...I no longer support the Military...Is that better...the troops asaide.

[spindoctor]

30. "Ours is not to wonder why..."

This military credo has held up through the ages.

Things will have to get a lot worse for an army to rebel.

Anyway, the whole dualistic issue that you either support the troops or you don't is so simplistically stupid that it makes you wonder why it is so firmly rooted in our society.

But as I like to say: It takes a lot of grey matter to create a grey area.

[maddezmom]

33. locking

Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating violent overthrow of the government of the United States.