Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-22-2010, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,659,457 times
Reputation: 7485

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
The UCMJ deals an individual facing the consequences of their action.. It does not state that those in the military have to follow orders which they perceive to be illegal.

To Obey or Not to Obey

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

Probably the most famous case of the "I was only following orders" defense was the court-martial (and conviction for premeditated murder) of First Lieutenant William Calley for his part in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968. The military court rejected Calley's argument of obeying the order of his superiors.
Smack your little forehead all you want. My question is what unlawful order has Obama given that would fall under the catagory of Lt. Calley or Hitler's minions? The military may not agree with his decisions regarding the prosecution of the war but his strategy is not unlawful. Hell, I don't agree with Obama's prosecution of the war but I don't think it's illegal.
You diminish your own standing in this debate by turning everything into an Obama Roast at the drop of a hat. Your posts are becomeing boringly predictable and add nothing to the actual debate. JMHO
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-22-2010, 01:22 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,189,572 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Ridiculous.

Don't blame the General, blame OBAMA.

Obama has allowed the civilian leadership to undermine the military leadership.



This Eikenberry sounds like a divisive, know nothing suit.

This author wrote about the divisions between the military/civilian leadership a month ago, but of course the Left and the MSM have lost interest in this war.
Leave it to Sanrene to side with a former Taliban member and corrupt puppet leader working against the United States like Karzai just to slam Obama.

Maybe we can hope for Bin Laden to come out and make a speech on how lousy of a job Obama is doing so we can see a thread on the wisdom and greatness of Osama Bin Laden.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2010, 01:26 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,090,553 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
Smack your little forehead all you want. My question is what unlawful order has Obama given that would fall under the catagory of Lt. Calley or Hitler's minions?
I never claimed there was an unlawful order.. HAVE I?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
The military may not agree with his decisions regarding the prosecution of the war but his strategy is not unlawful.
Never claimed it was.. DID I? I claimed he'd have to answer for his actions, and the COURTS which govern people in the position would have to determine if he's justified..
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
Hell, I don't agree with Obama's prosecution of the war but I don't think it's illegal.
You diminish your own standing in this debate by turning everything into an Obama Roast at the drop of a hat. Your posts are becomeing boringly predictable and add nothing to the actual debate. JMHO
Its your postings which have become boring, attacking people for stating a FACT, and then accuse them of attacking the president, when they DIDNT.. Seriously.. you think posting the OATH is an attack against the president.. Get real!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2010, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,169 posts, read 24,323,601 times
Reputation: 15291
The whole Afghan adventure is a disaster: a sort of Vietnam redux. Short of having Karzai bumped off (a la Diem in Vietnam), the US is stuck to a corrupt and useless tarbaby.

Get out now. Retire McChrystal now. Retire Obama in 2012.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2010, 01:27 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,090,553 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
Leave it to Sanrene to side with a former Taliban member and corrupt puppet leader working against the United States like Karzai just to slam Obama.

Maybe we can hope for Bin Laden to come out and make a speech on how lousy of a job Obama is doing so we can see a thread on the wisdom and greatness of Osama Bin Laden.
sanrene said nothing to side with the Taliban..

You should be ashamed at your attack and ridiculing of another poster based upon made up accusations..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2010, 01:37 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,036,965 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post


This Eikenberry sounds like a divisive, know nothing suit.

Am I to now believe that Karzai is a reliable and trustworthy partner because clearly if Eikenberry is a know nothing suit? Because that could be the only conclusion one can draw from your comments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2010, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Upstate
9,495 posts, read 9,809,471 times
Reputation: 8883
I'm just wondering with all of the "butt" kicking going on in the WH recently, will Obama have enough testosterone left to take on the General?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2010, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,073,168 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
The constitution gives the president the power to command the generals, but the generals have an obligation if they believe the President is violating the constitution to say they wont do it.
So let me get this right.... your assertion here is that Generals should defend the Constitution by violating the Constitution? You have not a twinge of concern that you have just posed an oxymoron?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
They have to face the consequences of their actions for failure to follow orders, but following orders does not absolve one of violating the laws even if the orders come from the President.
Yes... all service members have an obligation to not follow unlawful orders. Please point out exactly what orders McCrystal might have received that are unlawful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Look at those who tried to use the defense that Hitler commanded them.. That defense was not valid.. (and no, I'm not stating Obama is Hitler, some of you left wing kooks will of course will accuse me of stating this, its an example)..
Who is in an analogous position here? Exactly?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2010, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Charlotte
12,642 posts, read 15,595,280 times
Reputation: 1680
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
I never claimed there was an unlawful order.. HAVE I?

You implied it - more than once.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2010, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,073,168 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Obama has allowed the civilian leadership to undermine the military leadership.
The civilian leadership is the military leadership. Please familiarize yourself with the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top