Banned
Gunny says 2. I took the 20 from Mr P cause I haven't a clue about the sentence if he's convicted and didn't realize he was engaging in wishful thinking.Originally Posted by dmp
One, you're presuming it was lawful. Two, if he can prove it isn't a lawful order, you really need to ask how that would save lives?Care to explain how him being allowed to refuse a lawful order would save lives?
The Ghin Tzu Master
No, you still have the same rights as others, albeit they are regulated differently. Example: HE was free to join an antiwar protest provided he did not do so as a soldier. IE HE cannot wear his Alphas to the protest, or make antiwar speeches critical of the President. But, I submit that those who sacrifice a portion of thier freedom to defend yours are in measureable fact better than those who don't or didn't.
Yes, if you receive an unlawful order then you are obligated to not obey it. You are obligated to take steps to correct it. However AS I mentioned above the orders are presumed lawful. If you disobey due to a belief otherwize, you must prove the case.
The folks we are discussing are accustomed to having to obey orders from CIC's who are not worthy. Take Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter as an example. Your assertion that President Bush is "dedicated to neither" is something you will have to prove. Have fun.
You never did mention where you are from. If I understand your country of origin/residence perhaps I can better educate you.
I'm Phil -- 40 something heterosexual white male, fairly self sufficient, great with my kids, wed 29 years to the same woman, and I firmly believe that ones actions have logical consequences. How much more out the box can you get nowadays? -- MSgt of Marines (ret)
Just Me
Actually, Gunny says five. Two of the articles are two years sentences each, and Article 133 , conduct unbecoming, has a 1 year sentence.
I took all the max punishments and articles from a UCMJ website.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punit...cles/a/mcm.htm
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke
Senior Member
The article says 4. 2 years for Missing the movement, 1 year each for conduct-unbecoming.
Of course it was lawful. Do you know what defines an unlawful order?One, you're presuming it was lawful. Two, if he can prove it isn't a lawful order, you really need to ask how that would save lives?
"Hey Lt Watada, you and your entire unit will move from Fort Lewis, WA, to a staging area in Kuwait".
THAT was the order, paraphrased. I doubt the Prosecution would have trouble finding REASONABLE people who cannot see anything unlawful about that.
IF it's found the order to move from one station to another location is ruled Unlawful, the military will be disbanded. I suppose that'd save specific lives - but it'd mean DEATH to our society as we know it.
“… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.
Seasoned Citizen
Yes you do follow an orders, your feeling in your heart isn't relevant, unless the order is illegel..This order was 100% legel.
His gain was not to do with his stance, it was due to his enlistment commitment. I believe he was college ROTC. Tuition paid, 4 year degree. With a contract he serve 'x' years. I may be wrong, dmp could say for sure.
UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION
Above the Best
Why the Hell should I have to press “1” for ENGLISH?
Senior Member
That's an AWESOME line...Mind if I borrow it for a sig?
“… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.
Just Me
I completely agree. If one refuses to carry out an unlawful order, one better be able to prove it unlawful.
Being declared unlawful by anti-war protestors isn't going to get it.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke
Banned
Sends a message that when you expect people to go to war on your behalf you better be 100% sure they are going for the right reasons. Not 95%, not 98%, not 99.9%. 100%. Nothing less. IMO, it was 50% at best in the case of Iraq. Again, I have to reiterate - because nimrods always bring up the Monday-morning quarterbacking crap - nothing, I repeat NOTHING that has happened before, during or after the invasion is any surprise to me; the lack of WMDs, the different factions fighting; being a lightening rod for every muslim fundie nutter who hates the west and in particular the US;
And my biggest prediction of all - again said pre invasion - the civil war that WILL follow when the US pulls out..
Will answer other posts later. Have to go out for dinner...cheers
Last edited by Grumplestillskin; 02-06-2007 at 03:22 AM.
Just Me
If you have a request for the MSgt, the Gunny entertains such notions at 1400 on Friday afternoon. (The MSgt's tee-time is 1330.)That's an AWESOME line...Mind if I borrow it for a sig?
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke
The Ghin Tzu Master
Feel free but it aint cheap.That's an AWESOME line...Mind if I borrow it for a sig?
I get the credit, You buy the pizza and beer, and you gotta check out my blog because, well, because....... if you like that line, you'll love the latest entry.
Go for it dude.
I'm Phil -- 40 something heterosexual white male, fairly self sufficient, great with my kids, wed 29 years to the same woman, and I firmly believe that ones actions have logical consequences. How much more out the box can you get nowadays? -- MSgt of Marines (ret)
Senior Member
Why would he not presume the order was and is lawful? Why would you or anyone else presume the order was/is unlawful?
Are we to assume that unpopular orders are necessarily unlawful?
Banned
I make no such assumption. I only said he had the courage of his conviction and is prepared to be punished if he's wrong. I think I also said that I expected him to be convicted.
The Ghin Tzu Master
Jillian, I am not trying to tick you off, but all orders are legally presumed to be lawful unless proven otherwise. Your reference for that is the Manual for Courts Martial. The civilian counterpart is that all defendents are presumed to be sane and of sound mind.
Those are the only times I know of when the burden of proof is shared by the prosecution and the defense.
Meaning. The prosecution must only prove that he did as a point of fact disobey a (presumed) lawful movement order. And, the defense is under the burden to prove the order wasn't lawful. Very thin line, and very hard to prove.
I'm Phil -- 40 something heterosexual white male, fairly self sufficient, great with my kids, wed 29 years to the same woman, and I firmly believe that ones actions have logical consequences. How much more out the box can you get nowadays? -- MSgt of Marines (ret)
Senior Member
The "right" reason for war will never be determined and 100% percent of people will never support it. In the mean time you're actually HOPING enlistment drops which will leave us with our pants down. This is the kind of logic that scares the crap out of people when libs run the defense of our country.--Laterz !!!!!
Senior Member
Yes, I understood what you said. I was rather taken by your statement "One, you're presuming it was lawful." which implied (to me at least) that it should NOT be presumed lawful...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote