ThinkFast: February 8, 2007
ThinkFast: February 8, 2007
NBC newsman Tim Russert testified yesterday that it was “impossible” that he told Libby about Valerie Plame because he did not know about the CIA agent at the time of his conversation with Libby. He added that Libby had called to complain about NBC’s coverage of the Plame affair: “What the hell is going on with ‘Hardball’?” Russert quoted Libby as having asked him.
U.S. military officials reported that a helicopter operated by a private security firm came down in Iraq last week, marking the sixth downing of a helicopter in three weeks. “American officials say the streak strongly suggests that insurgents have adapted their tactics and are now putting more effort into shooting down the aircraft.”
Many State Department employees “have outright refused repeated requests that they go to Iraq, while others have demanded that they be assigned only to Baghdad and not be sent outside the more secure Green Zone.” The employees who do sign up for Iraq duty have “tended to be younger, more entry-level types, and not experienced, seasoned diplomats.”
The bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom yesterday warned “that the Bush administration, in its zeal to secure the nation’s borders and stem the tide of illegal immigrants, may be leaving asylum seekers vulnerable to deportation and harsh treatment.”
President Bush has proposed a significant jump in funding — 31 percent — “for an anti-drug advertising campaign that government-funded research shows is at best useless and at worst has increased drug use among some teens.” The program is Rep. Dennis Hastert’s (R-IL) “baby,” said Bill Piper, national affairs director for the Drug Policy Alliance.
“President Bush’s proposed war budget includes many high-cost weapons that won’t be operational for years, using a funding request aimed at supporting the troops to seek money for some of the Pentagon’s favorite projects.”
Seven Senate conservatives, five of whom voted to protect President Bush and block debate on Iraq earlier this week, “changed course yesterday and vowed to use every tactic at their disposal to ensure a full and open debate” on Iraq. “The current stalemate is unacceptable to us and to the people of this country,” they wrote in a letter to Senate leaders.
Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA), under federal investigation over several land sales he made, lashed out at media publications who he claimed “have an agenda” in pursuing the story. Miller is accused of having lied about a land deal and sheltering $10 million in profits from capital gains taxes. Ex-aides have alleged that he abused his power.
And finally: Kennedy and Boehner knock ‘em dead at Congressional Correspondents Dinner. “Kennedy said he recently visited Boehner when he was on the House side and noticed that the Ohio legislator was working on a jigsaw puzzle. Six months later, Kennedy stopped by Boehner’s office again — and Boehner was still working on putting the puzzle together. ‘John, that’s a long time to be working on a puzzle,’ Kennedy said. ‘No, it’s not,’ Boehner supposedly replied. ‘Right here on the side of the box it says three to five years.’” Ba-Dum-Bum.
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Seven Senate conservatives, five of whom voted to protect President Bush and block debate on Iraq earlier this week, “changed course yesterday and vowed to use every tactic at their disposal to ensure a full and open debate†on Iraq. “The current stalemate is unacceptable to us and to the people of this country,†they wrote in a letter to Senate leaders.
Sure they did. I’ll wait until they actually vote their convictions to thank them.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:07 amworking on a puzzle huh? What is puzzling is that his constituents probably think that is a-okay. Putting a puzzle together on your dime. Wow.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:07 am“If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us; if we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us.†GWB, 2000
February 8th, 2007 at 9:12 amThis pretty much sums up why this administration sucks…arrogance, machoism, greed & just not very smart.
When corporate citizenship supercedes individual citizenship we are on a path to fascism. Is this what Americans want? NO. In fact, I can give you 12 Billion reasons why this doesn’t work. Watch closely as congress attempts to uncover fraud, theft and abuse by contractors in Iraq. They’ll squeal like pigs, run for cover, blame others but NEVER TELL THE TRUTH.
So that’s what Dennis Hasturd had stuffed up his… crack…
February 8th, 2007 at 9:12 am“President Bush’s proposed war budget includes many high-cost weapons that won’t be operational for years, using a funding request aimed at supporting the troops to seek money for some of the Pentagon’s favorite projects.â€
And the hits just keep on coming.
It looks like Chimpy and Co. is planning for the long term…all these weapons will be necessary in the U.S. global hegemony of the New World Order.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:13 amGee, so the State Department is having problems getting its own employees to go to Baghdad to work? Wonder why? Frankly, I don’t blame those State Department employees — I sure as hell wouldn’t want to go to Iraq. In fact, I suggest that all those talking heads who think it’s such a great idea for other people to go there go there themselves and open up branch offices outside the Green Zone.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:20 amHey, TP:
Couldn’t help but notice that you still haven’t mentioned the Army court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, which ended in a mistrial yesterday.
Isn’t the court-martial of the only officer with the Chupzta to refuse to be deployed in this illegal and immoral war of imperialist aggression worthy of mention on such a purportedly ‘progressive’ blog?
February 8th, 2007 at 9:31 amThe folks in the National Guard believed that they would be assigned to duties helping in the US, but they don’t get to say no to Iraq duty. Why should the State Dept which does included service outside the US let their employees say no. Afterall they can resign if they don’t want to go, not so the folks in the Guard.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:31 amScootie’s not having a good morning.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:41 amHis Uncle Dick is no doubt experiencing some . . indigestion as well.
#7 Agreed!!! Ive been following. the fact that there was a mistrial… woah. what happens next with this?
February 8th, 2007 at 9:46 amMeanwhile 115 Americans have been blown up or shot to death, while Republicans continue to debate on whether or not to allow a debate on Bush’s War.
So far, protecting Bush from embarassment has cost the lives of 115 Americans.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:47 am“President Bush’s proposed war budget includes many high-cost weapons that won’t be operational for years, using a funding request aimed at supporting the troops to seek money for some of the Pentagon’s favorite projects.â€
Focus……focus….no playing with toys until you clean up your current clusterf*ck.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:54 am#7 Tripmaster re: Watada
thanks for the link, hope it continues to get publicity
February 8th, 2007 at 9:54 amRep. Gary Miller (R-CA), under federal investigation over several land sales he made, lashed out at media publications who he claimed “have an agenda†in pursuing the story. Miller is accused of having lied about a land deal and sheltered $10 million in profits from capital gains taxes. Ex-aides have alleged that he abused his power.
On the agenda today — expose and rid ourselves of the corrupt, overbearing and whiny Rep Gary Miller (R-CA).
February 8th, 2007 at 9:55 amOne of the most vociferous critics of the Iraq War, Lt. Ehren Watada, has had his case end in a mistrial in Fort Lewis, Wa. yesterday. Yet for some mysterious reason, Think Progress, considered one of the most liberal blogs on the internet, has not, as far as I can determine, devoted any posts to the stand that this courageous individual and soldier has taken on the war/occupation in Iraq. Why is Think Progress seemingly going out of its way to avoid mentioning Lt. Watada, a person whom liberals should be embracing for the incredibly brave and correct position that he has taken, which is to refuse deployment to Iraq, because he recognizes, correctly I believe, that the war/occupation in Iraq is illegal and immoral because it violates Article Six of the U.S. Constitution and the Nuremberg Principles?
February 8th, 2007 at 9:56 amsee if anyone knows anything about this riddle:
“American officials say the streak strongly suggests that insurgents have adapted their tactics”
didn’t dubya mention giving saudi arabia new missiles in his SOTU speech? or some talk recently…
could these be connected to the recent downings… hmmmmm…
February 8th, 2007 at 9:57 amhil sez:
Unclear. If this was a purely civilian matter, Watada would be protected under double-jeopardy rules, but this being a military matter, it’s not so clear. Certainly, Watada’s attorney thinks so, and intends to fight a retrial.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:58 amErroll, see my post #7.
I agree, why is TP so silent on this issue?
February 8th, 2007 at 9:59 amTripMaster Monkey at # 7
Somehow I missed seeing your comment. Extremely well said. Sometimes I would feel as if I am the only one who is supporting Lt. Watada on the internet. I can acknowledge, thankfully, that I am wrong in my belief.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:00 amComment by hil
A new trial is tentativly scheduled for mid-March.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:00 amUnclear. If this was a purely civilian matter, Watada would be protected under double-jeopardy rules, but this being a military matter, it’s not so clear. Certainly, Watada’s attorney thinks so, and intends to fight a retrial.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Sorry Trip, this is not a double jeopardy issue, even in a civilian court. This is a mistrial, which means somebody made a goof so massive that the trial had to be thrown out — no conviction, no acquittal. It’s a do over, not a do again.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:05 amPresident Bush has proposed a significant jump in funding — 31 percent — “for an anti-drug advertising campaign that government-funded research shows is at best useless and at worst has increased drug use among some teens.â€
War on Terror, War on Drugs…Bush just loves to fight those nebulous and vague wars that are unwinnable.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:08 amComment by Erroll
As you have been an ardent supporter of Lt Watada, I would like to ask you a question.
If the LT is intelligent enought to interpret International Law, and Constitutional Law, as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, how could he not know that he was, in essence signing a confession?
February 8th, 2007 at 10:10 amhow could he not know that he was, in essence signing a confession?
Comment by hacker bob
Well maybe since the case was deemed a mistrial by the judge, the action of signing that confession with his stated belief that the war was illegal worked for them wouldn’t you think? Seems pretty intelligent to me.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:16 amZeal? At securing the borders? Wait in line folks. Until Halliburton needs imigre engineers to be given special treatment thru INS, immigration with this administration, is looked at like pavin roads. Well get to it when we get there and if somebody wants it fixed, let them fix it.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:24 amI take back what I said in #21 — since I hadn’t read the link yet. It’s so interesting that the prosecution let the trial get out of hand like that. The defense has objected, so this very well could be the beginning of the end for this case.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:25 amZooey sez:
Actually, not according to some law professors. From the article I linked:
Of course, we all know how much influence the Constitution has on this rogue administration these days. If our own Attorney General can sit there and say with a straight face that the right of habeas corpus is not granted in our Constitution, then all bets are truly off.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:26 amI am not saying the LT is not intelligent. I am thinking that he signed the “statement” (that we willingly was refusing to deploy with his unit) which is equal a confession. Now that he has done that, he and his lawyer realize it can kill their case and are doing the “but he didn’t know it was a confession” game.
In any instance where you are accused of wrong doing and you have to sign any document, you are advised of your Article 31 rights, which are basically the same as the Miranda rights. He KNEW his statements could be used against him. I think the judge is just trying to make that a lesser issue since they are not allowing the debate on the legality of the war.
Also remember, they can throw this entire thing out, but they have other things they can charge him with. I have not seen the charges of “Inciting Mutiny” or “Contempt of Officials” yet.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:26 amhacker bob sez:
bob, I explained this to you last time you raised this question. I’ll repost my earlier comment:
Lt. Watada isn’t disputing that he refused follow orders to deploy. He’s disputing the legality of those orders. Therefore, he is correct when he maintains that the agreement he signed is not a ‘confession’.
The court-martial was doomed to be a mistrial anyway, with military judge Lt. Col. John Head refusing to allow almost all defense witnesses to take the stand, and ruling that Watada’s attorney, Eric Seitz, could not debate the legality of the Iraq war in court. The legality or illegality of the war is at the very heart of this case…the reason Lt. Watada refused to deploy in the first place. Disallowing any debate regarding the legality of the war completely obviates the point of having a trial.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:27 amCheney sent Ledeen to meet with Ambassador Mel Sembler in Italy to plant the forged Niger document.
COINCIDENTALLY…
Mel sembler heads up Scooter Libby’s Legal defense fund
AND
Despite the fact he’s a lifelong Republican, Sembler held a fundraiser for Lieberman in Palm Beach – in coordination with Rove and the WH.
Connect ALL the dots…
Lieberman is now assigned the task of protecting Chertoff.
How does McCain factor in?
A New Jersey-based investment banker deeply involved in fund-raising efforts for the 2004 Republican convention, Lewis Eisenberg, is signing on with Mr. McCain. Mr. Eisenberg is a former Goldman Sachs partner who served as chairman of the Port Authority board at the time of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
WHAT A COINCIDENCE!
It was Eisenberg who passed the $15 billion Asbestos Liability represented by the Twin Towers onto Larry Silverstein, the man who confessed publicly to having Building 7 “PULLED” by explosives – despite the fact that no plane struck it:
Pull the entire thread and don’t stop pulling.
The Asbestos liability belonged to Halliburton, having acquired it along with his acquisition of Dresser.
GW included the issue in his State of the Union speech in 2005:
“To make our economy stronger and more competitive, America must reward, not punish, the efforts and dreams of entrepreneurs. Small business is the path of advancement, especially for women and minorities, so we must free small businesses from needless regulation and protect honest job-creators from junk lawsuits. (Applause.) Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back by irresponsible class-actions and frivolous asbestos claims — and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year.”
FULL CIRCLE.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:31 am#27 – Thanks Trip, I realized my boo boo and snatched it back in #26. :)
February 8th, 2007 at 10:32 amComment by TripMaster Monkey
You brig up a good point about double jeopardy (one I was wondering myself)
I work down the hall from our Staff Judge Advocate. I will ask how DJ would apply in this case and let you know what I find out. Remember, this is not Civilian Law, it is Military Law, Somethings are a little different.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:34 am#23
As Lt.Watada’s attorney has pointed out, the judge in the case did not make this assertion regarding the stipulation last week. Nor did he have a problem with it when he went over it line by line with both sides during the trial. Now, all of a sudden, the judge somehow believes the stipulation to be invalid. What opponents of the lieutenant often wish to overlook is why is it that if the prosecution is so sure of its case, they and the judge are not allowing Watada’s defense team to present its defense, which is that the war/occupation is illegal and immoral? What is also overlooked is that lieutenant Watada himself is unhappy with the ruling because, as one of the local papers has reported, he wished to testify in his own behalf.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:35 amIf Bush is the Commander In Chief, does military law apply to his decisions or civilian law where military decisions are concerned?
What about the Vice Commander In Chief?
February 8th, 2007 at 10:36 amRe the Watada case guys!
Truth out has been covering the case extensively and they have an exlcusive interview with Watada.
worth taking a listen
February 8th, 2007 at 10:39 amhttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020607watada.shtml
the link didnt work the first time! sorry!
February 8th, 2007 at 10:44 amComment by ace
Unfortunately the UCMJ does not cover the Pres or the VP. If they did, then Clinton would have been charged with adultry under the UCMJ.(just using it as an example)
I personally think it is BS that the UCMJ does not apply to them.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:44 am#19 Errol
Democracy Now! has been following the Watada story, they’ve done at least one interview, and they’re are posted online.
i know its old news but here is the interview (pre trial)
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/30/1515241&mode=thread&tid=25
i’d be curious to know if Hacker Bob supports Watada (be careful what you write while wearing your uniform!)
where’s juan?
February 8th, 2007 at 10:47 amBush proposed a jump in funding for Hastert’s anti-drug campaign? Is this not the same Dennis Hastert that is under investigation for conflict of interest on a multi-million dollar real estate deal in his home state? Shouldn’t Congress be working on putting this insect under the microscope? Surely, there is plenty of dirt to dig up and spread around.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:48 amComment by karlX
My views are pretty well know, but I will say honestly, no, I do not support LT Watada.
The Lt joined the Army at a time when two “wars” were being fought. When he did that, he gave up his right to pick and choose when/where he deploys to. It is a pretty simple situation. If you do not want to go to Iraq, don’t join the military. Especially not the Army or Marine Corps.
Had he not joined while we were already involved, I may have different feelings.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:00 amLibby continues to perjure himself, over and over. So, when might we expect the new season to come out on DVD? If O.J. Simpson can get away with murder, I guess that it’s not too much to consider that a pasty-faced, yellow-bellied white “man” can do the same. Shit walks and money talks.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:00 amwhere’s juan?
Comment by karlX
Right here, my roman fan friend.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:06 amBTW, sometimes trolls come here and say that libs are lefties…could you please explain us how the left is in Europe as in comparison with the “left” in the US?
juan
that’s a big topic; yeah americas live in a bubble.
i’m worried Evil Spaniard will take me task on this, he is very well informed.
Where do you start, i hesitate to go back to the french revolution, where the “liberal” and consequently “fascist” traditions start (kind of).
Italy specifically, after WWII, had a very strong communist/socialist coalition (the “partigiani” – italian communists led the italian resistance throughout the war). When the Americans invaded Italy and began pushing the Germans Northward and out of Italy they more or less fought side by side with the “partigiani”. But the Americans feared socialists taking power in Italy, so they basicaly installed the former Fascists and Mafia elements under the Demo-Christiano party. taly hadthe largest ommunist party in W. Europe for years. For 50 years the CIA and Demo-Christiano party waged unoffical war on the left. In the 80s the Demo Christiano part fell after its big name leaders were prosecuted for coruption and connections to the mafia. A really good book on this is called “The smell of Money” (don’t remember the author). Boy, I’m getting long winded.
Here is an example of the difference between the Italian left and the AMerican left (or at least the Dems.):
in the lead up to the War in Iraq there was a huge protest in ROme in conjuction with other cities around the world (as you remember), all of the major left wing politicians either took part in the march or made sure to be seen waving to the crowds. I don’t know about here in the U.S. but I would be suprised if any “mainstream” dems were seen at those marches in Washington, NY, Seatle, SF, LA, etc
the italian left is made of a coaliton of parties, ranging from the communist party, green/rainbow, and “margharite” (sort of the equivalant of U.S. dems).
I gues the point is that, we know the Dem vs Rep. spectrum is right of center, Dems being right of center and Reps being far right.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:41 amI’d say in Europe that for the moment tends to be a little more balanced, communists and socialists are not minor nor are they shunned and feared like here. But, then again, Europe has its corporate military industrial complex elite (spanning left and right) as well, but they tend to be heavier on the corporate side and lighter on the military industrial stuff.
Unfortunately I can’t give specifics on legislation and current trends in European politics.
Oh, and for Stefan. The “socialist” health care in Italy is not perfect, but it’s universal and blows U.S. health care out of the water.
sorry, that’s off subject; anyhow; to push this blog to actually be progressive, busting out of the american spectrum bubble would be helpful, i dont know, perhaps an “internationalists” standpoint. i’m burning out here and gotta get to work.
cheers
k
NBC newsman Tim Russert testified yesterday that it was “impossible†that he told Libby about Valerie Plame because he did not know about the CIA agent at the time of his conversation with Libby. He added that Libby had called to complain about NBC’s coverage of the Plame affair: “What the hell is going on with ‘Hardball’?†Russert quoted Libby as having asked him.
I know Russert has allowed too many answers to interview questions to go unchallenged, but he’s not a bad guy. I don’t want to see Libula’s defense smear this guy. He’s alright.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:49 amHe added that Libby had called to complain about NBC’s coverage of the Plame affair: “What the hell is going on with ‘Hardball’?†Russert quoted Libby as having asked him.
Oh, this is great! I take back anything negative I ever said about Chris Matthews and Hardball.
As for Libby’s question, “What the hell is going on with Hardball?”, it’s pretty damned obvious. They were doing what they were supposed to do…questioning the actions of this administration.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:58 amps
February 8th, 2007 at 11:59 amjuan, one reason i try to do alot of reading from “Z”, it has an international dash, (not on the same magnitude) but it’s kind of “The Economist” for the dissenter/left/masses.
#40
When Watada joined the military he, like so many others, did so for what he believed were patriotic reasons after having been caught up in the emotional fervor of 9/11. Afterwards, he began to read and to research and to analyze the reasons why the U.S. [illegally] invaded and occupied Iraq and discovered that his government had lied to him and the rest of his country about Iraq. As you say, it is a pretty simple situation. Despite what you seem to believe, after one joins the military, it does not then follow that one’s brain should then automatically shut down.
After World War II, German officers and leaders were hanged at Nuremberg. The court did not buy their arguments that they were only following orders. The irony is that Lt. Watada said the same thing at the Veterans for Peace convention last summer in Seattle, when he told myself and other veterans that “I was only following orders” is never an excuse but yet is being prosecuted for what got German officers hanged at Nuremberg.
I would like to suggest that in order for you to get a better grasp of what the lieutenant is doing, that you get your hands on the incredibly moving documentary Sir! No Sir!, which focuses on the GI resistance that took place on GI coffeehouses near military bases at home and abroad during the Vietnam War. This documentary has served as an inspiration to the lieutenant for speaking out against another immoral and illegal war. As the UCMJ states, a soldier has not only a right but a duty and an obligation to speak out against what he or she considers to be an illegal order. You may also want to review the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 Section II Crimes Under International Law, which involve crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The lieutenant knows that there are war crimes being committed in Iraq. I spoke to him briefly last summer and he told me that he had spoken to an officer who had returned from Iraq and that he had seen war crimes being committed in Iraq but he knew that if he spoke out about that that the military would come down hard upon him.
Your belief that soldiers should blindly obey orders is simply astounding. Thankfully, the helicopter pilot who ordered Lt. Calley’s men to stop firing on women and children at the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War was able to see through that fallacy. I think it is also a good thing that the lieutenant does not subscribe, as you seem to do, to the lines in Tennyson’s poem” “Theirs not to reason why/ Theirs but to do and die”. Rather, Lt. Watada is an example of the closing lines in Bertolt Brecht’s poem General, Your Tank Is a Powerful Vehicle:
General, man is very useful.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:00 pmHe can fly and he can kill.
But he has one defect:
He can think.
hacker bob sez:
bob, what does the date at which Watada enlisted have to do with the legality or illegality of the Iraq invasion and occupation? Please explain.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:00 pmworking on a puzzle huh? What is puzzling is that his constituents probably think that is a-okay. Putting a puzzle together on your dime. Wow.
Comment by freebird9 — February 8, 2007 @ 9:07 am
Read it again. It was a joke at a dinner event.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:19 pmIraq Is Complete Failed State!
8th of February 2007
by Jay Randal
The Bush Regime occupation of Iraq has caused that nation to disintegrate into ethnic sectarian civil war!
Therefore Iraq has become a complete failed state, so is no longer a viable nation in present configuration!
This requires the partitioning of Iraq into 3 countries that can represent the 3 Islamic ethnic sects in Iraq!
A Kurdistan for the Kurds in the north, a Sunni-Iraq for that sect in central area, and a Shia-Iraq in south!
These 3 groups have become mortal enemies of each other and are not capable of living together any longer!
Their cultural religious differences are too great to be able to reconcile them, so they should live seperately!
The United Nations must draw up the borders for 3 new nations and guard the borders with UN soldiers!
The US must help fund relocation of the ethnic sects!
( Jay Randal, political activist and writer in Georgia, USA.)
PS: The Congress must do this and ignore the Bush Regime!
February 8th, 2007 at 12:30 pmBob – the stipulation of fact that Watada signed was/is not admissible in Court (military) as a confession – that is why the Judge threw the case out, after tearing the prosecutors a new one…..
The prosecution’s big obstacle in this case is the legality of the war, which they don’t want to argue (because they know the answer?)
If ordinary Officers are not to interpret the Constitution or other laws, why are they asked to swear an oath to uphold them? Kinda dumb, if we’re going to turn around and tell them the only way they can understand is to be told by superiors what those things mean…..
February 8th, 2007 at 12:38 pmYup Jay, when the kids can no longer play together nicely, they are to be separated.
I backed the partition idea since I first thought of it. I know the central oil reserves are none, but that seems like a smaller detail to work out than the ones we currently have.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:51 pmForTruth > Iraq was created by the British in 1920, by forcing 3 Ottoman Turk provinces to join together to create a nation. Saddam was able to hold the place together by being clever and ruthless. But Bush has caused Iraqis to become ethnic divided sects again, so best for them to live apart. As for the oil: Kurdistan would get half the Kirkuk oil fields region, Sunni-Iraq would get the other half of Kirkuk oil fields region, and Shia-Iraq would get the Basra oil fields. Each of the 3 new nations would therefore have a revenue source to be able to survive economically. Bush has caused this problem, so the Congress must ignore him and have the UN partition Iraq ASAP, so our troops can come home by next Christmas.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:00 pmbob, what does the date at which Watada enlisted have to do with the legality or illegality of the Iraq invasion and occupation? Please explain.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
First, just for clarification, Lt Watada did not enlist. He was Commissioned. There is a difference.
Second, the date of his Commissioning has nothing at all with the legality of the war in Iraq. It has to do with his willingness to participate in the act of going to war in Iraq. Nowhere in the Enlistment or Commissioning documents does it say ” I join under the condition that I do not get sent to Iraq”. When you join, that is the risk you accept, whether you like it or not.
Tom,
The reason the military court does not want to address the issue of the legality of the war is because they do not have the authority to determine if the war in Iraq, as a whole, is illegal. That is for the Legislature and the Judicial branch (as well as the world body) to decide, no tthe Dept. of the Army. the court can determine if actions committed in the war are illegal. Lt Watada’s orders to Iraq would not have been illegal.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:12 pmhacker bob:
If you admit that the date of Watada’s commissioning has nothing to do with the legality of the Iraq invasion & occupation, why do you persist in conflating the two?
It doesn’t matter when he joined the Army. If the Iraq invasion & occupation is illegal, he is duty-bound to refuse deployment there. Period.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:26 pmSometimes I would feel as if I am the only one who is supporting Lt. Watada on the internet. I can acknowledge, thankfully, that I am wrong in my belief.
Comment by Erroll #19
TripMaster Monkey #7
Watada is more courageous than any of us could ever hope to be…
…but unless we’re talking about busting him out of Leavenworth…
…we’re all just whistlin’ dixie…
…No Democratic or Republican Senator or House member will EVER dare stand up for Watada…
…at least in the forseeable future…
…Can you imagine the precedent it would set among the military if Watada were pardoned or acquitted?
…He eschewed “conscientious objector” status (I assume to maintain his honor and integrity having received a commission)…
…and proceeded to equivocate WHERE he was willing to serve (in Afghanistan)…
…don’t misunderstand me…
…I wish he and ALL the boys and girls could go home and say fu*k Bushiva and L’il Dick’s criminal enterprises in Iraq and Afghanistan…
…but Wahtada has boxed himself into a UCMJ coffin…
…no way they can allow him to go free, it would set too powerful of a negative (for-by neccessity the military’s rigidly disciplined system) precedent…
…All the same I wish Wahtada the best…
…and believe that HE knows what his fate is, and has reconciled himself to a little stockade time and a dishonorable d/c…
February 8th, 2007 at 1:30 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey
Lt Watada’s Commissioning date has nothing to do with Iraq itself, but it has everythign to do with his willingness to serve in Iraq. He joined and assumed the riske of serving there. As big papa said, he has boxed himself into a UCMJ coffin.
And I owe you an answer about “Double Jeopardy”. I spoke with our Staff Judge Advocate in an informal manner and he told me that Double Jeopardy does not apply until there is a finding in the case. This is from a Military Judge that has no dog in the fight and is unfamiliar with the details of the case. He has over 20years practicing military law.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:52 pmhacker bob:
You persist in dodging the issue. The fact that the United States was engaged in a conflict of questionable legality at the time that Lt. Watada joined does not negate his right to disobey orders he has cause to believe are illegal, nor does it absolve him of the responsibility of disobeying illegal orders. Even if it could be positively established that Lt. Watada knew that the Iraq invasion & occupation was illegal prior to his commissioning, it would make absolutely no difference. Question his motives if you so choose, but the fact remains that he is duty-bound to disobey illegal orders, regardless of his motives.
Regarding your quote from big papa’s post, he stated that Watada had ‘boxed himself into a UMCJ coffin’ not because of his motives or because of the date at which he was commissioned, but because the military cannot allow such a powerful precedent to be set.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:29 pmTripMaster Monkey,
I am not dodging. Lt Watada’s orders to Iraq were not illegal. It has not been condemned by the Legislative or Judicial branches of the US government or by the United Nations. In fact, one of Koffi Annons last acts as the Sec Gen was to have the US led Coalition stay in Iraq for another year unless asked by the Iraqi government to leave sooner. Therefore, the world governing body has validated the legality. Not one member of the US Military is being or has been accused of or charged with war crimes for the act of deploying to Iraq. There have been charges for crimes committed in Iraq.
He missed a movement. Period. He has committed acts that are unbecoming of an officer in the United States Military. Period. And no one is disputing that point. He has admitted to that. If he wants to fight the legality, a Court Martial is not the place for that battle.
Now, once he got to Iraq, he may or may not have been ordered to take part in actions he thought were illegal. He would have had a better chance (and better case) if he had done that.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:55 pmIt has not been condemned by the Legislative or Judicial branches of the US government or by the United Nations. Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Kofi said it was illegal, but the US has veto rights against such a resolution. Convenient isn’t it?
February 8th, 2007 at 3:04 pmKofi said it was illegal, but the US has veto rights against such a resolution. Convenient isn’t it?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Kofi’s the same guy that told us we had to stay there as well. Conveniant, isn’t it? And he is one man, the the entire UN.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:10 pmhacker bob sez:
What makes you so sure?
There’s a shock.
Kinda tough for the U.N. to condemn us when we have veto power, isn’t it?
So, it’s not illegal unless we say it is, or the U.N. says it is (and we let them). Quite a sweet deal we have here, don’t you think? Kinda makes the whole ‘duty to disobey illegal orders’ pointless when you can dictate legality.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:23 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey
So, just because people opposed to the war say it is illegal, does that make it so? Nope, sorry.
My question is, where is it written and declaired illegal?
If you are going to use that arguement, have proof to back it up. You do not have to prove legality, you have to prove illegality.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:36 pmWhere is it written this war is legal? Hacker bob?
I mean, we argue if its really a war or not, because Congress never declared war.
Too much wiggle room.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:59 pmhacker bob sez:
Well, let’s look to the law, then. The U.N. Charter, of which we are ostensibly a member.
The U.N. charter prohibits the use of force, except in case of the following exceptions:
Now, let’s look at how the Iraq invasion & occupation stacks up against these exceptions:
Self-defense? It has been firmly established that the United States’ main argument for the invasion of Iraq, the Weapons of Mass Destruction, not only did not exist, but their threat was intentionally and knowingly exaggerated by the administration to stampede us into war. No help there.
Authorized military action? The U.N. never authorized our action against Iraq…in fact, Kofi Annan states unequivocally that it was a clear contravention of the U.N. charter. Kofi’s decision to have us stay for another year was simply to try to mitigate the enormous damage that we caused by insisting that we clean up our own mess (which we have rather spectacularly failed to do). So, no help there, either.
Humanitarian intervention? Spare me. While it’s true that Saddam was a murderous despot who killed many of his people, at the pace we’ve set, we’ll surpass his career total in a few more years. Add to that all the DU we’ve strewn across the country, ensuring a perpetual legacy of death and suffering. No help there at all.
From the above, the illegality of the Iraq invasion and occupation should be self-evident. Your request for ‘where it is written and declared illegal’ is disingenuous, given the fact that the U.S. can veto any U.N. resolution to condemn the U.S. for its crimes.
I’ll leave you with one more thing to chew on before I sign off for the night:
If the Nazis had won WWII, the “Holocaust” would have been called “The Final Solution”, and would have been deemed perfectly legal. Would that have made it right?
February 8th, 2007 at 4:08 pmComment by ForTruth
Where does it say that Congress has to make a formal declaration? An Authorization for Use of Force could also be concidered a declaration since the Constitution does not spell out the form a Declaration of War must take.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:23 pmKofi’s the same guy that told us we had to stay there as well. Conveniant, isn’t it? And he is one man, the the entire UN.
Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
That’s like saying that the father of a rape child isn’t responsible for the baby. Because it’s responsibility to now care for the Iraqi people, doesn’t negate us from the responsibility, nor the implications that our initial act was illegal.
It’s unfortunate children do not learn critical thinking in school. It really would help the Republican party overcome it’s perpetual idiocy and failures.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:26 pmIf the Nazis had won WWII, the “Holocaust†would have been called “The Final Solutionâ€, and would have been deemed perfectly legal. Would that have made it right?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
We are not systematically trying to eleminate a group of people. So the Nazi comparison is out the window.
Other than the WMD story, do you remember the 17(?) violations of the Cease fire. That, in and of itself was cause to go into Iraq.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:28 pmnor the implications that our initial act was illegal.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
thank you for using somethign I have been unable to say all day in regards to Lt Watada.
Our initial act may or may not have been illegal. Our current act is not illegal. He was asked to depoly as part of the current act, not the initial invasion.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:30 pmWe are not systematically trying to eleminate a group of people. So the Nazi comparison is out the window. Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
So the severity of the crime, dictates whether you’ll allow it to be compared. That’s illogical.
Other than the WMD story, do you remember the 17(?) violations of the Cease fire. That, in and of itself was cause to go into Iraq.
Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
It doesn’t matter, we still didn’t have the right to overthrow their government. I suggest you go read the terms of the ceasefire. That’s why the international community looks at us as co-criminals. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:32 pmOur initial act may or may not have been illegal. Our current act is not illegal. He was asked to depoly as part of the current act, not the initial invasion. Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
Before he was aware that we were committing a war crime. At the point where a soldier recognizes he is participating in a war crime, whether it’s declared as such is irrelevant, it’s his responsibility to not participate. This was laid out at Nuremberg.
Anyone tell you, that you’d make a great nazi soldier? Act criminally, without question. Nice.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:34 pmBefore he was aware that we were committing a war crime. At the point where a soldier recognizes he is participating in a war crime, whether it’s declared as such is irrelevant, it’s his responsibility to not participate. This was laid out at Nuremberg.
The “stability operations” are not a war crime. By your own words the UN has us there now because it’s our responsibility to now care for the Iraqi people. That is what Lt Watada was supposed to be deployed for, not the invasion.
Anyone tell you, that you’d make a great nazi soldier? Act criminally, without question. Nice.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
If I am a criminal, or if you are accusing me of being a criminal, have me brought up on charges. I look at the situation, I look at the Constiutution, I listen to the debate. I do not see the illegality. It is not following blindly, it is weighing all the information, then deciding.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:45 pmWouldn’t it be a nice democratic process if Lt. Watada could have the debate being held here at TP occur in his court-martial since the legality of the war in Iraq is obviously the crux of his case?
February 8th, 2007 at 5:12 pmwow bob — takes a real sharp knife to split hairs that many times – i’m impressed.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:19 pmThe “stability operations†are not a war crime.Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
That’s your opinion, and there are just as many ‘facts’ that point to a different conclusion.
By your own words the UN has us there now because it’s our responsibility to now care for the Iraqi people.
Actually that was Kofi’s words, you forgot about the part where he also said we had committed a crime by invading.
That is what Lt Watada was supposed to be deployed for, not the invasion. Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Yet he acted on his conscience, and many facts including the death of tens of thousands of innocents, an illegal invasion, the use of harsh tactics and any number of issues that brought him to the conclusion that war crimes very well might be getting committed. A legitimate and reasonable conclusion.
If I am a criminal, or if you are accusing me of being a criminal, have me brought up on charges. Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
That would be something that the international war crimes tribunals would need to do – oh wait, the US doesn’t permit American soldiers to be tried there.
But this is the very point of this issue, and why you so fiercely attack Watada. If you admit he ‘might’ be right, then you admit you might be acting complicity in a criminal act. Something I believe you neither wish to participate in, nor acknowledge if it be the case that you are. A reasonable, and expect response to rationalize a horrific situation.
I look at the situation, I look at the Constiutution, I listen to the debate. I do not see the illegality. Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
That’s because if you did, you’d need to follow the actions of Watada – something you are neither emotionally, nor consciously willing to do. The illegality is there however. Saddam agreed to capitulate days before the invasion, yet we refused his gesture. Therefore you cannot honestly legitimize an invasion of choice.
It is not following blindly, it is weighing all the information, then deciding. Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Yet reasonable people weigh in, and decide differently than you. What you wish to do is deprive them of that right, an unfortunate, and frankly dishonorable.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:40 pmUsing bob’s logic, Saddam should have stayed in Kuwait to keep the peace after he illegally invaded. There were insurgents, and a complete lack of order for some time apparently.
Sorry bob, but you’ve set aside your logic today. What ashame. You seem like an amicable and generally thoughtful person. I can’t blame you wanting to face the reality you’re helping to fight an illegal war though. I can’t imagine the guilt that one would face if they came to terms with that. Your response is expected, sad, but expected.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:14 pmComment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
First, I do not attack Lt Watada personally. I attacke the case he makes. there is a difference. You will notice that I still refer to Lt Watada as jst that, a LT in the US Army. Until such time that rank has been removed from him I will treat him accordingly. I ma not the one calling people war criminals or telling them they would be”good nazi soldiers”.
Yet reasonable people weigh in, and decide differently than you.
In the military, at a point, you decision making ability stops. You do not get to pick and choose where you deploy. That is why we have things called orders, not requests.
I am not in favor of stoping his right to his decision. But he has to be held accountable for the decision he made. He knew going into the military that there was a risk of going to Iraq. If he did not know that risk existed, he is not as intelligent has he would have us believe. He knew when he choose not to deploy with his unit, what the ramifications would be.
Yet he acted on his conscience, and many facts including the death of tens of thousands of innocents, an illegal invasion, the use of harsh tactics and any number of issues that brought him to the conclusion that war crimes very well might be getting committed.
Notice the word in bold.
Just like Iraq might have been a threat to the US.
But you are right, I do not wish to be part of anything even close to a warcrime. I would not issue an order to my troops that would be an illegal order, and I would not follow an order I knew to be illegal.
There is another key word. If you are going to make the claim that it is illegal, you better be right. Lt Watada is not going to get off the hook because he thinks it is illegal.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:26 pm#76,
Actually, I guess you could say I was using Kofi Annon’s logic, not my own.
Saddam should have been removed from Kuwait. Saddam shold have been removed from power in ‘91. But he wasn’t.
I am sorry if you and I can not agree on this war. While none of us like what is happening in Iraq, and some question the legality, others of us question the illegality. I have had much wiser men than me explain it to me from both sides of the coin. I can not in good conscience see where it is illegal.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:31 pmFirst, I do not attack Lt Watada personally. I attacke the case he makes. there is a difference. You will notice that I still refer to Lt Watada as jst that, a LT in the US Army. Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
I disagree, you don’t argue the case. You argue technicalities and loopholes to avoid the clearly moral issue of invading a country based on lies, disinformation and without legal basis.
Until such time that rank has been removed from him I will treat him accordingly. I ma not the one calling people war criminals or telling them they would beâ€good nazi soldiersâ€. Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Well, it’s true though… I hate to say it, but the military is easily corrupted, because you’re taught to follow orders. Do you really think there were that many truly evil Germans? Most were men just like you that rationalized away their actions.
In the military, at a point, you decision making ability stops. You do not get to pick and choose where you deploy. That is why we have things called orders, not requests. Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
That’s the same argument that was given at Nuremberg, and it was rejected.
I am not in favor of stoping his right to his decision. But he has to be held accountable for the decision he made. He knew going into the military that there was a risk of going to Iraq.
Yet, you miss the subtleties yet again, clearly because you wish to. If you begin serving, thinking you’re doing the right thing, only to discover that your government misled you, and you’re doing the wrong thing. You must reject those orders – that was the finding of Nuremberg.
That’s why I keep telling you, that you would have made a good german soldier. Not because all german soldiers were bad people either – they weren’t.
If he did not know that risk existed, he is not as intelligent has he would have us believe. He knew when he choose not to deploy with his unit, what the ramifications would be.
Yes he did, but when he signed up, he thought our invasion, and justifications, and subsequent actions were all honorable.
Notice the word in bold. Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Yes, exactly. This also was the point of Nuremberg, that soldiers aren’t judges, but they must be guided by their conscience. I say might, in the same way I used the word ‘charged’ when it comes to criminal issues. The US will not allow a war crimes trial, other than tribunals to happen. And as Abu Graib has shown, those are shams.
Just like Iraq might have been a threat to the US. Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
You don’t invade another country on ‘might’, just like you don’t show up as a soldier based on ‘might’. Both issues, settled in Nuremberg. Hitler’s generals used the excuse that Poland ‘might’ have been a threat – no dice.
But you are right, I do not wish to be part of anything even close to a warcrime. I would not issue an order to my troops that would be an illegal order, and I would not follow an order I knew to be illegal. Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
The problem is that you will follow an order that you ’suspect’ to be illegal, and you’ll work your tail off to convince yourself that it is not illegal. That’s why I keep saying you would have made a good German. You have great intentions, that’s clear, as did millions of poor German soldiers.
There is another key word. If you are going to make the claim that it is illegal, you better be right. Lt Watada is not going to get off the hook because he thinks it is illegal. Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Once again, that’s the problem with not allowing international involvement. It’s ‘clear’ that many actions the US has taken are probably both illegal and immoral – at least at surface glance. In the same way you can assess that someone that’s appeared to have just robbed a bank probably acted criminally. It doesn’t mean I can convict them, but I can have the conviction that they should be held to justice.
This is how much of the world sees us. We came, took over, stole the oil and future for most Iraqis. I’m not saying Saddam wasn’t a thief either, but he was family. It’s like your brother stealing from you, you might not call the cops, and you know you might be able to get it back someday.
The reality is that soldiers that believe a crime might be getting committed are supposed to stand by their conscience. The problem is the US fails to submit to the Nuremberg principles, or their consequences. You can say international law doesn’t apply, but as soon as you do, your whole argument about a legitimate attack against Iraq and the UN resolutions become hollow.
This is the Nuremberg principle I entreat you to study carefully.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:45 pmActually, I guess you could say I was using Kofi Annon’s logic, not my own.
Saddam should have been removed from Kuwait. Saddam shold have been removed from power in ‘91. But he wasn’t.
Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Not according to international law, nor the UN resolution used to invade him. Bush the senior was a smarter man than you or Bush junior on this one.
I am sorry if you and I can not agree on this war. While none of us like what is happening in Iraq, and some question the legality, others of us question the illegality. I have had much wiser men than me explain it to me from both sides of the coin. I can not in good conscience see where it is illegal. Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Because it is illegal to invade a sovereign nation under international law in order to create regime change. That was the act of Hitler, and Saddam.
The fact you don’t find it illegal, is why I keep pointing out you would have made a good German.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:47 pmIf any rational, intelligent person could not have seen that a Third World country like Iraq was not a threat to the United States, a country which has over 10,000[!] nuclear weapons, then they should certainly concede that Iraq does not now deserve to be occupied by the United States, which has committed daily atrocities against the Iraqi people. Since Lt. Watada certainly appears to be a sane, rational, intelligent person, capable of doing what hacker bob dreads most, and that is thinking outside the box, in all probability he has read the writings of independent journalists such as Dahr Jamail, who has reported from Iraq that these atrocities have indeed taken place. Lt. Watada has also told me that an officer who had returned from Iraq had told him that he had witnessed war crimes taking place in Iraq but did not wish to say anything, believing that the military would come down hard upn him. I wonder why he would possibly think that?
The point, of course, is that this is one of the reasons why the lieutenant has refused to go to Iraq, knowing that he would be a party to war crimes. In all likelihood, it is probably one of the reasons why the judge decided to capriciously declare a mistrial after the court returned from lunch, probably becoming quite uneasy at the fact that Lt. Watada was set to testify immediately after the court reconvened. It simply defies logic why a judge would suddenly declare a mistrial over the objections of the defense. Having the sunlight being displayed upon those speaking the truth often makes those in power feel not quite so confident when their string of lies are in danger of crashing down upon them.
February 8th, 2007 at 7:07 pmValiantVenus lady
Extremely well said. As you say, people like hacker bob are the equivalent of the Good German, never willing to question authority, so fearful that they would disobey an order, even though that order may very well be illegal and immoral.
February 8th, 2007 at 7:11 pmAre you a military lawyer? Are you a military law professor? Have you read the court transcripts?
Let me guess: no, no, and no.
That’s three strikes: You’re out.
February 8th, 2007 at 7:34 pmIf you are going to use that arguement, have proof to back it up. You do not have to prove legality, you have to prove illegality.
Comment by hacker bob
Change legality and illegality with NO WMDs and WMDs, respectively and you have the first lie about why US invaded Iraq. You said it yourself, bob.
February 8th, 2007 at 7:58 pmComment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Then you are either willfully blind, or lack a good conscience.
Recalling the Downing Street Memos, which stated that the intelligence was being fixed around the policy of going to war, and the current revelations surrounding the involvement of the Vice President in the Valerie Plame affair. I offer this:
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
There are other International Treaties and Conventions Bush violated as well.
If, after reading this, you still think Bush’s War is legal, then it is legal for any country to bomb, invade, and occupy the United States.
February 8th, 2007 at 8:08 pmComment by Briseadh na Faire
I as ask you the same 3 questions.
Let me guess. No, no, and no.
And you are out.
Now, let me ask you this. Have you discussed it with military lawyers? Have you discussed it with a military judge? I ma sure you have not. I have.
Comment by Erroll
You have no clue as to what I have and have not questioned. Have I questioned illegal orders? No I have not. I have not been given any illegal orders to question. I am more aware of my duty than you will ever understand.
February 8th, 2007 at 8:10 pmYou have no clue as to what I have and have not questioned. Have I questioned illegal orders? No I have not. I have not been given any illegal orders to question. I am more aware of my duty than you will ever understand. Comment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
See the Nuremberg principles post above. And you have my sympathy for your situation. It must be hard being a loyal soldier when the evidence clearly shows the US illegally invaded another country.
I’m still waiting on your response for how it’s bad logic for Saddam to ‘keep’ what he invaded, but not us? You do know the Kuwaitis were drilling into Iraqi oil reserves and pumping them out – right? Isn’t that an ‘economic’ assault?
I have to agree with the other commenters here, you slice this thin enough to avoid reality. I can’t blame you, but it’s sad you and the rest of your fellow military have been put in the position where you are required to carry out illegal orders.
I hope you have sympathy for what it must have been like for German soldiers that occupied Poland – because you’re in the same boat.
February 8th, 2007 at 8:31 pm#87 – ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus,
February 8th, 2007 at 8:47 pmI believe that hacker bob is still stateside. His most current posts indicate that. He is home scott free on that basis. In addition, he is in a support unit. Unless he assembles a list of Iraqis with skins suitable for lampshades, he should be secure from the Geneva protocols. Bush and Cheney fall into another category along with anyone in a combat unit. At present time, only NCOs and below are being actively prosecuted. A few officers are having disciplinary marks placed on their records with one or two thrown to the sharks to shield their superiors.
I believe that hacker bob is still stateside. His most current posts indicate that. He is home scott free on that basis. In addition, he is in a support unit. Comment by WaltTheMan — February 8, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
Giving support to an illegal war. How that would be judged in a war crimes tribunal is questionable. Surely it would be less severely than those actively involved in the mayhem, but I’m not sure I agree that it’s get out of jail free card.
That gives a lot of wiggle room for prosecution, not that this will occur with the US refusing to submit to international law. And just because they found us guilty of war crimes against Nicaragua.
Unless he assembles a list of Iraqis with skins suitable for lampshades, he should be secure from the Geneva protocols. Bush and Cheney fall into another category along with anyone in a combat unit. At present time, only NCOs and below are being actively prosecuted. A few officers are having disciplinary marks placed on their records with one or two thrown to the sharks to shield their superiors. Comment by WaltTheMan — February 8, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
We will refuse to allow anyone other than a few low level scapegoats ever go to trial. It doesn’t mean what we did was legal, it just means that for conservatives they believe they’re above the law. Or to quote Tom Delay ‘I am the government’. Sad.
February 8th, 2007 at 8:59 pmComment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
I do not hold the German soldiers themselves. There are those in the German military that did commit war crimes, but not all German soldiers did.
As for how thin I slice the hair. That is how you get to the bottom of an issue. You have to look at ALL of the information, not just the surface.
WalttheMan,
Yes I am currently stateside. I have done 2 tours in Iraq (2003 shortly after the invasion, and 2005) so I have been there. I am in a support positions, but even support guys get out on the streets. This is not the kind of combat that has organized “lines”. So do not take away from the support guys. They are getting killed just about as fast as the “grunts”.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
February 8th, 2007 at 9:09 pmNow look up the terms of ceasefire and what the reprocussions for violation were.
Add these paople to your listof supporters as well as all the current members of Congress that are allowing it to continue:
Wayne Allard (R-CO) Max Baucus (D-MT)
February 8th, 2007 at 9:24 pmGeorge Allen (R-VA) Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Bob Bennett (R-UT) Joe Biden (D-DE)
Kit Bond (R-MO) John Breaux (D-LA)
Sam Brownback (R-KS) Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Jim Bunning (R-KY) Jean Carnahan (D-MO)
Conrad Burns (R-MT) Tom Carper (D-DE)
Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) Max Cleland (D-GA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS) Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Susan Collins (R-ME) Tom Daschle (D-SD)
Larry Craig (R-ID) Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
Mike Crapo (R-ID) Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Mike DeWine (R-OH) John Edwards (D-NC)
Pete Domenici (R-NM) Tim Johnson(D-SD)
John Ensign (R-NV) Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Mike Enzi (R-WY) Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) Fritz Hollings (D-SC)
Bill Frist (R-TN) Robert Torricelli (D-NJ)
Phil Gramm (R-TX) Harry Reid (D-NV)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Judd Gregg (R-NH) Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Jesse Helms (R-NC) John Kerry (D-MA)
Tim Hutchinson (R-AR) Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
James Inhofe (R-OK) Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) Zell Miller (D-GA)
Trent Lott (R-MS) John McCain (R-AZ)
Richard Lugar (R-IN) Frank Murkowski (R-AK)
Don Nickles (R-OK) Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Rick Santorum (R-PA) Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL) Robert Smith (R-NH)
Gordon Smith (R-OR) Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Arlen Specter (R-PA) Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Craig Thomas (R-WY) Fred Thompson (R-TN)
Strom Thurmond (R-SC) George Voinovich (R-OH)
John Warner (R-VA) Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
This excerpt from truthout.org suggests that Watada certainly has a good “double jeopardy” claim:
“The notion is that you can’t just stop in the middle and say, ‘I don’t like the way it’s going’ and start over,” Junker said. “If the defendant objected, it does raise the possibility” of double jeopardy, Junker said. “That would happen in a civilian court, and I presume in a military court. That doctrine comes from the Constitution.”
Marjorie Cohn, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law and a proposed expert witness for the defense, opines: “When the Army judge declared a mistrial over defense objection in 1st Lt. Ehren Watada’s court-martial, he probably didn’t realize jeopardy attached. Although he faces the possibility of a dishonorable discharge, the judge’s grant of a mistrial precludes retrial on the same criminal charges.”
I’m with Cohn, the Army should accept the fact that the judge is a dipsh*t who doesn’t know his legalese from the hole in his a*s…
…call it a truce and allow Watada the dishonorable and chance to walk…
…but no one said life was fair…
February 8th, 2007 at 9:41 pmComment by big papa
As I posted before, there is still a chance at a re-trial on the original charges in accordance with the UCMJ. Yes it can be challenged. But if the Army wants to push it, they have other charges they have not utilized yet.
Again, I am not a lawyer, but I discussed this with our Staff Judge Advocate.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:49 pmComment by hacker bob — February 8, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
Now you’re confusing a Court Martial with International Law regarding the legality of invading a sovereign country.
On the latter issue, I have heard from various experts on International Law. I attended a seminar at the International Court of Justice. I studied Comparative International Law and International Human Rights Law in Europe. I received Honors in International Law Advocacy.
But you don’t have to take my word for it. Earlier I posted an article where the President of the United Nations stated the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal.
It may serve your conscious now to continue to turn a blind eye to the legality of this War, but what will be your defence at a War Crimes Tribunal?
Let’s face it, bob, if you are wrong, you could spend life in prison. If Iraq had the equivalent of the Military Commissions Act, you could even be executed.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:33 pmHey BnF,
Did any of these ‘international law experts’ from whom you have allegedly heard inform you that Kofi Annan’s correct title was “Secretary-General of the United Nations,” not “President of the United Nations” as you so embarassingly put it?
February 9th, 2007 at 12:22 amRe: Hastert’s “Baby”
I have long thought that it is better to have “Tax-and-Spend” Democrats than “Don’t-Tax-but-Still-Spend-More” Republicans in control of Congress.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:55 amComment by Briseadh na Faire
And there has been how many Courts held in the international community (UN, Hague,etc)to dispute the illegality of the war? Also, if this is truely an illegal war, Bush, Cheny, and Rummy are not the only ones that will go down for it. Every member of the Congress that voted for the Authorization for Use of Force (which can be construed as a Declaration of War)is also guilty of a war crime.
But back to the court martial front. Where is the act of deploying to Iraq Illegal?
February 9th, 2007 at 9:38 amsorry, too many interruptions while typing last night. “Secretary-General is the correct title.
February 9th, 2007 at 5:14 pmThe members of Congress who voted for the AUMF may be insulated by the fact that they were lied to by the Bush Administration. You can be sure that would be raised as a defense should they be charged.
As for the Court-Martial front, is anyone charged in a Court-Martial with the crime of deploying to Iraq?
February 9th, 2007 at 5:18 pmAs for the Court-Martial front, is anyone charged in a Court-Martial with the crime of deploying to Iraq?
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
No, but someone is charged with refusing to deploy to Iraq. Lt Watada.
February 9th, 2007 at 11:01 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 8:03 amny dvd complete
March 19th, 2008 at 10:00 amapplause toys
You have to use it as a reward for doing homework, chore, etc. Once
March 19th, 2008 at 8:10 pmEric
Wow! it is one of the good site i ever found.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:59 amreal estate agent ga
Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but it still ok Hm.
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:12 amcorporate relocation
Interestingly, this was on CNN last week.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:25 amCock Dog Dick In Pussy Sucking Dick
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:25 pm