Watada Mistrial Declared

[scamper]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
This is exactly why the government will need to push very very hard on this one. With the amount of press this is getting, if Watada somehow avoids punishment, just imagine how many other soldiers will take it as an invitation to abandon their posts.

Soldiers don't get to decide their wars...end of story

[FORD]

Originally posted by scamper
Soldiers don't get to decide their wars...end of story

But they DO get to refuse illegal orders, and that's what he did.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by FORD
But they DO get to refuse illegal orders, and that's what he did.

assuming the order was illegal...

(bad order? yes. illegal order?...eh...)

[scamper]

Originally posted by FORD
But they DO get to refuse illegal orders, and that's what he did.

Who makes the call? The soldiers? If that is the case we now have no armed services.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
assuming the order was illegal...

(bad order? yes. illegal order?...eh...)

That's why this is going to be an intresting case.He's obviously onto something....otherwise it would have been closed.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by FORD
But they DO get to refuse illegal orders, and that's what he did.

That's probably not always an option in the field,FORD.Sad,but true.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
the war may have been ill conceived (and that's putting it GENEROUSLY, i think) but i've yet to see anything that makes it illegal.

I'm not JAG, 'bones, so I can't sew it up nice, but I do belive there is a stipulation somewhere that holds the president accountable for certain things that he cannot order military action without certain reasons, and stuff.
I don't know if it's in the constitution(which we were sworn to support and defend against all enemies,foriegn and domestic)or part of the UCMJ(that I purposely stayed the fuck out of)but there's an argument in there somewhere.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by scamper
Soldiers don't get to decide their wars...end of story

And that's too fuckin bad for all those that volunteered after 9/11 and were used for Iraq!
Maybe we have a competent CIC,SOD, and a strategy,they don't have to lower the standards to meet recruitment requirements.
MAYBE Americans see a cause so great,they're turning them away @ the recruiter's office.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
so you have 2 rationales why it's an illegal war. 1) that the administration lied about the reasons for starting it, and 2) that the U.S. acted unilaterally in it.


looking at #2 first, it doesn't matter. there is no requirement in U.S. law that we have some sort of international backing before undertaking military action. and whatever treaties and agreements we've signed do not state that the U.S. must adhere to international law, specifically, in order to get international approval before undertaking military action. so, the fact that NATO, or the U.N. or OPEC, or OAS didn't approve our action has no bearing on whether or not our actions are illegal from the U.S. standpoint.


#1: it's a bit more tenuous to say that if the rationale for going to war involved lies that means the war is definitively illegal, but what the hell, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is.

still, there's no proof that the administration lied. there is ample proof that they used evidence now found to be faulty at best, downright wrong at worst. and in all likelihood, the administration relied more on just those information sources it hoped would be true, rather than doing a more thorough analysis. but there's no evidence they lied.

now, is it POSSIBLE that the evidence of lies hasn't been uncovered yet? of course. but as of now, the evidence isn't there. so that's not really a reason.



the war may have been ill conceived (and that's putting it GENEROUSLY, i think) but i've yet to see anything that makes it illegal.

We never declared war. The Congress allowed Bush to use "military force" as a "last resort."

There are clearly multiple contradictions and gray areas in many of the War rationales...

Not to mention that Bousche has tacked on the basis in legality of a number of completely unrelated, but highly illegal, programs relating of domestic spying on to the original resolution...

[FORD]

Watada's lawyer is claiming "double jeopardy", apparently, so the illegality of the orders might not be called into question after all. Unless the BCE tries to charge him with something else.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by FORD
Watada's lawyer is claiming "double jeopardy",

Does that mean all of his answers from the stand must be in the form of a question?

[scamper]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Does that mean all of his answers from the stand must be in the form of a question?

LMFAO