Officer plans to refuse to go to Iraq

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:48 am

If such a thing ever became legal today, I doubt I'd be supporting the government anyway, much less serving in the military.

Deploying to Iraq is nowhere near that, based on the facts of what are actually going on.

This guy has nothing to stand on, what so ever. We''ll see what the court marshall jurors think.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:51 am

Well, I had believed we'd moved beyond talking about the specific case, to the abstract of "is it ever going to be the case".

If such a thing ever became legal today, I doubt I'd be supporting the government anyway, much less serving in the military.

What if the law was passed after you had already joined?

Heck, the sort of thing is ALMOST legal, today. It's not quite the same, but Gitmo is pretty close, and certainly there's people involved in that who signed up before we started holding people there in blatant disregard of the constitution.

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:59 am

I'm not going to discuss 'ever be the case' situations, because I can't possibly forsee every situation that might happen.

Our Constitution does not apply to non-U.S. citizens. Those that are there are not treated harshly. What's the problem?

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:01 am

I'm not going to discuss 'ever be the case' situations, because I can't possibly forsee every situation that might happen.

Exactly. You can't reasonably square away an ultimate and unwavering oath with an unpredictable world.

Our Constitution does not apply to non-U.S. citizens. Those that are there are not treated harshly. What's the problem?

Prove it by quoting the Constitution. Because she disagrees with you.

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:12 am

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="645165"]

I'm not going to discuss 'ever be the case' situations, because I can't possibly forsee every situation that might happen.

Exactly. You can't reasonably square away an ultimate and unwavering oath with an unpredictable world.

Our Constitution does not apply to non-U.S. citizens. Those that are there are not treated harshly. What's the problem?

Prove it by quoting the Constitution. Because she disagrees with you.[/quote]

Heh, ok go try to enforce the rights in the Constitution on the prisoners in China that are being used as organ farms. Also, even the Constituion allows for exceptions to be made for enemy combatants and prisoners of war.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:15 am

Heh, ok go try to enforce the rights in the Constitution on the prisoners in China that are being used as organ farms.

Doesn't work like that. The Constitution empowers, and also limits, the United States government, and only the United States government, and its limitations, in some/many cases, such as the fifth amendment, specifically extend to its interactions with "people", not "citizens".

Also, even the Constituion allows for exceptions to be made for enemy combatants and prisoners of war.

Okay. So, like I said... quote the relevant part of it.

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:38 am

The Autorization for the User of Military Force is one source of exceptions.

Article II also allows for even American citizens to be held as 'enemy combatants'. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court (Hamdi).

What is your objection to holding prisoners in Cuba anyway? They are not being mistreated by any neutral viewpoint that I have read.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:44 am

My objection is not that they're being held, but that they're being held without trial.

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:54 am

So you feel that these military prisoners deserve trials in civil court?

I don't agree, but I have particular objections to that stance.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:59 am

Not just military prisoners, but everyone, deserves at least some kind of trial. And representation. And someone involved who's not a part of the government, for oversight.

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:03 am

The war is still ongoing. Interrogations are still being conducted. They are being offered rights given to enemy combatants.

I'd prefer to keep them out of the way, especially as some of the released ones have already turned back up in the fight.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/200 ... -2279r.htm

Post by **Martin Blank** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:24 am

If they're in Gitmo, they're on Cuban soil, and according to the treaty that governs US use of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba holds all sovereign power over that land, and therefore the Constitution holds no legal sway there. (See Rasul v. Bush, 2004, which relies heavily on Johnson v. Eisentrager, 1950, which found that a foreign national in military custody that never touches US soil or the federal court system is not entitled to protections under the US Constitution.)

The Constitution's reach extends to US soil only.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:26 am

...That's horrible and it seems to rather contradict the plain language of the document, in which I've never seen anything creating such a distinction.

*sigh*

Though it makes my point. It's legal, but I find it inconscienable enough that I'd refuse the assignment.

Post by **Martin Blank** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:37 am

It's an effect of sovereignty. It's why people are subject to the laws of the nation that they're currently within, rather than their own laws. What you ask for is that the US Constitution apply everywhere that an American goes -- possibly even a permanent resident of the US -- and that's just not practical nor acceptable.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:30 am

Why is it not acceptable that the limitations placed on the government by its constitution when dealing with its citizens be extended to its dealings with everyone? Because your ... British, instead of American, the government can ignore due process in dealing with you? Can go out of its way to encroach on their right to peacable assemble if they so wish? The only way to be safe and secure in your posessions against unreasonable search and seizure by the USGov't is to be a citizen? Why?

Weren't such things supposed to have been something like "human rights" instead of "the rights of us citizens"? Something about all men being endowed, yadda yadda, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but oops, only for these people over heeere...

Real Life Forums

Officer plans to refuse to go to Iraq

Who is online