Ok, here goes my foot in my mouth again. And I fully expect to be vilified or at the very least ridiculed for daring to say what I think. Say what you wish. It really won't change my mind or alter the facts as I see them one iota. Or you also have the option of simply ignoring this post and me. Your choice. I have said what I think. I believe it. I stand by it.
I know I am not an American but I am a friend and have been a member of this forum, and the JK Forum before it, since early February of 2004 which I believe entitles me to comment. My respect for, and yes, even affection for Americans predates that by many, many years. I make no apology for caring enough to speak the truth as I see it. I repeat .. as I see it.
What I see happening these days is tragic. And no. I am not talking about this abominable administration. Tragic isn't a strong enough word to describe my contempt for their abuse of power. I am referring to witnessing history repeating itself yet again. And that truly is tragic because one would have thought the lessons learned would have taught at least something to those who claim to be aware and concerned citizens.
Once again, in the name of the anti war movement ( of which I am a member in good standing and with credentials and a record to back it up, of which I am justifiably proud) there is a mindset with far too many which denigrates and condemns those who wear the uniform of your country, and who place their lives on the line every single day as they do as they are charged with doing, protecting the country you all revere. Yes, its a volunteer military, not a draft this time, but the fact is most of these troops joined because they saw a chance to gain an education or improve their lot in life. They didn't make the decision to go into this abysmal war. They just happen to be the ones expected to be willing to die for that decision.
Is it too much to expect that those they are fighting to protect accord them the right to be heard before they are condemned when accusations are made that there have been heinous acts perpetrated by them ? Is it justified that the word of those who have a possible agenda of their own for making such charges is taken almost without question as being factual and correct?
Certainly in the ugliness of war horrific events can, and do occur. And there are those who do act in a manner which demands punishment. But this is, as a rule, only a minority who do actually lose control or forget their sworn duty to represent their country honourably and well. Far too many are willing to accept as fact every incident reported as being true. The fact that they are coming in sequence in ever increasing frequency should at least give pause for thought. It would not be the first time an enemy also had a plan and put it into play. Particularly when they see their plan working so successfully. Each new charge increases the clamour for justice for the poor beleaguered victims as the hand wringing and opportunism on the part of many of those who oppose this war jump on these stories as ammunition for their position. It is as if every principle we claim to fight to preserve has been forgotten.
That attitude almost destroyed a vast number of a generation of your country's finest only thirty some years ago. The wounds are still festering even now. When is enough, enough?
As I said I am a part of the Anti War Contingent. And proud to be so. I detest war and have done so throughout my life. I do however honour those who wear the uniform of our countries and will not stand by quietly as they are made victims of the campaign to end the abomination of warfare we all abhor. Those who do less, shame us all and harm our cause rather than promote it.
Giving lip service to supporting the troops doesn't cut it. Unless you also support their innocence until proven guilty you are not supporting the troops, nor are you deserving of the rights you take so very much for granted. Its a two way street we walk. Either walk it or get out of the way. You are a part of the problem.
Full Version: Pause and THINK
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > U.S. Military Issues > U.S. Military Issues Archive
CO - Would that the issues could be framed so simply. Unfortunately they cannot as demonstrated by the disucssion of the legal issues involved in military proceedings. Nevertheless, thank you for initiating a thread that is likely to generate some debate here. I'm hopeful that the thread will not degenerate into baiting, hijacking, and name calling. There are a multiplicity of views within the military itself as the following article demonstrates. I think Col Wright has the standing to make the comments she writes having earned them with 29 years of service in the military.
QUOTE(Snuffysmith @ Jun 27 2006, 06:41 PM)
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/2...se_to_serve.php
To Refuse To Serve
Ret. Col. Ann Wright
June 27, 2006
Col. Ann Wright served in the U.S. Army for 13 years and in the U.S. Army Reserves for 16 years. She also served for 16 years in the U.S. diplomatic corps, and in that capacity helped reopen the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan in December 2001. She received the State Department’s Award for Heroism as the acting U.S. ambassador during the rebel takeover of Freetown, Sierra Leone in 1997.
Today, is the National Day of Action in support of U.S. Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who, on June 22, refused an order to deploy with his unit to Iraq.
Watada said he could not participate in an “illegal and immoral war against people who did nothing to deserve our aggression. My oath of office is to protect and defend America’s laws and its people. By refusing unlawful orders for an illegal war, I fulfill that oath.”
Watada’s refusal to deploy to Iraq raises ethical, moral and legal questions, not only for him, but for other military personnel as well as for civilians. He believes the war on Iraq is a violation of international and domestic law and is therefore illegal. Watada says that as a military officer of honor and integrity he must refuse an order to participate in an illegal act.
Watada joins 10 other members of the U.S. military who—as a matter of conscience—have refused to either go to Iraq or to return there and have been court-martialed for their actions. Two are currently in prison for their stands. In addition, over 200 U.S. military personnel have gone to Canada to avoid being sent to Iraq, nine of whom have gone public with their war resistance. There are over 6,400 U.S. military are absent without leave (AWOL), while thousands who have returned from AWOL have been given administrative discharges instead of courts-martial. The military has not provided information on whether those who have turned themselves in were AWOL due to opposition to the war.
For Watada and those other military volunteers who have chosen to go public with their dissent from the war on Iraq, the path of conscience is not easy. By their actions, they challenge an administration whose policy of aggressive, pre-emptive war has placed those volunteers, the institution of the U.S. military and the nation itself in danger.
Refusing to obey an illegal order is a time-honored tradition in the U.S. military, but that refusal carries incredible risk. If the order is found by a military board of inquiry to be lawful, then the soldier is will be brought before a military court for trial.
Watada’s public refusal to deploy to Iraq puts the military panel who will sit in judgment of his actions in a dilemma. The military has extraordinarily talented military lawyers who are well-versed in the laws of land warfare, the Geneva and Hague conventions and the Nuremberg principles. Indeed, military lawyers were the strongest opponents of the decision by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to throw out internationally agreed to protections for prisoners of war and instead create a new, illegal term called “enemy combatants.” This legally meaningless phrase provides no protections for those detained on the battlefield and jeopardizes U.S. military personnel who end up in the hands of opponents. Now, these military lawyers must decide whether protection of an administration’s illegal war of aggression is more important to the national security of the United States than recognition that, by the Nuremberg principles, military and civilians have a responsibility to stop their governments from committing illegal acts.
As a retired colonel with 29 years in the U.S. Army and Army Reserves, and as a U.S. diplomat for 16 years who resigned in March 2003 from the State Department in opposition to the war in Iraq, I strongly support Watada’s decision to publicly challenge the illegality of the war.
I hope that on June 27, as part of this National Day of Action, Americans will find ways in their communities to “Stand Up with Lt. Watada.” We should discuss the important moral and ethical issues that he and the other brave and courageous men and women have raised in their refusal to participate in the illegal war on Iraq. See www.ThankyouLt.org for a list of communities and activities scheduled for June 27.
As civilians, we also have a moral responsibility when we see an administration committing illegal acts. We cannot be silent and let this illegal war continue. Stand up for Watada and our country.
To Refuse To Serve
Ret. Col. Ann Wright
June 27, 2006
Col. Ann Wright served in the U.S. Army for 13 years and in the U.S. Army Reserves for 16 years. She also served for 16 years in the U.S. diplomatic corps, and in that capacity helped reopen the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan in December 2001. She received the State Department’s Award for Heroism as the acting U.S. ambassador during the rebel takeover of Freetown, Sierra Leone in 1997.
Today, is the National Day of Action in support of U.S. Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who, on June 22, refused an order to deploy with his unit to Iraq.
Watada said he could not participate in an “illegal and immoral war against people who did nothing to deserve our aggression. My oath of office is to protect and defend America’s laws and its people. By refusing unlawful orders for an illegal war, I fulfill that oath.”
Watada’s refusal to deploy to Iraq raises ethical, moral and legal questions, not only for him, but for other military personnel as well as for civilians. He believes the war on Iraq is a violation of international and domestic law and is therefore illegal. Watada says that as a military officer of honor and integrity he must refuse an order to participate in an illegal act.
Watada joins 10 other members of the U.S. military who—as a matter of conscience—have refused to either go to Iraq or to return there and have been court-martialed for their actions. Two are currently in prison for their stands. In addition, over 200 U.S. military personnel have gone to Canada to avoid being sent to Iraq, nine of whom have gone public with their war resistance. There are over 6,400 U.S. military are absent without leave (AWOL), while thousands who have returned from AWOL have been given administrative discharges instead of courts-martial. The military has not provided information on whether those who have turned themselves in were AWOL due to opposition to the war.
For Watada and those other military volunteers who have chosen to go public with their dissent from the war on Iraq, the path of conscience is not easy. By their actions, they challenge an administration whose policy of aggressive, pre-emptive war has placed those volunteers, the institution of the U.S. military and the nation itself in danger.
Refusing to obey an illegal order is a time-honored tradition in the U.S. military, but that refusal carries incredible risk. If the order is found by a military board of inquiry to be lawful, then the soldier is will be brought before a military court for trial.
Watada’s public refusal to deploy to Iraq puts the military panel who will sit in judgment of his actions in a dilemma. The military has extraordinarily talented military lawyers who are well-versed in the laws of land warfare, the Geneva and Hague conventions and the Nuremberg principles. Indeed, military lawyers were the strongest opponents of the decision by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to throw out internationally agreed to protections for prisoners of war and instead create a new, illegal term called “enemy combatants.” This legally meaningless phrase provides no protections for those detained on the battlefield and jeopardizes U.S. military personnel who end up in the hands of opponents. Now, these military lawyers must decide whether protection of an administration’s illegal war of aggression is more important to the national security of the United States than recognition that, by the Nuremberg principles, military and civilians have a responsibility to stop their governments from committing illegal acts.
As a retired colonel with 29 years in the U.S. Army and Army Reserves, and as a U.S. diplomat for 16 years who resigned in March 2003 from the State Department in opposition to the war in Iraq, I strongly support Watada’s decision to publicly challenge the illegality of the war.
I hope that on June 27, as part of this National Day of Action, Americans will find ways in their communities to “Stand Up with Lt. Watada.” We should discuss the important moral and ethical issues that he and the other brave and courageous men and women have raised in their refusal to participate in the illegal war on Iraq. See www.ThankyouLt.org for a list of communities and activities scheduled for June 27.
As civilians, we also have a moral responsibility when we see an administration committing illegal acts. We cannot be silent and let this illegal war continue. Stand up for Watada and our country.
Great article Snuff, and actions I fully support, but can you explain to me what it has to do with the thread and post I just put up?
And don't worry, I have no intention of engaging in a war of words. I posted in hopes it would cause some to think. Nothing more. I have no more to say on the subject.
And don't worry, I have no intention of engaging in a war of words. I posted in hopes it would cause some to think. Nothing more. I have no more to say on the subject.
I think the foregoing article raises the possibility that the soldiers at Haditha may not get a fair trial in the military courts because the military is going to go to great lengths to save face from embarassment with the Iraqis. I think Abu Ghraib prosecutions served as a good example of this as well.
As for not presuming the soldiers are guilty, I stand firm in that belief and agree wholeheartedly with you.
As for not presuming the soldiers are guilty, I stand firm in that belief and agree wholeheartedly with you.
QUOTE(Snuffysmith @ Jun 27 2006, 01:50 PM)
I think the foregoing article raises the possibility that the soldiers at Haditha may not get a fair trial in the military courts because the military is going to go to great lengths to save face from embarassment with the Iraqis. I think Abu Ghraib prosecutions served as a good example of this as well.
As for not presuming the soldiers are guilty, I stand firm in that belief and agree wholeheartedly with you.
As for not presuming the soldiers are guilty, I stand firm in that belief and agree wholeheartedly with you.
Thanks for the clarification. I was confused because the article addressed a different subject from the original post but you have explained the tie in.
This is an example of some of the politics the US will face in trying to appease the Iraqis:
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=13169
US blamed for execution of Russians in Iraq
MOSCOW: Russian lawmakers on Wednesday blamed Washington over the execution of four Russian diplomats in Iraq, claiming the occupying forces there could have prevented the tragedy.
“The tragedy that occurred recently in Iraq was only possible because of the growing crisis in the country as the occupying powers increasingly lose control of the situation,” read a motion unanimously approved by the State Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament.
“All the responsibility for the situation in Iraq, including the security of its citizens and of foreign workers, lies with the occupying powers. We are convinced that they could have prevented the tragedy,” the Russian lawmakers said.
They also called on the Russian authorities and the occupying forces to hold a “detailed enquiry” into the murder of the Baghdad embassy workers and to “take every possible step to capture and punish the criminals”.
The motion said Russia could not allow itself to be dragged into the Iraqi conflict and would continue to press for a “peaceful solution” to the crisis there.
The diplomats were abducted when gunmen attacked their vehicle in the upmarket west Baghdad neighbourhood of Mansur. A fifth diplomat, Vitaly Titov, was killed during the kidnapping. The hostage-takers had given Russia a 48-hour ultimatum to pull out of Chechnya and free Muslim prisoners from Russian jails, although Chechen rebels said they had nothing to do with the group in Iraq.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=13169
US blamed for execution of Russians in Iraq
MOSCOW: Russian lawmakers on Wednesday blamed Washington over the execution of four Russian diplomats in Iraq, claiming the occupying forces there could have prevented the tragedy.
“The tragedy that occurred recently in Iraq was only possible because of the growing crisis in the country as the occupying powers increasingly lose control of the situation,” read a motion unanimously approved by the State Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament.
“All the responsibility for the situation in Iraq, including the security of its citizens and of foreign workers, lies with the occupying powers. We are convinced that they could have prevented the tragedy,” the Russian lawmakers said.
They also called on the Russian authorities and the occupying forces to hold a “detailed enquiry” into the murder of the Baghdad embassy workers and to “take every possible step to capture and punish the criminals”.
The motion said Russia could not allow itself to be dragged into the Iraqi conflict and would continue to press for a “peaceful solution” to the crisis there.
The diplomats were abducted when gunmen attacked their vehicle in the upmarket west Baghdad neighbourhood of Mansur. A fifth diplomat, Vitaly Titov, was killed during the kidnapping. The hostage-takers had given Russia a 48-hour ultimatum to pull out of Chechnya and free Muslim prisoners from Russian jails, although Chechen rebels said they had nothing to do with the group in Iraq.
And they used John Kerry's testimony against the war in Vietnam, against him!
The question is not do we support our troops, as a whole we do.
Do we support atrocities committed by any one including our troops, No we don't.
Again though a President and administration who acts above the law will misguide the troops whose oath is to the commander and chief (Our President)
This puts perspective on all threads in CGCS.
Is the country being represented by our leaders or are our leaders misrepresenting our country?
The question is not do we support our troops, as a whole we do.
Do we support atrocities committed by any one including our troops, No we don't.
Again though a President and administration who acts above the law will misguide the troops whose oath is to the commander and chief (Our President)
This puts perspective on all threads in CGCS.
Is the country being represented by our leaders or are our leaders misrepresenting our country?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.