Members King Kashue Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 He's beneath contempt. As long as a soldier is willing to face the penalties for refusing orders, then I'm happy if they do so...As we've already discussed, that oath is to the Constitution first and foremost, and if a soldier is willing to pay the price for their moral objections, then that's a choice. The idea that soldier must always follow orders, no matter their content or character, has resulted in some of the most regrettable incidents in modern history... In the heat of battle is one thing (since obviously expediency = safety), but in a situation like Watada's, there's time for that deliberation. There must be a balance between the necessities of the chain of command and the realities that sometimes orders are given that are morally wrong. Soldiers have been convicted of crimes in Iraq, what if they had questioned those orders? What if more than three soldiers had protested their orders at Mai Lai? I won't mention the extremes of the idea, since I don't think they're analogous to this specific situation, but I'm sure you can think of them... Of course, all that said, it's different than the fellow in the OP who's making a political protest without grounds, not making an objection to a specific order... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thumper Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 And I agree with all of the above. "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) I've highlighted in bold text the part of the Oath I think is relevant. If 1st. Lt. Watada had any reservations prior to taking his commission, he should have said so. One can argue the case from either perspective. My own take is he's refusing combat service. He had a job to do, and troops who look to him for leadership. He failed on both counts. My two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 I've highlighted in bold text the part of the Oath I think is relevant. If 1st. Lt. Watada had any reservations prior to taking his commission, he should have said so. If you read his own comments, he says he didn't. According to him (and of course, one can think he's lying) when he enlisted, he supported the war, and it was only after later developments that he changed his mind. I can see the other interpretation as well, but from his point of view, he was fulfilling that oath... I know you bolded the idea of "without mental reservation", but that doesn't say "follow any and all orders" without mental reservation, but rather "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic" without mental reservation... If he saw the war in as contrary to supporting and defending the Constitution (as many did/do) and does not see it as defending the United States against a foreign enemy (as many didn't/don't), then he's not violating his oath. Obviously a sticky situation that involved all sorts of remarkably subjective and unknowable things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members misterhinkydink Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 If you read his own comments, he says he didn't. According to him (and of course, one can think he's lying) when he enlisted, he supported the war, and it was only after later developments that he changed his mind. I can see the other interpretation as well, but from his point of view, he was fulfilling that oath... I know you bolded the idea of "without mental reservation", but that doesn't say "follow any and all orders" without mental reservation, but rather "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic" without mental reservation... If he saw the war in as contrary to supporting and defending the Constitution (as many did/do) and does not see it as defending the United States against a foreign enemy (as many didn't/don't), then he's not violating his oath. Obviously a sticky situation that involved all sorts of remarkably subjective and unknowable things... It's really too bad you don't like soldiering as well as you like arguing. You'd be a regular, {censored}ing Sgt. York. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 It's really too bad you don't like soldiering as well as you like arguing. You'd be a regular, {censored}ing Sgt. York. Hey, if I wasn't here, you'd only have 1/3 the posts in this thread that you do, that's like 80% of all the words you've typed that would never have been shared! Don't I get credit for inspiring you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Darkstorm Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 He should either be courtmartialed and put in military prison then discharged with dishounarbale discharge, or simply discharged with dishounarable discharge. A disgrace to the military service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zamfir Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 I read it was 5 years at the time of his birth. If in a territory it doesn't matter. The contention is that she wasn't an adult for 5 years previous AND he was born outside of a US territory. This was all based on one of the grandmothers saying he was born in Kenya. No other evidence than that statement exists to support this. I would have to say the Lt. is on pretty shaky ground and his chances of ever making General have suffered. Edit found it: http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child. So if Obama's mother wasn't in the US for 5 years after the age of 14 AND Obama was really born on Kenya, we have a problem. Also if his mother was actually a jackal, we have a bigger problem. Lug, my friend, I do this for a living. I was speaking to the very hypothetical assumptions that: (1) child is born abroad, (2) child is out of wedlock, (3) mother is the Amcit who might be able to transmit citizenship, and (4) father is not an Amcit at the time of child's birth. (#4 is definitely true, from all we know.) If those conditions hold, then this regulation, based on the law, controls (I'd cite the actual Immigration and Nationality Act, but I have that at the office and don't have time to dig it up as I post this): 7 FAM 1133.4-3 Birth Out of Wedlock to American Mother (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998) a. Claims Under Section 309© INA: A child born abroad out of wedlock on or after December 24, 1952, to a U.S. citizen mother acquires U.S. citizenship if the mother was physically present continuously for 1 year in the United States or its outlying possessions at any time prior to the child's birth. This did not change under any of the amendments to Section 309 INA. Thus a woman who had spent only a very short time every year outside the United States would be unable to transmit citizenship under section 309© INA even though she might have qualified to transmit U.S. citizenship under section 301(g) INA if she had been married to the father of the child. The 1966 amendment to section 301 INA allowing members of the U.S. armed forces, employees of the U.S. Government and certain international organizations, and their dependents to count certain periods outside the United States as U.S. physical presence does not apply to section 309© INA. For this reason, the mother of a child born out of wedlock cannot use time spent abroad as a military dependent, for example, to satisfy all or part of the requirement of continuous physical presence in the United States for 1 year. Subsequent legitimation or the establishment of a legal relationship between an alien father and a person who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth under section 309© does not alter that person's citizenship. Read farther down the page you just cited - my regulation citation is condensed at the bottom. I just had a couple cases of out of wedlock moms this week. The law you cited is for births *in wedlock* as I re-emphasized in your post: 5 years in the U.S., 2 of which have to be after attaining the age of 14. [Edit2: Sorry, I have that other section of the law on the brain after so many cases at work: at this point in the post and below, I meant to write "10 years in the U.S., including 5 after the age 14."] My point/conjecture is that with a birth less than 9 months after marriage, the child may be out of wedlock -- I've got to go look up the wedlock law to be sure, but I also had a case recently of this sort of thing, and IIRC, less than 9 months between marriage and birth meant that baby was out of wedlock for the purposes of the law. If I'm wrong, and the future Prez was born *in* wedlock, and if mom doesn't have five years, two of which after the age of 14 (again, from a skim of her biography online she appears to have plenty o' time in the U.S.), then we might have a problem. This is the ironic version of the "marriage tax" where citizenship acquisition is concerned. Now, as you point out, this is rather academic. If he was indeed born in Hawaii, then the 14th amendment is satisfied, and Easterling/Taitz can stop asking silly questions. Edit: I hate it as a source, but a quick skim of his mother's Wikipedia bio does not indicate that she ever left the United States prior to Obama's birth - not until 1966 or so. His father is alleged to have been visiting Hawaii when they met. If she never left the U.S. from her birth until Obama's, even the strongest claim of the Easterling/Taitz crowd is completely moronic under any law or wedlock status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J. Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 If the United States ever got into a major war that resulted in lots of casualties and required a draft, I think there would be more soldiers (especially draftees) that would pull similar stunts. Insubordination would become more and more common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 What a joke. This guy seems to have forgotten that, in the military, you follow your orders and shut up. At least, thats what I did when I was serving. As an commissioned officer, who's meant to set an example for those under his command, it's doubly embarassing and seems to be like desperately grasping at straws to get out of doing his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members s4001 Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 Even though I don't agree with the guy, this may play out interesting. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members i_wanna_les_paul Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 Bill Shatner is Canadian... Canada represents our multi-cultraulism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ender_rpm Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 tee hee, add that to list of things I learned today. Apparently, the guys orders got revoked. Not sure what will follow. IMO, he should be brought up on charges for conduct unbecoming and put out. Like him or not (not a big fan myself) Obama is the President, duly sworn in by the law of the land, and you are bound to follow his orders as Commander in Chief, unless you believe the orders to be illegal (the basis for this law suit). Not because it MAY expose you to war crimes prosecution in some hypothetical situation, but because it isin fact explicitly illegal, which this was not. Ole boy wanted out of deployment, he got it. I just hope they use this as an opportunity to clarify the issue and get rid fo the {censored} bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chunky-b Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 Orders Revoked? Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplacehttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 tee hee, add that to list of things I learned today. Apparently, the guys orders got revoked. Not sure what will follow. IMO, he should be brought up on charges for conduct unbecoming and put out. Like him or not (not a big fan myself) Obama is the President, duly sworn in by the law of the land, and you are bound to follow his orders as Commander in Chief, unless you believe the orders to be illegal (the basis for this law suit). Not because it MAY expose you to war crimes prosecution in some hypothetical situation, but because it isin fact explicitly illegal, which this was not. Ole boy wanted out of deployment, he got it. I just hope they use this as an opportunity to clarify the issue and get rid fo the {censored} bag. Probably because we've just had the highest death toll of troops in eight years of this "unwinnable" war. Talk about mismanagement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thumper Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 tee hee, add that to list of things I learned today.Apparently, the guys orders got revoked. Not sure what will follow. IMO, he should be brought up on charges for conduct unbecoming and put out. Like him or not (not a big fan myself) Obama is the President, duly sworn in by the law of the land, and you are bound to follow his orders as Commander in Chief, unless you believe the orders to be illegal (the basis for this law suit). Not because it MAY expose you to war crimes prosecution in some hypothetical situation, but because it isin fact explicitly illegal, which this was not. Ole boy wanted out of deployment, he got it. I just hope they use this as an opportunity to clarify the issue and get rid fo the {censored} bag. Yep. Major Cook is an embarrassment to the uniform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members walkerci Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 Orders Revoked? Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009 I sincerely hope that Mr. Obama provides a certified copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth in it's entirety, so that the matter can be put to rest for all time. It's such an easy thing to do and it would have prevented dozens of lawsuits had it been done a year ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bassthumpintwin Posted July 15, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 I sincerely hope that Mr. Obama provides a certified copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth in it's entirety, so that the matter can be put to rest for all time. It's such an easy thing to do and it would have prevented dozens of lawsuits had it been done a year ago. I'm kind of doubting that he will, since he hasn't already.And even if he does....HE'S THE POTUS! HE CAN FORGE ANYTHING!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chunky-b Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 I'm kind of doubting that he will, since he hasn't already. And even if he does.... HE'S THE POTUS! HE CAN FORGE ANYTHING!!! The CIA is printing one up for him as we type... They were busy making a fake death certificate for Michael Jackson so he can go live on the island with Elvis and JFK... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 I'm kind of doubting that he will, since he hasn't already. And even if he does.... HE'S THE POTUS! HE CAN FORGE ANYTHING!!! +1 If you can print money (or at least make all the idiots believe you can pull money with a rabbit from a hat), you can print anything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 The CIA is printing one up for him as we type... They were busy making a fake death certificate for Michael Jackson so he can go live on the island with Elvis and JFK... and Ken Leigh and they are all banging Anna Nicole Smith! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ender_rpm Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 The CIA is printing one up for him as we type... They were busy making a fake death certificate for Michael Jackson so he can go live on the island with Elvis and JFK... This is why this issue will never go away.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 Probably because we've just had the highest death toll of troops in eight years of this "unwinnable" war. Talk about mismanagement! I believe that sentiment was reserved for Iraq. Obama always said Afghanistan should have been more of a priority than Iraq as did, well, everyone else in the civilized world. The death toll has risen because major operations are now taking place... which should have done a long time ago Face it lug, this officer is just a whining little bitch clutching at straws and an embarrassment to anyone in uniform. Just to put some perspective on this: when I was serving in the army, I considered the president of Cyprus to be a total moron who has probably caused more economic and political damage to us than anyone else. However, that had no bearing on my job, at all. I did what I was told, followed my orders and didn't question them. (It was not a time of war, granted, but you get what I mean.) If I'd gone around calling him a 'usurper' and a 'forge' or whatever, trust me I would've seen the inside of the brig faster than I could say 'But I was only joking...' And I was a conscript. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knuckle_head Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 Leave it to a {censored}in' LT... First thing I thought... He's got command written all over him or (more likely) a target on the back of his skull. Edit - Anyone notice that Dr. Taitz's first name is Orly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 Even though I don't agree with the guy, this may play out interesting. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009 Yeah, I'm definitely going to trust the reporting of WND on an issue relating to an Obama citizenship conspiracy theory Also, his lawyer? If she said this, she's a moron:"His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders."We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lokidecat Posted July 15, 2009 Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 Stolen from a post on Fark: Let's see what the Uniform Code of Military Justice says about that:Article 87 of the UCMJ: Missing MovementDishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.Article 88: Contempt toward officialsDismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.Article 90: Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior officerWillfully disobeying a lawful order of superior commissioned officer. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.In time of war: Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.Article 133: Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentlemanDismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for a period not in excess of that authorized for the most analogous (similar) offense for which a punishment is prescribed in this Manual, or, if none is prescribed, for 1 year.Article 134: General Article - Disloyal StatementsDishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years.Enjoy PMITA Disciplinary Barracks, "sir."/FYI, "Dismissal" is the officer equivalent of a Dishonorable Discharge for an enlisted soldier. Death sentence? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.