 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ROTC DAD
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 147
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Greenhat,
Actually, you just don't get it. I am not arguing that the soldiers are not subject to the UCMJ; I am arguing that there has been systemic violation of the UCMJ and that those violations were made consciously by decision-makers within our command structure. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for Assistant Attorney General Gonzalez to write a memo stating that we would have to withdraw from the Geneva Conventions so that the President could not be tried as a war criminal. There was a conscious decision made by members of the command structure to skirt the law, either those of the Geneva Conventions or thos of the UCMJ.
The problem is not just a few bad apples as you and many others would have us believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ROTC DAD wrote: | Greenhat,
Actually, you just don't get it. I am not arguing that the soldiers are not subject to the UCMJ; I am arguing that there has been systemic violation of the UCMJ and that those violations were made consciously by decision-makers within our command structure. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for Assistant Attorney General Gonzalez to write a memo stating that we would have to withdraw from the Geneva Conventions so that the President could not be tried as a war criminal. There was a conscious decision made by members of the command structure to skirt the law, either those of the Geneva Conventions or thos of the UCMJ.
The problem is not just a few bad apples as you and many others would have us believe. |
Glad you are such an expert on the military and international law, Dad. Where did you get your law degree and where did you pass the bar?
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ROTC DAD
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Greenhat,
So now you attack my legal background without debating what was said. The same question can be asked of you. When did you become a legal expert? I know, you're going to tell me you were an officer and therfore you know the UCMJ because you were required to know it. From a legal standpoint, when did you ever use it?
And still, you haven't responded to the debate. If the Assistant Attorney General of the US writes a memo which states that he believes the US should withdraw from the Geneva Conventions in order to protect the President from being brought up on charges as a War Criminal in the World Court and this is made public knowledge, why do I need a law degree to discuss it and point it out as a valid point of contention?
Respond to the topic and stop with the attempts to deflect away from the questions brouht up. If we used your criteria on this board as the only means of discussing a topic, all of us would be silent (including you, btw). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Saint
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apparently Senator McCain, a POW for 5 1/2 years did not find the abuse funny.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ROTC DAD wrote: | Greenhat,
So now you attack my legal background without debating what was said. The same question can be asked of you. When did you become a legal expert? I know, you're going to tell me you were an officer and therfore you know the UCMJ because you were required to know it. From a legal standpoint, when did you ever use it?
And still, you haven't responded to the debate. If the Assistant Attorney General of the US writes a memo which states that he believes the US should withdraw from the Geneva Conventions in order to protect the President from being brought up on charges as a War Criminal in the World Court and this is made public knowledge, why do I need a law degree to discuss it and point it out as a valid point of contention?
Respond to the topic and stop with the attempts to deflect away from the questions brouht up. If we used your criteria on this board as the only means of discussing a topic, all of us would be silent (including you, btw). |
When did I ever use it?
Oh, probably about 35-40 times. I served under Carter when I first entered the service. We did a lot of Article 15s, some Article 32 hearings, a few court-martials once Reagan took office and we were allowed to actually try to build a working and disciplined military. Was the investigating officer for Article 32 hearings twice. Testified in a few court-martials. Put a lot of people in front of the CO for Article 15s and for Chapters (especially Chapter 9s). Must have read 40-50 people their Miranda rights during health and welfare inspections.
The Attorney General's responsibility is to provide the President with legal council. Suggesting an action that is precautionary does not state anything at all about what has been authorized, it is simply a lawyer looking at all the possibilities and making the appropriate recommendations. As a lawyer, I am sure you would do the same for your clients, right?
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ROTC DAD
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Greenhat,
I stand corrected. You talk like a lawyer.
Still, as I stated in my last post, that is not the debate. The Attorney General's office is to provide the President with legal council as it pertains to the laws of the US. He is not the President's Attorney and therefore should not be providing private legal council. Nor is giving the President advice to withdraw from rules of engagement within the pervue of his position. But again, that is not the debate.
We agree that abuse occurred. We differ in the degree of culpability. Yet as has been reported, the abuse was systemic, was broadly applied, and was also ineffectual in gathering information. So all we managed to do was make the Iraqi's dislike us more than they may normally have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, in that much we agree, ROTC Dad. And I hope that everyone of the people who are actually responsible are punished to the full extent of the UCMJ. I am not willing to assume on heresay who was or wasn't involved.
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carpro
Admin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeremy Eaton
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 90
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fortdixlover
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 1476
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guys,
I hate to tell you, the "prisoner abuse" issue has been milked for all it's worth (which is, not much in the big scheme of things). Nobody's opinion is going to be changed by it, one way or the other.
It's time to go home now.
FDL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
