CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #1
Apparently Army Officers are too stupid to be able to tell the difference between a legal or illegal combat operation. This is a military Judge making the claim. This was a few years ago yet I don't remember reading or hearing about any criticisms, especially from the pro war camp. Also keep in mind the Judge said this about two months before that dumbass Kerry made his remarks about studying hard or get stuck in Iraq. (no need to rehash interpretations)
All members of the Military have an obligation to test the legality of an order before they carry it out. Below is the Oath Lt Watada took and from my pov he was being loyal to that Oath when he questioned our actions in Iraq. Yet this Judge is saying Army Officers should not question orders given by the President?
usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blofficeroath.htm
Below is exact what the Judge said in response to Watada's reason for refusing to deploy:
"Lt Colonel Keith wrote in his official report about the Article 32 hearing. "However, due to the complexity of U.S. and International law, I believe it would be very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so) ordered by the President of the United States of America/Commander in Chief."
t r u t h o u t | Sarah Olson | Lieutenant Watada Should Be Prosecuted, Article 32 Hearing Finds
(this is not about Watada but what the Judge said. In observing normal tangents let me put this info out there: Watada was not trying to get out of his Oath as he volunteered to go to Afghanistan because he agreed that is a lawful occupation. He also followed his COC and they refused to accept his transfer to a unit in Afghanistan and counseled him on the consequences of refusing to deploy.)
Either this Judge was secretly a Watada fan and wanted to create grounds for an Appeal or Dismissal, or Mistrial (which is what happened), or he truly has the worst kind of confidence in our Officers.
Does anyone else agree with the Judge
All members of the Military have an obligation to test the legality of an order before they carry it out. Below is the Oath Lt Watada took and from my pov he was being loyal to that Oath when he questioned our actions in Iraq. Yet this Judge is saying Army Officers should not question orders given by the President?
usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blofficeroath.htm
Below is exact what the Judge said in response to Watada's reason for refusing to deploy:
"Lt Colonel Keith wrote in his official report about the Article 32 hearing. "However, due to the complexity of U.S. and International law, I believe it would be very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so) ordered by the President of the United States of America/Commander in Chief."
t r u t h o u t | Sarah Olson | Lieutenant Watada Should Be Prosecuted, Article 32 Hearing Finds
(this is not about Watada but what the Judge said. In observing normal tangents let me put this info out there: Watada was not trying to get out of his Oath as he volunteered to go to Afghanistan because he agreed that is a lawful occupation. He also followed his COC and they refused to accept his transfer to a unit in Afghanistan and counseled him on the consequences of refusing to deploy.)
Either this Judge was secretly a Watada fan and wanted to create grounds for an Appeal or Dismissal, or Mistrial (which is what happened), or he truly has the worst kind of confidence in our Officers.
Does anyone else agree with the Judge
