One simple question...

[hootinholler]

I was thinking again, I know, dangerous, however, it seems to me that Iraq boils down to one question:

Was the Presidential Order to invade lawful?

The military is bound by the U.C.M.J. to refuse an unlawful order.

Given what we now know from the Plame incident, we can surmise The President knew Iraq had no WMDs. Why would they construct the Niger evidence unless they didn't have jack?

I submit they didn't care and ordered it, which is a prima fascia case that the order was illegal in itself, but the order was given with malice aforethought in full knowledge that the foundational claims of the necessity of immediate invasion were mere tripe dressed as chateaubriand. Beside the asparagus, under the hollandaise is the toughest and most rubbery victual served to the masses which were lapped up and still taint 30% of the nation.

International tribunals have declared the war illegal under international law. My question is was it illegal under U.S. law? I submit the Joint Chiefs are in violation of the U.C.M.J. by executing the plan. How many Flag Officers resigned?

Sometimes I have these thoughts, this too shall pass one day.

-Hoot

[sweetheart]

1. Boils down to 1 question?

what is the truth. Not, what was done years ago, but what is right NOW.

Take away the keys from the drunk(s). ?

[sarge43]

2. What article in the UCMJ states that?

"The military is bound by the U.C.M.J. to refuse an unlawful order."

[hootinholler]

3. It is at least implied by Section 892. Art. 92.

Wherein it states:
Failure to obey order or regulation
Any person subject to this chapter who -
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or
regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a
member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails
to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

Thus creating the defense in regards to disobeying an unlawful order.

Our good friend: Section 934. Art. 134. General article
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders
and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the
armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the
armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons
subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of
by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the
nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the
discretion of that court.

I think that obeying an unlawful attack order brings discredit on the armed forces.

-Hoot

[sarge43]

4. Thanks Hoot

Pretty thin defense though, especially under combat conditions.

[hootinholler]

5. There's the rub...

I'm talking about flag officers, not Grunts. The Joint Chiefs should have told him to stick it.

The thinner the precedence for the order, the thicker the defense is.

-Hoot

[sarge43]

10. No argument there.

The JCS didn't even need any legal precedence. "This is a fucking stupid idea, sir, and it can't be done."

[mdmc]

6. lawful yes

stupid yes.

[hootinholler]

7. How so?

The conditions of the congressional Iraq resolution were not met. The basis for that resolutions was fraudulent.

-Hoot

[mdmc]

8. I really couldn't tell you but my senators could

wmd was just the public face. we's a nation buildin now.:patriot::eyes:

[hopeisaplace]

9. Well you answered my "what do they really think question"

"I submit they didn't care and ordered it" <--that would be my guess too.