Re: More Death's Blamed on Bush

"MLF" <fermanis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@xxxxxxx> wrote
It is the ultimate in idiocy to claim that just because somebody joins
the military that they are laying down their life for any cause the prez
says they have to die for, illegal or not. Service to country does not
include death by whim. Even the UCMJ says that a soldier is duty bound
only to carry out legal orders. Bush declared any order he issued was
legal which is how he got around that problem.

Actually, you got this one incorrect. When someone joins the military,
they swear and oath to carry out any lawful orders, even ones about which
they disagree. The President, as the commander in chief of the military,
is the ultimate commander and his orders are executed by all lower ranking
military persons. Whether it's a whim or not, if he says to go and fight,
you go and fight. No discussion, no quibles, no nothing. That's the way
the military works and has always worked since the time of Hammurabi (Bush
didn't invent it).

Well at one time there was this Congress thing. And we are talking morality
here. Just because somebody joins the military does not mean the powers
that be can treat them as cannon fodder. That is why we have a
Constitutional law that says Congress has to approve it. Of course there
are many ways around that as we have seen in the last 60 or so years.

As you say, the UCMJ says that a soldier must carry out any lawful order.
It also states what unlawful orders are. Warmaking by Bush or any other
president is a political decision and he will be supported or deterred by
the Congress or Supreme Court or the people. It is illegal for the
military to tell the Prez that the war is wrong or not fight it because
they disagree with the reasons for it. That would be insubordination,
outlawed by the UCMJ.

Bush did not "declare any order he issued was legal", because it was
already declared legal, as has been every military order issued by the
President as CIC since the Constitution was ratified.

Yes he did indeed. Especially regarding torture. We now know he signed a
directive. And we also know he declared his directive legal without
anything more than a memo from the AG.

The job of a soldier is to follow orders even if he disagrees with them.
One mistake we made during the Vietnam War was to not separate the soldier
from the war. Many Americans showed dishonor to the military person who
had fought that dishonorable war. That was wrong. Today, I believe that
most Americans realize that people who choose to serve their country are
brave and honorable persons, even if they are ordered to pursue military
adventures not supported by the majority of American citizens.

Yes and for that reason they are a bit higher up the food chain than "gang
bangers from Harlem." And I do know you remember the comparison being
tossed about as if it was a valid argument for not being such weenies when
the body bags came pouring in.