|
It would be hypocrisy for the kind of combat dodgers that pushed war but don't
have the guts to do it themselves (Limbaugh, Cheney, etc.) to gripe about those
Reservists not carrying out a "suicide mission" that was clearly a case of
reckless endangerment. Also, don't troops have the right to question reckless
orders? What kind of leadership would send them out under such conditions?
Perhaps the same that would pretend that foolish Administration decisions (like
disbanding the Iraqi army) were really the fault of Congress, and other nations
(http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ "FRANKS: BAD WAR DECISIONS NOT BUSH'S
FAULT....")
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%
3B%20Chickenhawks
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:32:24 -0400, "<0>" <danderous@irony.net>
be#@($teth down into alt.war.terrorism :
It would be hypocrisy for the kind of combat dodgers that pushed war but don't
have the guts to do it themselves (Limbaugh, Cheney, etc.) to gripe about those
Reservists not carrying out a "suicide mission" that was clearly a case of
reckless endangerment. Also, don't troops have the right to question reckless
orders?
No.
What kind of leadership would send them out under such conditions?
Perhaps the same that would pretend that foolish Administration decisions (like
disbanding the Iraqi army) were really the fault of Congress, and other nations
(http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ "FRANKS: BAD WAR DECISIONS NOT BUSH'S
FAULT....")
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%
3B%20Chickenhawks
I served during our soire into Somalia and had a lot of friends come
home in bodybags because they followed orders and went on missions
that you could call "suicide missions." Why was no one grieving for
them? Oh yeah, because it ws Clinton's foreign entanglement and not
Bush's.
--
Ryan Lankford
"You try to cause me problems here, and you just may never
return. I'll try to kill you any way I can."--Joseph Bartlo, e-mailing me a death threat.
"There's nothing wrong per se with liking little boys..."--Joseph Bartlo
"We don't need a tax cut."--John Kerry, October 1st, 2004 debate
|
| |
| |
Ryan Lankford, Libertarian Warrior wrote:
I served during our soire into Somalia and had a lot of friends come
home in bodybags because they followed orders and went on missions
that you could call "suicide missions." Why was no one grieving for
them? Oh yeah, because it ws Clinton's foreign entanglement and not
Bush's.
No one was grieving for *them*? You have got to be kidding.
Even up here in Canada we were horrified by the images of the
U.S. soldiers killed, maimed, dragged down dusty streets as
if part of a parade of horror.
Man, you USAians lose perspective when it comes to partisan
politics.
- nilita
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 03:07:30 GMT, "la n." <nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com>
be#@($teth down into alt.war.terrorism :
Ryan Lankford, Libertarian Warrior wrote:
No one was grieving for *them*? You have got to be kidding.
Even up here in Canada we were horrified by the images of the
U.S. soldiers killed, maimed, dragged down dusty streets as
if part of a parade of horror.
Man, you USAians lose perspective when it comes to partisan
politics.
- nilita
At what point did you guys cry out that it was wrong for our CO's to
ask us to go on suicide missions?
--
Ryan Lankford
"You try to cause me problems here, and you just may never
return. I'll try to kill you any way I can."--Joseph Bartlo, e-mailing me a death threat.
"There's nothing wrong per se with liking little boys..."--Joseph Bartlo
"We don't need a tax cut."--John Kerry, October 1st, 2004 debate
|
| |
| |
Ryan Lankford, Libertarian Warrior wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 03:07:30 GMT, "la n." <nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com>
be#@($teth down into alt.war.terrorism :
At what point did you guys cry out that it was wrong for our CO's to
ask us to go on suicide missions?
WTF????
- nilita
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 03:50:34 GMT, "la n." <nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com>
be#@($teth down into alt.war.terrorism :
Ryan Lankford, Libertarian Warrior wrote:
WTF????
This isn't hard...the original post stated:
"It would be hypocrisy for the kind of combat dodgers that pushed war
but don't
have the guts to do it themselves (Limbaugh, Cheney, etc.) to gripe
about those
Reservists not carrying out a "suicide mission" that was clearly a
case of
reckless endangerment. Also, don't troops have the right to question
reckless
orders? What kind of leadership would send them out under such
conditions?"
I asked why no one was asking that question when it was *my* friends
being asked to go on suicide missions in Somalia. I then answered my
own question (correctly, I might add.)
You told me that basically I was lying and Canadians were grieving for
those who were asked to go on suicide missions in Somalia. I asked at
what point did *anyone object to American soldiers being asked to go
out on suicide missions, and you came back with "WTF?"
--
Ryan Lankford
"You try to cause me problems here, and you just may never
return. I'll try to kill you any way I can."--Joseph Bartlo, e-mailing me a death threat.
"There's nothing wrong per se with liking little boys..."--Joseph Bartlo
"We don't need a tax cut."--John Kerry, October 1st, 2004 debate
|
| |
| |
Ryan Lankford, Libertarian Warrior wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 03:50:34 GMT, "la n." <nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com>
be#@($teth down into alt.war.terrorism :
This isn't hard...the original post stated:
"It would be hypocrisy for the kind of combat dodgers that pushed war
but don't
have the guts to do it themselves (Limbaugh, Cheney, etc.) to gripe
about those
Reservists not carrying out a "suicide mission" that was clearly a
case of
reckless endangerment. Also, don't troops have the right to question
reckless
orders? What kind of leadership would send them out under such
conditions?"
I asked why no one was asking that question when it was *my* friends
being asked to go on suicide missions in Somalia. I then answered my
own question (correctly, I might add.)
You told me that basically I was lying and Canadians were grieving for
those who were asked to go on suicide missions in Somalia. I asked at
what point did *anyone object to American soldiers being asked to go
out on suicide missions, and you came back with "WTF?"
Well, I came in a little late on this discussion, so I don't
have any good answers for you except to say that, as a Canadian,
I have a lot of admiration for people who serve in the U.S.
Military. You don't hear it enough from outsiders, but you
truly do have a lot of the best and the brightest and the
bravest of people around. I grieve a lot for the deaths of
American servicemen and women, especially now that I have a
good friend serving over there. Once he gets back *safe and
sound* this spring, I'm going to stop watching the news and
reading military groups. It's just getting too hard for me
to see the pain that this war is causing on so many fronts -
and I don't mean just on the battlefields.
- nilita, knowin' i prolly didn't answer you satisfactorily but
it's gonna have to do ....
|
| |
| |
"la n." <nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in news:Ammcd.17584$z96.1657
@clgrps12:
Ryan Lankford, Libertarian Warrior wrote:
Well, I came in a little late on this discussion, so I don't
have any good answers for you except to say that, as a Canadian,
I have a lot of admiration for people who serve in the U.S.
Military. You don't hear it enough from outsiders, but you
truly do have a lot of the best and the brightest and the
bravest of people around. I grieve a lot for the deaths of
American servicemen and women, especially now that I have a
good friend serving over there. Once he gets back *safe and
sound* this spring, I'm going to stop watching the news and
reading military groups. It's just getting too hard for me
to see the pain that this war is causing on so many fronts -
and I don't mean just on the battlefields.
- nilita, knowin' i prolly didn't answer you satisfactorily but
it's gonna have to do ....
Well, if the Pentagon War Affairs Committee had kept this secret as they
did during V'Nam you would only hear that several more soldiers had died
in a convoy and that 50 Al Quiada masterminds were dead or injured from a
firefight with US Soldiers.
In fact, the next time this happens, you can bet you will not hear the
truth. Slowly and surely we will repeat history. Also, ever so slowly you
will come to know the truth as John Kerry has described. We will fight
this war again and again untill we learn not to burn.
Why soldiers must risk lives is a moot issue. What is more important to
the Republican leadership is that this war continue at ALL costs...
|
| |
| |
"Ryan Lankford, Libertarian Warrior" <RyanLankford@NOSPAMmsn.comNOSPAM> wrote in
message news:1097980970.dxXggpN9dBB1ZYtCdZORMQ@teranews...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:32:24 -0400, "<0>" <danderous@irony.net>
be#@($teth down into alt.war.terrorism :
No.
Let's have some military law quotes to prove that. Would you be willing to do
that mission, considering the circumstances? (If you are really a libertarian,
how the heck do you get off telling us that the government can order people to
their deaths on flimsy pretexts, but presumably not take their money even in the
public interest? Are you a neo-con/plutocracy-sucking hack posing as a genuine
anti-authoritarian?)
What kind of leadership would send them out under such conditions?
Perhaps the same that would pretend that foolish Administration decisions
(like
disbanding the Iraqi army) were really the fault of Congress, and other
nations
(http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ "FRANKS: BAD WAR DECISIONS NOT BUSH'S
FAULT....")
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS
%3B%20Chickenhawks
I served during our soire into Somalia and had a lot of friends come
home in bodybags because they followed orders and went on missions
that you could call "suicide missions." Why was no one grieving for
them? Oh yeah, because it ws Clinton's foreign entanglement and not
Bush's.
Dextrotarians are always griping like that - but people did grieve (and
complain) for those soldiers, in fact enough that Clinton pulled our boys and
gals out of there - instead of miring them down in a quagmire like what's going
on in Iraq.
--
Ryan Lankford
....
"We don't need a tax cut."--John Kerry, October 1st, 2004 debate
We don't, backpack-controlled-chimpophile. Our debt and deficits are high enough
already.
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:16:18 -0400, "<0>" <danderous@irony.net>
be#@($teth down into alt.war.terrorism :
"Ryan Lankford, Libertarian Warrior" <RyanLankford@NOSPAMmsn.comNOSPAM> wrote in
message news:1097980970.dxXggpN9dBB1ZYtCdZORMQ@teranews...
Let's have some military law quotes to prove that. Would you be willing to do
that mission, considering the circumstances?
If I was in the military, I'd do the job that I was sworn to do...part
of that job is to obey *all* lawful orders from my superiors,
regardless of the cost.
(If you are really a libertarian,
how the heck do you get off telling us that the government can order people to
their deaths on flimsy pretexts, but presumably not take their money even in the
public interest? Are you a neo-con/plutocracy-sucking hack posing as a genuine
anti-authoritarian?)
Nope, I was a Republocrat until I got into the military. After I got
my HD, I saw the Republocrat system for what it is, and became a
Libertarian in 1005.
I feel about this war the same way I felt about Somaila, Bosnia, and
all of the other foreign entanglements that were none of our business;
they're wrong. What got me is that even though people *knew* that our
boys in Somaila were being awsked to perform suicide missions, people
shrugged it off as "part of the job." Now that we're in a similar
action, only this time under the orders of an unpopular President
rather than an unpopular one, people all of a sudden care about
"suidice missions."
What kind of leadership would send them out under such conditions?
Perhaps the same that would pretend that foolish Administration decisions
(like
disbanding the Iraqi army) were really the fault of Congress, and other
nations
(http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ "FRANKS: BAD WAR DECISIONS NOT BUSH'S
FAULT....")
%3B%20Chickenhawks
Dextrotarians are always griping like that - but people did grieve (and
complain) for those soldiers, in fact enough that Clinton pulled our boys and
gals out of there - instead of miring them down in a quagmire like what's going
on in Iraq.
Care to cite one article where *anyone* decried suicide missions
during the Somali police action?
Turnabout's fair play.
--
Ryan Lankford
...
We don't, backpack-controlled-chimpophile. Our debt and deficits are high enough
already.
I need a tax cut, but I know I won't get one from a pioece of #@($
like John Kerry...are you a millionaire or do you just hate keeping
your own money? If you want to pay higher taxes, feel free to send a
little extra to the government every month. Just keep your hands out
of my wallet. My kid needs it worse than your Republocrat system
does.
--
Ryan Lankford
"You try to cause me problems here, and you just may never
return. I'll try to kill you any way I can."--Joseph Bartlo, e-mailing me a death threat.
"There's nothing wrong per se with liking little boys..."--Joseph Bartlo
"We don't need a tax cut."--John Kerry, October 1st, 2004 debate
|
| |
| |
"Ryan Lankford, Libertarian Warrior" <RyanLankford@NOSPAMmsn.comNOSPAM>
wrote in
message news:1097980970.dxXggpN9dBB1ZYtCdZORMQ@teranews...
Let's have some military law quotes to prove that.
Look up the General Orders that recruits are made to memorize their very
first day.
|
| |
| |
n Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:16:18 -0400, "<0>" <danderous@irony.net>
be#@($teth down into alt.war.terrorism :
"Ryan Lankford, Libertarian Warrior" <RyanLankford@NOSPAMmsn.comNOSPAM> wrote in
message news:1097980970.dxXggpN9dBB1ZYtCdZORMQ@teranews...
Let's have some military law quotes to prove that. Would you be willing to do
that mission, considering the circumstances? (If you are really a libertarian,
how the heck do you get off telling us that the government can order people to
their deaths on flimsy pretexts, but presumably not take their money even in the
public interest? Are you a neo-con/plutocracy-sucking hack posing as a genuine
anti-authoritarian?)
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl90.htm
"Text. 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; shall be punished as
a court-martial may direct.
Elements.
(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or
regulation.
(a) That there was in effect a certain lawful general order or
regulation;
(b) That the accused had a duty to obey it; and
(c) That the accused violated or failed to obey the order or
regulation.
(2) Failure to obey other lawful order.
(a) That a member of the armed forces issued a certain lawful order;
(b) That the accused had knowledge of the order;
(c) That the accused had a duty to obey the order; and
(d) That the accused failed to obey the order.
(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.
(a) That the accused had certain duties;
(b) That the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the
duties; and
(c) That the accused was (willfully) (through neglect or culpable
inefficiency) derelict in the performance of those duties.
Explanation.
(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or
regulation.
(a) General orders or regulations are those orders or regulations
generally applicable to an armed force which are properly published by
the President or the Secretary of Defense, of Transportation, or of a
military department, and those orders or regulations generally
applicable to the command of the officer issuing them throughout the
command or a particular subdivision thereof which are issued by:
(i) an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction;
(ii) a general or flag officer in command; or
(iii) a commander superior to (i) or (ii).
(b) A general order or regulation issued by a commander with authority
under Article 92(1) retains its character as a general order or
regulation when another officer takes command, until it expires by its
own terms or is rescinded by separate action, even if it is issued by
an officer who is a general or flag officer in command and command is
assumed by another officer who is not a general or flag officer.
(c) A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to
the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior
orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the
official issuing it. See the discussion of lawfulness in paragraph
14c(2)(a).
(d) Knowledge. Knowledge of a general order or regulation need not be
alleged or proved, as knowledge is not an element of this offense and
a lack of knowledge does not constitute a defense.
(e) Enforceability. Not all provisions in general orders or
regulations can be enforced under Article 92(1). Regulations which
only supply general guide-lines or advice for conducting military
functions may not be enforceable under Article 92(1).
(2) Violation of or failure to obey other lawful order.
(a) Scope. Article 92(2) includes all other lawful orders which may be
issued by a member of the armed forces, violations of which are not
chargeable under Article 90, 91, or 92(1). It includes the violation
of written regulations which are not general regulations. See also
subparagraph (1)(e) above as applicable.
(b) Knowledge. In order to be guilty of this offense, a person must
have had actual knowledge of the order or regulation. Knowledge of the
order may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
(c) Duty to obey order.
(i) From a superior. A member of one armed force who is senior in rank
to a member of another armed force is the superior of that member with
authority to issue orders which that member has a duty to obey under
the same circumstances as a commissioned officer of one armed force is
the superior commissioned officer of a member of an-other armed force
for the purposes of Articles 89 and 90. See paragraph 13c(1).
(ii) From one not a superior. Failure to obey the lawful order of one
not a superior is an offense under Article 92(2), provided the accused
had a duty to obey the order, such as one issued by a sentinel or a
member of the armed forces police. See paragraph 15b(2) if the order
was issued by a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer in the
execution of office.
(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.
(a) Duty. A duty may be imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful
order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the service.
(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge of duties may be proved by
circumstantial evidence. Actual knowledge need not be shown if the
individual reasonably should have known of the duties. This may be
demonstrated by regulations, training or operating manuals, customs of
the service, academic literature or testimony, testimony of persons
who have held similar or superior positions, or similar evidence.
(c) Derelict. A person is derelict in the performance of duties when
that person willfully or negligently fails to perform that persons
duties or when that person performs them in a culpably inefficient
manner. Willfully means intentionally. I t refers to the doing of an
act knowingly and purposely, specifically intending the natural and
probable consequences of the act. Negligently means an act or
omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which
exhibits a lack of that degree of care which a reasonably prudent
person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances.
Culpable inefficiency is inefficiency for which there is no
reasonable or just excuse.
(d) Ineptitude. A person is not derelict in the performance of duties
if the failure to perform those duties is caused by ineptitude rather
than by willfulness, negligence, or culpable inefficiency, and may not
be charged under this article, or otherwise punished. For example, a
recruit who has tried earnestly during rifle training and throughout
record firing is not derelict in the performance of duties if the
recruit fails to qualify with the weapon.
|
| |
| |
"Ryan Lankford, Libertarian Warrior" <RyanLankford@NOSPAMmsn.comNOSPAM> wrote in
message news:1098062784.vMzNyXFgWSzi/DaqiUL7wA@teranews...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:16:18 -0400, "<0>" <danderous@irony.net>
be#@($teth down into alt.war.terrorism :
<snip>
I feel about this war the same way I felt about Somaila, Bosnia, and
all of the other foreign entanglements that were none of our business;
they're wrong. What got me is that even though people *knew* that our
boys in Somaila were being awsked to perform suicide missions, people
shrugged it off as "part of the job." Now that we're in a similar
action, only this time under the orders of an unpopular President
rather than an unpopular one, people all of a sudden care about
"suidice missions."
I guess you meant, "Now that we're in a similar action, only this time under the
orders of an unpopular President rather than a popular one, ..." ? Well, GWB
should be unpopular, or even more than he is...
What kind of leadership would send them out under such conditions?
Perhaps the same that would pretend that foolish Administration decisions
(like
disbanding the Iraqi army) were really the fault of Congress, and other
nations
(http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ "FRANKS: BAD WAR DECISIONS NOT BUSH'S
FAULT....")
Care to cite one article where *anyone* decried suicide missions
during the Somali police action?
Turnabout's fair play.
Of course, with little record on the Internet (Internets?) in '91, I'm supposed
to rummage around in musty library shelves? Well, I did try Google anyway, and
got
http://strategicintelligence.blogspot.com/2004/10/poor-is-nation-that-has-no-her
oes.html To hell with articles, it turns out that *commanders* then tried harder
to keep soldiers out of "suicide missions":
"Delta snipers Randy Shugart and Gary Gordon - providing cover fire from a
circling Blackhawk - requested permission to be inserted on-scene, and to
provide protection for the crew of Mike Durant's downed MH-60. After repeated
refusals from command staff to allow them to engage in what was (correctly)
viewed as a suicide mission, the two were finally inserted (after their third
request) 100 meters away from the crash site." - Well, I have to admire those
guys for their sacrifice, but that was real sacrifice, not trucking gobs of
crappy fuel in lousy trucks under attack by sappers that a better-planned war
effort should have mopped up by now.
--
Ryan Lankford
...
"We don't need a tax cut."--John Kerry, October 1st, 2004 debate
We don't, backpack-controlled-chimpophile. Our debt and deficits are high
enough
already.
I need a tax cut, but I know I won't get one from a pioece of #@($
like John Kerry...are you a millionaire or do you just hate keeping
your own money? If you want to pay higher taxes, feel free to send a
little extra to the government every month. Just keep your hands out
of my wallet. My kid needs it worse than your Republocrat system
does.
You sure should be against speculators getting a lower rate for capital gains at
a given income level than people who actually work for it. BTW - why don't you
types care as much that some of the money going to high pay for execs could be
coming to you to instead, instead of just griping about how much is taken away
by the government?
|
| |
| |
"Ryan Lankford, Libertarian Warrior" <RyanLankford@NOSPAMmsn.comNOSPAM>
projectile-vomited into news:1098076803.q/2/KDWYqQD8KMea4LJigg@teranews...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:16:18 -0400, "<0>" <danderous@irony.net>
be#@($teth down into alt.war.terrorism :
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl90.htm
"Text. "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; shall be punished as
a court-martial may direct."
Elements.
<snip>
Maximum punishment.
(1) Violation or failure to obey lawful general order or regulation.
Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and
confinement for 2 years.
(2) Violation of failure to obey other lawful order. Bad-conduct
discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6
months.
Note: For (1) and (2), above, the punishment set forth does not apply
in the following cases: if in the absence of the order or regulation
which was violated or not obeyed the accused would on the same facts
be subject to conviction for another specific offense for which a
lesser punishment is prescribed; or if the violation or failure to
obey is a breach of restraint imposed as a result of an order. In
these instances, the maximum punishment is that specifically
prescribed else wherefor that particular offense.
(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.
(A) Through neglect or culpable inefficiency. Forfeiture of two-thirds
pay per month for 3 months and confinement for 3 months.
(B) Willful. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and
allowances, and confinement for 6 months."
Hmm...nothing in there about "it's okay to disobey an order if you
don't like it or it may cost you your life." As long as your CO isn't
asking you to do anything illegal, you *have* to follow the order,
even if it may lead to your demise.
--
Ryan Lankford
....
You can't see the trees for the forest. We wouldn't expect the section that
defines dereliction/refusal of orders etc. to detail just when it is or is not
OK to resist - there wasn't anything there about Geneva Accords, war crimes, or
all that good stuff we would expect the guards or their commanders at Abu Ghraib
to have heeded (well, so many didn't even qualify as "guards" per legitimate
training, etc. anyway...) All of that is to be found elsewhere. You're the one
who took up the challenge, find it. BTW the Army has decided against cracking
down on those refusers anyway - care to tell us why?
|
| |
| |
|
