Posted on 02/23/2007 12:29:56 PM PST by republicofdavis
By Stephen S. Pearcy
Stephen S. Pearcy is a Sacramento attorney and peace activist.
In addition to holding President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress accountable for the illegal occupation of Iraq, American troops must also be prepared to accept responsibility. We’re all presumed to know the law. If we accept that fundamental legal presumption, then those of us who claim that the war is illegal must also acknowledge that the troops are unexcused aiders and abettors.
Lt. Ehren Watada’s case is a good example. Watada’s position is that he has a duty to refuse orders to deploy to Iraq because those orders effectively command him to pursue an illegal war. Watada correctly understands that obeying those orders could subject him to war-crime charges under a more just administration (which should try George W. Bush first).
Publicly available information about the Iraq invasion has become so plentiful over the last several years that reasonable people contemplating service in the U.S. military should know that people throughout the world regard participation in the occupation as tantamount to aiding and abetting in mass murder, fraud, human-rights violations, and international war crimes. By now, all of the troops should recognize this, and ignorance is no excuse.
The frequency of U.S.-sponsored war crimes in Iraq is such that it has become the norm rather than the exception. U.S. troops have intentionally and recklessly caused the deaths of so many Iraqi civilians, and continue to do so, that we can now properly regard acts in furtherance of the occupation effort generally to be acts substantially likely to facilitate crimes such as those that already have occurred.
From a legal standpoint, obeying Bush’s orders is akin to the Nazi soldiers who obeyed Hitler’s orders. And we know from the Nuremberg Trials that the “just following orders” excuse is invalid. Watada’s case suggests that we should question all troops’ willingness to follow their illegal orders.
Suggesting troop-responsibility for the illegal war is unpopular, but it also would have been unpopular during World War II for a German citizen to suggest that Nazi troops be held accountable for obeying their illegal orders. At the end of the day, it’s really no different.
Yes, yes and yes. Her firm is Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. I was amazed that they kept her through the soldier hanging in effigy fiasco.
Lt. Ehren Watada’s case is a good example. Watada’s position is that he has a duty to refuse orders to deploy to Iraq because those orders effectively command him to pursue an illegal war. Watada correctly understands that obeying those orders could subject him to war-crime charges under a more just administration (which should try George W. Bush first).
I'm willing to bet Lt. Waaaahtada was happily collecting his/her Army Reserve pay all this time (or his/her active duty pay), never believing they'd have to put that gun range training to use or be called. Well, Lt. WAAAAAAHtada, I will appreciate your check in reimbursement to all those moneys paid to you in the past premised on your agreement to defend the United States. Then get your sorry a$$ to another country.
What kind of responses would we get?
I can get us a representative client roster for Orrick -- perhaps we can Freep Orrick's client list.
Man, I'm a stinker, aren't I?
I believe the League of Nations outlawing war forever expired with that august body. The UN passed several resolutions in favor of the invasion of Iraq.
"We support our soldiers when..."
We can score some political points against Bushitler, like by criticizing soldier's medical care, when we've never actually given a whit about soldiers in the past.
Or something like that.
"I can get us a representative client roster for Orrick -- perhaps we can Freep Orrick's client list."
Seems reasonable. You know they would do it.
The UN didn't (remember, China and Russia were blocking us), but it doesn't matter. Our security should not be dependent on the United Morons.
Here's one of Orrick's clients for starters --
DHL -- my, my, my....guess I'll be sending all those pacakages UPS from now on.
We're probably not far from the day, when assholes like this will become prey...
Semper Fi
Correction, 94 is Sedition and Munity, not Solicitation and Mutiny. Typo
I'm more than tired of these cowardly America hating bastards calling themselves "Peace Activists"...
At NO TIME in history did "peace" result from surrender...
Peace results from DEFEATING the disturbers of the peace...
The "Peace" protestors during Vietnam -- significantly quieted immediatly after the elimination of the draft..
The protesters were not for peace - they were for avoiding the draft which would have put their smelly sorry asses in harms way to earn the right to live in America..
I've noticed that these "peace activists" NEVER go into the nations of the "disturbers" and blame them for STARTING trouble... Do they?
Semper Fi
You know, we see a lot of this moonbatty stuff here but this one seems to have touched a little bit deeper nerve. That's why I made sure it was posted, so that when you hear them say that it's they who truly support the troops, you can throw back this bilge from one of Cindy Sheehan's hosts.
I had the great pleasure of protesting in front of the Pearcy's house once when these POS hung our soldier in effigy. In fact there was quite a nice video of me walking in front of the Pearcy's house carrying a large American flag played on Hannity and Colmes.
It is a crime and it should be prosecuted...my point is and was that nobody does anything about treason these days unless it was a double agent or something of that nature. I am 100 percent on your side...I was just making a point that I read that word constantly...but NOTHING is ever done.
Then let's see it happen. I'm serious. Let's get those few hundred families together and do so.
I am truly looking forward t that day ...
"I had the great pleasure of protesting in front of the Pearcy's house once when these POS hung our soldier in effigy. In fact there was quite a nice video of me walking in front of the Pearcy's house carrying a large American flag played on Hannity and Colmes."
Dude, if I ever run into you, I am SOOO buying you a pitcher of beer.
To hold soldiers guilty of fighting an unjust war requires that soldiers be allowed to decide on the justness of a war. No nation can allow that. It would mean allowing an army to start a war, because it thought the war was just, even though the civilian leadership thought the war was unjust. That's simply the mirror image of an army refusing to fight a war even though the civilian leadership thinks the war is just.
Writers on Just War have long held that soldiers cannot be punished for the crimes of their leaders, including fighting in an unjust war. They can be punished only for waging war unjustly. Moreover, they can be punished for waging war unjustly even if the war itself is just.
As for his crack about soldiers obeying Hitler's orders, no Nazi soldier was ever punished for fighting in an unjust war. Some were punished for waging war unjustly. This guy is appallingly ignorant of history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.