Posted on 09/26/2009 5:46:25 AM PDT by paudio
He took a principled stand that the invasion and occupation were violations of international laws." Watada was tried in military court in February 2007 for ...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.google.com ...
Inherent in the principle of civilian control of the military is that soldiers don’t get to decide which wars they will or will not fight. They are not responsible for judging whether the war itself is just (jus ad bellum), but only for ensuring that their actions in engaging in the war are lawful (jus in bello).
And the difference is? In one case you have a soldier who took it upon himself to decide what wars were legal and what are not. On the other you have a soldier who took it upon himself to decide what commanders are legitimate and what are not. In both cases you have a soldier refusing to obey orders. In both cases they have no place in the military.
He is the douchebag son of a Dem Rep, another douchebag.
Can't have douchebags dodging bullets now, can we.After all the Bush war that has kept us save is an illegal war , just cause he said so.
I expect the same logic will apply when we all say the Health Care Demographic Warfare bill to come is illegal. I can hardly wait to try that one on.
Can we discharge him from the barrel of a very large cannon? Over water. Without a life jacket. After we chum the water.
I’m not arguing whether either soldier was right. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of a news media that calls one principled and the others every name in the book.
And I would agree with that. But can we expect any less from the media?
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.