Here is a Brave Man Local News Article

[Les C]

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread either, but Jared's response, so full of misconceptions and half truths and the following approving voices, coaxed me in.

I appreciated Glen's post. I found it telling that Jared's first point to pick is nothing but an ad hominem, which tainted whatever else he had to say.

How is it that in all of this discussion about Saddam Hussein and his actions, no one seems to recall that it was Cheney and Rumsfeld, as representatives of a previous administration, who went to Saddam to provide support and technology to use chemical and other weaponry? Was that okay for them to do that because Saddam was supposed to use it against Iran?

That bad intelligence that Bush based his argument to go to war came from an intelligence group in the Pentagon that Cheney started because the CIA couldn't find enough good reasons to go to war. Cheney kept repeating all of the the bad intelligence on Meet the Press and other TV forums long after the information was discredited. CIA Director George Tenet, to his discredit, caved in and went along.

That war has atrocities and monstrous behavior by soldiers is precisely some of the reasons that war should not be promoted so aggressively, as the NeoCons and the Bush Administration did. I feel that it's better to have thinking, feeling people like Lt. Watada in the military, than the mindless pawns that do whatever they're told without considering the repercussions, like a machine. When you see on-the-ground documentaries about the Iraq War, you see that there were some seasoned, thinking officers trying to deal with the people of the cities and towns. Yeah, I understand how a military force has to function, that to be effective it has to behave like a machine. But I think that's all about the killing part. If you're occupying a country and trying to help rebuild, I don't think the machine model works.

By the way, all of the people who were responsible for the Abu Gharib torture were not punished. There are people like Bush, Rumsfeld, and Gonzales, who approved the methods and knew what the outcome of allowing the situation would be. They go unpunished.

In the Watada case, I've noticed that most military people, current and former, will frame the case purely in military law, as that's how it will be tried. But there is a larger American society here for whom the military serves that would like to say what they feel and believe about how their military should behave.

What will probably happen, as in the case of trials of a political nature, or Congressional hearings, one of the questions that begs to be argued (is the war illegal?), will never be asked.

Mella, thanks for posting your thoughts and the link to the story.

[G. Leis]

quote:

---

Interesting comments here.

I'm of two minds on Lt. Watada's situation. On the one hand, I admire his refusal to deploy to this Mesopotamian cluster****; but on the other, he was commissioned after the shooting started and as an Infantry officer to boot. Seems he should've known what was in store for him before taking the oath. Certainly someone like the late Pat Tillman's brother, and fellow former Ranger, Kevin is a more credible war critic having served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Still, I guess I'd have to cautiously give Watada the benefit of conscientious doubt for now.

About 'War is a Racket' and its author Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler that mella provided the link to in her original post. I was the one who introduced her to it/him and it appears a bit of expansion and clarification may be in order on the subject. All former and current Marines and most students of military history are familiar with the basics of this mythic American warrior/pacifist's background. Briefly for the others:

Butler, the son of a Pennsylvania Congressman, entered the Marine Corps at age 16 in 1898 after lying about his age and received a commission as a 2nd Lt. In the ensuing 3 decades, he became one of only 19 individuals -- and the only Marine officer -- to be awarded the Medal of Honor twice (he very probably would be the only person with 3 had USMC officers been eligible for the award during his service during the Boxer Rebellion). After his first action then Maj. Butler, unimpressed with his heroism, returned the decoration to the War Department. The government, unimpressed with his gesture, sent it back, ORDERED him to wear it, and threatened him with court martial if he refused LOL.

It is true he was denied the post of Commandant in 1930 even though he was the senior Major General then on active duty. And yes he had a big mouth that hindered his career. This characteristic was not limited to Smedley Butler and Chesty Puller. It's not particularly uncommon among military personnel not attached to the '82nd Chairborne'. Fighting officers from Billy Mitchell to Curtis Lemay to 'Bull' Halsey to George Patton to David Hackworth (78 combat awards) all suffered from foot-in-mouth disease when dealing with their superiors. Hell, even MacArthur bumped his gums to Truman one time too many. George Marshall used to say that once you get past two stars it's nothing but politics. This lack of tact and diplomacy hurt him more than anything else. That and the fact that his father had died and thus removed some degree of protection from the hostility of his civilian higher-ups. Just as in the civilian corporate world, the ass kissers and yes men careerists are the ones that advance to the top of the military hierarchy. I wouldn't exactly characterize current Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace or his predecessor Richard Meyers as pogue/REMF Rumsfeld lotion boys . . . oh, what the hell, sure I would!

Following his retirement he became an outspoken critic of war profiteering and lectured widely on the subject to pacifist, non-interventionist and veterans groups. His views on what became known as the 'military-industrial complex' were not dissimilar to those expressed 26 years later by President Eisenhower in his farewell speech. This is one of SB's more quotable cracks regarding the economic rationale behind many armed conflicts:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.

Yeah, he had malaria at one time too but that has nothing to do with anything. Unless a person contracts Cerebral Malaria (in which case you'd very likely be dead within 72 hours)there is no long term damage to the brain. Our family has some first-hand experience with this affliction. Mella's dad was a survivor of the Bataan Death March and spent 3 years as a Japanese POW. As a result of his treatment as a slave laborer he contracted beri-beri, pelegra . . . and malaria.

Butler penned his tract over 70 years ago, but I think it's just as relevant -- maybe more so -- today. Just substitute the names of the thieving weasels of his day (Utah Copper, Central Leather, General Chemical, International Nickel) with today's Bechtels, Blackwaters, Titans, Parsons, CACI Int'ls., and of course good 'ol Halliburton who's vacuumed up $16 billion from the Pentagon for work in Iraq between the March 2003 invasion and July 2006 largely through no-bid contracts.

My gonads are nowhere near the size of Smedley's, but I'll put my gaping pie hole up against anyone's so here are a few comments about some of the other statements made so far on this thread:

The Geneva Conventions (there are 4) were adopted from 1864 thru 1929 and last modified in 1949. They have nothing to do with the legality or illegality of warfare as such. The first two are for the "Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea"; while #3 & #4 are "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War"

quote:

---

As for the guests in Guantanamo, what would you have us so with those people. They wish to do us harm but may not have violated applicable criminal statutes of American law. They are not American citizens and committed their acts in a hostile foreign country, the overthrown government of which is still hostile and warring with us.

---

Yummm. Bush/Cheney Kool-Aid gooooooooood. We have NO idea what these individuals may or may not have done or planned to do. More to the point, they apparently have no right to know that they are accused of either. We're simply supposed to take the administration's word for it and ask no questions. Maybe Glen or another attorney can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe since AT LEAST the Magna Carta in 1215, habeas corpus has been a central tenet of western common law. Until Tex & Darth decided it was inconvenient, that is. The idea that a person being held should be able to - at the very minimum - be allowed to know what they're being charged with is a fundamental human right. It allows detainees to ask a court to order their warden to explain the basis for their detention. Detainees can petition for habeas review if they are held without trial, or if they're convicted and claim that their constitutional rights were violated at trial. But of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have ever been formally charged with anything.

quote:

---

Individual violators are being punished for their violations and they do not represent the actions of our troops in general.

---

I've looked and I can't find an instance of anyone above the rank of Staff Sgt. (E-6) being punished for any abuse whatsoever. This should surprise no one, of course. Policy makers and senior commanders always skate while throwing a couple of the lower enlisted ranks under the bus and covering their own butts with the old "few bad apples" canard.

quote:

---

I would say Iraq was despotic, much different than secular.

---

des·pot·ic –adjective of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a despot or despotism; autocratic; tyrannical.
sec·u·lar –adjective of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
Well, yeah. Despotic is different than secular. That doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive. Seems pretty obvious to me Iraq was both.

quote:

---

I believe the neutron bomb would have been politically unacceptable.

---

Don't go giving the Primate-in-Chief any ideas.

quote:

---

A civil war may result.

---

MAY RESULT!?!?!? Man, this passed mere civil war and entered the realm of anarchic chaos a looooong time back.

I'd better shut it down here before I REALLY work myself into a lather and start breaking objects and kicking small dogs.

Before I say g'nite though, I'd like to remind all the red-blooded stalwart Limbaugh listenin', Coulter readin', Faux News watchin' members of our little Punaweb family who have lamented the fact that it's been mostly middle and lower-middle class teen-agers having all the fun in the sand that the US Army has recently raised its maximum enlistment age so there's now a new opportunity for y'all to 'get some' too!

aloha,
Gene



_______________________

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

---

_______________________

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

[adias]

It’s enlightening to hear different perspectives of this issue. Can the argument be extended to say that the American citizens are responsible for the actions of their elected officials and Armed forces, especially given that the same administration was elected for two consequtive terms?

If the current administration perpetuated an illegal war, why are the citizens unable or unwilling to bring the perpetrators to justice?

[Francesca]

My husband is a former Marine who strongly opposes this war. If Lt. Watada were a civilian, he would support his decision to not go to war. He understands Watada’s reasons and can even agree with them and respect Watada for his convictions if he’s willing to pay the price that goes along with them, however he does not agree with his actions since he is a soldier, not a civilian.

My husband is a Vietnam veteran who experienced a great deal of combat. He has the Purple Heart, silver star, bronze star, and some other not so nice mementos such as living with pain every moment of every day as a result of his war-time experience. He was a good soldier. He knows what war is and for that reason he would support only a war that is in defense of our country. This war, Bush’s war, is not that war.

[Jared I]

Watada will not be allow to use "illegal war" defense.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo...da17m.html

Defense attorneys had hoped to argue that the war is illegal, in part, because it violated Army regulations that call for wars to be launched in accordance with the United Nations charter.

But in a ruling, Lt. Col. John Head said that "whether the war is lawful" is a political question that could not be judged in a military court.

Head, citing federal court precedents, also rejected defense attorneys' claim that Watada's First Amendment rights shielded him from charges relating to his criticism of the war.

Instead, Head ruled that there are limits to the free-speech rights of military personnel and that a military panel should decide whether Watada's criticism of the war amounted to officer misconduct that could have endangered the morale, loyalty and discipline of troops.

Looks like is all over but the prison time. As many have stated its all mil law and procedure, not about emotions and political leanings.

[mella l]

Here is another brave American to emulate, someone with integrity, novel idea! General Taguba!

An article from the New Yorker link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/06/16...52473.html

Hawaii 2 for 2! As the congress sleeps, turns a blind eye, we as citizens are implicitly guilty by association if we don't at the very least read, understand and speak out about the atrocities committed in the business as usual, lawlessness of our government.

I thought we were trying to help establish a country where the rule of law had meaning, as we tear our constitution apart, ignore our own morale high ground.

Where is congress? Accepting bribes, protecting their pensions and health care, preparing for re-election, while Rome is eaten from within like an apple with a worm?

I for one do not know the answers, but I think the questions have been adding up and congress isn't looking for the answers!
______
[quote]

It’s enlightening to hear different perspectives of this issue. Can the argument be extended to say that the American citizens are responsible for the actions of their elected officials and Armed forces, especially given that the same administration was elected for two consecutive terms?

If the current administration perpetuated an illegal war, why are the citizens unable or unwilling to bring the perpetrators to justice?
_______

General Taguba has served his country well and has been punished for his integrity! He served country to the detriment of self.

America the Beautiful? I am a strong believer, however reading this makes me think perhaps my belief is delusional, until I read this article and this verse from a song I love. Am I nuts, I don't think so.

"Oh beautiful, for heroes proved
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America! May God thy gold refine,
'Til all success be nobleness, and ev'ry gain divine!"

- America the Beautiful,
Lyrics Katherine Lee Bates,
Melody Samuel A. Ward


Do we sit by, with our head in the TV and just watch? Write your congressman, senator, say a prayer to heaven.


mella l

[Jean H]

I am glad that some people can come up with words that I feel. All I can say is Gene and Mella, keep on...keepin on and I am hoping to meet up with you some day.

Jean Hopper

[malolo]

Thank you mella, first of all for starting this topic way back when, and secondly for bringing it forward again just now.

And thank you Glen for your toughts on the topic as well.

Y'know, I wish I hadn't missed the thread when it was first posted, as that would have been the perfect opportunity to mention that I for one do not support the troops in Iraq.

They apparently get my tax dollar, but do not get my support.

They've each had plenty of time to think about what they're being asked to do over there.
And they've each had plenty of time to refuse to do it.

Mindless sheep do not command my respect.

People who refuse to do the wrong thing are every bit as brave...actually far far more so...than the barely-conscious brainwashed individuals who merely plunge ahead, following the orders of lunatics.

Get back home where you belong, guys.
(And yes. I've been writing plenty of letters).

---malolo

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edited by - malolo on 06/17/2007 10:05:21

[Green]

There is an ever going number of soldiers against the war, but they are under alot of pressure not to say anything, most are too scared to talk about this illegal & immoral war. They also fear retribution.

[Dave M]

Well.. sticky thread we have here, thanks a lot Mella next you'll want us all to start thinking for our selfs.

I do not and have not ever supported this war (not running for anything in 08 either). Like I said early on "if Sadam has nuclear capabilities Israel will handle it just as they did in the late 90s"

Now, with that said I do support our soilders that are over there. I wish all the money that has been garnered in the name of this, illegal personal vendetta line the pockets of certain corporations, war had actually gone to protect our troops that are in harms way.

Two quotes:

1. They leave republicans and return democrats. (Dave)

2. A politician is a man that will ask you to lay down your life for his Country. (Sam Houston, I think)

Blessings,
dave