We hold these Truths to be self-evident...
For those who would like to hear me discuss the lying rhetoric of US government echoing the same lies we witnessed preceding war with Iraq, click here for an hour interview on GCN radio show, Crash! Are you ready? with host George Whitehurst Berry (navigate to the archive for December 1, 2009. Please be patient while the interview link takes a few moments to download; the interview is 40 minutes if you move the circle forward during commercials).
My most recent articles on this topic:
And my hub article for more: Iran "news" 2009 = Iraq "news" 2002
As always, please share this article with all who can benefit. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it’s free). Please use my archive of articles for your education and building a brighter future.
Comments
In my 54 years of being alive, I have come to realize that not much of what the U.S. government has ever said was 'truth' truly was much more than contrivances and LIES, truly. So what is going to change now? We've got another illuminati puppet in the Whore House, and he's not likely to tell any more truth lest he risk having his brains blown out by the CIA, just like John F. Kennedy did on November 22nd., 1963.
The point is for humanity to understand fact from lies and spin. Nothing will change until a critical mass of humanity can do so and stand for cooperation, justice, dignity and freedom. We must refuse and stop all unlawful acts and orders through those in law enforcement, military, and government exercising their legal authority to act.
What are you doing to move us in that direction?
"We must refuse and stop all UNLAWFUL ACTS AND ORDERS through those in law enforcement, military, and government exercising their LEGAL AUTHORITY to act." (emphasis added)
WHAT?????
Make up your mind, dude....
wow, dude:
Learn some history and look up "unlawful orders." Every man and woman in US military, law enforcement and government must refuse and act within their authority to stop unlawful orders. They swear an oath to defend the US Constitution, not follow orders of a Fuhrer. And look up Oath Keepers while you're trying to learn this important concept of what it means to be in the US military and serve the country under law rather than dictations of a person.
I know a hell of alot more about the concept of "lawful orders" under the UCMJ than you do, Herman.
My point was, your sentence does not make sense: You cannot by definition be exercising legal authority AND giving an unlawful order - you have NO legal authority to issue unlawful orders; that's the fundamental issue whether the case is being decided under the UCMJ or in a Nuremberg-type setting.
wow:
We're in agreement that unlawful orders must be refused. What I'm saying is that those refusing are acting within their lawful authority to refuse. As authority varies, refusal may also include arresting those who have given unlawful orders. If you have a good source explaining the ways those receiving an unlawful order should respond, please provide it.
I certainly agree unlawful orders should not be obeyed - but I'm certain I disagree on many things you claim are 'unlawful orders.'
Refusing one is the simplest AND hardest thing a service member can do - because only a military court can ultimately determine if the order was legally lawful or not (although most unlawful orders are pretty clear).
You take it up the chain of command, you ask for the order in writing (that stops most of them) - but ultimately, if necessary, you refuse and, if charged, you demand a court martial.
None of which alters the fact that your sentence, as structured, does not make sense; you put the 'lawful authority' on the order-giver.
Wow, wow, we agree on something!
I meant to communicate what we understand; I apologize that my sentence structure was unclear.
Carl, I spent most of my career working in the grayest of gray areas. I twice looked a senior officer in the eyes and told him I wanted to see the order in writing - both times, they backed down.
In one case, I definitely would have refused anyway and taken it to court-martial - I had enough witnesses to burn that officer.
In the other, I would have pocketed the written order for insurance, then - since I was in command of the actual team conducting the operation - ignored it anyway.
But no military court - or federal civilian court - is going to find that an order to deploy to Iraq for OIF is an unlawful order; in fact, several court cases have found the orders were legal.
Interesting, wow. I appreciate your courage to stand for what you see is just.
While I'm comfortable with the argument that these wars are illegal under the spirit and letter of the law, I understand that view is in the minority. I'll write my next article exploring the argument.
Mr. Wow,
Your Dec 4 9:03am post:"You cannot by definition be excercising legal authority AND giving an unlawful order".
Are you saying that if an Officer has been given legal authority then "by definition" there is no order that officer gives which is Illegal??? Therefore anything that is ordered by that officer is by definition a legal order...and then the only thing illegal is the disobeying of that officers orders?? So the only possible illegal actions would be by those subordinate to that officer and those above him or her?
No, I'm saying that there is no legal authority to issue an illegal order.
Issuing such an order exceeds the legal authority someone has, whether it is a PFC supervising a private or the commander-in-chief.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!