User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 12:46:11 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:(: I read the post his contetion it is a 2 fold arguement 1) The POTUS can't send US troops anyplace w/o Congress' approval. Sorry, but that statement is 100% wrong. The POTUS can send troops anywhere he wants, anytime he wants. He can only keep them there for a specified time without Congressional approval (180 days?). Also, Congress can deny funds to an operation. So, in the Gulf War, Bush could have deployed the Airborne immediately and left them there until the time limit ran out, the money ran out, or the troops ran out of supplies, whichever came first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 12:46:14 PM EDT
[#2]
The military is losing it's fighting spirit because it is losing it's direction-peacekeeping or ass kicking? Troops being forced to serve a foriegn power whose stated goals are antithetical to the US Constitution are also a problem.
When were you in Korea Bush Hamster? A 2/503 Inf 1989-1990 Camp Hovey No Slack! Tim |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 1:02:23 PM EDT
[#3]
This is an unfortunate situation with a good man being penalized, his big mistake was joining an organization that doesn't uphold the
Constitution and laws of the people, but the whims of the politicians. It is a true shame, because there are a lot of outstanding people of impeccable character in our armed services. Maybe the military should report to the Congress. Just a thought!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 1:04:52 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: This is an unfortunate situation with a good man being penalized, his big mistake was joining an organization that doesn't uphold the Constitution and laws of the people, but the whims of the politicians. It is a true shame, because there are a lot of outstanding people of impeccable character in our armed services. Maybe the military should report to the Congress. Just a thought!! You were never in the military, were you? A lot of good guys in the military but I didn't know any of impeccable character! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 1:05:59 PM EDT
[#5]
Message follows, Break...
Yada Yada Yada. Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda. How many of you guys that think this sh!tbag (New) did the right thing have any active service? Sound off like you have a pair. I served in the MFO in Sinai, which was commanded by a Norwegian General (Erik the Viking). I wore a round little patch on my left arm that said "Multinational Force and Observers", underneath an American Flag. I also wore that stupid burnt orange beret with the MFO symbol. Am I a traitor? Hell, no. Did my service there violate the constitution? Hell, no. If it weren't so pathetic, I would get a laugh out of the morons that draw a parallel between UN deployments (Bosnia, Haiti, etc.), and Nazi Germany. You whackadoos need to give that one a rest. I do not gas people, I do not shoot non-combatants, nor does anyone else I ever served with. The closest I ever came to that was handing out MREs to the Kurds after the Gulf war. No "showers", just a good old beef slice with Bar-B-Q sauce (aka the "Gristle Pad") for our poor displaced refugees. The life of a soldier is not for the weak-minded (although we do need the occasional chapter case to guard our sh!t while we make a Burger King run). Some of you nutjobs need to sign off of the internet, and get some air. If you haven't been there, shut your damned pie hole. I would do this, I would do that, blah blah blah. Kinda like in the MEPS when all of the jerk offs are talking sh!t about what they are going to do because they have AIRBORNE RANGER in their contract (5% success rate - the RIP failures go to Kelly Hill, BAT wash outs go to Bragg or Campbell). I think that some in this forum have effectively invalidated the parable of monkeys eventually reproducing the works of Shakespeare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 1:13:30 PM EDT
[#6]
Yes. All those objecting to the benevolent actions of the humanitarian UN are obstacles to Sustainable Development and should be considered threats to global peace.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 1:30:30 PM EDT
[#7]
I was just too polite to say it...but you're right. It seems that we fall into two camps: Former and current professional soldiers and ignorant gun-show commandos.
What professional soldier wouldn't jump at the chance for action, even if it's only a cheesy UN peace-keeping mission? Hey, in our largly peace-time military the opportunities for any action are few and far between. Take whatever you can get. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 1:33:00 PM EDT
[#8]
He screwed the pooch disobeying his xo, which he will get punished for. Soldiers are supposed follow orders. He isn't the one in charge of deciding which orders are moral and immoral. I don't like the UN or its flag, but if my xo ordered not asked me to don it, I would do it.
Somebody higher up should have had the balls to say hey, we don't need no stinking patches from other organizations, this ain't the Boy Scouts. But this and the beret business has me wondering who is actual leading the armed forces, Martha Stewart? Summary of opinion: Don't agree that he is a good soldier or had the right to do it, but don't like the UN or the people who gave this order. Ice |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 1:37:11 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: ] So do you think Lon Hourichi(sp) should get off the hook just because he followed orders? You are [b]OBLIGATED[/b] to question if an order is legal or not, [b]Its your DUTY!![/b] 2 totally different scenarios here. The only time a soldier is justified in questioning his orders are when they would violate the Laws of Land Warfare (i.e., being told to wear enemy uniforms, destroying a building displaying the Red Cross or Red Crescent, raping female prisoners, requiring enemy prisoners to perform war-related jobs or dangerous/humiliating tasks, etc) - in other words, the orders would have to violate the rules of conduct the signatory nations agreed upon. I'm no fan of the UN, but I don't think anyone can point out where it says the UN insignia isn't authorized for wear on the Battle Dress Uniform in AR 670-1, or explain how wearing said patch causes a soldier to violate both his oath of enlistment and any applicable articles in the UCMJ. When you're a soldier you do what you're told to do (unless it violates the Laws of Land Warfare), wear what you're told to wear, go where you're told to go, and if you think it's wrong you do it anyway and bitch about it after because if you DON'T do it you've just disobeyed an order and that trumps any complaint you might have. Also, be aware that if you disobey an order in combat - even an order to line civilians up and execute them - your commander would be justified in drawing that M9 pistol he's issued and summarily executing YOU. Disobeying an unlawful order IS an obligation, but don't think nothing can be done to you if you do - at the very least you'll have to hope you can convince a court martial that you were justified, and at worst you could end up as a dead object lesson to anyone else who's thinking of disobeying orders. But it's still an obligation, regardless of the danger to your person. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 1:44:06 PM EDT
[#10]
Originally Posted By Tim J: When were you in Korea Bush Hamster? A 2/503 Inf 1989-1990 Camp Hovey No Slack! Tim C 6/37 FA 1989-1990, Camp Essayons. Strike Deep! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 1:44:08 PM EDT
[#11]
The armed forces have been sending units to Korea for 50 years and is known to frequently send soldiers on UN peace keeping missions. If someone is so opposed to those policies, then don't join the Army and later whine about it when you receive your orders to go.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 1:55:01 PM EDT
[#12]
It has been a long time since UCMJ applied to me, but I cannot help but chuckle when I imagine New refusing any order from Gunny Lester.
The essence of civilian control of the military is that the deployment and use of our forces is NOT within the discretion of military leaders. These are CIVILIAN decisions. To have it otherwise is to mimic any number of totalitarian regimes, from Nazi Germany to a third-rate banana republic. Yes, there are many poor decisions made, but to allow the military to decide when and how it will be used is much worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 1:56:29 PM EDT
[#13]
Originally Posted By Gus Laskaris: What professional soldier wouldn't jump at the chance for action, even if it's only a cheesy UN peace-keeping mission? Hey, in our largly peace-time military the opportunities for any action are few and far between. Take whatever you can get. Hell yeah! When I left Germany in June 1995 (6/29 FA, Old Ironsides) and was home on leave before reporting to Ft Sill, I saw the CNN coverage of the IFOR rolling into the former Yugoslavia and wished I could have extended and somehow gotten to an IFOR unit (I don't think they had many MLRS batteries in IFOR.) Same went for watching coverage of Operation Just Cause during my mid-tour leave from Korea in Dec 89 - I called my previous unit (3/27 FA at Bragg) on a daily basis to see if they had been alerted. If so, I planned to be on the planes with them! Anything that has you getting muddy, sleeping on cots or the top of your track, or wearing the same BDUs for a week and washing up out of a bucket is better than shining boots, pressing BDUs, and doing other garrison stuff! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 2:30:17 PM EDT
[#14]
Maddock
Was Gunney Lester a dark green that was a DI in Diego? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 2:31:31 PM EDT
[#15]
At least we now know door to door confiscation of our firearms is only a Blue order away.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 2:43:41 PM EDT
[#16]
It is amazes me that every one is so damn afraid of the UN. Having done training with some of the forces on UN peace keeping duty, most (except for the English Danish, etc.,) could not fight their way out of a wet paper bag.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 3:17:36 PM EDT
[#17]
Cooperating with a foreign power is one thing - lawful.
Being [b]forced[/b] to serve a foreign power is another - unlawful. I cannot think of an act more indicative of serving a foreign power than being forced to don its uniform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 3:53:01 PM EDT
[#18]
I didnt see ANYTHING about donning another uniform....
I saw an American soldier, told to wear a specific designation, by his American commanders, on his American uniform.... Did I miss something??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 4:10:09 PM EDT
[#19]
...no, CavVet you didn't miss anything.
New's a shitbird. He got busted for refusing a direct order from a superior, commissioned officer. Resulting in his missing a movement. Simple. If he had been a good soldier, albeit a misguided one, his officers and NCOs probably would have taken him aside and talked some sense into him. They, instead, took this opportunity to "thin the herd", and get rid of a shitbird. Routine stuff. Happens all the time. Now he'll be a hero to the fat guys with cut-off cammies and UN-SHTF fantasies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 4:14:24 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Cooperating with a foreign power is one thing - lawful. Being [b]forced[/b] to serve a foreign power is another - unlawful. I cannot think of an act more indicative of serving a foreign power than being forced to don its uniform. Regardless of any other patches worn, the uniform still says "US ARMY" on it. I'd say that definitely means you're not wearing a foreign uniform. Now, if he had been ordered to remove the "US ARMY" nametape and replace it with one reading "UN FORCES" then I'd say he had a legitimate complaint. But he wasn't, and he doesn't. IMO, of course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 6:27:45 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: RipMeyer. An order to wear a canvas patch on your arm, illegal order, right. That was not in question. What was in question was some of you think that you must obey every order blindly. One of you even suggested follow the order and then bitch about it later. What if that order was to shoot an enemy medic helping wounded? or shoot a civillian? obey and then question later? I dont think so!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 8:55:28 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: That was not in question. What was in question was some of you think that you must obey every order blindly. One of you even suggested follow the order and then bitch about it later. What if that order was to shoot an enemy medic helping wounded? or shoot a civillian? obey and then question later? I dont think so!! See how easy it is for gun confiscations to take place? Then there are the ones that like the UN just because it means they get to see action in foreign countries and get paid for it. mer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr) adj. 1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain. 2. Hired for service in a foreign army. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 9:01:20 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Quoted: RipMeyer. An order to wear a canvas patch on your arm, illegal order, right. That was not in question. What was in question was some of you think that you must obey every order blindly. One of you even suggested follow the order and then bitch about it later. What if that order was to shoot an enemy medic helping wounded? or shoot a civillian? obey and then question later? I dont think so!! Sorry, can't buy that. LONG way to go before you can stretch wearing an insignia on your blouse to killing civilians and wounded. Have you ever stopped to consider when in a forward area with troops that don't speak english that it just might be beneficial to be wearing an insignia that indicates that your both on the same side. This is a silly issue. The kid picked the wrong issue to test his metal and has ruined his life for it. sgb. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 9:11:50 PM EDT
[#24]
Matt VDW:
You got NO-AR:( there. The Constitution does NOT grant the Supreme Court the ability to declare what is/is not constitutional. Like any good student of history knows, the Supreme Court ASSUMED that power. FWIW>>>>Geno |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 9:13:58 PM EDT
[#25]
[img]mcuzi.com/pics/mcuziun.jpg[/img]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 9:53:59 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Sorry, can't buy that. LONG way to go before you can stretch wearing an insignia on your blouse to killing civilians and wounded. Have you ever stopped to consider when in a forward area with troops that don't speak english that it just might be beneficial to be wearing an insignia that indicates that your both on the same side. This is a silly issue. The kid picked the wrong issue to test his metal and has ruined his life for it. ONCE AGAIN you are missing the point! I was debating those of you who blindly follow orders. Reread the post sgb. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 10:00:26 PM EDT
[#27]
He should now be tried in the International Criminal Court.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 10:15:50 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted:(: I read the post his contetion it is a 2 fold arguement 1) The POTUS can't send US troops anyplace w/o Congress' approval. Sorry, but that statement is 100% wrong. The POTUS can send troops anywhere he wants, anytime he wants. That was NEW's contention. My reposnse was: POTUS says, soldier goes. So we agree. The Congress thing, that is a "rule of thumb" and it's 90 day IIRC. But the Constitution's Framers didn't anticipate a full time standing military. So it is kinda of "a grey area" Constitutionally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 10:24:26 PM EDT
[#29]
Originally Posted By Matt VDW: Quoted:(: Article III section 2 and 3 Article III, section 3 deals with treason. What does that have to do with the SC's authority to judge constitutionality? It was in repsonse to someone saying US troops being assigned to UN missions was Un-Constitutional. Find me where in the Constitution the POTUS can't tell the military to do whatever he wants. Second I pointed out that what, you, I, or a bale of hay, thinks about the Constitution is irrelevant. The SCOTUS has the Constitutional right/duty to decide matters of law, fact, and matters arising in conflict of the Constitution. That's Article III section 2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 10:32:20 PM EDT
[#30]
Originally Posted By Tim J: Quoted:(: Read the Consitution sometime, let me know where it says YOU get to decide what is un-Constitutoinal. I remember it saying the US Supreme court gets to make that determination. And just so where clear the only crime listed in the Constitution is TREASON. When you say that you want others to take up arms against the US gov't that is TREASON, and un-Consitutional. Let me know where it says that. The Supreme Court assumed that authority shortly after 1800. Article III section 2. 1800 wow, BFD, When the US originally adopted the Constitution (4 March, 1789) only white male property owners could vote, show me where it says that only they can vote. Miranda rights were "created" in the 60's. The right to privacy was "discovered" in 1973.The Supreme Court initially was reluctant to take cases other than civil disputes. They get to decide whether or not they will hear cases. For most cases that means if they don't want to they don't have to. Read the Constitution they had the right and responsibilty to hear cases once the Constitution was ratified. [red]If you are saying the US Supreme Court cannot interpret/apply the Constitution then they can not declare that someones "rights" were violated, that is a two edged sword [/red] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 10:35:13 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Quoted: Sorry, can't buy that. LONG way to go before you can stretch wearing an insignia on your blouse to killing civilians and wounded. Have you ever stopped to consider when in a forward area with troops that don't speak english that it just might be beneficial to be wearing an insignia that indicates that your both on the same side. This is a silly issue. The kid picked the wrong issue to test his metal and has ruined his life for it. ONCE AGAIN you are missing the point! I was debating those of you who blindly follow orders. Reread the post sgb. I didn't miss your point at all, what you fail to understand (or refuse to acknowledge) is that when you enter the military service of this country you [u][b]agree to obey orders[/u][/b] from superiors. [b]"You acknowlege that all orders on their face are legal orders."[/b] In order to disobey a direct order you must prove to a military court that the order was blatantly illegal. "Shooting wounded and civilians is blatantly illegal." Integrating a cloth insignia into my uniform, (an insignia of an [b]organization[/b] of which my country belong to) in compliance with a direct order of a superior is obeying a legal order. Following orders is discipline. Discipline in combat will keep you alive. US troops acting as peacekeepers in accordance with our involvement with the UN are in HOSTILE territory. Real bullets, real bad guys. Soldiers must obey orders. Its not a soldiers place decide the correctness of his commanding officers decisions except in the extremist of circumstances. Semper Fi sgb |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 10:43:38 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: RipMeyer. An order to wear a canvas patch on your arm, illegal order, right. That was not in question. What was in question was some of you think that you must obey every order blindly. One of you even suggested follow the order and then bitch about it later. What if that order was to shoot an enemy medic helping wounded? or shoot a civillian? obey and then question later? I dont think so!! Yes you must obey orders unless they are patently illegal. Shoot unarmed villagers-illegal, new uniform pink tutu and stove pipe hats-not illegal, good luck. The military is a FIGHTING force. When a division commander says "boys see that hill yonder, you got 45 minute to take it over". No-one has the right to say "sir, I'm kinda tired today maybe if you check back in a little bit I'll feel like it". Or "sir we may take casualites, so I don't know if it is worth it to ME to take that hill". The military doesn't have the time or luxury to get toghether and see how everyone feels about taking a hill. The military trains you to do a job, when it is time to do that job you need to do it well. The lives of you "co-workers" depend on everyone doing what is neccesary to effieciently complete the mission. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 10:46:20 PM EDT
[#33]
Originally Posted By Gus Laskaris: Quoted: This is an unfortunate situation with a good man being penalized, his big mistake was joining an organization that doesn't uphold the Constitution and laws of the people, but the whims of the politicians. It is a true shame, because there are a lot of outstanding people of impeccable character in our armed services. Maybe the military should report to the Congress. Just a thought!! You were never in the military, were you? A lot of good guys in the military but I didn't know any of impeccable character! The Constitution says POTUS is the Commander in Cheif of the military. If POTUS says go, you better go. Because to disobey POTUS, if you are a soldier is clearly UN-Constituional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 11:08:19 PM EDT
[#34]
Atricle III Section 2 The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, under their authority,--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls:--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;-- to contreversies to which the United States will be party to;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and a citizen of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and betwwen a state. or citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
1) For those of you that say the SCOTUS can't interpret the US Constiution read the first 16 words of this section of the Constitution. 2) For those of you who said the SCOTUS gained the review power in 1800, read the first 16 words...., Just becasue the didn't excercise their authority doesn't mean it didn't exsist, or that they "surrendered it". 3) For those who say "......... is UN-Constitutional", please admit that what you are trying to say is that you don't like something. You have no RIGHT to decide what is Constitutional or not. If you want to debate the merits and perils of the US being involved in foriegn operations just say so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 11:25:24 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:(: You have no RIGHT to decide what is Constitutional or not. Who are you to say that I don't have the right to interpret the Constitution? That's the same as telling me that I don't have the right to interpret the Bible. I can read, I can reason, I can interpret a document. In my "interpretation" of the Constitution, the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" means just that. Or are all of us gun owners to assume that we aren't capable of interpreting the Second Amendment. I guess we should all listen to No-AR and let the SCOTUS dictate our future and rights. I don't know about you, but my RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms is God-Given, and simply enumerated in the Bill of Rights by our Founding Fathers to help future generations to keep our God-Given rights intact. I am offended by your suggestion that I cannot read the Constitution for myself and understand what it means. Maybe if you're a mental furball, you can't grasp simple English, but I for one do not need the blessing of the SCOTUS to READ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2001 11:36:35 PM EDT
[#36]
And if your interpretation of the US Constitution, includes the right to have sex with children and kill people?? Then since I guess you interpret the Constitution that way you can't be arrested. The Constitution not only enumerates rights, it sets up the government. Including the Supreme Court. The legislature makes law, the executive branch administers law, the Supreme Court interprest and applies the Constitutional priniciples to law to determine if laws are Constitutional. It is the check and balance system that keeps any one branch of goverment form becoming to strong and subverting your rights
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2001 12:29:02 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Yeah, I agree. I definitely want an army protecting the U.S. where soldiers get to pick and choose what orders to obey ... NOT!!!! Your use of the phrase "pick and choose" trivializes his conscientious decision. His stand was not taken during battle, he made a choice honoring his allegiance to his country (and it's sovereignty) and not to foreign powers not within the scope of his oath. Show us where in his oath it mentions the U.N. U.S. citizens owe Michael New a great debt. Rather than abandon his Constitution like some Quisling, he took his stand and is paying for it. He's in the military. You OBEY ORDERS! How hard is that to understand? Did he think he was joining a debating club or the boy scouts when he signed on the dotted line and took an oath? I think he understands a lot better than you do on this issue. I do admit, basic training in the infantry would have been a lot more fun if I could just have refused to do all the things I didn't want to do. [:D] Amusing. But unconnected to Michael New's decision. Your assimilation into the "good German" mindset is complete. Lt. Calley would be happy to know that at least one person wouldn't stop to question what they're being told to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2001 12:46:00 AM EDT
[#38]
Originally Posted By Gus Laskaris: A lot of you wannabes have these twisted ideas about the military. Don't get me started. Wannabe what? Laskaris? Murphy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2001 2:18:13 AM EDT
[#39]
This guy is no Hero. Someone stated that the U.S. just started participating in the U.N. stuff in the last 5 or 10 years, Wrong. I served several six month tours in the Sinai desert after the Israeli and Egyption peace agreement. We changed from our Maroon Berets (82nd ABN) to the Blue berets and the U.N. patches. We also wore American flags on our sleeves. Remember the 200 plus soldiers from the 101st ABN who died on an airplane that crashed taking off from Gandar (SP?) on there way home from this exact duty. Hero my A--!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2001 2:44:11 AM EDT
[#40]
I once wondered if I would feel guilty when the day comes that the UN has US troops serving in the US and I have to defend the US by shooting US/UN troops. After reading some of our current/former military members' posts, I don't have to wonder anymore.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2001 3:52:02 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: I once wondered if I would feel guilty when the day comes that the UN has US troops serving in the US and I have to defend the US by shooting US/UN troops. After reading some of our current/former military members' posts, I don't have to wonder anymore. ...so, as we've been saying, and now you even say it yourself; ...you used to sit around fantasizing about your little imaginary UN invasion, and how you'd feel about shooting US/UN troops, like us. And now you realize that you'll feel just fine doing it. Gee, I thought you said you didn't have UN-SHTF fantasies... Your life must be pretty empty. You are everything I thought you were... ...and less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2001 3:59:46 AM EDT
[#42]
mtnpatriot
Or more than likely your delusional fantasy of the UN take over will never happen. The government will just out right ban them. Because all the proponents of the ban will just cite extremist like you with your fantasies of warring within the nation, and most of the sheep in the American public will say Americans who dream of killing US solider should not have weapons. Or you in a delusional moment will fire at a Marine or army unit conducting training and will be shot. And the news will report a survivalist, they would probable also say white supremacist to boot even if you aren't, was shot today when he attempted to attack military troops in training. And most Americans will say guys like that don't need to have guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2001 4:53:04 AM EDT
[#43]
Under the rule of law, there has to be an orderly process for [b]some[/b] ultimate authority to interpret the law. In the United States, that authority is the SCOTUS, and NO-AR correctly pointed to the part of the Constitution (Article III, section 2) that spells that out.
We all have the right to interpret the Constitution on our own, but our individual interpretations don't mean doodly-squat legally. If we believe that the SCOTUS has failed in its duty to interpret the Constitution, we can have our political representatives (Congress and the POTUS) impeach the errant justices and/or appoint more justices to make the current ones a minority. (Think the Constitution says there can only be nine justices in the SCOTUS? Nope!) Find me where in the Constitution the POTUS can't tell the military to do whatever he wants. As Commander in Chief, the POTUS does have supreme authority over the armed forces. As agents of the federal government, however, those forces are still bound by constitutional restraints. (See Amendments IX and X.) So the POTUS cannot, for instance, order the 101st Airborne Division to invade Disneyworld and make it his personal property. The Constitution also explicitly grants to Congress the power to declare war (Article I, Section 8). This [b]should[/b] prevent the POTUS from ordering the armed forces to initiate acts of war against foreign powers. In practice, though, the Congress has failed to assert its authority in this area. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2001 4:55:27 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Originally Posted By Gus Laskaris: A lot of you wannabes have these twisted ideas about the military. Don't get me started. Wannabe what? Laskaris? Murphy? "Wannabe" a grizzled Viet Nam combat vet with a "thousand yard stare." "Wannabe" telling his fat greasy friends that they dont know shit because "I was there, man!" "Wannabe" hanging out at "the Wall" wearing ribbons and medals that he doesn't rate, and unit insignia for units in which he never served. "Wannabe" an infantryman when he enlisted as an avionics tech. "Wannabe" a Recon Ranger, Navy Seal, Green Beret, and would except he's too tough for the military. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2001 5:02:00 AM EDT
[#45]
fantasize, -ise verb
To fantasize is to think about something very pleasant that is unlikely to happen. [i]He fantasized about winning the Nobel Prize. As a child Emma fantasized that she would do something heroic.[/i] [+ that clause] I do not fantasize about a UN "invasion". I do not want that to happen and I hope it never does. Do I belive there is a possibility of it happening, yes. And in that regard I try to do what I can to stop it from happening; ie. vote, write letters to & call my elected officials, etc... At the same time anyone who believes that there is a possibility of harm coming to their family, in whatever form it might take, and does nothing to prepare to deal with that harm is, in my humble opinion, a fool or a coward. I couldn't care less what you think of me Major Murphy. Your posts have just strengthened my conviction in my beliefs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2001 5:11:49 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: The enormity of the issue in which he refused to cross his line in the sand is evidently more than you can grasp, or are you pretending? ... I think he understands a lot better than you do on this issue. ... Your assimilation into the "good German" mindset is complete. Lt. Calley would be happy to know that at least one person wouldn't stop to question what they're being told to do. I find your entire response to me offensive, and not worthy of an adult. It is the enormity of your arrogance I do not understand, not the issue. The issue is trivial, and so are you. Suggesting I don't understand there issues is pathetic. I have served in the infantry as a private, squad leader, platoon sergeant, platoon commander, and on rare occasion company commander. My rank when I left was first lieutenant. Now I am a professor at a business school, and one of the things I teach is leadership and ethics (and Lt. Calley is something that I discuss in every semester). I'm guessing it is MUCH more likely that I understand these issues far better than you could even comprehend. With all respect to your statement about me hypothetically following Lt. Calley - I say FUCK YOU, little wannabe pipsquak. Moderators - I will remove the offensive and insulting language as soon as prk removes his Lt. Calley statement - or lock the thread. I think enough armchair wannabes have come out of the woodwork for one thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2001 5:14:16 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: I once wondered if I would feel guilty when the day comes that the UN has US troops serving in the US and I have to defend the US by shooting US/UN troops. After reading some of our current/former military members' posts, I don't have to wonder anymore. Sounds like your actually wishing for a conflict to occur just to try out your newly zeroed AR15 on somebody. So the survivalists of the cold war who once fantasized about shooting russians now call themselves militiamen and have shifted their cross-hairs on U.S. Soldiers and Marines. How disturbing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2001 5:14:39 AM EDT
[#48]
So people who know pointing out your wrong, strengthens you fantasies (they can be both negative and positive, but they are not real). It is a catch 22 with your type any proof that the conspiracy doesn't exist is proof that it exists.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2001 5:26:01 AM EDT
[#49]
Fool, noun-
Any person that really thinks about/prepares for/or believes that there is the slightest chance the UN, the the support of the US Armed Forces, will invade the USA. Fool, verb- To display photos of UN painted, Texas National Guard Humvees, fresh from a deployment in Kosovo, and insinuate they are part of or the beginning of a UN invasion. (it's like showing us a pie-plate and claiming it's a flying saucer AND part of the larger Martian fleet) mtnpatriot, that's swell that your "convictions" about your lack of guilt in killing US troops are stronger now, after reading my posts. You must be a man of tremendous character. I think you will find, however (as I imagine you already have), that your dreams and goals don't always come true. You will probably have to seek satisfaction and battle-experience here on the internet, and on your Sony Playstation. Give my regards to Rambo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2001 6:54:28 AM EDT
[#50]
Yo Major Murphy, To much reality at one time for some of these boys! You'll take away their reason for living...
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
