 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - The lounge
Subject: President Blair
Original Message Date: 17-Jul-03 @ 09:29 PM - President Blair
So I am watching Tony Blair speak on C-span and it occurs to me. "My god he's doing Bush's Job." Where is Bush anyway? Blair may not tell the truth but at least he sounds good. Can we have him? Anything is better than our numbskull President General Orco.
Message 11/23 19-Jul-03 @ 03:13 PM - RE: President Blair
did i say execution? 1) british scientist david kelly has been murdered after having been questioned by parliament as to his opinion on the entire range of wmd-related questions in iraq. 2) the us armed forces is now acting against those us servicemen who spoke out against the war and rumsfeld during tv interviews this week.
it's a basic us miltary law that one cannot speak out against the president or even one's superiors. and this law is often used to silence those who've tried. imagine a democracy run by a military where the military itself is not allowed to voice outrage against inhuman conduct by it's superiors.
perfect recipe for brutality without restraint.
again....murder...of a civilian scientist.
and the punishment of troops who thought they actually had a voice which could speak anything but.....baaaa....oh..yeah...or kill...or face on the ground and shut up!!!!!
it's a basic us miltary law that one cannot speak out against the president or even one's superiors. and this law is often used to silence those who've tried. imagine a democracy run by a military where the military itself is not allowed to voice outrage against inhuman conduct by it's superiors.
perfect recipe for brutality without restraint.
again....murder...of a civilian scientist.
and the punishment of troops who thought they actually had a voice which could speak anything but.....baaaa....oh..yeah...or kill...or face on the ground and shut up!!!!!
Message 12/23 19-Jul-03 @ 09:04 PM - RE: President Blair
in a jam all you can do is 'the unbelievable'
Message 13/23 19-Jul-03 @ 10:12 PM - RE: President Blair
the guy goes for a walk in his favorite nearby wooded area. the one place he can go and enjoy earth...being alive.....and he slashes his own wrist.
as if his every move wasn't watched...surveyed...and easily acted upon. his wife and family knew of his fear of retaliation but he wasn't willing to live inside the house only.
just another prisoner suicide folks. now move along.
blair will investigate.
as if his every move wasn't watched...surveyed...and easily acted upon. his wife and family knew of his fear of retaliation but he wasn't willing to live inside the house only.
just another prisoner suicide folks. now move along.
blair will investigate.
Message 16/23 21-Jul-03 @ 11:32 AM - RE: President Blair
he didnt slit his wrists. it was made to look like a suicide. Someone that intelligent and level headed wouldnt take his own life.
Message 17/23 21-Jul-03 @ 03:52 PM - RE: President Blair
what easier part of an elederly man to grab than his wrist? oh sir.....please let me help you for all you've done to try to help make the world a safer place for other human beings~ but sir you have something on your wrist.....my lord> it's a slash.
Message 18/23 21-Jul-03 @ 11:10 PM Edit: 22-Jul-03 | 05:46 AM - RE: President Blair
MCC, The military has a chain of command and a system in place to report the misconduct of superiors. Television is not part of that system.
When one enlists in the US military one agrees to give up one's constitutional rights and become subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is a voluntary act and is explained to every recruit. If they're not paying attention it's thier own fault if they get busted for conduct unbecoming because they thought their "rights" were "protected by the constitution". "You are about to give up your constitutional rights for the privelege of protecting the constitutional rights of others.", was what was told to the group I pledged the oath with. Pretty damn clear to me what was happening in doing so.
Military personel are not, and should not, be expected to subject themselves to civilian law. If that were the case then any soldier who ever did his or her job would be jailed for conspiracy to commit murder, accessory to murder, or first degree murder, depending on their particular job. Military personel are trained killers, that is the undercurrent of what they do for a living during peacetime. During war it is job one. To be a soldier, a person whose job it is to take the life of another human designated as an enemy of their country, is the bottom line job of every person in the army regardless of their "occupational specialty". Supply, admin, cooks, mechanics, every single one is a professional trained killer. These trained killers who serve to protect the state and its citizens are not subject to the same laws as those whom they protect, however, the UCMJ is in place to meat out justice that is commensurate with the being a soldier and the UCMJ is a harsh judge.
When one enlists in the US military one agrees to give up one's constitutional rights and become subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is a voluntary act and is explained to every recruit. If they're not paying attention it's thier own fault if they get busted for conduct unbecoming because they thought their "rights" were "protected by the constitution". "You are about to give up your constitutional rights for the privelege of protecting the constitutional rights of others.", was what was told to the group I pledged the oath with. Pretty damn clear to me what was happening in doing so.
Military personel are not, and should not, be expected to subject themselves to civilian law. If that were the case then any soldier who ever did his or her job would be jailed for conspiracy to commit murder, accessory to murder, or first degree murder, depending on their particular job. Military personel are trained killers, that is the undercurrent of what they do for a living during peacetime. During war it is job one. To be a soldier, a person whose job it is to take the life of another human designated as an enemy of their country, is the bottom line job of every person in the army regardless of their "occupational specialty". Supply, admin, cooks, mechanics, every single one is a professional trained killer. These trained killers who serve to protect the state and its citizens are not subject to the same laws as those whom they protect, however, the UCMJ is in place to meat out justice that is commensurate with the being a soldier and the UCMJ is a harsh judge.
Message 19/23 22-Jul-03 @ 12:20 AM - RE: President Blair
mick~ general douglas macarthur and i understand this all-too-well. but there was no television in macarthur's time. i grew up military.....remember?
but yes....a refresher course is always good for everyone's awareness.
conclusion: military man....no brain connected to tongue. all thoughts must remain within. but still>>>> BE ALL YOU CAN BE!!!!!. HUH?
but yes....a refresher course is always good for everyone's awareness.
conclusion: military man....no brain connected to tongue. all thoughts must remain within. but still>>>> BE ALL YOU CAN BE!!!!!. HUH?
Message 20/23 22-Jul-03 @ 12:29 AM - RE: President Blair
tortoise
Posts: 107
Link?: No link
File?: No file
As the Mick said, the UCMJ is harsh, much stricter than civilian law.
Members of the military are prohibited from engaging in political speech and activism for a good reason. The military is supposed to be subordinate to politics and the civil government and act as agents under that authority. There is a strict tradition of the military NOT actively pursuing political outcomes beyond their ability to vote in standard elections.
As such, soldiers are not allowed to voice opinions regarding political outcomes in the government because the military wants to avoid the slightest appearance that they are a political faction. The military and individuals under its auspices are, by law, not allowed to have public opinions on political and government matters.
This subordination goes pretty much back to the founding of the US. It was a check put in place to prevent the possibility of military factions taking over the government.
Members of the military are prohibited from engaging in political speech and activism for a good reason. The military is supposed to be subordinate to politics and the civil government and act as agents under that authority. There is a strict tradition of the military NOT actively pursuing political outcomes beyond their ability to vote in standard elections.
As such, soldiers are not allowed to voice opinions regarding political outcomes in the government because the military wants to avoid the slightest appearance that they are a political faction. The military and individuals under its auspices are, by law, not allowed to have public opinions on political and government matters.
This subordination goes pretty much back to the founding of the US. It was a check put in place to prevent the possibility of military factions taking over the government.
Pages: 1 2 3
There are 23 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
