Courageous Soldiers Go AWOL

I am torn on this issue. On the one hand, they signed a contract submitting themselves to military jurisdiction.

On the other hand, they took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. This war is unconstitutional, so their desertion and activism could be considered adherence to that oath.

That's a riot, and I'll tell you why

Firstly, the president does have authority to engage in military action without congress for up to 60 days (this is why Panama and Grenada were legal under Reagan). The war in Iraq did not exceed the 60 day mark, by that time we were already in a "peace keeping roll", which likewise doesn't require congressional authorization (that's why Vietnam was legal)

And that's why those in the know, who's education surpasses their capacity to *** and moan, understand that Bush didn't actually break any laws in Iraq. Interestingly enough while his opponents scream impeachment none of them have yet to actually consider doing it seriously, because they know this.

Secondly (and this one should ring a bell to the anti Bush crowd): due process,as it concerns governmental power, says that if the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch does something suspect it must be deemed unconstitutional by the Judicial branch for it to become such. That's checks and balances. You can't go deeming something unconstitutional and disobeying lawful military orders because "that's my opinion".

It's interesting to note that the Constitutionality of this war has yet to be challenged by ANY democrat or Republican, Ron Paul included, to the Supreme Court. Just further proof that those in the know, know you're wrong.

I'll read the article later but 9 times out of 10 these instances rightfully result in



FEDUP why is it every time you defend a US solider they're either AWOL or fabricating stories about war crimes?

FEDUP why is it every time you defend a US solider they're either AWOL or fabricating stories about war crimes?

Cite your sources on that pearl of wisdom please.

Show me in the Constitution where Congress is authorized to permit the president to deploy troops. Show me in the Constitution any clause that makes the War Powers Act legal.

I am torn on this issue. On the one hand, they signed a contract submitting themselves to military jusidiction.

On the other hand, they took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. This war is unconstitutional, so their desertion and activism could be considered adherence to that oath.

.....


.........

I support them. Had we declared war on Iraq, I would support locking the guys up, but since the war is unconstitutional, these soldiers not only have the right, but the DUTY to refuse to deploy. Godspeed brothers.

Only the Supreme Court determines constitutionality. They signed up. They're obligated.

Actually, Article III doesn't grant SCOTUS Judicial Review, they unlawfully assumed that authority in Marbury v. Madison. They have judicial authority to rule on cases arising under the laws enacted under the Constitution, but are nowhere granted the right to interpret the document itself.

You guys would benefit greatly from actually reading the document from time to time.

Further, your position flies in the face of current laws that demand that a soldier refuse to obey unlawful orders. This would fall under such a provision, since it is CLEARLY unconstitutional.

Thank you for clarifying that. I'll call Chief Justice Roberts tomorrow to straighten this mess out with these new insights.:thumbdown:

Show me in the Constitution where Congress is authorized to permit the president to deploy troops. Show me in the Constitution any clause that makes the War Powers Act legal.

Just because it is federal statute doesn't make it legal. Without a declaration of war, NO MILITARY ACTION IS LEGAL. Read your Constitution.

Further, using your logic, soldiers, if ordered to kill civilians intentionally would be obligated to obey, since it requires a court to deem an action legal or illegal.

Sorry, but you don't rate a defense of the Constitution or explanation of it. The Constitution transcends you, by many light-years. Besides, you should know more about it as an American citizen by now. Your libertarian anarchy is a pipe-dream and/or lurid nightmare. Forget it.:no:

These guys all enlisted. Every man or woman that signs there name should accept that it is possible they will have to go and fight. I have never been in the military but it seems to me that you are told what to do and you do it. Your rights are more or less suspended while you are under contract. I have several friends over there as we speak, and these guys feel that it is okay to abandon them. I have never been in war, so I really do not know what it is like. But if these guys thought it was gonna be all rainbows and sunshine with a free education and they wouldn't have to go and fight. They should have thought about it a little more.

oh I'm sorry, did me reminding you of your baseless liberal blogging... (could there be any other kind), bother you? beyond that didn't you ask me for an example?

and I'll ask you for a second and final time, do not refer to me, or any other board member as "son"

Your rights are..."amended" while in the service, BUT it is your duty to disobey any illegal orders.