OT: The Press vs. The Gubmint!
 

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:31:40 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree, in my world morality and
responsibility are always material and in my opinion leaking
the existence of torture prisons is more honorable and patriotic
than keeping them a secret because of an oath.

Hmm...OK. Now reverse it. Suppose the officer in question discovers
that a foreign national, in the US, has a bomb and is planning to blow
up a school, so they decide that honor, morality, and patriotism suggest
that they kill this person immediately.

Huh ? Leaking information about secret torture prisons is
comparable to vigilante murder ? How so ?

Hey, if you're gonna let anyone and everyone make such decisions, you
say "vigilante murder" someone else says "necessary and proper action."
And in your scenario of personal decision-making, you'd both be right.

In short, you are making the biggest mistake one can make with this type
of thing. You are attempting to substitute _your_ judgment in place of
the law for guidance as to what one should do.

Exactly. Sometimes my judgment would lead me to do the honorable,
moral and responsible thing as opposed to what is strictly legal.

Er, no. It might lead you to do what _you_ believe is the honorable,
moral, and responsible thing. That doesn't make it _the_ honorable,
moral, and responsible thing. The legal thing in these cases is, while
not absolutely certain, the most objective thing available.

So long as I'm willing to pay the legal penalty for my actions I
will, and do, claim the moral high ground.

Be careful about certitude of altitude...somebody could drop something
on you...

TC,
R

OT: The Press vs. The Gubmint!
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:16:30 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Allen wrote:
The oath is not optional. If you do not like the oath and the
lifelong commitment it entails you are in the wrong business and should
leave. If this woman is found guilty she will be subject to penalties
that she was made fully aware of when she signed the oath. She went
into
it with her eyes open and now there's a clear message for the rest of
us
that raised our right hands.

Sometimes, such as in this case, the honorable thing to do
is to violate your oath. The trouble with a lot of military
types is they get real confused about things like honor and
responsibility, preferring instead to wrap themselves in oaths
and flags and turn a blind eye to torture, war crimes and murder.

Mary O. McCarthy is a hero, she violated her oath and thank God
she did. She realized that she has a higher responsibility to
truth and humanity than to a CIA oath. We should have more like
her. She'll be charged with a crime, and rightly so, but if I
were on her jury she'd never be found guilty.

Ken, your argument, if accepted, essentially violates the US
Constitution. Here's why: The US is representative democracy, not an
"actual" democracy, and as such, what the representatives do is "legal
until found illegal" under the US Constitution. IOW, the people (the
citizens) have given the right of management to their representatives.
And yes, I realize they have retained the rights not enumerated, but
dealing with foreign entities has been relinquished to the
representatives.

IAC, The US Constitution does not give out-of-formal-custody and/or
extra-territorial rights to non-citizens because it cannot do so, and
individuals, even high-ranking individuals, aren't authorized to grant
such rights under these circumstances. Even if CIA officers themselves
were holding foreign nationals on foreign soil, there would be nothing
"illegal" (in a US Constitutional sense) about it. The morality of that
is not material to its legality.

A CIA officer has no duty or responsibility to either provide you or
foreign nationals truth or humanity. In fact, much like the civilian
police, they would deal in a lot of information withholding, even
untruths, in the pursuit of doing their duties. You are simply mistaken
if you think or feel those charged with national security somehow "owes"
you or any of the public complete transparency or disclosure on demand.
And CIA officers, like military officers, aren't authorized to
substitute their judgment about the appropriateness of orders, only the
legality of them, and even then, they are not authorized to violate
oaths, they are only provided a specific defense for refusing an illegal
order, with that defense vitiating the use of an affirmative defense for
having followed an illegal order. There is simply no defense for
violating oaths.

TC,

Thanks for once again rewriting the national Rebublican spin on this. Im
sure your efforts are appreciated by haters of Democracy and assorted
Fascist fringies everywhere.

But what you say is bull****. Period.

Torture and extra-judicial murder are covered by the Nuremberg agreements
which make it a crime not to expose war crimes. War crimes are also
specifically dealt with in the War Crimes Act of 1996 and ". . . applies if
either the victim or the perpetrator is a national of the United States or a
member of the U.S. armed forces. The penalty may be life imprisonment or
death. The death penalty is only invoked if the conduct resulted in the
death of one or more victims. The law defines a war crime as a violation or
grave breach of any of the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Conventions of
1907."

And the United States is a signature of both the Geneva and the Hague
Conventions.

Dave
33 months to go and now the torturers and their armchair supporters are
starting to squirm.

The Press vs. The Gubmint!
 

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
. ..

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
...

I am sick and tired of paying the mortgages of dumb**** spineless
Government
clerks without the gumption to say NO when they are told to violate the
constitution

Mr. Epps served in Navy for a period of time Dave. While not speaking for
him, I think he comes at it from his military position and experience.
They
have things like firing squads or some such.

from bloodsucking
outfits like MITRE talking nonsense. All such assholes should note that
their time is short and that WallMart is hiring.

You've never met Mr. Epps nor Mr. Reid, I can speak for Mr. Reid who
speaks
nice of Mr. Epps and asshole is not the appropriate term.

Sheesh.



Mr Epps may well be a fine companion and well like by other fine fellows.
However, Mr Epps apparently is a bit twisted on his understanding and
ordering of a military oath vis a vis the Constitution and Laws of the
United States of America.

1. In general, advancing a military oath over allegiance to a national
constitution is an earmark of a particular variety of totalitarian state.
Specifically in modern times it was a tactic used by Hitler to corrupt the
German officer corps, and later used in Fascist Italy, as well as by a
number or lesser fascist wantabees. I detest its appearance on the American
scene.

2. Mr Epps ignores United States law including the War Crimes Act of 1996
which applies to both civilian and military nationals of United States for
which the penalty can be death. He also ignores that the U.S. is a signature
of the Nuremberg agreements, which makes it a crime not to expose war
crimes, and we are also a signature of both the Geneva and Hague
conventions.

Mr Epps service in the Navy is appreciated, but he may have missed a
workshop or two on these issues. As far as your comment about "military
firing squads," would you care to provide a reference for when one of these
squads was used?

Dave

The Press vs. The Gubmint!
 

"Allen" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Wayne Knight" wrote:

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
...

I am sick and tired of paying the mortgages of dumb**** spineless
Government
clerks without the gumption to say NO when they are told to violate
the
constitution

Mr. Epps served in Navy for a period of time Dave. While not speaking
for
him, I think he comes at it from his military position and experience.
They
have things like firing squads or some such.

from bloodsucking
outfits like MITRE talking nonsense. All such assholes should note
that
their time is short and that WallMart is hiring.

You've never met Mr. Epps nor Mr. Reid, I can speak for Mr. Reid who
speaks
nice of Mr. Epps and asshole is not the appropriate term.

Sheesh.

Thanks for the words Wayne. Snedecker has been plonked for so long I'd
forgotten he existed :)

Allen

Yeah, yeah yeah, but you are still full of it on the oath thing, maybe if
you had actually read the law you wouldn't believe the nonsense you shared
in your post. And please explain how you "plonked" me when you can't even
spell the name right. You are probably as a nice guy as some others say, but
on this issue you know diddle squat.

Dave

OT: The Press vs. The Gubmint!
 

The Press vs. The Gubmint!
 

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
...

1. In general, advancing a military oath over allegiance to a national
constitution is an earmark of a particular variety of totalitarian state.
Specifically in modern times it was a tactic used by Hitler to corrupt the
German officer corps,

Hitler didn't corrupt the German officer corps, he controlled them through
hands on management and a extra-military service (the SS). The inability of
the officer corps to make tactical and strategic adjustments in battle
without Berlin approval is well documented by military historians.

2. Mr Epps ignores United States law including the War Crimes Act of 1996
which applies to both civilian and military nationals of United States
for
which the penalty can be death. He also ignores that the U.S. is a
signature
of the Nuremberg agreements, which makes it a crime not to expose war
crimes, and we are also a signature of both the Geneva and Hague
conventions.

He's not ignoring ****, he's stating an opposite oppinion from one in which
you agree. I would tend to disagree with him on the issue but it's not a
reason to go off the handle and term people assholes. That the present
administration has pushed the envelope in it's treatment of captured
fighters (and non-fighters) in it's interpetation of the various laws that
govern this does not make it a War Crimes Act violation. I worry more about
the next POW US serviceman and how they get treated by a capturing force and
how we can take the high ground in their treatment. There has been no
declared war so I assume this enables them to abide only by the letter of
the laws and not the spirit of the laws.
I'll take your word on the Act itself. I'm not very familiar with the issue
at hand but I do see where the reporting paper clarified things a bit.

As far as your comment about "military
firing squads," would you care to provide a reference for when one of
these
squads was used?

It was more tongue in cheeck, which is why I added the *or* afterwards. Last
one I remember reading about was in WWII, those more advanced in military
law than myself may wish to comment if they technically still exist.

The Press vs. The Gubmint!
 

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
. ..
"David Snedeker" wrote in message
...

1. In general, advancing a military oath over allegiance to a national
constitution is an earmark of a particular variety of totalitarian
state.
Specifically in modern times it was a tactic used by Hitler to corrupt
the
German officer corps,

Hitler didn't corrupt the German officer corps, he controlled them through
hands on management and a extra-military service (the SS). The inability
of
the officer corps to make tactical and strategic adjustments in battle
without Berlin approval is well documented by military historians.

I think if you read a little further you will encounter the significance of
the Nazis requiring an oath of allegiance to Adolph Hitler by military
personnel. You will find it in all the serious analyses of the Nazi era
(Toland, is easily the most available). . . . and its mention and
significance in the Nuremberg defense's and colloquies gives an insight to
its significance from the German viewpoint. Maybe we are of different age
groups, but I have known a number of German soldiers and civilians of that
era and it was significant to them.

It is significant to me because of the current line of defense of torture
(reflected somewhat in the ROFF discussions) and in Chickenhawk/NeoCon
Wingnut circles, which advance the notion that the historically more recent
American emphasis on allegiance to the command structure and the "Commander
in Chief", is superior to the allegiance to the Constitution and laws of
the United States, in the oaths taken by military and intelligence
personnel. These are ideas borrowed directly from Nazi and Italian Fascist
ideology. In fact, some of the slogans are direct translations from the
German and Italian.

These ideas have crept into the ideology of the professional US military and
find expression in sloganeering like "My country, right or wrong," (This
same slogan was posted in SS barrack) and the weakening of the prohibition
and right to reject an illegal order. U.S. law and international conventions
to which the US is signatory, (all reject the "I was just following orders"
defense when it comes to war crimes. )

As the Mc Carthy story has progressed the administration's attempt to
intimidate military and intelligence personnel into silence on war crimes
and the rights of American soldiers and intelligence personnel under US law
in regards to illegal orders, is being exposed. The administration worked
for over a year to surpress a definitive story of the use of subcontracted
torture centers in Eastern Europe from appearing in a major US newspaper. In
this way the Bushies kept the much more timid local papers and media away
from the story.

The "secrecy" of this story is itself a joke. The loose network of anti-war
crime groupies around the world has been tracking, documenting and
photographing the movement of torture subjects since 2001. In March of 2005
I posted on ROFF that the Gulfstream jet used to move torture subjects had
been re-registered to a Portland, Oregon firm, owned by a factious person.
Since that time the whole history of the CIA's various attempts to disguise
the plane's identity, ownership etc.. has been unraveled. This info has been
all over the Internet for 5 years now, and has launched a number of official
inquiries in Europe and Canada.

Why is it a big revelation in the US popular media? Because the Bush
Administration has been very successful in surpressing the involvement of
its top echelon in state sponsored torture and probable war crimes. And
secondly, because many Democrats are embarrassed that the Bushies were able
to use as cover a little used Clinton authorization of "rendition" to build
their extensive torture strategy. There are many military and intelligence
professionals who think the administration is way out of line on this.

I get particularly rankled when I hear from the beltway banditry, that the
oaths of professional military and intelligence personnel gag their
obligation under US law to expose war crimes. And I also note that despite
the involvement of contract personnel in several documented (and a number of
alleged) war crimes, none has yet been publicly charged. So far its only
one non-com and a little pregnant West Virginia Guardswomen that have gone
to jail. Its time for truth.

Dave
IMHO People who order torture and other war crimes, who make a career of it,
who force others to do it, who justify it need to be prosecuted. But lets be
clear, **** happens a lot in war. And thats why VFW halls have bars. In the
American tradition individuals with this kind of bad **** on their mind have
to live with it, obliterate their consciousness, or eat a bullet. Ive seen
religion and good deeds help some friends. Most people know right from
wrong even if they make these kinds of mistakes. But Ive never seen anyone
helped deal with this **** by explaining it away with tenuous legalistic
legerdemain. That just helps the people who order this **** avoid justice.

OT: The Press vs. The Gubmint!
 

wrote in message
...
...It's a whole lot easier on the soul and the psyche to lead men into the
breach than to order them into it, and both are harder than following
someone in, and until you've had to do all of it and understand why,
it's pretty difficult to even comprehend any of it.

And who can speak to the subject of leading men into the breach with greater
certitude and authority than our own El Mysterioso, eh?

Tell us the story of how you single-handedly saved the world for
democracy......um......well, o.k., not REAL democracy.....that
representative stuff.....so many times.

Wolfgang
who just LOVES that story.....or so he supposes. :)

OT: The Press vs. The Gubmint!
 

wrote in message
...
...Be careful about certitude of altitude...somebody could drop something
on you...

Bombs away!

Wolfgang
here it comes.....wait fo it....... :)