Marijuana.com

Plainsman1963

Yet the evidence is right before your eyes...
Hmm...Now we get metaphysical. If it's not an opinion, it must be fact..Yet it's wrong so it can't be a fact so it must be an opinion. A poor opinion....A wrong opinion.
Well, if I had wanted to, I probably would have...
But since your ego can't seem to take a bit of negative rep...Sure, I'll hand you your ass, gladly.
Name of the "judge". Link to the ruling and a showing that it has jurisdiction over the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Not only can they but they have every obligation to do so.
Incorrect. Not true...Wrong. In fact if they obey an unlawful order they will be charged and jailed.

Let's start with your Watada assertion.

Background for those not in the know...Ehren Watada is a First Lt. in the army who refused to deploy to Iraq under his belief that the war was illegal and would then open him up to war crime charges.
His first court martial was declared a mistrial, a second court martial was stayed by a U.S. District Judge stating double jeopardy is attached.

The Army has said it will appeal the decision but has not to my knowledge done so as of yet.

Now on to unlawful orders...

The Uniform Code of Military Justice is a federal law enacted and passed by congress and is the final word on military law.

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk being court martialed under Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).

In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death. So you better be damned sure that the order is unlawful...
Does this mean you must obey every and any order given to you? Nope.
These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

Under Article 90 of the UCMJ all orders are presumed to be lawful, and disobedience is at your own risk: "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime."

According to LCDR Jim Carsten of the Office of the Navy Judge Advocate General, "obeying a clearly unlawful order could subject the service member to discipline for following that order".

The Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) defines a "lawful order" as one that is given by an appropriate authority, does not violate constitutional rights, and relates to military duty. Military duty includes all activities related to mission, morale, discipline, usefulness, and good order. Unless it has a legitimate military purpose, an order can't "interfere with private rights or personal affairs."

"I was only following orders" has been used (unsuccesfully) for many many years, most notably as has been mentioned in the Nuremberg Tribunals.

The first recorded case of a U.S. military officer using it was in 1799, when President John Adams signed an Executive order authorizing the Navy to seize any ship going to or from any french port. An officer seized a Dutch ship, the owners sued and won and the Supreme Court upheld the decision stating "Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal".

During Vietnam there were many many examples of "I was just following orders" to not be a viable defense. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed an order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal."

Probably the most famous case of the "I was only following orders" defense was the court-martial (and conviction for premeditated murder) of First Lieutenant William Calley for his part in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968. The military court rejected Calley's argument of obeying the order of his superiors.

I can just hear it coming though..."Ancient history, Plains". "The world has changed".

Ok, then...

In 2004, the military began court-martials of several military members deployed to Iraq for mistreating prisoners and detainees. Several members claimed that they were only following the orders of military intelligence officials. Unfortunately (for them), that defense won't fly. The mistreatment of prisoners is a crime under both international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (see Article 93 — Cruelty and Maltreatment).

It's clear, under military law, that military members can be held accountable for crimes committed under the guise of "obeying orders," and there is no requirement to obey orders which are unlawful.
And I would say what you lack in knowledge you more than make up for in arrogance.

Having an intelligent conversation requires that both participants be knowledgeable in the subject matter, which you have shown is not the case, so I do not fault the other poster.

Source
Source
Source
Source
Source

__________________


"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe

Posting Guidelines

 

troublemaker_42

Guess what? Theres room on this board for more than one point of view. Its not up to you to determine whether someone "belongs" here or not. This place would be pretty fucking boring if every respose to an item posted was "Yes, I agree with you 100%" or "Absolutely, you couldn't be more correct" or "Thats the EXACT SAME WAY I feel". This isn't PROmarijuana.com or AGAINSTmarijuaan.com Its just marijuana.com, and I'd like to think most of us here are muture enough to be able to handle oppsoing viewpoints once in awhile. If YOU aren't, maybe this isn't the right forum...FOR YOU. I think its pretty damn ignorant to believe your view is the only side that should be allowed to be heard.

__________________
Remember you're a wreck, an accident
forget the freak, you're just nature
Keep the gun oiled and the temple clean
shit, snort and blaspheme
Let the heads cool and the engine run
Because in the end,
everything we do
is just everything we've done..."Omega" by StoneSour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ma#Gun_control
www.sportsmenforObama.org

Bernie420

No I'm not a cop...they don't make enough money for the trouble they have to deal with. I like this forum. It has such a kaleidoscope of opinons and views and unique ideas.

Trocisp

Witty.

Perhaps it was... a fact that I was mistaken about!? Amazing!

I thank you for taking time out and posting.
It's not my ego. If I'm incorrect about something, I'd like to know it. I wouldn't want to spread false information.

I was going by Presiding Judge Lt. Col. Mark Keith's recommendation that Watada be court marshaled under article 92 and 94 of UCMJ. I may be incorrect - as I'm no expert on military law.
Thank you for your explanation, plains.

Well thank you....

Any time that I'm incorrect - I have no problem admitting it. I just need to see relatively concrete proof.

I consider myself more educated after reading the links and such in this post, yes. However - the only thing I've been incorrect about so far was the first four sentences of the post, I was mistaken on the exact repercussions of the Lt. Col. Mark Keith's ruling/recommendation.

The bit I posted (In post #24, #26 and #29), relevant to the conversation, is that "they [the DEA] HAVE to do it" is the same as the Nuremburg defense. Because it is.

Thanks. I've read through them.

__________________
"No references to the need to fight terror can be an argument for restricting human rights." - Vladimir Putin
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Sir Winston Churchill
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." - Oscar Wilde
"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who overcomes his enemies." - Aristotle

Victor_vicious

I think that was the defense used by every war criminal that was not 'the dictator', "it's not my fault I was just doing my job". Please present a logical argument. John G was just doing his job. Al C. was just doing his job. The job doesn't own them. You tell me the difference. What do you think PTSS is all about. People doing a job that they felt was wrong? VV

 

Bernie420

They are enforcing the laws that were written in a democracy. YOU are part of the democracy. If YOU don't like the laws, it is in your power to change them. Once YOU change them, the DEA will re-direct their efforts elsewhere.

Freedom_User

I'll say this again. How can we have power over a branch that doesn't go by State laws that the people have voted on and passed. It's medical use is 100% legal for medicinal purposes in California, and 11 other states. Where is the democracy in that?

__________________

kinghelwig

Tax the rich feed the poor till there are rich no more,and it's still going on and on and on it wont stop if you haven't looked around lately we are becomming quickly a third world country because everyone talks good but no action we have the power to destroy the planet 40 times over but oh my god change the marijuana laws at least if a bomb does go off i'd like to be high before the last thing I see is fade to white.

Trocisp

I'm sorry - what was that in english?

Freedom_User

The worlds longest run on sentence.

I just wish the news media can pick up more on this issue. I see a few scattered out there, but it's always a bias point of view.