The Washington State GOP has a new message wherein they attack Democrats for trying to restore voting rights to felons. It’s called “Families Before Felons.” Though for State Senator Pam “The Pistol” Roach, the message might as well be “Felons In My Family.”
A transit riders union? It’s goofy-sounding, but it might just work!
Rep. Doc Hastings: would you like some cheese with your whine?
Michael Dunmire: Proof you don’t have to have sense to be rich.
Ron Sims calls bullshit.
Oh yeah, and that Watada guy is off the hook (for now).
In Dunmire’s view, paying signature gatherer’s by the hour instead of per signature is an “all-out effort to destroy the initiative process.”
In my view, Dunmire is an all-out CHEAP LABOR CONSERVATIVE.
Let’s hope the Commander-in-Chimp never makes Dunmire Secretary of Defense. Dunmire would pay the soldiers piece-rate. You know, per-body. If you don’t kill, you don’t get paid.
Roger Rabbit’s Stupidity Tax
Here’s my tax reform proposal! It starts with the premise that some people are too stupid to be trusted with something as important as money. So we tax stupidity: The more likely someone is to do harm with their money, the more of it we take away from them. It works on the same principle as taking a can of Drano away from a toddler.
P.S., giving money to Tim Eyman is prima facie evidence of gross stupidty.
So, all you Democratic legislators out there, who’s willing to sponsor a bill to take the Drano away from Michael Dunmire?
Hey, that Watada guy is hot! Maybe I can get Daddy to pardon him now.
A government lawyer would fully back paying by the hour instead of for results.
Watada isn’t off the hook. The judge saved him from his own lawyer’s stupidity. This will be retried, and Watada will sit in a military prison where he belongs. That’s what happens to military personnel who incite insurrection against a civilian government.
Actually, his lawyer is brilliant. He knew the judge would disallow the Nuremberg defense, but worded the stipulation so that the government would have to prove that the war in Iraq was lawful. It can’t.
To carry the issue a step further, note that the prosecution moved for a mistrial after the jury had been sworn. I don’t know what the military court double jeopardy rule is, but in Washington State if the prosecutor moves for a mistrial after the jury is sworn, the defendant cannot be retried.
But what do I know? I’m a bimbo.
re 6: You are insane.
So you are all for military personnel deciding which orders to obey and which to disregard? Funny how the lefties are all for the military now that they agree with their point of view. Throw the laws out! It is all about how we all feel!
Please tell me which court of law has ruled that the Iraq war is illegal. Then tell me where in our Constitution it forked over our sovreignity to the UN.
Janet S… so… if a commanding officer ordered a soldier to kill innocent civilians, you would argue that it would be a crime for that soldier to disobey that order?
Funny how the righties like Janet S, who knows even less about serving in the military than she does most subjects, would have an opinion about something she doesn’t know shit about!
Goldy – when did I say anything about a commanding officer ordering the murder of innocent civilians? My comments were strictly about the civilian control of the military. Watada’s orders for deployment came from the constitutional right of the president as commander in chief. Got any court that says that this order is illegal?
If Watada was sincere, he would have deployed, and then been a watch dog. If he received an illegal order as you state, then he would have been well within his rights to disobey and not face a prison sentence. As it is, he has not a leg to stand on.
Rights – as usual, you are long on invective and short on actual commmentary. Nice try. At least you didn’t make any personal references! Thanks for that. Heaven knows you have made me cry before at your biting critique.
Janet Shrill @6 “military personnel who incite insurrection against a civilian government”
What insurrection did Watada incite? All the guy did was refuse to fight in a war he thinks is illegal. He never urged other soldiers to do as he did.
Our soldiers are taught they can be held criminally liable for following an illegal order. Watada is just doing what he was told. Isn’t that what you’re supposed to do in the Army?
The government’s prosecution of Watada is a publicity stunt. Watada didn’t make a big deal of this, the Army did. If they were really worried about how Watada’s refusal to deploy to Iraq might affect other soldiers, all they had to do was deploy him to Afghanistan instead, and no one would have ever heard of it. Because the Army chose to make a public example of him, the Army — not Watada — is responsible for any effect this many have on morale, discipline, or good order.
And don’t forget the minnow supporting the ideological purge of John McCay. And that his blog is the only place people still believe Eyman. Got to love them wing-nuts.
The largesse Dunmire ladles to Eyman — $1 million so far — makes you wonder whose money Dunmire is spending. I don’t know, but I DO know that rich Republicans are really, really good at using other people’s money to get what they want. The guy runs an investment firm that handles a lot of cash. He spends money on Eyman’s initiatives like it isn’t his. I’m not insinuating anything, I’m just wondering, ya know?
Speaking of other people’s money, the Renton city fathers are falling all over themselves to build an arena for the Sonics with $300 million of taxpayer money.
Hmmm … WHICH taxpayers?
I’m pretty sure Renton, a city of 58,000 souls, doesn’t have a $300 million municipal slush fund cobbled together form taxes paid by Renton residents — that amounts to nearly $5,200 for every nose.
Which makes me strongly suspend Renton politicians are planning to spend OUR money. If you look closely, the taxes they are proposing to pay for this thing — including a 1/2% sales tax on restaurants — probably are STATEWIDE.
Here’s how it works: Renton gets the arena and whatever economic benefits flow from hosting the team, and the 99% of Washington residents who don’t live in Renton get 99% of the bills.
Contact your legislator now to stop this TURKEY in its tracks!
“suspect” not “suspend”
For the non-military morons who populate this blog.
I have had just about enough of your know it all bullshit, particularly Janet S. who could not pull her head out of her ass with the help of the Budweiser Clydesdales.
Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 (Suggested reading for Janet S.) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (the law of the military, Janet. It differs greatly from civilian law) 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 (NOTE THE WORD LAWFUL) order (the disobedience does not have to be “willful” under this article). You can err with good conscience and still be guilty.
In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.
Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you’re given, right? 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.
“I was only following orders,” has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn’t work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.
The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the “I was only following orders” defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in 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.”
Now Janet, shut the fuck up. Your mouth is always two steps ahead of your brain.
@9 “janet s says: So you are all for military personnel deciding which orders to obey and which to disregard?”
02/07/2007 at 10:26 pm
Isn’t that what we asked German and Japanese officers to do? And hanged them for not doing it?
Watada is caught on Youtube asking other military to refuse their orders. That is conduct unbecoming and inciting insurrection.
I’m still waiting to hear what court has ruled that the Iraq war is illegal. Unless you come up with something, I have to “FEEL” that this is your own personal opinion, and not the substance of something real is not forthcoming.
I’m not asking for any defense based on “I was just following orders”. But if those orders are legal and from the president of the United States, then they are to be followed. If Watada gets orders in the field to slaughter women and children, then he gets to defy them.
Oh, yeah, not an issue, because he never got there due to his own insuborination.
If a soldier under my command refused an order I would have had a nice sit-down-and-come-to-Jesus meeting with him and his unit buddies. I would have then left the room, and, I assure you, he would have been on the bus/transport/train or bicycle the next day. He might not have woken up until he was in Iraq, but he would have made the trip.
The cute furry one is correct. This is a stunt by the Army to make an example of one soldier. They are failing miserably and the more that public opinion turns against the war, the harder their task to make him an example will become.
My guess is that in two to three months an agreement will be reached, a statement read and he will be be discharged and sent home. He may carry a dishonorable discharge, but a general discharge is more likely.
U.S. soldiers are clearly told in their training that they can be criminally punished for obeying an unlawful order. And the military doesn’t tell them which orders are lawful; the soldiers have to figure this out for themselves.
If you sergeant tells you to shoot an Iraqi kid and you do it, you’re going to swing for committing a war crime. If you don’t do it, you’re going to swing for disobeying your sergeant. You’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.
Congress should pass a law requiring recruiters to explain this to the kids they try to sign up. A warning label on the enlistment contract, as it were. Congress should also require the armed forces to tell prospective enlistees that when big shots get caught breaking the law, it’s the flunkies who are made to pay. Because that’s how it works.
Did anyone besides me notice that it was mostly privates and corporals who went to prison for Abu Ghraib? Geezus Christmas, people employed by our government who weren’t even in the military — who worked for civilian contractors or the CIA — told these poor schmucks they had authority to give them orders, and their orders had to be followed. These bastards didn’t touch the prisoners themselves. They delegated the dirty work to lowly enlistees who get paid $1,000 a month, not $1,000 a day. And who went to jail?
There is something very wrong with how our military treats naive young kids who think they’re enlisting to nobly serve their country. And there’s something pathologically wrong how Republinazis like Janet Shithead treat these kids when they start having misgivings about the Catch-22 situation they’ve been lured into.
Again, can anyone here site one court case that has ruled that the Iraq war is illegal? Seems like this is pretty much central to your argument.
@23 You can bet money on this outcome, and the farther south the government’s case (and face) goes, the better that discharge will get. Who knows, Watada may even get an honorable if this bites the Army’s ass hard enough.
@12 “If Watada was sincere, he would have deployed, and then been a watch dog.”
If the Army was sincere, it would have deployed Watada to Afghanistan, where he was willing to go, and made sure he was assigned to front-line combat duties, which he was willing to do.
Gee, Janet, seems to me his lawyers framed it correctly in contesting whether the “lawful” order from the POTUS was indeed lawful. Simply brilliant. Of course you are all for justice as long as you agree with outcome, but if you don’t then it is not justice.
I am sure you would prefer he was lined up and shot for treason. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed.
The world is far more colorful than the narrow strips black and white, where you live your life.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Not guilty because you decide it is so. This is still America, ma’am.
Let’s say the Army did that, and set a precedent for all the other soldiers in Iraq. Here’s the message that would send:
If you don’t want to serve in this shit-hole, for whatever reason, then we’ve got another shit-hole you can serve in — and you’re welcome to it!
Do you think soldiers would be lining up in orderly rooms to request transfers to Afghanistan?
@13 “janet s says: Heaven knows you have made me cry before at your biting critique. 02/07/2007 at 10:48 pm”
Yeah, we’ve noticed you Nazi whores are thin-skinned when other people criticize your lamp shades.
#30 is just a test. I’m merely trying to find out if it’s possible to make Janet Slut cry.
I cry soemtimes! I cry whenever I’m reminded that a Republican bastard speeding in an SUV ran over my mommy! (sniffle)
Janet, getting the military court to decide the lawfulness of the order was central the defense. The court declined to decide and declared a mistrial. What part of that don’t you understand?
And that would be CITE not site a case.
Furry Sage and Wise One:
Just wait til November 2008, then Janet will be crying.
@21 “I’m still waiting to hear what court has ruled that the Iraq war is illegal.”
Under this clever reasoning, no war would ever be illegal, even an illegal war, because U.S. courts have consistently held that the legality of a war is a “political question” that courts do not have power to decide.
The flip side is that if Congress, the political arm of government, declares the U.S. invasion of Iraq illegal, then every American soldier not only has a right but a duty to refuse to deploy or fight there.
Janet: Can anyone name a court that has even considered whether the war in Iraq is legal or not?
As far as I know, Congress (which is the only body that can Constitutionally declare war)has NOT declared war. How can an illegal occupation be a war?
You are confused. You have lost your moral compass. They have convinced you that up is down and black is white.
And why would you ask an asinine question about the Constitution sanctioning the UN? That’s childish.
Hey righties — how about a straight up-or-down vote on that one? No committees, no parliamentary manuevers, just a simple “ayes” and “nays” vote on whether Bush’s war is legal. Are you fucks up for that one? You’re all big fans of straight up-or-down, majority-rule votes, aren’t you? Or has your attitude about that changed since Nov. 7?
@25 I can cite a case where a military judge ruled that Watada can’t even raise the issue of the war’s legality. So if soldiers can’t even get the issue into court, how the hell can you expect them to find a case where a court ruled on the issue?
Little bit of a Catch-22 there, Janet. You’re clever, but not honest.
Janet here is one for you from the Washington Post:
Senate Republicans who earlier this week helped block deliberations on a resolution opposing President Bush’s new troop deployments in Iraq changed course yesterday and vowed to use every tactic at their disposal to ensure a full and open debate.
In a letter distributed yesterday evening to Senate leaders, John W. Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and five other GOP supporters of the resolution threatened to attach their measure to any bill sent to the floor in the coming weeks. Noting that the war is the “most pressing issue of our time,” the senators declared: “We will explore all of our options under the Senate procedures and practices to ensure a full and open debate.”
Full text here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17037294/
@28 “I am sure you would prefer he was lined up and shot for treason.”
Wingnuts have never encountered a problem they didn’t want to solve by killing someone.
@34 Oh God I hope so please God yes yes YES YES!!!!
@34 (continued) However, I think it’s far more likely that she’ll be psissing and moaning that the Democrats “stole” the election.
And after all the soldiers in Iraq on their third or fourth or fifth deployment vote Democrat, the gopers — not understanding how they lost the military states — will claim the Democrats tore up military ballots. The gopers won’t understand that the soldiers got pissed when the Bush administration made them pay for private baggage to take their prosthetic limbs with them to the war zone.
Yup, it’s a real lawful war. . .not yer father’s war tho’. The contractors make a thousand times what the dogfaces do, and it is tax free. Dogface has to pay taxes on his battle zone pay.
Then we hear stories of being charge $5 a meal to eat the rancid food and contaminated water supplied by the ‘effin’ contractors. Yup. A real lawful war. . . . . . .
I should know better than to stick my neck in here, as I’ll probably get pilloried by both sides. Oh, well, here goes.
Lt. Watata violated a lawful order. Sorry, friends on the left, but military members do not get to decide which war is lawful and which is not. The rules regarding disobeying unlawful orders have to do with things like being ordered to kill civilians, participate in torture and other war crimes. You do not want the military, at any level, deciding which wars to fight and which wars not to fight. That decision is for the elected civilian leaders.
Lt. Watata has the right, and even the obligation to protest order he believes are wrong, even if the order is lawful, but that doesn’t mean he won’t be held accountable for that action. In essence, sometimes doing what you feel is right includes going to jail.
There have been at least a few military members that stood up, said “this war is wrong, and I’m not going”. They were then sent to courts-martial, pleaded guilty, and were discharged, some with jail time, some without. Unfortunately, these folks seem to be ignored by the press to the extent that while I know of such from friends in the military, I can find no news stories covering them.
The key is this, and it is important. You DO NOT want your military to decide which battle they will fight, and which they will not. When the military decides that it knows better than the elected civilian leadership, the next step is that the military decides it can run the country better than the elected civilian leadership.
You hold your military accountable for how it fights, not where it fights. The civilian government decides where.
German and Japanese Soldiers that fought honorably and according to the rules of war were not tried as war criminals, because even though they had fought for the wrong side, and even in the passion of victory, we knew that it would be wrong to try them as such. As a rule, they were treated with dignity and respect, as they had earned it.
Ok, now let the beatings commence.
RE: The Watada case…The fifty-pound turn in the center of the room that everyone’s trying not to step on is that it’s really George W. Bush who should be on trial.
Arrgh…I meant turd, not “turn”.
JOhn Barelli,
Who is going to beat you? You are correct and you already know that!
Can you imagine a military court at Fort Lewis trying to determine if the war in Iraq is “legal?” A LTC deciding that the Commander in Chief and the Congress of the US all approved and supported an illegal war………… Danny Westneat has a good commentary on it-finally. His first commentary was pretty bad, but he finally figured out that the military deciding which battles they want to fight wouldn’t be a good idea.
Roger,
You cannot get in trouble for failing to follow a truly illegal order. There are appeals in the military.
Notice how Janet S bails when confronted with facts? Publican playbook 101.
Well said. I’m not sure why you thought you’d receive a “beating” for your comments.
Janet: Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers is going to have a baby. Do you think she ought to resign her seat in Congress?
Oh man that’s funny Emily. Come on Janet S. Remember all that horse shit you tossed at Darcy for running for Congress when she had a small child? I’m going to link all those posts later this week and rub them in your flat chest. You fucking hypocrite. Let’s hear your cal for McMorris to resign now. Oh what? Your stance is different when it’s a Publican? Thought so.
I agree with Mr Barelli…while I believe this occupation was a lamebrained idea w/ an incompetent implementation..you can’t have officers deciding whether to follow orders…from what I heard, Watada was the one who decided to go public.
The pentagon put GranNan in her place: The Department of Defense yesterday sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that puts limits on the size of the plane she may use to travel across the country and restricts the guests she can bring.
In typical strong arm fashion, her consiglieri and recently beaten pet toady, Murtha threatens them: \”They\’re making a mistake because she decides on allocations for them,\” referring to the Pentagon budget.
GranNan spanking! How liberally KINKY!
Pelosi\’s hard landing
TODAY\’S EDITORIAL
February 8, 2007
Attention, Pelosi One passengers. We ask that you stay in your seats while we guide the craft through some unexpected turbulence — hopefully only a few bumps, caused by a fast-approaching leaky Republican cold front, which we expect will dissipate at the high altitude we call \”security.\” We hope it won\’t much affect our arrival time at Cindy Sheehan Supranational Airport in San Francisco.
Pardon the cheekiness, but this about sums up the attitude of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as she bargains for a cushy travel upgrade over Coach Denny Hastert\’s speakership in, well, coach.
As this newspaper reported yesterday, for travels to her home district in San Francisco Mrs. Pelosi wants the best air accommodations the U.S. military can offer. No wonder: The craft she has reportedly requested, the Air Force\’s C-32, seats an entourage of 42, business class, with a state room, entertainment center, private bed and a fully operational communications center. Its crew numbers 16 and reportedly costs $15,000 per hour to operate.
That\’s downright presidential. For comparison, the jet Mr. Hastert settled for is much smaller — it seats 16 — and isn\’t nearly as posh (full disclosure, Mr. Hastert himself enjoyed cushy accommodations during the genuine security emergency following September 11).
The deployment of the \”security\”logic is more than ironic here: This is the party that routinely pooh-poohs the \”war president\” and scoffs at the administration\’s policy rationales when they invoke wartime powers. But on multiple occasions this week, Mrs. Pelosi\’s aides have floated \”security\” as justification for the permanent upgrade. The physical security of the speaker of the House is no laughing matter, of course. But the use of that logic in this case is: Some security upgrade, this open bar and mile-high entertainment center.
Chances are Mrs. Pelosi will get her wings: She and Rep. Jack Murtha will roll over Pentagon officials who know what they face in appropriations if they don\’t swallow so simple a request — provided that they survive the Republican leaks.
Now, if she could only get around the pesky cloud of Pelosi One\’s carbon-dioxide emissions.
54 – FELLOW LIBERALS, IT APPEARS WE GOT A NEW RIGHT WING WHACK JOB OPERATING HERE. CUTTING AND PASTING THE LATEST NONSENSE FROM WINGNUT DAILY, NEWSWHACKS.COM AND ALL THE REST. IT SEEMS HE’S BEEN IGNORED UP TO NOW. TIME TO PUT THE SCREWS ON.
WINGNUT, YOU LOST LAST NOV 7. THE PEOPLE REJECTED YOUR BULLSHIT. NANCY PELOSI’S DOING THE PEOPLE’S BUSINESS AND YOU CAN’T STAND IT. YOU’RE JUST A WEASLY LACKEY FOR YOUR “TEAM”.
AND YOUR “TEAM” IS THE LOSING TEAM AND WILL KEEP ON LOSING. SO KEEP IT UP WEASEL AND SHOW THE WORLD WHAT A BUNCH OF LOSERS YOU ALL ARE.
AND BY THE WAY, THE MUSLIM WHACKJOBS PUT YOU GUYS IN THE CATBIRD’S SEAT. IT’S YOU WHO LOVE THEM. DON’T TELL ME YOU DON’T PRAY FOR ANOTHER 9/11. YOU DO.
SO YOU’RE TRAITORS TO BOOT. DON’T WORRY, KEEP ON RANTING AND RAVING BECAUSE THE MORE YOU DO, THE DEEPER THE HOLE YOU DIG FOR YOURSELVES AND THE MORE IRRELEVANT YOU BECOME.
CRICKETS – the sound from Janet S as she works hard to find a way to save face now that she’s been outed as a hypocrite for the 182,373,737th time.
Lefties Love Islamo-Nutjob\’s is also Puffybutt for anyone who’s having trouble keeping track of this lying, coward’s screen names.
@ 57:
Nooooooooo way!
Is that reeealllly Puddybud @ 54?!?!?!?
JB at 44: I agree with your assessment of the Watada situation. As much as I would like to see SOME forum for determining the validity of this war, your reasoning is persuasive that a courts-martial for failure to deploy is not the appropriate forum to decide that issue.
That being said, I also agree that the military ROYALLY screwed up on the entire decision on how to handle this case. As others have mentioned, they could have quietly sent him to Afganistan instead, and his conduct would never have served as a “bad example”, because few would even know of it.
Or they could use the Army’s more traditional method of dealing with troublemakers they don’t want to publicize, and assign him to someplace even worse than Iraq in terms of comfort level, for the discouragement of others who might be similarly inclined. I know its hard to think of such a place, but they do exist. Perhaps dropping him off for “solitary guard duty” on a small remote island off the Aleutians with only a case or two of WWII era C-rations to last him for a year or so? Don’t include any weapons, but warn him to be carefull of the grizzlies/polar bears, they like to sneak up on you while you sleep.
Puddybud, you ol’ mouth breather you!
Shit, man, you got me. I had no idea that was you. You’re writing style is so, so . . . . What’s the word I’m looking for? You’re so “articulate.”
Bro, when you gonna pay up on that lunch???
John @ 44:
You’re right on this one.
RHP @ 59:
That “FORUM” is Congress, which, by the way Janet S. Republicans have been woefully derelict in their constitutional duties of oversight of the Executive branch.
Which is why the Republicans were swept away from power. Now the Republicans are being obstructionist in debating REAL issues important to the American public — unlike the issues the Republican controlled wanted to debate like flag burring and gay marriage.
That Janet s. is why no one can point to any “court” to say this war was illegal — Republicans refuse to do the right, moral and legally correct functions of government.
@54 seems to be out behind the schedule on the current right-wing talking points. Today even the White House agreed today that the request to have a plane which can reach her home district without refueling was a good idea, for security reasons. After all, she’s third in line for the Presidency.
“WASHINGTON – The White House on Thursday defended House Speaker Nancy Pelosi against Republican criticism that her desire to fly in an Air Force transport plane is an extravagance.
“This is a silly story, and I think it’s been unfair to the speaker,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17035721/
Pelosi actually said she would prefer to fly commercial flights so she could get a direct flight from Washington to San Francisco, but the House Sergeant-at-Arms was the one who attempted to get an Air Force plane with a longer range.
GBS@60 Hell, Old DarrellRecklesslySucksButtPutty was just the other day claiming to have a receipt for that lunch. . . .
“Notice how Janet S bails when confronted with facts?”
Maybe her mummy and daddy just told her it was after bedtime.
Roger @ 3,
“Here’s my tax reform proposal! It starts with the premise that some people are too stupid to be trusted with something as important as money.”
=====
Well, Rog, that IS the premise behind social security retirement funding. Maybe your idea will work out just a well.
@ 62:
WHATTTTTTT!!?!?!?!?
C’mon, TFF, tell me you’re just pulling my leg, right?!?!
Uhhh–uhhh, Oh Nooo you ditn’t Puddybud, you ditn’t tell folk you bought ME lunch!!!
Lem’me ax you sumtin’, and tell da tru-ff, is TFF lyin’ or you lyin????
@ 64,
Actually, that is NOT the premise behind SS funding. Apparently, you slept through contemporary your US History class.
The shrew\’s special forces:
http://archive.patriotpost.us/.....forces.jpg
Well when republicans have children – are they exempt from Janet S’ positions that women with small children shouldn’t run or hold office? Come on Janet S we’re waiting? Get that dick out of your mouth long enough to type out an apology, admit you’re a hypocrite and you can get back to pulling a train on the high school football team.
GBS, hang on and I’ll get you the time and date co-ordinates on DarrellRecklesslySucksButtPutty’s claim. I think he forgot his meds that day. . . . . . .
Unfortunately, Lt Watada managed to make this option unavailable by his rather public action.
Did the Army screw this up? Perhaps.
With as many years in the military as many posting here have alive, I’ve seen some rather spectacular screw-ups, so it is a distinct possibility that what we’re seeing now is due to incompetence on the part of some military lawyers.
But I wouldn’t count on that. By the time the military legal system was brought into play, this case had already “hit the fan”, and damage control was about the best anyone could do.
Additionally, the spotlight of public interest had already been focused on Lt Watada, so sending him off to count the petals on the poppy plants of Afghanistan, or do initial design prep on a potential bridge between two deserted Aleutian islands really wasn’t an option.
Remember that the Army really doesn’t want this fellow sitting at Leavenworth, giving interviews to the Washington Post, and living at taxpayer expense while the picketers march around the front gate. They want him to go away.
Now we have a problem with the trial, which makes all those reporters fly back to New York, DC, London, Bahrain, and East Waytheheckout, with no real story. Darn.
And there may be some double jeapordy attached with some of the potential charges now. Oops. Darn. We screwed up, so all we’ll be able to charge him with are some minor things we didn’t bother charging him with the first time.
Shucks, we can’t shoot him, hang him or any of that fun stuff now. We can only chuck him out the front gate with a slap on the wrist and a “Big Chicken Dinner”.
Not much fun for the reporters there, either. Oh. Darn. Oops.
@44 The general principles work fine, but the devil is in the details. It’s a lot easier (and safer) to refuse to murder civilians when you’re still at Fort Lewis than when you’re in a dusty Iraqi town and the guy who wants you to do it is standing behind you with a loaded weapon. Watada is exercising some foresight — it’s not necessarily far-fetched to infer that people who send you to an illegal war may order you to commit illegal acts in that war. Watada’s public comments make clear that he does not trust the Commander-in-Chimp to do the legal thing, let alone the right thing. The repetitive illegalities committed by
Bush and his lackeys seem to be at the heart of Watada’s discomfort with serving in Iraq.
The other flaw in your argument is that Watada isn’t being prosecuted for disobeying a deployment order. The Army has been quietly discharging thousands of deserters — as long as they don’t talk. This administration’s criterion for court-martialing soldiers who shirk duty is prot3est activity, not the shirking itself.
The Army could have prevented Watada’s disobedience by taking him up on his offer to serve in Afghanistan. They need officers there, and that is not easier or safer or more pleasant duty. If they felt a need to settle a score with him, they could with a little ingenuity have come up with a particularly disagreeable assignment in Afghanistan, and he would have done it without complaint. The Army is good at this sort of thing, and has much experience in it. And the whole “illegal war” controversy would have been swept under the rug. But the Army opted for a very public confrontation instead. They wanted to make a demonstration of what happens to soldiers who bad-mouth their pet war.
If it goes sideways on the Army, I won’t feel a bit sorry for the Army.
@66
Maybe so but that’s what it has turned into…
I would love to have my money to invest as I see fit rather than ship it off to the “social security lock box”.
I have said it before and will say it again. Social Security needs reform.
Personally I wish I could “opt out” and earn a real return on my hard earned money.
Hi, Roger.
No, the Army (in this case I’m speaking of the uniformed service, not the political appointees in DC) really didn’t have the option of making Lt Watada go quietly off to some unpleasant little spot or just quietly discharging him.
He did not give them those options, and my read on the situation is that he worked rather hard to remove those options.
While I may share his (and your) overall view of the war, I also understand the Army taking issue with an active duty Army Officer making public statements that the Soldiers currently fighting in Iraq were war criminals.
When you join the military, you lose some civil rights, including the right to make that kind of protest. This isn’t something that anyone tries to hide from folks joining.
The Army (or at least the uniformed part) isn’t trying to get even with Lt Watada. They’re trying to make him go away, with as little publicity as possible.
Oh, and while your point
is quite true, you are forgetting one point about being on active duty in the military, that every military member should know.
Sometimes it is part of your job to die.
I joined the Navy soon after the fighting effectively ended in Viet Nam, so the lessons learned there were still quite fresh. We had classes in military ethics that included discussion of subjects including war crimes. The scenerio you describe was discussed at some length.
What do you do when you are ordered to commit a crime, and the person giving the order has a gun?
Many options were discussed (it was a very lively class) but the gist of it was that if you are in the military, you should have already made the decision that there are some things worth killing or dying for. If not, you have made a terrible mistake in joining.
Refuse the order? You may die. No excuse.
Shoot the person giving the order? You will probably be tried and convicted at court-martial. You may hang (literally). Still no excuse.
Sometimes duty (a much-disparaged concept) requires that you risk your life for strangers, and then accept the consequences of doing the right thing.
“Fair” is a place to show off farm animals. If someone tries to give you a different definition, check your wallet after speaking to him.
Watata’s crime: Missing movement.
Got nothing to do with fighting an “illegal” war as he:
1. Signed up AFTER the war started
2. Wasn’t fighting the war.
3. Might not have fought anyway. Lot’s of guard duty and other support missions going on in Iraq.
4. The war isn’t “illegal.”
Y’all are stuck in the 60’s and pissed because you can’t burn a draft card.
Nahhh, that’s not at all what we’re pissed about. What pisses us off is the failed leadership of George W. Bush and the former Republican led congress during a time of war.
American@ 75:
s have the stomach, the patience, the fortitude to pay any price, make any sacrifice in war to win. But, there’s one thing we don’t like and that’s a LOSER.
No doubt about it, the Commander-in-Chimps approval rating in the high 20’s – low 30’s and the reasons the Republicans were swept from power last November is purely because they’re a bunch of LOSER.
Know what else?
The nimrods that still support Bush, they’re LOSER, too.
Missing movement? Isn’t that what that draft-dodging, AWOL coward George Bush did while hiding out from his duty in Nam during a stint his papa arranged for him in the NG? Where was all the faux Publican outrage then?
JACK BURTON: THEN WHY DOES WATADA HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH BEING DEPLOYED TO “FORGOTITSTAN” AKA AFGHANISTAN?
KIND OF BLOWS A HOLE IN YOUR THEORY.
Mr. Burton.
What you read in many of the posts here is a terrible frustration, not a desire to burn draft cards.
We were lied to in order to justify starting this mess. Republicans are now asking us what our plan is for fixing a situation that should never have occurred, and, quite frankly, I have yet to hear anyone that has any sort of answer. I’m not sure that there is a good answer.
From what we’re continuing to hear from the White House, we will probably be the folks that have to solve this, and I’m realistic enough to believe that the solution will be very ugly.
Our country’s honor has been stained in a way that will last far beyond the lifetime of anyone posting here, and we really don’t have any good answers as to how to fix this.
We are trying to do the first thing. The first step to take when you find that you have dug yourself into a hole is “stop digging”, and we really are trying to convince that fellow with the shovel that he should stop. We may simply have to take it away from him, using the power of Congress to quit funding this mess.
The “power of the purse” is a very blunt instrument. It is a hammer, in a situation that calls for a scalpel, but it’s all we have to work with for the next couple of years.
If we simply leave, there will be a bloodbath. If we stay, we become a lightning rod for every extremist group in the area (as if we weren’t already), a recruiting tool for those that hate us, and the one thing that most folks on both sides can agree upon, which is that they hate us.
No, they aren’t “pissed because they can’t burn a draft card”. They’re pissed because they love this country and hate what it is doing. They’re pissed because down deep in their hearts, they are Americans and feel responsible for the carnage that is being done in their names, when they are powerless to stop it.
They are pissed because they are patriots.
Perfect way to avoid the double jeopardy problem with Watada:
Just give him another set of orders to join his unit in Iraq. New orders. New offense. New charges. New trial. No double jeopardy.
Ah, and if the Army really “screwed up” on the case against him, that would be the answer.
I doubt that will happen, as it will result in the exact opposite of the results that the Army would rationally be trying for, which is to make Lt Watada simply go home with as little publicity as possible.
Giving him new orders to Iraq re-opens the whole can of worms. Lt Watada is off the front pages and into the “letters to the editor” section now, and his 15 minutes of fame a just about over. Most folks are moving on to other matters of great imporatance, such as which movie will win a meaningless award for “best supporting actor in a plotless re-hash of a classic western” or some such.
Watch. Karnac predicts….
The Army will determine that Lt Watada cannot be prosecuted for the most serious offenses, but will find a reason to discharge him with something less than an honorable discharge, but probably not a dishonorable discharge. There will probably be a short period of incarceration, which may be suspended or avoided through administrative action.
Most of this will happen at times when there is some real news that will crowd this off the front pages of any paper that is still interested enough to cover it.
Mr. Watada, no longer Lieutenant, will be politely escorted to the main gate of the post and pointed to the nearest Pierce County Transit stop. Buh-bye.
His supporters will make a valient attempt to get the whole thing back onto the front pages of the newspapers. Press conferences will be held. There will be at least one rally where his supporters declare victory.
Story on page B-6.
Ha Ha
Burn Baby Burn!
It’s all Bush’s fault right?
Ha Ha
It would be funny if you weren’t so pathetic