U.S. Sergeant Refuses to Go to Iraq: "This Occupation is Unconstitutional and Illegal

Cypress

Well-known member
U.S. Sergeant Refuses to Go to Iraq: "This Occupation is Unconstitutional and Illegal

:clap:


U.S. Sergeant Refuses to Go to Iraq: "This Occupation is Unconstitutional and Illegal"

May 16, 2008.

On Capitol Hill yesterday, an American soldier named Matthis Chiroux publicly announced his refusal to deploy to Iraq.

Matthis Chiroux is the kind of young American U.S. military recruiters love.

"I was from a poor, white family from the south, and I did badly in school," the now 24-year-old said.

"I was 'filet mignon' for recruiters. They started phoning me when I was in 10th grade," or around 16 years old, he added. Chiroux joined the U.S. army straight out of high school nearly six years ago, and worked his way up from private to sergeant. He served in Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, and the Philippines and was due to be deployed next month in Iraq.

On Thursday, he refused to go, saying he considers Iraq an illegal war.

"I stand before you today with the strength and clarity and resolve to declare to the military, my government and the world that this soldier will not be deploying to Iraq," Chiroux said in the sun-filled rotunda of a congressional building in Washington.

"My decision is based on my desire to no longer continue violating my core values to support an illegal and unconstitutional occupation… I refuse to participate in the Iraq occupation," he said, as a dozen veterans of the five-year-old Iraq war looked on.

Minutes earlier, Chiroux had cried openly as he listened to former comrades-in-arms testify before members of Congress about the failings of the Iraq war. The testimonies were the first before Congress by Iraq veterans who have turned against the five-year-old war.

Former army sergeant Kristofer Goldsmith told a half-dozen US lawmakers and scores of people who packed into a small hearing room of "lawless murders, looting and the abuse of countless Iraqis." He spoke of the psychologically fragile men and women who return from Iraq, to find little help or treatment offered from official circles. Goldsmith said he had "self-medicated" for several months to treat the wounds of the war.

Another soldier said he had to boost his dosage of medication to treat anxiety and social agoraphobia -- two of many lingering mental wounds he carries since his deployments in Iraq -- before testifying. Some 300,000 of the 1.6 million US soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from the psychological traumas of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression or both, an independent study showed last month.

A group of veterans sitting in the hearing room gazed blankly as their comrades' testimonies shattered the official version that the US effort in Iraq is succeeding. Almost to a man, the soldiers who testified denounced serious flaws in the chain of command in Iraq...............
...................

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/85612/



Youtube: "I refuse to participate in the Iraq Occupation"

 
I hope we are totally fair with this young man and respect his opinions....

No less than 20 but no more then 30 years in Leavenworth seems fair.....
 
hope he's prepared for prison..and then when he gets out he can run for the Senate..

and who the hell talks like
.."I was from a poor, white family from the south, and I did badly in school," the now 24-year-old said.

"I was 'filet Mignon' for recruiters.
:rolleyes:
 
He signed a contract that said he would go where he was needed.

We're not in the business of letting soldiers choose their wars. Our military's job is to do what is asked of it. Changes in policy should come from the political leadership.
 
He signed a contract that said he would go where he was needed.

We're not in the business of letting soldiers choose their wars. Our military's job is to do what is asked of it. Changes in policy should come from the political leadership.

He says he's willing to face jail or prosecution. I'm not arguing about that. I'm saluting his principle. He doesn't want to be a party to war crimes and illegal occupation, and is willing to be put on trial for it, if neccessary.
 
Sounds like the young sergeant has been listening to too much tripe from the anti-war crowd.

First, the Iraq war is not "illegal". Saying it is is plain stupid. The invasion was started under both the authority of the President as commander in chief of the armed forces, and under authority of Congress which also authorized the use of military force in Iraq.

Second, the Iraq war is not "unconstitutional". SCOTUS defined the powers granted under the title of "commander in chief" way back at the beginning of the Civil War. That decision has never been successfully challenged. Technically and constitutionally, as commander in chief the president could have sent the troops in even without congressional approval.


Now the young man may disagree with the reasons for the Iraq war. I disagree with them myself. But he also made a legally binding oath to obey the legal orders of those placed in command over him. The order to go to Iraq is a legal order. He want to defy those orders, more power to him. But he should also be willing to face the consequences of that decision.

As to the descriptions of "lawless murders, looting and the abuse of countless Iraqis.", my memories of the Viet Nam era, and the way the anti-war crowd treated the military are very fresh in my mind. The difference is back then they made no hypocritical claim to be "supporting the troops" when using their anti-military tactics.
 
He says he's willing to face jail or prosecution. I'm not arguing about that. I'm saluting his principle. He doesn't want to be a party to war crimes and illegal occupation, and is willing to be put on trial for it, if neccessary.

It's a commendable and principled stance, I agree completely with that.

I just think that you know what you're getting into when you join the military, and you can't realistically expect to be able to "choose your battles" as a soldier.
 
Sounds like the young sergeant has been listening to too much tripe from the anti-war crowd.

First, the Iraq war is not "illegal". Saying it is is plain stupid. The invasion was started under both the authority of the President as commander in chief of the armed forces, and under authority of Congress which also authorized the use of military force in Iraq.

Second, the Iraq war is not "unconstitutional". SCOTUS defined the powers granted under the title of "commander in chief" way back at the beginning of the Civil War. That decision has never been successfully challenged. Technically and constitutionally, as commander in chief the president could have sent the troops in even without congressional approval.


Now the young man may disagree with the reasons for the Iraq war. I disagree with them myself. But he also made a legally binding oath to obey the legal orders of those placed in command over him. The order to go to Iraq is a legal order. He want to defy those orders, more power to him. But he should also be willing to face the consequences of that decision.

As to the descriptions of "lawless murders, looting and the abuse of countless Iraqis.", my memories of the Viet Nam era, and the way the anti-war crowd treated the military are very fresh in my mind. The difference is back then they made no hypocritical claim to be "supporting the troops" when using their anti-military tactics.


It's illegal to attack another country, unless you are under attack from them, or under imminent threat of attack. It's basic international law, enshrined in Treaties we have signed and are obligated to abide by pursuant to the US Constitution.
 
I feel for him, but he signed a contract, the war is immoral and wrong and just a plain goatscrew, but he is obligated to go and if he does not he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I hope he is ready for this, because that is what is going to happen.
 
I feel for him, but he signed a contract, the war is immoral and wrong and just a plain goatscrew, but he is obligated to go and if he does not he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I hope he is ready for this, because that is what is going to happen.

I wonder if it is just political theater or if the guy is really morally conflicted.

I feel for him if he is, but any war is morally questionable at best so I'm not sure what he was expecting.
 
I feel for him, but he signed a contract, the war is immoral and wrong and just a plain goatscrew, but he is obligated to go and if he does not he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I hope he is ready for this, because that is what is going to happen.


Yeah, he will lose in court, and go to jail. Like that Lt. Watada dude. The fact that it could f*ck up his life, tells me he's doing it on principle. Most of the world knows this war was illegal from the start and based on lies. War architect Richad Perle even admitted the war was illegal. The political process is too slow in changing it, for some people. The cowardly Dems haven't done enough to stop it. The republicans are going to cling to this war all the way to their political graves. Waiting for election two or four years down the road, will not keep this kid from having to be a party to war crimes.

If it takes civil disobedience to put a dent in this clusterf*ck, I'm cool with that. If soldiers refuse to go, and protestors want to harass recruiters, and inform kids not to join, I'm cool with that.
 
It's a commendable and principled stance, I agree completely with that.

I just think that you know what you're getting into when you join the military, and you can't realistically expect to be able to "choose your battles" as a soldier.

Darnit I have to agree with that!!!
 
Back
Top