uscitizen
Villified User
Naah actually about 5'9"
My waist does go up to about 36 or so in the winter and weight about 185.
Unthinkable? Will Bush Cancel The 2008 Election?
- Thread starter blackascoal
- Start date
Naah actually about 5'9"
My waist does go up to about 36 or so in the winter and weight about 185.
No. I'm going to take an Arab lover (since it will be peace activists and Muslims who will be put in the camps) and go underground. Maybe Mexico.
I already have my eye on the guy I want. Let me tell you, we are talking about some damned fine looking people here, and as I told my friend Sue, look, it's better than going underground with Eileen. (a real freak, that we got saddled with in my group, don't ask).
You know, we were knocking back a few, and half kidding.
doniston
Aint I a cutie? HEH HEH
just kidding anyway.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
Racist. Why not take generously figured Scotch/Irish/German/Kenyans?
Forgive me, I'm a mite pickled.
I do like curry as a seasoning.
Well I don't think many of them are going to be on the lamb.
Litmus
Verified User
Is this kind of like how no republican would ever support the fairness doctrine? No elections will ever be cancelled due to damo's faith in the purity of our leadership. LOL.
Won't those military guys just follow orders when commanded to round up dissidents?
The point is that some fears are legitimate and some are not.
And a false sense of security can be just as damaging as a false sense of fear.
Last edited:
I have faith in the people of the nation, not the leadership. And if you actually read my posts you would know that I never stated any faith in the leadership.
And no, those military guys won't all "just follow orders". There is a reason that they are specifically limited from acting as police, one of them is the fact that most of them will reject such a determination.
The point is, even if they are legitimate rather than just using them to gain votes promoting an actual solution is 'Mo' Betta'.
Litmus
Verified User
Too bad the leadership is in control, generally.
Is it legal to refuse an order even if it seems barbaric or wrong? How about rounding up minutemen on the border. If they were commanded to do that, could they legally refuse?
and yes, solutions are more better, problem is there that some solutions are presented as completely off the table through the use of false dichotomies and intellectual dishonesty. "We can't restrict slave labor or prison labor, that would be protectionism!"
It is illegal to follow an illegal order. You cannot use the excuse "I was just following orders!" and think you'll get away with it. You are being deliberately obtuse and have obviously never served if you think the military would willingly attack Americans for no better reason than "get those dissidents!"
It is an attempt again at fear politics. If I get them afraid of the military I can get more people to believe me! Well, it isn't working here.
I don't think you've seen the things I've seen. I wish I believed what you are saying, but I do not.
What have you seen? The Vets for Peace? Are they the ones that convince you the military lose their minds when they join?
LOL. No.
I've been in situations where I've known that if someone "in authority" said "those people are traitors, they need to be imprisoned", that thousands of faces twisted in hate, would have said "Yeah!"
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Perhaps you should review the tragedies at Kent State and Jackson State Universities .. then take a look at the Abu Gharib torture saga. Soldiers do what they are told to do and rarely do they act as individuals or allow conscience to get in the way of orders.
They've been conditioned so.
I have looked at those. From what I gather there was no order to shoot. One guy panicked and hearing shots others followed.
The assumption is the entire military will be this way, it is a wrong assumption. Just as there are people who get convicted for their action during a war, even when the Sargeant says to go in guns a blaze... I think there is Tikrit to show you that you can and will get convicted if you break the law even on orders.
And as for Abu Grabbass... They too were busted for illegal activity. Let me see. Illegal activity, tried, convicted, seems to support my assertion that following illegal orders will get you convicted and in prison.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Do you seriously believe that the soldiers at Abu Gharib were simply acting on their own?
But numerous critics—not just in the human-rights community, but in Congress and the U.S. military as well—insist that the current probes are still too limited to bring full accountability. Some critics say Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department is doing its best to stop potentially incriminating information from coming out, that it's deflecting Congress's inquiries and shielding higher-ups from investigation.
Documents obtained by NEWSWEEK also suggest that Rumsfeld's aides are trying hard to contain the scandal, even within the Pentagon. Defense Under Secretary Douglas Feith, who is in charge of setting policy on prisoners and detainees in occupied Iraq, has banned any discussion of the still-classified report on Abu Ghraib written by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, which has circulated around the world. Shortly after the Taguba report leaked in early May, Feith subordinates sent an "urgent" e-mail around the Pentagon warning officials not to read the report, even though it was on Fox News. In the e-mail, a copy of which was obtained by NEWSWEEK, officials in Feith's office warn that the leak is being investigated for "criminal prosecution" and that no one should mention the Taguba report to anybody, even to family members
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5092776/site/newsweek/
C'mon brother .. tell me you don't truly believe the scapegoats they put on trial were responsible for a systematic and strikingly similar pattern of torture that extended beyond just this one prison .. and a pattern of torture that this administration has not only admitted to, but seem quite proud of.
No, I think it is an example of getting busted for following orders. As I stated. What part of that wasn't clear. The part where I said they were following orders, or the part where I said they were convicted for following those orders?
My original point was: It is illegal to follow illegal orders.
Your example simply proved my point.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
My point had nothing to do with whether it was illegal to follow such orders or not, but that they would be followed. The scapegoats that got caught weren't the only ones who followed those orders. Soldiers in the field usually don't know what order they've been given is illegal.
I thought our conversation was whether the military would engage, and if need be, shoot innocent Americans, not if that was illegal. I grew up in Detroit and was there doing those 5 days in 1967 and I can tell you of first-hand experience of what the military will do to American citizens.
Additionally, take a look at the MyLai incident. Would you consider the shooting of innocent men, women, and children, illegal? It not only happened then, it's happening now.
This may be a bit to much on the fringe for you but search on "top secret noforn 1 june 2007" and see if that sounds like reasonable orders to you.
They are not always followed, this assumption that every soldier, sailor, marine, airman becomes an automaton willing to do anything that they are told is ridiculous. If it were so the South never would have seceded as those in the military down there would have just did what Lincoln told them to.
Or nobody ever would have found out about Abu Ghraib as there were orders not to send out pictures. Or nobody would have known what happened in Tikrit because everybody would have jumped on the silence orders. Or so on...
It is not as simplistic as you attempt to make it. Nor would I ever want it to be.