Should we really honour the modern soldier?
- Thread starter Undecided
- Start date
zanket said:
(im probably gonna regret answering up but...)
why would an order ever be given? what crimes would a court justice do that would cause the MILITARY to imprison them? that statement makes no sense because the context is not sensible. explain further and then maybe i can give an intelligent answer.
If Bush, say, wanted to become the dictator of the US he could start with issuing an executive order that orders the military to imprison the Supreme Court justices, the only people who can reject his executive orders. Bush would not need to offer a reason for imprisoning them--such order does not require explanation. Should the soldiers carry out the order then Bush would be well on his way to establishing dictatorship. Soldiers swore allegiance to the Constitution, to uphold and protect it. Summarily imprisoning the Supreme Court justices is obviously unconstitutional. But you say that soldiers should obey orders without question, despite their oath. Presumably you would respect and honor the soldier who assists a military coup that destroys our democracy. Such an event is hardly implausible; it has happened throughout history.
Let me again state, that yes soldiers are required to obey orders. The orders that they are given are constitutional tho, thats implied because it trickles down from the top.
There are many reasons why what you describe would never happen in our society. Manly because the chain of command exists. In order for what you describe to happen be made possible, every person from the top to the bottom would have to agree that imprisoning the supreme court justices is constitutional (which it OBVIOUSLY is not.) and somewhere along the line (probably whomever the Sec. of defense is) someone would realize that what the president has ordered is unconstitutional.
What you fail to realize is that the situation in Iraq and the situation you are hypothesizing are drastically different in one simple reason.
Imprisonment of all the justices is undeniably unconstitutional. The war in Iraq isnt unconstitutional. It might have been wrong, and the country itself might have been lied to, but that doesnt make it unconstitutional. You fail to realize that the war in Iraq happened because enough people thought that there was a problem (or were told there was a problem)
Show me the part where the action in Iraq was in violation of our Constitution. Our constitution says nothing of when we should and shouldnt attack another country.
Your beef with the government and the modern day soldier has to deal solely with your mental decision that the war in Iraq is unwarranted and wrong. Which is fine and dandy, but you arent the end all say all to that.
You still fail to realize that there exists a chain of command for a reason. the modern day soldier is at the bottom of the totem pole. He follows his orders to create civility and stability in whatever he is doing. He blindly must follow orders and put trust in his superiors that they know what they are doing (hence why officers are trained). You might think this is not a noble thing to do but thats fine, dont sign up for the military then. But do not critisize the modern day soldier for simply following the orders put before him based on the fact that he is to believe that what he is told has gone thru the chain of command and is valid and legal.
You state that the soldier should just drop arms and run away from his duty. Thats not feasible nor is it smart to suggest such a thing. Any educated person should know that the reason things are the way they are is due to administration (be it your daily job as a civilian, to day to day workings in the government). Therefore, you cant ask someone at the bottom of the totem pole to dishonor himself and his vow to his country and throw down arms.
My biggest problem with your view of things is that you fail to place the blame on the correct individuals. If you have a problem with how the military is being used, thats fine, but dont blame the soldier, blame the administration who directs the soldiers what to do.
For example. Say you work in a large company, who manufactures .... cigarettes. You hate cigarettes, you know smoking kills you, and you dont always agree with the tactics used to recruit new smokers. You have two choices. One - you could quit your job, and find a new job to satisfy your moral appetite, or you could TWO - stay with your current job, because you know if you left you would be missing out on a stable job and benefits.
now most people given this scenario would say, "quit" which given the circumstances you might do. But i know that the majority of people would stay at that job because of the security it affords. The point of that whole hypothetical is that a job is just that, a job. you might not like the company or the CEO, or the ideals the company seems to fight for, but you need that job. you committed to that job, and because you are fufilling your committment to yourself and to your family and to your job, that makes your actions honorable. The company you work for might be as sleezy as it comes, but that doesnt make everyone that works for the company equally sleezy.
i am not sure if that makes sense, but i am basically trying to say, you need to stop blaming the soldier who is just doing his job, and start from the top which is how policies get changed. The soldier is just fufilling his committment, punching the clock, biding his time. why fault him for wanting to do good by his family?
There are many reasons why what you describe would never happen in our society. Manly because the chain of command exists. In order for what you describe to happen be made possible, every person from the top to the bottom would have to agree that imprisoning the supreme court justices is constitutional (which it OBVIOUSLY is not.) and somewhere along the line (probably whomever the Sec. of defense is) someone would realize that what the president has ordered is unconstitutional.
What you fail to realize is that the situation in Iraq and the situation you are hypothesizing are drastically different in one simple reason.
Imprisonment of all the justices is undeniably unconstitutional. The war in Iraq isnt unconstitutional. It might have been wrong, and the country itself might have been lied to, but that doesnt make it unconstitutional. You fail to realize that the war in Iraq happened because enough people thought that there was a problem (or were told there was a problem)
Show me the part where the action in Iraq was in violation of our Constitution. Our constitution says nothing of when we should and shouldnt attack another country.
Your beef with the government and the modern day soldier has to deal solely with your mental decision that the war in Iraq is unwarranted and wrong. Which is fine and dandy, but you arent the end all say all to that.
You still fail to realize that there exists a chain of command for a reason. the modern day soldier is at the bottom of the totem pole. He follows his orders to create civility and stability in whatever he is doing. He blindly must follow orders and put trust in his superiors that they know what they are doing (hence why officers are trained). You might think this is not a noble thing to do but thats fine, dont sign up for the military then. But do not critisize the modern day soldier for simply following the orders put before him based on the fact that he is to believe that what he is told has gone thru the chain of command and is valid and legal.
You state that the soldier should just drop arms and run away from his duty. Thats not feasible nor is it smart to suggest such a thing. Any educated person should know that the reason things are the way they are is due to administration (be it your daily job as a civilian, to day to day workings in the government). Therefore, you cant ask someone at the bottom of the totem pole to dishonor himself and his vow to his country and throw down arms.
My biggest problem with your view of things is that you fail to place the blame on the correct individuals. If you have a problem with how the military is being used, thats fine, but dont blame the soldier, blame the administration who directs the soldiers what to do.
For example. Say you work in a large company, who manufactures .... cigarettes. You hate cigarettes, you know smoking kills you, and you dont always agree with the tactics used to recruit new smokers. You have two choices. One - you could quit your job, and find a new job to satisfy your moral appetite, or you could TWO - stay with your current job, because you know if you left you would be missing out on a stable job and benefits.
now most people given this scenario would say, "quit" which given the circumstances you might do. But i know that the majority of people would stay at that job because of the security it affords. The point of that whole hypothetical is that a job is just that, a job. you might not like the company or the CEO, or the ideals the company seems to fight for, but you need that job. you committed to that job, and because you are fufilling your committment to yourself and to your family and to your job, that makes your actions honorable. The company you work for might be as sleezy as it comes, but that doesnt make everyone that works for the company equally sleezy.
i am not sure if that makes sense, but i am basically trying to say, you need to stop blaming the soldier who is just doing his job, and start from the top which is how policies get changed. The soldier is just fufilling his committment, punching the clock, biding his time. why fault him for wanting to do good by his family?
(Insert Title Here)
(1) "Iraq War Resolution," October 10, 2002 - see http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
(2) Bonifaz, John C. "The First Lie" - see http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0128-08.htm
(3) United States Constitution - see http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
See Also
(4) Paul, Rep. Ron. "Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base" - see http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst98/tst020298.htm
(5) Texas Observer, interview w/Ron Paul - see http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1246
Ironic that Paul was after Clinton in that one. Actually, not entirely ironic:
The power to make war belongs to Congress alone. This has been one of those "slippery slope" issues by which we continue to corrupt the process. The Constitutional issue is whether Congress could authorize the president as they did in October, 2002.
In addition to false premises, that vote essentially wrote a blank check--"Attack when you feel like it for whatever reasons yo want." This may be an inappropriate delegation of Congressional authority.
Spaganya said:
(1) "Iraq War Resolution," October 10, 2002 - see http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
(2) Bonifaz, John C. "The First Lie" - see http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0128-08.htm
(3) United States Constitution - see http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
See Also
(4) Paul, Rep. Ron. "Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base" - see http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst98/tst020298.htm
(5) Texas Observer, interview w/Ron Paul - see http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1246
Ironic that Paul was after Clinton in that one. Actually, not entirely ironic:
The power to make war belongs to Congress alone. This has been one of those "slippery slope" issues by which we continue to corrupt the process. The Constitutional issue is whether Congress could authorize the president as they did in October, 2002.
In addition to false premises, that vote essentially wrote a blank check--"Attack when you feel like it for whatever reasons yo want." This may be an inappropriate delegation of Congressional authority.
Last edited:
I havent had time to run thru all the links you posted but from the quotes you posted, it still doesnt say that its against the constitution. Its just out of the precident of what has been done in the past. (and actually not really being that there have been "wars" fought in the past that technically werent approved by congress)
I will check the links later when i hvae more time, but from what i see so far, you havent given me anything to think differently.
And for the record, i dont LIKE the president (i think he stole the presidency)
I will check the links later when i hvae more time, but from what i see so far, you havent given me anything to think differently.
And for the record, i dont LIKE the president (i think he stole the presidency)
spaganya said:
Whoever it is that realizes that the order is unconstitutional has the authority to disobey the order only because of their oath to support and defend the Constitution. The Sec. of Defense is a soldier. The same oath applies to every soldier. There is no line in the command structure above which soldiers should adhere to their oath, and soldiers below should ignore their oath and follow orders without question. Every soldier has the authority and the duty to disobey the order. Otherwise Bush could simply change the chain of military command and give the common soldier the order directly.
Show me the part where imprisoning the Supreme Court justices is in violation of our Constitution. It says nothing of that. Yet you say such order is obviously unconstitutional. For the same reason I say that an offensive war is obviously unconstitutional. Both go against the spirit of democracy. Setting up a puppet government, a dictatorship, is as wrong as imprisoning the Supreme Court justices. It is modern slavery. And the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan can see firsthand or otherwise determine beyond reasonable doubt that we are installing a puppet government there. Why we went to war is now irrelevant; if there ever was reasonable doubt that the war is unconstitutional, there is none now.
We do not know if the Iraq war is ruled unconstitutional because the Supreme Court has not ruled on it. They cannot rule on it unless a lawsuit is raised up to them, a process which takes time and may not even happen. In the meantime every soldier has the authority and the duty to question the war, despite congress’ rubber stamp of it.
Who is? The Supreme Court is, and if and until they rule, so is everybody who has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
He must not blindly follow orders, as I have shown. He must follow orders which are constitutional and adhere to the military code of conduct. Otherwise he must disobey the order. Every soldier has sworn to do this.
His vow to his country is to throw down arms rather than follow an unconstitutional order to use them.
Both the soldier and the administration are to blame. Both violate their oath.
Sleazy is okay. Manufacturing and promoting addictive drugs that cause mass death is not okay. I don’t respect those who work at cigarette manufacturers, from the top to the bottom.
It does make sense in the way that I understand what you’re saying. We’re just on opposite sides of the fence. Doing good by your family is great as long as the associated actions are not violently offensive. Any good the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing for anybody is swamped by the immense misery they inflict when they kill innocent people and put the survivors under a yoke.