Illegal? Says who? Please show the charges that the U.S. has been brought up on. When is Bush's court date in the Hague?

Yep, I think all American soldiers should be able to turn down assignments and pick the wars they fight in. Makes perfect sense! So, when I get my next assignment to Minot, I can claim I am against nukes and can only go to Hawaii because I am for bikinis and hot sun? There is a reason why out of 200,000+ soldiers that went to Iraq this idiot is the only officer that refused. So, 200,000+ are wrong and this LT is right?

So, the U.S. soldiers in Iraq are the same as the SS that serverd Hitler, huh? I hope you step out from your keyboard one day and tell that to a Marine that served in Iraq and lost a friend. I can imagine what he would do to you. You are one of the most radical, left wing thinkers I have met in my life time.

When are the trials? Surely, since this war is illegal there must be trials? I won't hold my breath waiting for your answers.

Brave? Crying that AFTER joining the Army AFTER the Iraq War he refused to fight like a man? What did he think they did in the U.S. Army? Baked cookies and bad mouthed there country? You Obviously have NEVER read the constitution. Please show me where it says soldiers can refuse to go to war in the constitution? Again, I won't hold my breath.

Grassroot? 100 people and Sean Penn?

I look forward to your response on this one.

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

Well, Kaf, you may be swimming in the wrong pool this time. I'm going to vote this time with the true patriots who follow the rules, not make up their own.

The SOB is a coward, and should be shot!!!

I have already stated and cited a number of sources on this forum to demonstrate why the war is illegal; however (and I could be wrong about this), it seems that the post has been deleted. Well, that's fine. I can post them again, if you like. Basically, the original attack on Iraq was illegal because it violated the United Nations Charter (of which the U.S. is a signatory) and international law. Here again are the sources to verify that violation.

In Summary:

*The United Nations Charter is the centerpiece of international law that governs the behavior of nations.
*The Charter applies to the United States because it was ratified by Congress, making it the “law of the land.”
*The Charter stipulates that only the U.N. Security Council can authorize the use of force except in the special case of self-defense against an attack
*The Bush administration realized it could not get the necessary Security Council votes to invade Iraq. It tried to circumvent this process by claiming that Resolution 1441 authorized the use of force against Iraq. It does not.
*The administration then tried to make a unique claim that if it could get nine nations on the Security Council to vote for force, then that would override a veto by a permanent member of the Council. The U.S. could not get the nine votes.
*The United Nations is the only body that can legally administer post-war Iraq. The United States should unconditionally fund a U.N. program of reconstruction and transition in Iraq.

The centerpiece of international law that governs the behavior of nations towards each other is the United Nations Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/).

You can also find a definition of war of aggression here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

Also, see:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0715-07.htm

Created at the end of World War Two, the Charter's stated goal is "to maintain international peace and security" by taking "effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace." The United Nations Charter applies to the United States because it was ratified by Congress making it the "law of the land" as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.prioritypeace.org/Q&A/law.html

The U.N. definition of "war of aggression":

"Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition."

In article two of the resolution the definition is expanded:

"The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression."

The UN definition has two elements - for an act to be aggression it must be:
in contravention of the UN Charter, and the first such use of force in a conflict.

http://tcrnews2.com/impeacheditorial.html

The following is from the The Jurist, by Professor Majorie Cohn, prior to the war. It gives a legal explanation why an attack on Iraq would be unconstitutional:

Despite opposition by many prominent Republicans, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are mounting an intensive public relations campaign to justify their pre-ordained invasion of Iraq. A preemptive strike against Iraq would violate the Constitution and the United Nations Charter.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress, not the president, to debate and decide to declare war on another country. The War Powers Resolution provides that the “constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions or its armed forces.”

Congress has not declared war on Iraq, no statute authorizes an invasion and Iraq has not attacked the United States, its territories, possessions or armed forces. President Bush’s lawyers have concluded that he needs no new approval from Congress. They cite a 1991 Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in the Persian Gulf, and the September 14, 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

These two resolutions do not provide a basis to circumvent Congressional approval for attacking Iraq. The January 12, 1991 Persian Gulf Resolution authorized the use of force pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 678, which was directed at ensuring the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. That license ended on April 6, 1991, when Iraq formalized a cease-fire and notified the Security Council. The September 14, 2001 resolution authorized the use of armed force “against those responsible for the recent [Sept. 11] attacks against the United States.” There is no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew58.php

The following is from the Chief Prosecutor of Nuremberg. He declares that Bush should be held responsible for war crimes and tried in the Hague.

A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars - Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime," the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...standtrial.htm

Even Richard Perle, a Bush Administration hawk, has admitted that the war was illegal. As a matter of fact, a number of political and military leaders have also spoke out about the illegality of the attack on Iraq and the subsequent occupation.

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...089158,00.html

Now, you can do your usual song and dance routine of attacking sources as further demonstration of your denial of the truth or else you can follow the fallacious argument that since this hasn't yet been brought to court, then it doesn't matter, an "exception to the rulers" argument that bases itself on power rather than justice. It may take a while for the global justice system to develop and bring these charges to the International Court, but it will; nevertheless, history will be the judge that the war was just as illegal as Hitler's war, and those responsible for it should be tried just as the Nazi leaders were tried at Nuremberg.

The poor, young German soldier of WWII was also just following orders. He also loved his country and believed in the rightness of the war. Otherwise, the Germans would not have fought so hard. But in the end history has shown that the German soldier was wrong for following orders in a war of aggression. Of course, the poor soldier's love of country and passion for its cause was cultivated and exploited by Hitler and the Nazi leadership for their own geopolitical ambitions. It's not the first time that the young have been used by elders to fight and die in a war that only serves the political purpose of the powerful.

Thus, Lt. Watada is a courageous and genuine American hero and patriot for resisting illegal orders in violation of the U.N. Charter, international law and the U.S. Constitution.

A number of others in the military are also recognizing this. It's Vietnam all over again, and you can't go back and "win" this time. It's a losing battle to get involved in another country's civil war, especially when that war was brought on by an illegal invasion and subsequent occupation.

Some say "Well, yes, it was originally wrong to invade Iraq but now the U.S. has a responsibility to set things right and help the country."

This argument is also fallacious. When the foundation is rotten, you can't continue to try to build a house. You have to scrap the whole enterprise. Also, those responsible for the violation cannot be in a position to help. It's like a man who rapes a woman, and then later declares that he recognizes that this action was wrong and says that he wants to make up for it by helping the woman and protecting her from others, etc.

I don't think there is any legal system that will recognize this action as valid. The perpetrator must be separated from the victim, and others will aid in her rehabilitation - not him.

Victory! – Lt. Watada is not going to jail tomorrow, next week or next month.

Lt. Watada's case ended in a mistrial. Ehren has not been found guilty and his attorney Eric Seitz thinks it is unlikely the case will be re-tried. A new trial has been scheduled to begin on March 19 – the Fourth Anniversary of the Invasion of Iraq - the judge couldn't have given us a better day to organize against the illegal war and occupation!

Watch the video of the Eric Seitz press conference on YouTube.

Read Marjorie Cohn's article in Media With Conscience News, "Watada Beats the Government".

http://ga0.org/ltwatada/notice-descr...ter_id=6714815

Victory? You sound like Saddam after after the sand storm made the U.S. pause the invasion for three days. Well, after the 3 days we over the U.S. enter Baghdad.

Again, you post the information that backs your narrow agenda. The FACTS are he had pleaded GUILTY to a few of the counts. Later he was interviewed by the judge who felt the idiot didn't understand what he was pleading guilty to, so the judge declared a mistrial.

There is a mistrial because this idiot LT can understand something he signed being guilty to.

Nice try though. Propaganda doesn't last with me on the boards.

So, it was the prosecutor that asked for the mistiral and the defense that complained!

Stop reading from your propaganda sites once and a while and read some real news. It may help you see the light.

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

This may be the first time you are correct. Since his new trial is in March, he will likely go to jail in April. I am sure he will be treated very well in prision, especially if it is a military prision. Military inmates love cowards!

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

This analysis, from the legal expert, Professor Majorie Cohn (Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, where she teaches Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, and International Human Rights Law) is a powerful statement, which also serves a good summary and indictment of the Bush regime's illegal war against Iraq.

Watada Beats the Government
By Marjorie Cohn

"When the Army judge declared a mistrial over defense objection in 1st Lt. Ehren Watada's court martial, he probably didn't realize jeopardy attached. That means that under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution, the government cannot retry Lt. Watada on the same charges of missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer."

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/12413/42/

You can also view Lt. Watada's statement here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw5TF3ZSIHs

And this trailer for "Sir, No Sir!" gives a bit of background on U.S. patriotic resistance to illegal, politically-motivated wars:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix0Gk8k8E78

What you don't seem to get, Mike, is that the reasons for the mistrial don't matter. The judge's rule for a mistrial was over the defence's objection, thus, the double jeopardy clause makes it very unlikely that this will even go to trial. We'll see.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bush's stooge knew exactly what he was doing when he ruled a mistrial. The last thing he and Bush want is for the trial to give the Nuremberg Principles and the United Nations Charter against wars of aggression a lot of publicity in the American press.

The courageousLt. Watada is setting a great example as an American patriot. Those who follow Bush's illegal war and illegal orders are participating in war crimes. I'll say it again and I'll shout it out loud: "THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE YOUNG NAZIS WHO FOLLOWED HITLER because they are participating in a war of aggression - THE SUPREME WAR CRIME!!!

Kaf, again behind your computer you call military men serving in Iraq and dying in Iraq young Nazis. I REALLY wish you would say this to a soldier to his face. But that is not how you operate. You slander behind a computer. You my friend are a coward like the LT hero you idol.

What is so funny about your first link is I post a ABC News article and you send me to a website I could build in 15 minutes using Joomla.

You may be the most ill informed man I have met in my lifetime. Keep reading propaganda websites and drinking to cool aid. Let's talk in April when you hero is in jail crying that the big man won't stop touching him in his bung hole. Send him some string to tie to the soap.

Mike

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!