[Grovenet] The law

[Walt Wentz]

According to the letter of the UCMJ, even the Justice(?) Department's 
"legal opinion" is specious. The Oath of Service reads:  "... I will 
obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders 
of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice..."
Note, a service person is sworn to obey the orders of superiors 
"according to regulations and the Uniform code of Military Justice." 
That is, those orders must be given in accord with regulations and 
the UCMJ. The regulations and UCMJ specifically forbid torture.
The UCMJ also contains provisions that allow any service person to 
refuse to obey an unlawful order.  This is risky for enlisted 
personnel and lower-ranking officers, of course, since you might be 
heavily punished or dishonorably discharged long before you were ever 
exonerated on appeal, and  the lower your rank. the  more heavily the 
odds of exoneration are stacked against you. But unlawful means 
unlawful, and unless the Justice Department can lean on the Pentagon 
to rewrite the regulations and the UCMJ, any military person has both 
the right and the obligation to disobey an unlawful order.
Walt

>No, allegiance is not the issue.   I have seen the Uniform Code of Military
>Justice, it is about five inches thick.   Needless to say, I have not read it
>(that is to say, I have not read all of it, just parts that were immediately
>relevant).  
>
>How many laws (of any kind, federal, state, etc.) would you feel confident of
>interpreting without the advice of legal counsel?   The Justice Department's
>memo is the advice of legal counsel.   The service members doing the
>waterboarding would not have allegiance issues, but, of course, some 
>would have
>conscience issues.
>
>Jane B-P
>
>
>>  News reports today offer the following little tidbit:   "The Justice
>>  Department
>>  <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Department+of+Just
>>  ice?tid=informline>  sent a legal memorandum to the Pentagon
>>  <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Pentagon?tid=inform
>>  line>  in 2003 asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming
>>  and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned
>>  al-Qaeda
>>  <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Al+Qaeda?tid=informline
>>  >  captives because the president's ultimate authority as commander in
>>  chief overrode such statutes."
>>
>>
>>
>>  Hmmmm...but here's the standard military enlistment oath for enlisted
>  > personnel and officers:  "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
>>  will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against
>>  all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
>>  allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President
>>  of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,
>>  according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So
>  > help me God."
>>
>>
>>
>>  Hmmm...let me see...the constitution comes first in line...the president
>>  only later...and the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not permit
>>  torture (waterboarding having been a prosecutable war crime in US
>>  charges against Japanese war criminals)...
>>
>>
>>
>>  One wonders if this created an allegiance issue for those who received
>>  the memorandum?
>>
>>
>>
>>  --Mike
>>
>
>
>
>
>**************
>Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
>    
>   (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)
>
>_______________________________________________
>GroveNet mailing list
>GroveNet at rdrop.com
>http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet