[Grovenet] The law

[David Morelli]

Please do not underestimate the intelligence or motivation of our  
military personnel.

As a former member of the military, I lived in that vacuum over a six  
year period.  We went to sea, and we got precious little information  
that was not subject to censorship.  I cannot remember when I found  
out that Nixon had resigned, but it wasn't anywhere close to the day  
that it happened.  We were on a submarine and spent months  
underwater, hence the vacuum.

But, we did know our rights and responsibilities.  When the Congress  
withdrew our promised reenlistment bonus while requiring that we  
serve the extension, a few thousand sailors sued the Federal  
Government and the case was finally heard by the Supreme Court.  It  
took years, but we finally did get paid.  The Supreme Court ruled  
that Congress did not have the right to unilaterally change our  
contract without giving us the option of quitting.

Our the members of the US military obligated to follow the terms of  
the Geneva Convention?

Of course they are.  Otherwise they are not protected by the terms of  
the Geneva Convention.  It is a sword that cuts both ways.

Our soldiers and sailors do know the requirements of the Geneva  
convention on the treatment of POW's, because that is their legal  
right under international law, should they be captured.  It is a law  
that governs our service members, both to protect them and to  
obligate them.  Only by removing the protections of our service  
personnel can this idiot administration claim that the Geneva  
Conventions do not apply to our military's actions.  Of course our  
Administration doesn't care about out military personnel, so Bush &  
Co. are quite to throw them to the wolves.

It may be a small matter, but the United States has signed the first  
Geneva Convention document in 1877.  It was extended in 1906, 1929  
and 1949.  These rules cover the treatment of combatants, prisoners,  
sick, wounded, shipwrecked sailors, and civilians.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/EUgeneva.htm

If the President of the United States has somehow gained the power to  
revise ratified treaties without the consent of Congress, I haven't  
found it in the Constitution.

As a further matter, I don't recall any ceremony relieving service  
personnel from their oath to "preserve and defend the Constitution  
from all enemies foreign and domestic."  Those words appear in many  
of the oaths taken by people serving in public office and in  
positions of public trust.  Every active politician and police  
officer is likely bound by that part of the oath.  At this point it  
is a question, "when someone takes and oath, of what value is their  
promise?"

David



On Apr 3, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Walt Wentz wrote:

>> offending troops are young and the portions of their minds concerned
>> with analytical thinking and  common sense are not yet fully
>> developed, yes, that can be taken into account. But their officers,
>> and the civilians who direct their officers, have no such excuse. If
>> the troops are to be punished, then the punishment should go all the
>> way up the chain of command, even to the White House, whose denizens
>> should have been impeached long ago.
>>
>> So we agree, afterall.   But when you try to say that these things  
>> should not
>> be done because of the oath of office then I assume that you are  
>> pointing the
>> finger at enlisted people who take the oath more often than  
>> officers.   And,
>> you are barking up the wrong tree because the oath does not have  
>> the force of
>> law or regulation.
>
> The oath of service might be different things to different people,
> but it does constitute a legal contract, and you can get
> court-martialed for violating it. The enlistee promises to give true
> allegiance and obedience to the Constitution (first) and then to the
> President and appointed officers. In return, those superiors are
> obligated to give orders in accordance with military regulations and
> the UCMJ. Otherwise, the section of UCMJ devoted to refusing illegal
> orders would not even exist!
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet