Cindy Sheehan: "Obligations"

[Hissyspit]

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/386

Cindy Sheehan: Obligations
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Fri, 09/01/2006 - 7:44am. Guest Contribution
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Cindy Sheehan

- snip -

All of our hard work and every penny that I have spent was made abundantly worthwhile today when Mark Wilkerson, a 22 year old Army Specialist out of Ft. Hood, who has been AWOL for 19 months heard our call of sanctuary and came to Camp Casey to spend his last few days of freedom before turning himself in to military authorities at Ft. Hood.

After one tour in Iraq, Mark decided that the war, which he initially supported, was as illegal and immoral as he was hearing some people say. He tried very hard to go through the proper channels to attain Conscientious Objector status, but he was denied. So instead of being redeployed to Iraq for a 2nd time, he decided to go AWOL.

He heard our call for sanctuary at Camp Casey and he came. He found a home and a new family who love and support him fully. Mark is anxious to pay whatever price he has to pay for his decision and then to work with us in the Camp Casey Peace Institute and in the peace field.

One question that I heard the media that were there ask him, over and over again, went something like this: "Don't you feel that when you take an oath you have an obligation to fulfill?" Mark handled this question wonderfully stating that he also has an obligation to follow his own conscience. Knowing that this war is both illegal and immoral by all rational and sane standards, he could not morally participate in the war crimes and crimes against humanity forced on everyone by our lying leaders.

I watch a lot of news and I read reports of Bush's rare press conferences, and I have never seen any one ask George Bush the same question asked of Mark. The commander in chief did not fulfill his obligation during the Vietnam War. He was transferred to the Alabama Air National Guard, and despite a reward, that no one has come forward to claim saying anyone saw him there, he never reported for duty. I would like the same question asked of the president as was asked repeatedly of Wilkerson. How can he dare send a 22 year old Spc 4 to Iraq to fight, perhaps die and perhaps kill innocent people in a FUBAR excuse for a war, when he used all of his daddy's connections to get out of the FUBAR excuse of a war that his generation had to fight, die, and kill innocent people for?

MORE

[immoderate]

1. Isn't his oath to the Constitution?

And isn't he required to refuse an illegal order?

--IMM

[hobbit709]

3. I swore to obey

the "lawful orders " of my superiors. I also swore to defend the Constitution and the United States-there wasn't anything in there about the cult of personality around that excuse of a leader we have now.

[StrictlyRockers]

4. Superior orders and the International Criminal Court:

(spelling)

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList320/4F89CC080CE0E792C1256B66005DD767

<...>
On 17 July 1998, the Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted in Rome. Nestled in Part 3, “General Principles of Criminal Law”, was Article 33, entitled “Superior orders and prescription of law”. Article 33 reads :

“1. The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless :

(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question ;
(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful ; and
(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.

2. For the purposes of this article, orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful.”
<..>

Nuremberg and after
At Nuremberg itself, the crimes alleged were of such a magnitude that the absolute nature of the denial of the superior orders defence made little or no difference. However, subsequent tribunals had greater difficulty. They sought to resolve the matter by treating it as an issue of intent. For example, in the Hostage Case (United States v. Wilhelm List et al.), the tribunal held :

“We are of the view … that if the illegality of the order was not known to the inferior, and he could not reasonably have been expected to know of its illegality, no wrongful intent necessary to the commission of a crime exists and the inferior will be protected. But the general rule is that members of the armed forces are bound to obey only the lawful orders of their commanding officers and they cannot escape criminal liability by obeying a command which violates international law and outrages fundamental concepts of justice.” <11>
<...>

________________________________________________________________________________________________


The soldiers refusing to participate in war crimes in an illegal war are the only one's who should not be tried for crimes against humanity.


CINDY ROCKS!!

:yourock:

[OwnedByFerrets]

2. Fantastic!!

Recommended

[Hissyspit]

5. kick