1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.


Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Seacowboys, Jan 19, 2007.

  1. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    A US military judge ruled Tuesday that 1st Lt. Ehren Watada [advocacy website; JURIST news archive], a US Army officer who refused deployment to Iraq [JURIST report] because he felt the war is 'unlawful,' cannot argue that point in his upcoming court-martial. Lt. Col. John Head further ruled that Watada may not raise a free speech defense, as soldiers do not enjoy the same constitutional rights as civilians.
    Posted Jan 18, 2007 11:39 AM PST

    In other words, when you join the military to defend the Constitution, you are no longer to benefit from its provisions and protections. For all intents and purposes you lose your citizenship.
    Of course, I understand why the military judge is taking this position, and for the same reason judges will never honestly rule on the tax codes (with the sole exception of judge James C Fox); to rule honestly according to the law means the end of the good times. No more war, no more war money. Well, all you readers wearing the uniform, sorry to say but apparently you are not Americans any more. The Bill of Rights does not apply to you. So go out there and get killed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic.
  2. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    When I was in, they told us straight out that we forfeited certain constitutional rights. Heck, I think it was even in some of the papers I signed, but my memory of it's not that clear.
  3. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    That is a total ****ing load of ****. My kid won't be joining up to defend what he can't have....signing up for selective service? maybe maybe not
  4. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    When I went in, it was clearly stated that we were subject to a whole different set of rules and regulations. "Normal" law did not apply, we were subject to the UCMJ. (Which, I add, is in some ways a hell of a lot better than some of the "laws" civvies are subjected to.) Enlistment is essentially a contract, the only US legal equivalent of indentured servitude. And worth every aggravation along the way, it grows you up QUICK. I'd often rather see judgement by seers than peers, and take advantage of the wisdom (?) of senior service members (especially any E7 or better) that you get in courts martial.[flag]
  5. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    I don't know Ghrit.... I remember a lot of idiot senior NCO's and Officers. UCMJ did seem to usually make more sense than a lot of civilian law though.

    For those not knowing UCMJ= Uniform Code of Military Justice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCMJ

    It's a real kick in the teeth aint it Clyde :) You swear to defend the constitution and then your told you don't have it's protections.... wtf.

    But it is actually necessary, combat troops can't be allowed the same freedom and rights as civilians, it would be a mess.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary