mattp

Seriously: do you guys {Fairweater and Builder) really think that going on TV for two months, saying "we're going to invade in the next month or two, and we are going to try to catch YOU" was intended to actually set the groundwork for catching Osama Bin Ladin?

Builder: the 911 attackers were from Saudia Arabia, not Aghanistan. We attacked Afghanistan because they couldn't control people on their border? We have not been able to do that either. Do you think our war plan in Afghanistan was intended to catch Osama Bin Laden?

Afghanistan did not attack us. Osama Bin Ladin did. We deliberately or negligently let OBL go. We took over Afghanistan and it doesn't look as if it is working out very well. No. It was not justified. Nor was it handled well.

I agree with the sentiment and fully support impeachment but some of that stuff on the link you provide there is a little over the top and, frankly, disappointing. I'm thinking of the Articles themselves, and the "considerations." You can read this and you know what it says, but it is far from clear, or well-written. And, while I think the invasion of Afghanistan was not not only unjustified and poorly conceived, I bet most Americans think that if there is some question whether our Iraq venture was justified there was no question about Afghanistan. And it is easy to understand why. The "considerations" do not address this point, so readers are left wondering: what the F***? It is a shame, in my opinion, that impeachment isn't a more serious option. We have let Bush and his buddies seriously undermine the Constitution and the Democrats just don't want to take the chance on standing up to it -- or maybe they don't care. And whether you are Democrat or Republican, the fact is the next President and the one after that will be fully justified in thinking they can pull the same kind of stuff with impunity.

Considering the story is on Fox, I bet it is baloney in the first place. But the protesters will all look as if they have big butts and the Fox commentators will have fun calling them names.

Yes, the Canadians are under no obligation to allow them to stay and it would indeed be "just" consequences if they were shipped home for military justice. Those guys will have to live with their decisions. Personally, I'd take it pretty serious if I had to leave my home country, potentially never to visit my friends and family again ... but that's just me. You "by the book" people are a hardcore bunch.

Do you ever tire of taking nearly every discussion and turning it into a parade of personal insult and profanity?

Question: does anybody here believe that Private Lynndie England was not acting on orders at Abu Ghraib? Had she refused and turned herself in for punishment, would you have supported that act? How about a female soldier who is raped on post? Would you offer any lenience if she goes awol? Are there any limits to this idea that once one signs up, they must obey all orders and complete their term?

Does anybody but me find it odd to equate GWB with "success?"

So, Murray: like Scott and Canyondweller, you don't recognize that in "running away" he has in fact opted for some serious consequences? You wouldn't find leaving friends and family behind, and residing in a country where you may not get a work permit or whatever they call it in Canada to be "consequential?" I understand your position that when one joins the service they have made a contract. Clearly he broke his commitment. He has to be subject to punishment under all applicable law. If he were 100% honorable, he would subject himself to that law. I agree.

Try this: cc.com photo contest

OK, Scott, play along now: could there be any circumstances where one might be justified in "going back on their word?"

Awesome!

One other unrelated thought that occurs to me: could it be that they shipped him home so that he COULD go awol rather than keep him there and have him act as you might more approve of and "take it like a man" if he disobeys orders and is sent to the brig?

There is no question that he violated his oath. That is not in question at all. The question I ask is: can there be justification for doing so. You say no. You apparently decline to recognize that there could be any justification based on one's being ordered to kill innocent civilians or to wantonly destroy cities and towns or to torture civilians or similar acts that are not justified by military necessity, or simply say that none of this could be occurring -- I'm not sure which. As to whether he understands that his actions have consequences? If he has chosen to leave the U.S. and to be unable to return, for a long time if not longer, I'm sure he not only realizes there are consequences but he has chosen to accept them. Again: I'm not arguing that you should praise or condone his actions; my question is whether you can see any possible justification or perhaps lesser reason that falls short of justification.

Aside from whether the war was illegal in the first place (and I think it was, whether the UN "ratified the occupation" later or not), I think he may argue that he thought that while in Iraq he was ordered to undertake war crimes or participate in crimes against humanity. (Though his statement as I read it contained the added idea that he had an obligation or right to approve the mission, something different.) Assuming he believes this to be true, would this justify going awol? I think that is the question here. Clearly, we can't allow it -- there's no question about that. But might there be room to conclude that he may be morally justified to any degree in deserting if he thinks his service is furthering war crimes? Sure, showing up for duty, refusing, and sitting it out in the brig would be the manly thing to do. But what about fleeing to Canada and not being able to return at risk of arrest -- surely he's going to suffer some consequences either way.

I take it Scott is not a fan of the Nuremberg principles.

Just because he went to those places doesn't make him an intellectual. He was in the National Guard, too, and that didn't make him a soldier.

I forgot to add: both those areas are on DNR land (I guess you figured that out).

Maybe I should let Andy speak for himself but he doesn't read cc.com all that often so I'll suggest that I bet he won't want to be appointed the ethics czar of the Tieton. He knows the history of the area and knows a thing or two about the issues involved as well as the tools, though. It would be nice if we could actually use a forum such as this one or the WCC bulletin board for these types of discussions. It wouldn't necessarily be "private," but I mention the WCC bulletin board because we ask people to post there under their full names - first and last - hoping it will reduce the chances for inflammatory or inaccurate discussion. If you ask information there and get a response, this policy should allow you to know who you are dealing with and have an opportunity to follow up with them if there is any further question or misunderstanding.

The only odd thing about that is the degree to which people such as Serenity hold them in such low esteem. That was part of chief chimpy's attraction as a presidential candidate - the guy you'd rather have at your barbeque than smartypants Al Bore - and look what we got? A moron.

They may be less likely to support an aggressive military response, Serenity, but I bet that torpid community of intellectuals will be a lot more likely to grasp your arguments about our relationship with the Saudi's than most Americans.

I agree with you, Malcom, but perhaps prophet's thought was that the discussion would include talk of where he was heading.

Good shot. To me, this captures the spirit of microsoft and the evil empire stomping the life out of the freedom of human endeavor that we used to know as computers and Internet.

What? No maps and charts?