U.S. Watched as a Squabble Turned Into a Showdown - Page 11 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #**151** 08-24-2008, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurkha

I did take a oath............that didn't include loosing my conscience.

What part of the oath said that you could pick and choose when to follow a order when required by law? I don't recall seeing that "provision" in the oath that I took. Yes, you are right that the oath cannot really bind you. However, the issue is what is your word worth when you can change what you agreed to on a whim?

Gurkha · #**152** 08-24-2008, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

What part of the oath said that you could pick and choose when to follow a order when required by law? I don't recall seeing that "provision" in the oath that I took. Yes, you are right that the oath cannot really bind you. However, the issue is what is your word worth when you can change what you agreed to on a whim?

What part of the oath says they can force me to loose my conscience or the right to protest what I deem wrong and let me be judged by my peers if need be. Conscience is something you are born with. In that sense, the German population paid heavily for their allegiance to the Fuhrer and the oath they took with him. If the so called oath givers abuse you and tell you to commit a genocide would you go ahead and do it blindly?

aklim · #**153** 08-24-2008, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurkha

What part of the oath says they can force me to loose my conscience or the right to protest what I deem wrong and let me be judged by my peers if need be.

If the so called oath givers abuse you and tell you to commit a genocide would you go ahead and do it blindly?

Like I said, I didn't see a "conscience" clause there. IF you felt that there was a chance of abuse, call for you to commit genocide, etc, etc, you should NOT have taken the oath as it was. You should have stood up and said "Wait. I cannot take this oath as it is. I feel there is a possibility of X, Y or Z happening. I wish to take it with the following amendments.".

A little late to be debating that, isn't it? I gave my word a couple years ago so I don't feel that there is a choice. If I had felt it was possible for genocide and/or other unsavory things to happen, I should NOT have agreed to it. Unlike you, once I give my word, I don't feel it is in my place to welch out on it by adding other conditions AFTER agreement. The time for the conditions is BEFORE the agreement. IF you feel that the agreement is too broad and leaves you open to being abused, you should NOT have agreed to it. That's like agreeing to something and then deciding it is not in your interest to honor it and then start adding conditions to it.

Gurkha · #**154** 08-24-2008, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Like I said, I didn't see a "conscience" clause there. IF you felt that there was a chance of abuse, call for you to commit genocide, etc, etc, you should NOT have taken the oath as it was. You should have stood up and said "Wait. I cannot take this oath as it is. I feel there is a possibility of X, Y or Z happening. I wish to take it with the following amendments.".

A little late to be debating that, isn't it? I gave my word a couple years ago so I don't feel that there is a choice. If I had felt it was possible for genocide and/or other unsavory things to happen, I should NOT have agreed to it. Unlike you, once I give my word, I don't feel it is in my place to welch out on it by adding other conditions AFTER agreement. The time for the conditions is BEFORE the agreement. IF you feel that the agreement is too broad and leaves you open to being abused, you should NOT have agreed to it. That's like agreeing to something and then deciding it is not in your interest to honor it and then start adding conditions to it.

Its not cut and paste, if the oath givers abuse their privilege we have our mind to protest. As a citizen, you have every right to protest or follow. The rules are same for natural born citizens and those who are inducted.

raslaje · #**155** 08-25-2008, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurkha

Its not cut and paste, if the oath givers abuse their privilege we have our mind to protest. As a citizen, you have every right to protest or follow. The rules are same for natural born citizens and those who are inducted.

Not only a right to protest, but an obligation.

Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/390?OpenDocument

Gurkha · #**156** 08-25-2008, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raslaje

Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/390?OpenDocument

Thank you........exactly my point. Collective responsibility...we elect and appoint the persons who crate and enforce these oaths.

aklim · #**157** 08-25-2008, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurkha

Its not cut and paste, if the oath givers abuse their privilege we have our mind to protest.

Again, where is that stated in the oath you took? There was no "morality clause" there. If it was too broad an oath and it was possible to be abused, you should not have agreed to it. Just like any legal document, if you don't like the terms listed, don't sign.

Using morality, you can justify pretty much what you want. For instance, no matter what the reasons for war, you can say that you refuse to take up arms because it is against your religion to kill or be part of a killing force. Right there is your welch clause even if you did feel it was justified but you just plain didn't want to serve because it was an inconvenience to your life, could you not?

aklim · #**158** 08-25-2008, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raslaje

Not only a right to protest, but an obligation.

Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Wasn't that basically "Victor's Justice"? After all, 1950 rules were made retroactive to pre WW II

Gurkha · #**159** 08-25-2008, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Again, where is that stated in the oath you took? There was no "morality clause" there. If it was too broad an oath and it was possible to be abused, you should not have agreed to it. Just like any legal document, if you don't like the terms listed, don't sign.

Using morality, you can justify pretty much what you want. For instance, no matter what the reasons for war, you can say that you refuse to take up arms because it is against your religion to kill or be part of a killing force. Right there is your welch clause even if you did feel it was justified but you just plain didn't want to serve because it was an inconvenience to your life, could you not?

So I should go and wipe out some race even if they never posed a threat just because the so called oath makers felt like it. So what happened to the right to object?

450slcguy · #**160** 08-25-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurkha

So what happened to the right to object?

You took an oath to become an American citizen and defend this country if needed. You have no legal "right" to object, just like any naturally born American citizen. Maybe you should go back to wherever it is you came from if the words you swore too were just a lie.

pj67coll · #**161** 08-25-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Wasn't that basically "Victor's Justice"? After all, 1950 rules were made retroactive to pre WW II

It wasn't just victors justice. The presence of the Russians on the bench made it a farce for anyone able to see further than than the euphoria of victory.

I also took that oath to the USA a couple of years ago. Having already wasted two years of my life in an army where you didn't have the luxury of volunteering I'd have to say I would have major problem winding up in a draft again.

However if the US really did need me the oath itself wouldn't be required to get me to help.

- Peter.

Gurkha · #**162** 08-25-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

You took an oath to become an American citizen and defend this country if needed. You have no legal "right" to object, just like any naturally born American citizen. Maybe you should go back to wherever it is you came from if the words you swore too were just a lie.

I see so whats the difference between this and communism or fascism. If the government does wrong.......you have no right to object. So why criticize China and Russia? As for my going back, thats my prerogative, maybe you should read the meaning of the word democracy. How do you know I lied? Just because I am exercising my choice of speaking against a war which I may not believe in makes me a liar to the oath I took?

Democracy=A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.

Last time I checked, as a citizen I have every right to be a conscientious objector as do others and objection to wars have been done from time to time by citizens. Unless the country is under a siege in which case they don't even have to call me as I will gladly volunteer, everyone has the right to question the declaration of war by the government.

pj67coll · #**163** 08-25-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurkha

Unless the country is under a siege in which case they don't even have to call me as I will gladly volunteer, everyone has the right to question the declaration of war by the government.

Indeed. And the fact of war without a declaration.

- Peter.

aklim · #**164** 08-25-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurkha

So I should go and wipe out some race even if they never posed a threat just because the so called oath makers felt like it.

So what happened to the right to object?

Would it be a legal order or an illegal order? The oath covers legal orders only. If Bush asked you to go shoot Obama because he wants another Republican president, that is not a legal order. If you get drafted, that is a legal order.

Was that covered in what you said when you took the oath? That is why I don't give such promises lightly. You gave up the right to object if drafted when you promised such things in the oath, that is if your word is worth anything.

I suppose you will now say that the part where you absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which you have heretofore been a subject or citizen, is also subject to whether it crosses some moral line you might choose someday should that part become inconvenient?

aklim · #**165** 08-25-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurkha

How do you know I lied?

Just because I am exercising my choice of speaking against a war which I may not believe in makes me a liar to the oath I took?

Unless the country is under a siege in which case they don't even have to call me as I will gladly volunteer,

everyone has the right to question the declaration of war by the government.

Because you swore one thing and now you are adding the stipulation that it has to be such and so forth before you will carry out what you said.

That doesn't.

So you say at this time. But if such a time comes, how can anyone be sure that you won't find some reason to not help?

Nobody is saying you don't have that right.