Troops Tea Party seems upset

[vaskidmark]

http://tinyurl.com/m95nkjm

Not having anything to do with Facebook I was totally unaware that there was such a beast as "Troops Tea Party" and that active duty servicemembers were going there to voice concerns about an upcoming Syria action.

It is a permanent conundrum that when you join up to protect the Constitution agains enemies foreign and domestic you lose many of the rights that document ensures the rest of the country can enjoy.  It is not confusing at all (at least to me) why that is so and why it must be so.  The most wonderful (as in full of "wonder" meaning to ponder) part of this building kerfuffle is that the troops either do not understand how easy it should be to ID them or that they do not care.  If the former, they deserve whatever happens.  If the latter, then I am conflicted between admiration for personal bravery and saddened by the lack of personal integrity.

I am not through contemplating this phenomenon , but what I have done leads me towards being both opposed to what these servicemembers are doing and concluding that their actions would constitute giving aid and comfort to the enemy if there was a  state of war and an actual enemy.

What I need is the collective wisdom of APS to help me decide if I am being too harsh.  If so, understanding why would be helpful, too.

stay safe.

[HankB]

From their signs, I'd say the servicemembers are expressing an opinion that they didn't join the military to fight for Al-Qaeda in the Syrian civil war. Seems reasonable.

At the moment, with no Congressional approval as of yet, the C-in-C is still making noises about taking unilateral military action, purely on his own authority, against a villainous regieme that is fighting against an equally villainous enemy which includes the islamofascists of the Moslem Brotherhood and various Al-Qaeda types.

As even uber-leftist Denis Kucinich said, bombing Syria means we'd be acting as Al-Qaeda's air force . . . and considering what Al-Qaeda has done to us, it's understandable that US troops are reluctant to intervene on the wrong side. (Not that Assad & Co. would be the right side either; I see no good guys there.)

When you have bad guys fighting bad guys in a long-running civil war, do you REALLY want to intervene on one side or another & hand them a victory?

[RoadKingLarry]

I see no good guys there

Time for you religious folks to start praying for an asteroid

[Tallpine]

Time for you religious folks to start praying for an asteroid

If God was just, He would have destroyed the District of Criminals a long time ago   

[Fitz]

Political activity in uniform has been prohibited by the UCMJ since rocks were soft.

"protesting" anything in uniform is, quite simply, not legal per the UCMJ.

"protesting" while giving the appearance of representing an official position is also forbidden, although they haven't quite crossed that line yet.



They're right. They didn't join to fight for al qaeda. They joined to support and defend the consittution of the united states (which hasn't been violated WRT Syria... yet), obey the orders of the president, and the orders of the officers appointed over them.

I wholeheartedly disagree with Syria intervention.

I also wholeheartedly support UCMJ action for these folks posting anonymous (and cowardly) protests in uniform.

[AZRedhawk44]

If God was just, He would have destroyed the District of Criminals a long time ago   

I lurvs that you chose Mordor on the Potomac as the first target for $deity to smite.

[HankB]

Political activity in uniform has been prohibited by the UCMJ since rocks were soft.

And yet POTUS habitually trots out his uniformed generals to drum up POLITICAL support for his decisions.

Here's an NYT story about the people we'd be helping if we bomb Syria, with an embedded video. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?hp&_r=0

And calling the soliders "cowardly" for protesting this way is nonsense - they KNOW their enemy on this issue, so maintaining their anonymity is about as cowardly as ducking down in a foxhole when under fire.

[Fitz]

And yet POTUS habitually trots out his uniformed generals to drum up POLITICAL support for his decisions.

Here's an NYT story about the people we'd be helping if we bomb Syria, with an embedded video. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?hp&_r=0

And calling the soliders "cowardly" for protesting this way is nonsense - they KNOW their enemy on this issue, so maintaining their anonymity is about as cowardly as ducking down in a foxhole when under fire.

The POTUS has that luxury because he's the president. His opinion on the syrian situation CAN, legally, be the opinion of the US Armed forces.

And yes, it's cowardly to "fight the man" and protest , knowingly breaking rules, if you're hiding your face.

[AZRedhawk44]

And yes, it's cowardly to "fight the man" and protest , knowingly breaking rules, if you're hiding your face.

You share that opinion with any of your DHS fast response teams regarding their balaclavas?


Very interestingly, TSA and airport security have no problem whatsoever with all us libertarian anti-Statist folks protesting at the security gates at the airport.  They do, however, throw a HUGE conniption fit if any of us wear anything that covers our face.  Stops their ability to use facial recognition software and electronic surveillance on us and track who is present at what protest.

I've got no problem with guerrilla activism.  No one got hurt here, except authoritah.  And authoritah needs hurtin' nowadays.

[Fitz]

You share that opinion with any of your DHS fast response teams regarding their balaclavas?


Very interestingly, TSA and airport security have no problem whatsoever with all us libertarian anti-Statist folks protesting at the security gates at the airport.  They do, however, throw a HUGE conniption fit if any of us wear anything that covers our face.  Stops their ability to use facial recognition software and electronic surveillance on us and track who is present at what protest.

I've got no problem with guerrilla activism.  No one got hurt here, except authoritah.  And authoritah needs hurtin' nowadays.

Yes, I believe that civilian law enforcement conducting operations masked is cowardly.



The UCMJ exists, and the provisions against political activity in uniform exist, for a reason. If you want to protest, fine. Hold up your signs, go to anti war rallies, whatever.

Don't do it in uniform. Pretty simple stuff.

Breakdown of order and discipline is a very bad thing. So far, the president has not violated the constitution with his actions regarding syria. If he does, the issue could be raised about violating the orders...

[Fitz]

Additionally, every discussion on this elsewhere seems to get godwinned, so I'll do it preemptively.


THere are many of these soldiers saying "I WILL NOT"


Horseshit. You will, or you'll go to jail.

Quite simply, no one is asking these troops to round folks up and gas them. If approved by congress, this military engagement is perfectly legitimate. You don't get to refuse orders because a decision is stupid. You only get to refuse orders of the orders are ILLEGAL.

And these jackholes know this, that's why they are hiding their faces like cowards, because they would (rightly) get punished for it.

[AZRedhawk44]

So, let's full on Godwin this thing.

Nuremberg defense.

Assuming Congress says "go to war in Syria."

Now let's play it out to its absolute possible worst scenario.  This turns into a WWIII scale proxy war with Russia, ultimately involving nuke exchanges, loss of cities, sinking of fleets, etc. 

The US loses to Russia.

Russia gets to have its own equivalent of Nuremberg with US soldiers on trial.

"Just following orders of Congress."

Sounds a lot like those Nazis, doesn't it?

[Fitz]

So, let's full on Godwin this thing.

Nuremberg defense.

Assuming Congress says "go to war in Syria."

Now let's play it out to its absolute possible worst scenario.  This turns into a WWIII scale proxy war with Russia, ultimately involving nuke exchanges, loss of cities, sinking of fleets, etc.  

The US loses to Russia.

Russia gets to have its own equivalent of Nuremberg with US soldiers on trial.

"Just following orders of Congress."

Sounds a lot like those Nazis, doesn't it?

First, any "proxy war" with russia is not going to involve nuke exchanges and sinking fleets. That would be a "war."

Second, nuremburg is really not comparable here. Maybe if we invaded canada for no reason, then rounded up all their <insert ethnic / religious group we want to exterminate here> and murdered them, it would be a valid comparison.

Instead of resorting to laughable hypotheticals, try making an actual rational argument.

Are you suggesting that US Soldiers should be allowed to disobey orders they don't agree with? Versus the current situation where they can only violate illegal orders?

[Tallpine]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYEsFQ_gt7c

[AZRedhawk44]

You're right, it starts as a proxy war while we kill the Syrians we like least, and the Russians kill the Syrians they like least. 

But let it escalate to what I described.

And suspend your disbelief that the US could ever lose to Russia.

Put a US Soldier on trial in a foreign court for "war crimes" for a Congressionally authorized war, in context of Nuremberg Defense.

[Fitz]

You're right, it starts as a proxy war while we kill the Syrians we like least, and the Russians kill the Syrians they like least. 

But let it escalate to what I described.

And suspend your disbelief that the US could ever lose to Russia.

Put a US Soldier on trial in a foreign court for "war crimes" for a Congressionally authorized war, in context of Nuremberg Defense.

My disbelief isn't that the US could lose to russia. It's disbelief that this will escalate to a full on war with russia, especially since Russia is now softening to US intervention.


If a US soldier commits war crimes, then those crimes are perfectly valid reasons for the victors to charge those people.

Are you making the leap from "US launches missiles at syria" to "full on WWIII, with US soldiers rounding up civilians and gassing them"?


There are a whole lot of "what ifs" in between those two, rendering your hypothetical, as I said, ridiculous.

[roo_ster]

I doubt all of these folks are actually in .mil.  Am I the only one who recalls the numerous times a "decorated war veteran against the Iraq war" ended up not to have served or got booted out of basic?

I am generally on-board with the "no politics in uniform" prohibition right up until the the brass drags out folks in uniform to use as political props.  "Brass" meaning any .mil policy makers from POTUS on down.  So, if current POTUS has not used troops in uniform as political props, these guys ought to get some heat.  If POTUS has used uniformed servicemen as political props, they should receive the same discipline POTUS got.

One set of laws / rules for all or it is illegitimate.

[Fitz]

I doubt all of these folks are actually in .mil.  Am I the only one who recalls the numerous times a "decorated war veteran against the Iraq war" ended up not to have served or got booted out of basic?

I am generally on-board with the "no politics in uniform" prohibition right up until the the brass drags out folks in uniform to use as political props.  "Brass" meaning any .mil policy makers from POTUS on down.  So, if current POTUS has not used troops in uniform as political props, these guys ought to get some heat.  If POTUS has used uniformed servicemen as political props, they should receive the same discipline POTUS got.

One set of laws / rules for all or it is illegitimate.

There's actually quite a bit of speculation that some of the pics are not actual soldiers. Although the first one, the CPO, seems to be accurate enough, just based on a cursory examination of the awards, order of precedence, and likelihood of a current CPO participating in the campaigns for which he has ribbons.

[AZRedhawk44]

Are you making the leap from "US launches missiles at syria" to "full on WWIII, with US soldiers rounding up civilians and gassing them"?

I'm saying to suspend the following two components of disbelief:
1. That the US could lose to Russia or some other power
2. That US Soldiers could face trial for something that you feel is just a fact of war, but the victor of that war feels is a war crime.  Intervening in a civil war in a foreign nation, for example.  Whatever.  Maybe a soldier J-walked while attempting to secure a city.  Doesn't matter.  He's on trial for it now.

The thing to focus on here is the defense.

The foreign court isn't going to care if the soldier's justification for participating in the war was "because Congress said so."  They're going to say "where was your moral compass?"

[Fitz]

And, AZ, if a US soldier committed war crimes, then our current military policy does not ALLOW for them to use "following orders" as a defense. Again, soldiers have a duty to obey illegal orders. Wanton killing of civilians, intentional bombing of hospitals, use of biological agents, blah blah blah. Those are all illegal orders.

I'm currently unaware of anything the russians consider war crimes that are not already illegal for OUR soldiers to do. If you have an example, feel free to use it. Otherwise, it's a useless exercise.

[AZRedhawk44]

And, AZ, if a US soldier committed war crimes, then our current military policy does not ALLOW for them to use "following orders" as a defense. Again, soldiers have a duty to obey illegal orders. Wanton killing of civilians, intentional bombing of hospitals, use of biological agents, blah blah blah. Those are all illegal orders.

I'm currently unaware of anything the russians consider war crimes that are not already illegal for OUR soldiers to do. If you have an example, feel free to use it. Otherwise, it's a useless exercise.

"War crimes" is defined by the prosecution.  Could be "violating the will of Allah" or something like that, depending on whom the prosecutor is.

I'm saying to examine the "Congress told me to do it" angle in context of "my lieutenant told me to do it" or "the major told me to do it" or "the general told me to do it."

It's still going to be weighed in context of lawful versus moral... the moral compass held by someone else.

Your comment here:

If approved by congress, this military engagement is perfectly legitimate.

Leaves a blanket assumption that Congress' moral compass is infallible, and Congress can issue no immoral/illegal order.

[Tallpine]

Russia is softening 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/05/putin-greets-obama-with-syria-threat/

[Fitz]

"War crimes" is defined by the prosecution.  Could be "violating the will of Allah" or something like that, depending on whom the prosecutor is.

I'm saying to examine the "Congress told me to do it" angle in context of "my lieutenant told me to do it" or "the major told me to do it" or "the general told me to do it."

It's still going to be weighed in context of lawful versus moral... the moral compass held by someone else.

Your comment here:

Leaves a blanket assumption that Congress' moral compass is infallible, and Congress can issue no immoral/illegal order.

No, it doesn't. Congress has not ordered any war crimes. A strike against syrian chem weapon delivery systems wouldn't violate any of our laws, nor would it be immoral. It's just incredibly stupid.


"War crimes" are defined in pretty concrete terms by international law. And I'd suspect that russian law defines them as well.


Are you suggesting that US troops should violate any order that may put them opposite of someone else's moral compass?

[Fitz]

Russia is softening  

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/05/putin-greets-obama-with-syria-threat/

Yes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57601235/putin-russia-might-let-u.n-ok-strike-against-syria/


Sounds to me like Russia (much like us) doesn't really know yet what it's gonna do.

[AZRedhawk44]

Are you suggesting that US troops should violate any order that may put them opposite of someone else's moral compass?

US troops are the ones that are going to be answerable for their actions if they lose a war.  Either by dying on the battlefield or facing trial in a foreign court or at the mercy of the victor.

They have a right to put their voice into the debate.  And if they do it in uniform, it doesn't bother me at all.

Seeing uniforms opposed to lunacy might encourage Congress to make smarter decisions.