lol! fag.
Posted on 04/22/2009 2:22:04 AM PDT by FreeAndEqual
War Resistor Sgt Chiroux successfully challenged his misconduct hearing, facing down the U.S. Army and offering a potential "green light" for other soldiers challenging the legality of U.S. action in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(Excerpt) Read more at digitaljournal.com ...
if we can’t get article 2 of the Constitution even heard, why should he get some b.s. claim upheld?
throw him in prison... or better yet.. ship him out, and swap the camera for a mine detector
So you’ve been here a week, and two of your three posts are new threads on this AWOL scum. Hmmmmmm.
When did this traitor join the Army.
they used to call these people traitors and shoot them.
What he’s saying is that basically UN laws / treaties are supreme over the US constitution, as per the US constitution.
Can any lawyer, etc., explain how this is possible?
I’m curious to hear the arguments for and against this soldier’s position. I watched the video and he does make some interesting points.
> What he’s saying is that basically UN laws / treaties are supreme over the US constitution, as per the US constitution.
Your current SMOTUS seems to be intent on making this so, too.
I havent been keeping up with this , but a discharge seems in order. A dishonorable one.
"Soldiers have a duty to adhere to the international laws of war described as supreme in Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which we swear to abide by before the orders of any superior, including our former or current president."
I wonder about the kid's comprehension -
Article VI, para 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
What international treaty (that we are a signatory of) did we violate? I also wonder what oath he swore.
The ones I took - I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
He swore to "support and defend" our Constitution, not obey the will of foreigners. He also swore to obey orders - and that is not secondary.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
I dont see any mention of US soldiers, this is saying the elected officials must swear an oath...the guy cant read appearently and is listenting to a long haired lawyer...
leavenworth.
he looks like he has aids
Call the Viking Kitties in!
Our military’s oath isn’t a Constitutional requirement, but has been with us a long time - and does require him to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me”
Yeah, my post was pretty much a low-key IBTZ post.
I figured I didn’t need to alert anyone, that the Admin Mods would see it due to its placement in Breaking News.
Since when does refusing a direct order get you a General Discharge. He should have received a bad conduct discharge.
Here is some information on the IRR:
"Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Army has called up more than 2,500 IRR Soldiers -- the majority through IRR volunteers, though some have been involuntary call-ups. Historically, the Army needs to mobilize about 13 IRR Soldiers to get 10 deployable Soldiers. The called-up IRR Soldiers spend about 30 days at a mobilization installation, getting checks to see if they are qualified for deployment, getting individual weapons qualification, conducting Common Task Testing and receiving training in a number of warrior tasks that reflect the realities of today's operating environment, including how to recognize an improvised explosive devise and reacting to an ambush. Those who do not pass the readiness muster at the mobilization installation for reasons including anything from medical and legal reasons to physical challenges may be disqualified and sent home. Those who pass the muster will be sent on to military occupational specialty schools to get refresher training, normally lasting between two to four weeks. The final stop is joining the deploying unit at least 30 days before deployment for collective training as a unit."
Link:http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/usar-irr.htm
The IRR is NOT a significant source for manpower for meeting the Army's operating force needs. Based on the information at the link, 23% of the IRR soldiers called to serve end up not being qualified for further service. So the Army expects to lose some of the soldiers along the way. The sergeant...oops...former sergeant is one of them. General Under Honorable Conditions is probably appropriate considering the character of his service while in the IRR. (Service which probably amounted to nothing more than being on the Army's IRR rolls until he was called up.) Personally, I've got the feeling that the Army was just taking the expedient route to get rid of a troublemaker and refusing to be a prop for any further Left Wing anti-war propaganada.
i posted the 2 stories because i saw e and they peed me off. do i have to post all the time to not be called a troll? i thought this might interest people.
how easy is it gonna be now to get outta service!!?
no troll am I!!
Your posting M.O. is pretty typical for new trolls. If there’s a case of mistaken identity, you pretty well caused it.
You need to prove yourself around here.
The jury is still out.
Welcome to FR then.
Not answering is trollish behavior. If you post a thread is is common courtesy to stay with it.
will do and i understand. again - i thought these outageous stories would interest some as they did me - and i am more eager to hear what people have to say - since i basically cnsider myself a dolt of sorts. there are WAY smarter ppl on here!
JUST FOUND OUT he got a free trip to IRELAND out of the deal for some CIA protest...who PAYS for this??? does some org other then IVAW get a charity designation???
how does someone get one of those???! seriously!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.