Addendum to Ehren Watada discussion -- Notes from Zarahemla Political Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:15:11 03/22/07 Thu
Author: Jay
Subject: Addendum to Ehren Watada discussion

Let me just qualify what I said, again, lest I offend anyone. We all have different views on what is and isn�t legal or constitutional, or whether or not the Constitution should even be regarded in this discussion.

From my perspective, Ehren Watada was correct in refusing to deploy to Iraq based on his argument that the war was illegal in the first place. Now, I can�t say what his real motivation was, only that if I take him for his word, then he was in the right. My perspective is based upon my personal study of the Constitution.

On the other hand, I know that there are those who disagree with me about the legality of the war, although, I honestly cannot understand their side. I�ve asked many times and never heard a good argument for the legality of the war. But that aside, I�m sure that there are many good people who believe that what they are doing by going to Iraq is in the best interest of the country, and that they are doing their patriotic duty.

If those people have studied the Constitution and that is the conclusion that they have come to, then God bless them. On the other hand, if they haven�t studied the Constitution that they took an oath to defend, and have only gone to Iraq because they were simply following orders, then I say, shame on them. I think it�s implied that when a person signs a contract, they understand, or should understand what it is they are signing. A person serving the country in the position of a military servant has the moral obligation to study and understand the Constitution, and if they don�t, they are no patriot nor hero of mine. It�s not like trying to understand a 60-page mortgage contract that takes a professional to read and explain. The Constitution was written so simply that a person with a basic education can understand it. If you haven�t studied it, then don�t you dare take an oath to defend it. You�re no more qualified to defend me than I�m qualified to give you a heart transplant.

So my question is simply this:

Did you study the Constitution that you took an oath to defend and are your actions in line with your understanding of the Constitution?

If your answer is �yes� and you decided to refuse to go to Iraq, then I salute you.

If your answer is �yes� and you decided it was still the right thing to go to Iraq, then I respect you.

If your answer was �no�, no matter what your decision was, then you have no right being in the military or representing our country under any circumstances.

Jay

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Jay -- Cricket, 09:24:01 03/26/07 Mon
- I'll admit . . . -- Jay, 13:17:48 03/28/07 Wed