Military Up! - You have the legal right...
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
You have the legal right under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to
attend protests and other political events provided that you are not in
uniform.
;-)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
definition:
murder - the unjustifiable and intentional killing of people, NO EXCEPTIONS.
murderer - any person who participates in perpetrating murder, NO EXCEPTIONS.
Each person has an individual responsibility to determine if his actions are moral, and
no government or army may ever take that responsibility away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ebe
wrote:
Hi,
A person may have the legal right to attend a protest in civilian
clothes. But, the issue is similar to a soldier who receives an unjust
order and does not follow it. For example, consider a soldier who
receives an unjust order and does not follow it. They cite that under
military code of the United States, you have the right not to follow
an unjust order. Well, the CO disagrees and contacts JAG for a review
of the incident. The soldier in question now has to appear before the
JAG court to defend their decision not to follow an order that was
suspected as being unjust. Thus, this issue that a person may be able
to attend, but will there be a JAG review afterwords?
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
> On Oct 26, 12:06 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>You have the legal right under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to
>>attend protests and other political events provided that you are not in
>>uniform.
>>;-)
>>
>
> [snip]
>
> They cite that under
> military code of the United States, you have the right not to follow
> an unjust order.
No, that is wrong. You have the right to not follow an *illegal* order, with
legal solely defined by the U.S. government, just or unjust.
Depending on the seriousness of the unjust or illegal order, and the consequences of
defying the order, the individual soldier must make the determination to comply or not.
example 1: ordered to jaywalk and clearly an illegal order, but of little consequence,
so the soldier should comply. No big deal.
example 2: ordered to kill people in an unjustifiable war. May be "legal", but since
it is unjustifiable, therefore murder, an individual may choose to do the
right thing, the honorable thing, and not comply with the order.
Conrad Harkness
Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>ebe wrote:
>
>> On Oct 26, 12:06 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>You have the legal right under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to
>>>attend protests and other political events provided that you are not in
>>>uniform.
>>>;-)
>>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> They cite that under
>> military code of the United States, you have the right not to follow
>> an unjust order.
>
>No, that is wrong. You have the right to not follow an *illegal* order, with
>legal solely defined by the U.S. government, just or unjust.
>
>Depending on the seriousness of the unjust or illegal order, and the consequences of
>defying the order, the individual soldier must make the determination to comply or not.
>
>example 1: ordered to jaywalk and clearly an illegal order, but of little consequence,
>so the soldier should comply. No big deal.
>
>example 2: ordered to kill people in an unjustifiable war. May be "legal", but since
>it is unjustifiable, therefore murder, an individual may choose to do the
>right thing, the honorable thing, and not comply with the order.
And exactly who makes the determination of what is justifiable and
unjustifiable?
You?
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each person has an individual responsibility to determine if his actions are moral, and
no government or army may ever take that responsibility away.
definition:
murder - the unjustifiable and intentional killing of people, NO EXCEPTIONS.
murderer - any person who participates in perpetrating murder, NO EXCEPTIONS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pay attention, son
;-)
Conrad Harkness
Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
Very nice.
Now try answering the question I asked, which dealt with justifiable and
unjustifiable.
Moral was not mentioned.
>pay attention, son
>;-)
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
There is a connection between just and moral. See if you can figure it out.
Do you ever determine if your actions are just? moral?
;-)
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On Oct 26, 12:06 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > You have the legal right under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to
> > attend protests and other political events provided that you are not in
> > uniform.
> > ;-)
>
> > --
> > definition:
> > murder - the unjustifiable and intentional killing of people, NO EXCEPTIONS.
> > murderer - any person who participates in perpetrating murder, NO EXCEPTIONS.
>
> > Each person has an individual responsibility to determine if his actions are moral, and
> > no government or army may ever take that responsibility away.
>
> Hi,
>
> A person may have the legal right to attend a protest in civilian
> clothes. But, the issue is similar to a soldier who receives an unjust
> order and does not follow it. For example, consider a soldier who
> receives an unjust order and does not follow it.
Well, that's also why the people with more than crap brains
invented Helicopters, rather than bridges. And invented
Cruise Missiles rather than the Air Force.
And invested Drones, Atomic Clock Watches, On-Line Publishing,
4D Holographics, Self-Assembling Robots, and Self-Replicating
Machines,
rather than Chrysler.
And invented UAVs and GPS, rather than West Point.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> Conrad Harkness wrote:
> > In <gPOdnWM5eu3XUHXXnZ2dnUVZ_tmdn...@supernews.com>, "Dr. Vincent Quin,> >>>In <QOKdnYfflJMmc3jXnZ2dnUVZ_uudn...@supernews.com>, "Dr. Vincent Quin,
The usual. The prototype newsgroup troll, flat unsubstantiated
statements, sniveling dependence on "moral" questions with no answers,
just gratuitous insults.
Conrad Harkness
Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
There's a connection between just and justifiable.
Whatever you call it you still haven't answered my question. Are you going
to continue tap-dancing, or answer?
>Do you ever determine if your actions are just? moral?
Immaterial to the question originally asked.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Wrong answer, reread the statements.
>
> Whatever you call it you still haven't answered my question. Are you going
> to continue tap-dancing, or answer?
>
>
>
>>Do you ever determine if your actions are just? moral?
>
>
> Immaterial to the question originally asked.
No, they are highly relevant.
What exactly are you looking for?
In the OP's sense just=moral (he did not mean just=legal as is clear from his usage).
So to answer your question (Who determines justness) you may use either moral or just here:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each person has an individual responsibility to determine if his actions are JUST, and
no government or army may ever take that responsibility away.
definition:
murder - the unjustifiable and intentional killing of people, NO EXCEPTIONS.
murderer - any person who participates in perpetrating murder, NO EXCEPTIONS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So when a person kills people, *he* better be sure it is both moral (just) and legal.
Again, neither the government nor the army define morality (what is and is not moral).
Ok? Or would you like some dictionary definitions of any of these words?
;-)
!Jones
<minis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>A person may have the legal right to attend a protest in civilian
>clothes. But, the issue is similar to a soldier who receives an unjust
>order and does not follow it. For example, consider a soldier who
>receives an unjust order and does not follow it. They cite that under
>military code of the United States, you have the right not to follow
>an unjust order. Well, the CO disagrees and contacts JAG for a review
>of the incident. The soldier in question now has to appear before the
>JAG court to defend their decision not to follow an order that was
>suspected as being unjust. Thus, this issue that a person may be able
>to attend, but will there be a JAG review afterwords?
The UCMJ doesn't mention "unjust" orders. A person may not be ordered
to commit an illegal act: "Private, take that group of nuns out and
shoot 'em several times." It's not a question of your "right" not to
do it... if you *do* it, then you have committed the crime.
Even in the '60s, a person in the military was free to attend any
legal political or social event... one may even do so in uniform so
long as, by doing so, one does not imply government sanction of the
event. Essentially, a uniform is just clothing... besides *how* it is
worn, anything that's legal to do out of uniform may also be done in
uniform. I may attend a political rally in uniform; I just can't say
that the United States Army is behind whatever it is for which I
rally.
If I'm a career soldier (aka: "lifer"), then I might want to give it
careful thought, though. Politics in the military are a bit like
sexual orientation... don't ask; don't tell.
Jones
BE-VA
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each
>
> person has an individual responsibility to determine if his actions are
> moral, and
> no government or army may ever take that responsibility away.
In the US People volunteer to join the Armed Forces. They take an oath
to defend the Constitution even to the point of giving their life in
its defense. Should they fail to honor their oath there are serious
consequences.
>
> definition:
> murder - the unjustifiable and intentional killing of people, NO EXCEPTIONS.
As a combatant, under the flag of a recognized Country/Nation engaged
in a war, the killing an enemy who is trying to kill you is justified
killing not murder.
> murderer - any person who participates in perpetrating murder, NO EXCEPTIONS.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pay
>
> attention, son
> ;-)
Yes, do.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
> On 2009-10-28 19:01:25 -0400, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
> <dr...@coldine.edu> said:
>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> Each
>
>>
>> person has an individual responsibility to determine if his actions
>> are moral, and
>> no government or army may ever take that responsibility away.
>
>
> In the US People volunteer to join the Armed Forces. They take an oath
> to defend the Constitution even to the point of giving their life in its
> defense. Should they fail to honor their oath there are serious
> consequences.
No oath is open-ended-anything-goes, including any U.S. military oath.
>
>>
>> definition:
>> murder - the unjustifiable and intentional killing of people, NO
>> EXCEPTIONS.
>
>
> As a combatant, under the flag of a recognized Country/Nation engaged in
> a war, the killing an enemy who is trying to kill you is justified
> killing not murder.
However, if it is not justified then it is murder. No exceptions.
>
>> murderer - any person who participates in perpetrating murder, NO
>> EXCEPTIONS.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
> pay
>
>>
>> attention, son
>> ;-)
>
>
> Yes, do.
>
--
Each person has an individual responsibility to determine if his actions are moral, and
no government or army may ever take that responsibility away.
definition: