Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (183713)	3/18/2006 12:19:26 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Interesting Hawk. First, you misunderstood my comment about democracy. Of course I didn't mean the military service is democratic. I meant it is the functional arm of the democratic process, which is democratic. But you did comment on individuals who are in the army. You are saying that anything that is ordered is legal. So, cut the children's eyes out would be a legal order? You see, the question is what is a legal order and what isn't. Most people could figure out that wantonly tormenting a child would not be a legal order. I'm not interested in the legality of waterboarding and other tortures which the USA conducted. I'm interested in the overall legality of the Iraq conflict and the position of individuals within military services who disagree with what they are being asked to do. That is what is up for discussion. The military is not a democracy and neither is a company. In BP there was plenty of professionalism and discipline too. I don't remember any voting. But they are both part of democratic processes with laws which cover the individuals, who are purportedly "free" individuals with "self-determination" [you said]. <As for the RAF pilot who is facing court-martial? He signed a contract. He volunteered, received millions of dollars worth of training and salary and no one made him sign the bottom line. What if every servicemen was able to pick and choose where they would, or would not, serve? > We'd need to read the contract wouldn't we? I received millions in training and salary too, from BP, but when I didn't want to serve where they wanted me, I said, "Bye". Bear in mind that illegal employment contracts are ultra vires [I think that's the legal jargon]. Meaning you can't form a contract which is illegal and that includes government agencies. If the war itself is illegal, then the contract requiring him to serve in that war is illegal. If every serviceman could pick and choose where they would or would not serve, it might improve things. I think the problem is the underlying concept of servicemen as serfs who are supposed to mindlessly obey raw power. It's not the 19th century now. Thanks for your thoughts, though I was hoping for a deeper review. They really are problematic issues. Mqurice