# As an American, it is my duty to...



## Guest (Jan 22, 2009)

I ran across the following quotes in another thread, and they got me to thinking.



> As an American, I feel strongly that I must support the President of the United States, even those presidents that I didn't vote for or that I disagree with.





> I personally will support President Obama whether I voted for or like him. I think as an American that is my duty.


This same sentiment has been expressed by others in other threads.

Frankly, I'm puzzled. This ideal runs counter to everything I was ever taught about America and patriotism. Millions of Americans have died in wars fighting against people who blindly supported their President, no matter what he said and did. In fact, these people are so reviled that merely mentioning them by name causes fury and outrage.

It seems to me that the Founding Fathers had a wildly different idea about whether or not questioning our leadership was "patriotic." Thomas Jefferson once wrote that "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Samuel Adams wrote, "The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule." A couple of hundred years later, Albert Einstein chimed in: "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."

So, where do you stand? What is your duty as a patriotic American--unquestioning support or your nation's leaders and policies or diligently questioning them?


----------



## thejackylking #884 (Dec 3, 2008)

Let's hope we can survive the next 4 yrs.


----------



## ak rain (Nov 15, 2008)

why one or the other?
As an American, it is my duty to respect others and myself. One topic of discussion about the new president was his ability to listen and research a topic then decide. *express your opinion*  at the right time, listen to the facts, let your opinion evolve(learn), but follow the decision when the leader leads...that's why I supported and voted for him. 
Sylvia


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

The flag and the president are symbols of America. Derisive public comments about the President of the United States are disrespectful. If I never agree with any decision that President Obama makes during his tenure you will never hear me say anything that would diminish the office.


----------



## Linda Cannon-Mott (Oct 28, 2008)

*I voted for number 2, diligently question my President*.

With that being said until I see how a President is going to lead the country he has my full support when he takes the oath of office. Presidents inherit problems from the previous presidency and our country is in a big mess. If the candidate I voted for lost I am not throwing stones until I have reason to. I think every elected President deserves the chance to make our country better. I always have hope for a better future for my grand kids and great great grand kids. (when I have some) I feel it is my duty to support any new President until he/she proves me wrong. As an American we all have freedom of choice and my choice is to support.

I have supported every President that has taken the oath of office since I was 21, I may not have liked them and I may not have voted for them but I supported them. Now there are some who during their presidency my opinion changed and I have written more than my share of letters to senators and congressmen. I would never disrespect the office of the President, disagree but never disrespect.

I am hopeful, excited, optimistic and somewhat fearful of our country's future but for now I choose to celebrate.

Jim, thanks for the thread to vote and post.


----------



## noblesrus (Oct 29, 2008)

I completely agree with Linda......though I didn't vote for this President I respectfully support him and question his decisions if I disagree, which is my right as an American.

Joanie


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2009)

noblesrus said:


> ...I respectfully support him and question his decisions if I disagree, which is my right as an American.
> 
> Joanie


I would argue that it is not just your right, but your patriotic *duty*.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2009)

Linda: Thank *you* for not taking umbrage at my use of one of your quotes.  And thank you for explaining your position more fully. Frankly, I was surprised to see those words come out of your fingertips in the other thread. They make much more sense now when given a fuller explanation and context.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2009)

I don't believe in blindly following anyone. That just does not make sense. Look what happened to other countries throughout history when their citizens did that. I do however believe in giving support to our leaders especially when they are new in the office. If they make bad decisions, I believe they should be held accountable.

Even though Obama does not have a lot of political experience, he seems to be making some sound decisions right now. Will he continue to do so? I don't know, only time will tell. If he does make mistakes that are harmful to the country, will I be critical? You betcha. 

While I was not a Clinton supporter at the beginning of his terms, I did give him a chance. During his administration, he made some good decisions and some bad ones. Even he admits that now. He is willing to publicly admit that some of the problems we are having now are in part his fault. Would public criticism have changed his policies at the time, I am not sure but it might have. 

In stark contrast, I do not believe Bush, the younger, will ever admit that he made even one bad decision. He has already defended his decisions, by making excuses, about several topics. I believe he made a lot of horrible decisions which have caused lasting harm to our country. I think he should have to answer for some of those. However, I do not totally blame him for the economic position we are in, only for not recognizing that we had a problem much sooner. 

If the Bush administration only taught me one thing, it would be do not keep your mouth shut if you think bad decisions are being made. I strongly regret not speaking up at the beginning of the Iraq war. I knew at the time that it was a bad decision that would cause a long, nasty situation. Do I think that my one voice would have changed anything? No, but it might have encouraged others to also speak up. 

Our president is our "chosen" leader, he should have to answer to the people for the decisions he makes. This is one aspect of our government that sets us apart from most of the rest of the world. It is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". Do you blindly follow the person who makes decisions for your family (spouse or significant other)? I don't feel that criticism diminishes the presidency, it can also serve to strengthen it.


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

Dang Jim you and I have to stop agreeing.
I voted 2 because I feel the president isn't a king nor a god and the president works for you, me and all Americans. It is not only our right but our duty to question the president.

I grew up in Philly. So those who have lived in the area can tell you we end up being saturated by the founding father's lives, motives and views.  I am a huge fan of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, their philosophies and beliefs are what formed the USA and they DID NOT believe in blind patriotism.

What is blind patriotism? 100% agreeing with a president all the time not because you think they are doing a great job because it 'unamerican' to question a president or always wearing a flag pin not because you are proud of being an American but because its 'unamerican' to not wear one.

So now Jim we have to stop always agreeing *sigh*


----------



## bosslady402 (Nov 6, 2008)

This question is one reason why we can't discuss politics with my inlaws. They claim that you should never question your leaders; you should just think what they tell you to think and do what they tell you to do. 

The supreme irony of their argument is that both of their families left Bulgaria and Hungary when the Communists took over, because their land and property were taken away. They spent several years in a refugee camp in Italy before emigrating to the US, where both families owned businesses and prospered. 

You'd think that if anyone would support free speech and the benefits of representational government, it would be them. DH and I just don't understand.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2009)

And that's why I love her.


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

LuckyRainbow said:


> In stark contrast, I do not believe Bush, the younger, will ever admit that he made even one bad decision. He has already defended his decisions, by making excuses, about several topics. I believe he made a lot of horrible decisions which have caused lasting harm to our country. I think he should have to answer for some of those. However, I do not totally blame him for the economic position we are in, only for not recognizing that we had a problem much sooner.
> 
> If the Bush administration only taught me one thing, it would be do not keep your mouth shut if you think bad decisions are being made. I strongly regret not speaking up at the beginning of the Iraq war. I knew at the time that it was a bad decision that would cause a long, nasty situation. Do I think that my one voice would have changed anything? No, but it might have encouraged others to also speak up.
> 
> Our president is our "chosen" leader, he should have to answer to the people for the decisions he makes. This is one aspect of our government that sets us apart from most of the rest of the world. It is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". Do you blindly follow the person who makes decisions for your family (spouse or significant other)? I don't feel that criticism diminishes the presidency, it can also serve to strengthen it.


Exactly! I am not partisan , heck I consider myself an Independant. I give anyone a chance but once a president does something so stupid for example; ignoring the views of the majority (85%!)of american citzens and outlaw federal funding for stem cell research because HE thinks its immoral then I WILL question a president.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2009)

Jeff said:


> The flag and the president are symbols of America.


I disagree. The flag is a symbol of America. The President is just this guy, you know. One who works for me and you and everybody else. He's our employee. When one of my employees screws up, I let him know. Otherwise, he'll just screw up again.


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> I disagree. The flag is a symbol of America. The President is just this guy, you know. One who works for me and you and everybody else. He's our employee. When one of my employees screws up, I let him know. Otherwise, he'll just screw up again.


Damn it Jim..I again 100% agree. That was my main problem with Bush. He acted more like a strict father who always says "Because I say so that's why" and not as OUR employee.

History will not be kind to him.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

I like what the President is doing so far, but I still picked option # 2.  No one's authority should ever be above question or doubt.


----------



## Michael R. Hicks (Oct 29, 2008)

Well, having spent some time in the Soviet Union and having a good idea of what a police state truly is, I rejoice in the fact that we have the ability to post what Jim did in answer #2 without fear of going to the Gulag (or worse). Because in the Soviet Union, you had to publicly and vocally support whatever the leadership did. Or else.

But, as Obama himself pointed out, the government and its elected officials need to hold themselves accountable. And it is part of our duty as citizens to do that. But I believe it's also part of our duty to not just criticize or try to find fault, but to offer suggestions and support to the efforts of those who govern the country, whether it be at the local or national level - to "get involved..."


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2009)

kreelanwarrior said:


> Well, having spent some time in the Soviet Union and having a good idea of what a police state truly is, I rejoice in the fact that we have the ability to post what Jim did in answer #2 without fear of going to the Gulag (or worse). Because in the Soviet Union, you had to publicly and vocally support whatever the leadership did. Or else.
> 
> But, as Obama himself pointed out, the government and its elected officials need to hold themselves accountable. And it is part of our duty as citizens to do that. But I believe it's also part of our duty to not just criticize or try to find fault, but to offer suggestions and support to the efforts of those who govern the country, whether it be at the local or national level - to "get involved..."


"I'm Bacardi Jim, and I approved this message."


----------



## kindlevixen (Jan 13, 2009)

I actively supported and campaigned for Obama and I still feel its my duty to question him and/or support him.  I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive.


----------



## tecwritr (Oct 28, 2008)

You'd think this would be a no brainer.  But after the last 8 years.......


----------



## Michael R. Hicks (Oct 29, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> "I'm Bacardi Jim, and I approved this message."


LOL! Good one, Jim!


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2009)

tecwritr said:


> You'd think this would be a no brainer. But after the last 8 years.......


Note that 3 people have voted for option 1.


----------



## chiffchaff (Dec 19, 2008)

I think it's our right and duty to engage in the debate while decisions are being made.  I also think that when we really believe we're on the wrong track, we have to stand up and say so.  That said, there's a space in between, after the decision is made but before the outcome is clear, when we need to do what we can to make it work.  I know only too well I'm not always right, so if the President decides to do something that I disagree with, I'm still going to support him as best I can and see how it goes.  After all, his success is our success, and sometimes a good idea can fail because no one gives it a fair chance.  Still, a fair chance isn't the same thing as a free pass so I voted for 2.


----------



## bosslady402 (Nov 6, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> Note that 3 people have voted for option 1.


2 of them are probably my in-laws...


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2009)

chiffchaff said:


> I think it's our right and duty to engage in the debate while decisions are being made. I also think that when we really believe we're on the wrong track, we have to stand up and say so. That said, there's a space in between, after the decision is made but before the outcome is clear, when we need to do what we can to make it work. I know only too well I'm not always right, so if the President decides to do something that I disagree with, I'm still going to support him as best I can and see how it goes. After all, his success is our success, and sometimes a good idea can fail because no one gives it a fair chance. Still, a fair chance isn't the same thing as a free pass so I voted for 2.


I can understand this point of view.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2009)

bosslady said:


> 2 of them are probably my in-laws...


I'm pretty certain I can name two of them.

And your story about your in-laws just floors me.


----------



## Mollyb52 (Jan 4, 2009)

Bacardi Jim said:


> I'm pretty certain I can name two of them.
> 
> And your story about your in-laws just floors me.


Number 3 must be Brittany Spears...she is famous for he is our president so he must be right. LOL I didn't think she would have a Kindle...it involves all that readin'.


----------



## Elijsha (Dec 10, 2008)

i support the "office of the president" not always the man or his polices. i didn't like Clinton but if someone insulted him by throwing shoes at him id be upset just the same as i was with bush. 

we still don't know obama, but we are about too.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2009)

I'll just add that while the vote is going overwhelmingly one way, I really did make a conscientious effort to present the poll question and the options is as fair, unbiased and "unloaded" a manner as I could.  I hope that I succeeded.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

The premise of this poll is flawed. There should be a third choice. One can support the President and question Presidential policies at the same time.

Perhaps the greatest and the worst elements of America are our diverse opinions, beliefs and values. Some of us believe that a woman should have the right to choose to become a mother while others believe there should be laws that force that woman to give birth. Some of us believe that embryonic stem cells should be harvested for medical research while others consider killing the embryo murder. Some believe that marriage should be defined as a man and woman while others think that loving each other is enough. Some of us believe that demonstrating against and being disrespectful of the President is our duty while others think it’s just wrong. I personally believe that hating and insulting those who have opposite opinions to our own is counterproductive and results only in a deeper and wider division of our Country and its people.

When I was 18 years old, I couldn’t vote but I was obligated by law to serve in the military for 6 years. Many of my classmates went to extreme measures to avoid the draft, I volunteered because I believed it was my duty. In the ensuing years, those two divergent opinions nearly tore the country apart.

In the half century since the Vietnam Era, I have watched public criticism destroy the effectiveness of our Government and our President many times. My way of affecting change is to contribute, time, effort and money to elect candidates of my choice, then voting and finally supporting the winner, regardless of the outcome. In my mind, respect and support for elected officials is not the same as blind allegiance.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2009)

I guess I failed.   Sorry, Jeff.  I really did try.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Not at all, Jim. Your idea was good and very thought provoking. Since you started the thread, you can easily go back and add the third option.


----------



## LSbookend (Dec 22, 2008)

Jeff said:


> The premise of this poll is flawed. There should be a third choice. One can support the President and question Presidential policies at the same time.
> 
> In my mind, respect and support for elected officials is not the same as blind allegiance.


Went to post (below), but then saw your post Jeff.

I think there is a difference between support and respect. You can disagree with or question a person and still be respectful. Just a thought.

LSbookend


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

LSbookend said:


> I think there is a difference between support and respect. You can disagree with or question a person and still be respectful. Just a thought.


A good thought. You said it better than I did.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2009)

^^^ To both of you--I'm not sure how to word what you're saying. Jeff, it was one of your quotes that inspired this thread. You, and others, have clearly stated that questioning the President's actions or policies, protesting him/them, or publicly criticizing him/them is _de facto_ "disrepecting" him--and therefore wrong. What type of "questioning" the President or his policies would you _not_ consider "disrespectful?" Do you mean we should limit our "questioning" to polite Letters to the Editor?  Is there a specific number of times a President must lie to me before it no longer is "disrespectful" to call him a liar?


----------



## Vegas_Asian (Nov 2, 2008)

I don't know how to answer....I believe in respecting the position of US President although I may not agree with the individual.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Vegas_Asian said:


> I don't know how to answer....I believe in respecting the position of US President although I may not agree with the individual.


I think that's the issue here. How do you disagree with the President without showing disrespect for the office of President? Not easy. The insults hurled at Bill Clinton and George W. Bush over the last sixteen years have hurt the image of our Country. I'd like to see that kind of behavior stop.

Harry Truman was a very unpopular President but no one would have even considered saying the things that have been said in recent years.


----------



## chiffchaff (Dec 19, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> Is there a specific number of times a President must lie to me before it no longer is "disrespectful" to call him a liar?


OK, this is a different thing in my mind. Lying, abusing power, considering oneself above the law and so on are breaches of ethics and not only don't deserve respect, they require opposition. But I read the poll question as being an abstract one about about policies and leadership choices and I do think you can oppose someone and still be respectful on those kinds of issues.


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

Jeff said:


> I think that's the issue here. How do you disagree with the President without showing disrespect for the office of President? Not easy. The insults hurled at Bill Clinton and George W. Bush over the last sixteen years have hurt the image of our Country. I'd like to see that kind of behavior stop.
> 
> Harry Truman was a very unpopular President but no one would have even considered saying the things that have been said in recent years.


What about those of us who have no respect for Bush at all? Sorry he hasn't done anything to deserve my respect and tons to lose it.

As for the USA's image being marred.. thats from comments like "ya'll either wit us or agint us" or "Brownie ya'll doin a heckuva job". Not from americans trashing the ex prez..


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2009)

Jeff: Some of the trouble with reconciling each other's points of view may rest in the fact, that when you were a soldier, the President *was* your boss. As a civilian I have always been the President's boss. Thus we have different views on what the office means. Does that make any sense?


----------



## Elijsha (Dec 10, 2008)

"ya'll either wit us or agint us" or "Brownie ya'll doin a heckuva job"

^^^ huh?


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> Jeff: Some of the trouble with reconciling each other's points of view may rest in the fact, that when you were a soldier, the President *was* your boss. As a civilian I have always been the President's boss. Thus we have different views on what the office means. Does that make any sense?


Actually, it makes a lot of sense, Jim. Being a soldier defined me and I suppose I still have the mentality of a soldier.

"I, _____, 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."

I still think you should modify your poll to give those who want to respectfully disagree with POTUS a voice here.


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

Elijsha said:


> "y'all either wit us or agint us" or "Brownie y'all doin a heckuva job"
> 
> ^^^ huh?


Famous bush quotes..I paraphrased the first one but the second was an exact quote.
The first one came after 9/11 when Bush said either all countries support our war or they were against the USA.
The second came after Katrina. New Orleans was in rubble. People were dying from conditions caused by inactivity of FEMA and the ineptitude of Bush appointed FEMA leader Michael Brown. So what was Bush's answer? Patting Brown's back and saying "Brownie y'all doin a heckuva job" when any five year old could tell you he wasn't.
Add the Gitmo tortures and you have the reason why for the past 8 years we were not respected.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2009)

Jeff said:


> I still think you should modify your poll to give those who want to respectfully disagree with POTUS a voice here.


I asked you already: define what you consider "respectful" criticism. Where do you draw that line?


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2009)

I knew what your quotes refered to, Maggie.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> I asked you already: define what you consider "respectful" criticism. Where do you draw that line?


You know perfectly well that I can't define respectful any more than I could define polite, but I know it when I see it.

Obviously, I'm beating a dead horse here. I retire leaving the field to you Bacardi Jim. <Exit>


----------



## Elijsha (Dec 10, 2008)

i dontremember the ya'll part


----------



## Vegas_Asian (Nov 2, 2008)

Jeff said:


> I think that's the issue here. How do you disagree with the President without showing disrespect for the office of President? Not easy. The insults hurled at Bill Clinton and George W. Bush over the last sixteen years have hurt the image of our Country. I'd like to see that kind of behavior stop.
> 
> Harry Truman was a very unpopular President but no one would have even considered saying the things that have been said in recent years.


My parents taught me I don't agree with a issue, I can state it and explain my reasoning, but do not insult an individual. Boo'ing someone...never. You are not only embarrassing the person, but yourself as well. Can't people aritculate sentences (without cussing or name calling, too) to express disappointment. When people boo....it isn't the most attrative facial expression on anyone.

as for drawing a line...I don't know...too scatter brained to conjour too many ideas.


----------



## TM (Nov 25, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Actually, it makes a lot of sense, Jim. Being a soldier defined me and I suppose I still have the mentality of a soldier.
> 
> "I, _____, 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."
> 
> I still think you should modify your poll to give those who want to respectfully disagree with POTUS a voice here.


Jeff - I am so glad you included that oath. But, my question is this: what about when two parts of the oath are in conflict? ie defending the constitution and obeying the president? or for those of us not in the military: the Consitution vs respecting/supporting the Consititution? I ask becuase i think for many, many years our Government have not been faithful to the Consititution...


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

TM said:


> Jeff - I am so glad you included that oath. But, my question is this: what about when two parts of the oath are in conflict? ie defending the constitution and obeying the president? or for those of us not in the military: the Consitution vs respecting/supporting the Consititution? I ask becuase i think for many, many years our Government have not been faithful to the Consititution...


Soldiers don't have the luxury of determining the constitutional legality of an order. If the person giving the order is legitimately higher in the chain of command the order is lawful and must be obeyed.


----------



## MonaSW (Nov 16, 2008)

I beg to differ. You can be given an unlawful order. And I believe it would be my duty to disobey such an order. (I was in the Army.)


----------



## TM (Nov 25, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Soldiers dont have the luxury of determining the constitutional legality of an order. If the person giving the order is legitimately higher in the chain of command the order is lawful and must be obeyed.


I really am not trying to be difficult, or picking a fight but... part of the oath is to uphold and defend the Consititution... if one simply follows orders, does that not invalidate the first part of the oath?


----------



## TM (Nov 25, 2008)

MonaSW said:


> I beg to differ. You can be given an unlawful order. And I believe it would be my duty to disobey such an order. (I was in the Army.)


Thnk you for that respsonse... so am i correct in assuming that when it comes to the choice of the Consitution or the president (or supior officers), you go with the Constitution? That is how I would like to think it is done...

I am not military, nor are any of my family... but i do greatly respect the military and those that can serve. i have often wondered though how they can balance the requirements...

And it also plays into regular citizens... those who think one must support the president/government even when it goes against the Consititution... to me the Constitituin is THE authority, and our current government is operating outside/against it, and has been for many, many years...


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

> so am i correct in assuming that when it comes to the choice of the Consitution or the president (or supior officers), you go with the Constitution?


No. Soldiers have to obey superiors.



> I am not military, nor are any of my family... but i do greatly respect the military and those that can serve. i have often wondered though how they can balance the requirements...


It's easy. You do what you're told to do. No thinking permitted.



> And it also plays into regular citizens... those who think one must support the president/government even when it goes against the Consititution... to me the Constitituin is THE authority, and our current government is operating outside/against it, and has been for many, many years...


Judges decide what's constitutional, not citizens or soldiers.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

MonaSW said:


> I beg to differ. You can be given an unlawful order. And I believe it would be my duty to disobey such an order. (I was in the Army.)


If you believe an order is illegal and you decide to disobey you had better be right because the punishment is harsh.


----------



## MonaSW (Nov 16, 2008)

Jeff said:


> If you believe an order is illegal and you decide to disobey you had better be right because the punishment is harsh.


I know and understand. It was part of our training (I joined in 1981) that we had the obligation to stand up to illegal orders. Different times, different training.


----------



## thejackylking #884 (Dec 3, 2008)

If you want to talk about problems created by the President then lets look at the fact that at, at least 3 different times Clinton had the opportunity to get Bin Laden and did absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact one time Pakistan called and said we have Bin Laden do you want him and Clinton's response was "why would we want him?" this was after it was proven that he was in part responsible for the first attack on the world trade center. When it comes to Iraq you can take that problem back to Bush senior. We should have finished the job correctly the first time and then we wouldn't have had to go back and clean it up. Plain and simple Sadam *was not* abiding by the UN resolutions that were in place after Desert Storm. whether you agree or not OIF was in fact necessary.


----------



## thejackylking #884 (Dec 3, 2008)

Jeff soldiers are required to obey all _lawful orders _ not just any orders given. If you believe that you have been given an unlawful order it is your responsibility to go to the next higher person in your chain of command and discuss it with them.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

thejackylking said:


> Jeff soldiers are required to obey all _lawful orders _ not just any orders given. If you believe that you have been given an unlawful order it is your responsibility to go to the next higher person in your chain of command and discuss it with them.


Debate it with somebody younger like Mona. I wasn't in the democratic Army that you young people are in. We didn't get a chance to appeal to a higher authority or decide if it was Constitutional. A discussion about an order was impossible.


----------



## thejackylking #884 (Dec 3, 2008)

Maybe true however even in your time if you followed an unlawful order you were responsible for your actions.  The defense "I was just following orders" is in reality no defense at all.  That was established as far back as the Nuremburg trials when they tried the guards at the concentration camps for the crimes they committed while following orders.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

A lot of people thought that the Vietnam War was illegal, so theoretically, by the extension of all this hair-splitting, you're saying that soldiers could disobey any order and discuss the legality of the war up the chain of command?

In combat, debate before executing an order is going to get somebody killed.

Nuremberg Defense

The United States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying the "only following orders" defense, essentially stating that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders. This defense is still used often, however, reasoning that an unlawful order presents a dilemma from which there is no legal escape. One who refuses an unlawful order will still probably be jailed for refusing orders (and in some countries probably killed and then his superior officer will simply carry out the order for him or order another soldier to do it), and one who accepts one will probably be jailed for committing unlawful acts, in a Catch-22 dilemma.

EDIT: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2009)

I was wondering if someone other than me might bring up Nuremberg.  For certain reasons (I'm sure Jeff knows why) I chose to leave it alone.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

I strongly disagreed with President Bush and choose not to attend events were he was because I did not agree with him. Had I been some place and saw the President I would not have booed, made rude gestures, interrupted his speech, or said anything disparaging about him at the event. I would not participate in protests that involved taunting him or burning him in efigy. I see such actions as being disrespectful. I was appalled when the shoes where thrown at the President. It was highly disrespectful. 

I also was comfortable saying that I disagreed with his policies and presenting an alternative policy. I did not march against his policies, partly because the groups of people who were marching against him I felt were behaving disrespectfully. I have problems with the policies, not the office. 

One of the problems that we have in the US is that many people are not able to discuss politics calmly. People are so invested in their positions and ideologies that they struggle with listening to the opposition and being able to discuss what their differences are and where those differences come from. This is a problem on the left and the right.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Yes there is a difference between loyal opposition and unreasoning hatred. I think Bush and Obama are both reasonably good men in tough jobs. I may not agree with them, but I very much disagree with those who have to degrade and revile them because they disagree with them. I think the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" was ridiculous and I hope it is not followed by an "Obama Derangement Syndrome" in the next 4 years.

Unfortunately, I think the days of loyal opposition are gone. Its unlikely that we will have another presidential term where the opposing side is not calling for impeachment or "special investigation" due to minor differences, since "the other side's policies are wrong and must be illegal"


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Chad Winters said:


> Unfortunately, I think the days of loyal opposition are gone.


I sincerely hope you're wrong, but I fear that you are right.

Whether in business or government, being forced to make decisions before all the facts are available is the primary responsibility of a leader. Often times, after the decision has been made, facts emerge to show that the decision was bad.

Every President of the United States from George Washington to George W. Bush has made one or more decisions that in hindsight proved to be wrong. Some, such as Harry Truman's decision to drop the A-Bomb, will be debated eternally.

It seems inevitable that President Barack Obama will also guess wrong at least once. Perhaps this groundswell of popularity will be sufficient to give him the benefit of the doubt and turn the tide back toward loyal opposition.


----------



## Michael R. Hicks (Oct 29, 2008)

thejackylking said:


> Maybe true however even in your time if you followed an unlawful order you were responsible for your actions. The defense "I was just following orders" is in reality no defense at all. That was established as far back as the Nuremburg trials when they tried the guards at the concentration camps for the crimes they committed while following orders.


Exactly so. Having been an Army officer, I completely understand Jeff's point - going to your "boss's boss" is generally not an option, particularly in combat - but each individual has a responsibility to *not* follow what they believe are unlawful orders. Jeff's point about being ready to take some harsh punishment is also true: disobeying orders is never, ever, to be taken lightly. But this is how atrocities happen, and as jackylking noted, "I was just following orders" doesn't cut it in the court martial, particularly in this day and age... :-(


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Ehren Watada refused to go to Iraq on account of the Iraq war being a war of aggression, making him liable for prosecution for war crimes under the command responsibility doctrine. The judge ruled that a US soldier is not allowed to determine whether orders given are unlawful and as such this would mean he/she is forced to follow those orders he/she considers illegal, and inevitably if charged with war crimes has to resort to the I was only following orders defense.

Lifted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense


----------



## Linda Cannon-Mott (Oct 28, 2008)

I want to thank all of you for keeping this thread civil. I love it when we can agree to disagree.  

Great job! 

Linda
Moderator


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2009)

Linda Cannon-Mott said:


> I want to thank all of you for keeping this thread civil. I love it when we can agree to disagree.
> 
> Great job!
> 
> ...


Those of us with the strongest differing opinions made a secret pact to be nice, civil, respectful and even listen to and try to understand each other.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Ehren Watada refused to go to Iraq on account of the Iraq war being a war of aggression, making him liable for prosecution for war crimes under the command responsibility doctrine. The judge ruled that a US soldier is not allowed to determine whether orders given are unlawful and as such this would mean he/she is forced to follow those orders he/she considers illegal, and inevitably if charged with war crimes has to resort to the I was only following orders defense.
> 
> Lifted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense


Seems like the judge might have missed the point. Being ordered to war is not illegal. That's the unfortunate limitation of the "illegal order" in these days of relativism everyone is allowed to draw the line differently. Now some people think they can join the volunteer army and then say they don't thinking any fighting is lawful. Or "I wouldn't have picked this war, so I don't have to go" 
This is a difference between being ordered to man a gas chamber in Auschwitz and being ordered to fight someone your country has declared an enemy.

Reminds me of the physician who joined the Army, let them pay for her medical school, and then when they wanted to send her over to treat injured troops, she decided she was a "conscientous objector" and couldn't go. I call it wanting money for nothing.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2009)

Chad Winters said:


> Seems like the judge might have missed the point. Being ordered to war is not illegal.


Not necessarily true. Since, constitutionally, only the Senate can declare war, it *is* possible to be "illegally" ordered to war by the Commander-n-Chief.


----------



## Elijsha (Dec 10, 2008)

http://www.wjno.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=244038&article=4878923

this is what id never do, the people with the cards is pretty sick!

the jz an young jezzy rap sick too, so to me as a American its my duty to not act this dumb


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Elijsha said:


> http://www.wjno.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=244038&article=4878923
> 
> this is what id never do, the people with the cards is pretty sick!
> 
> the jz an young jezzy rap sick too, so to me as a American its my duty to not act this dumb


If you said that it is disrespectful to our country to boo a sitting president during an inauguration, I agree with you. If you said that the crowd's behavior was acceptable, I disagree with you. If you said something else, I apologize.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2009)

I have to agree with you, Jeff. Booing the President in this situation is uncalled for and extremely rude. The ceremony he was attending called for respect for the office he was handing over. 

I believe there are better ways to show your displeasure with his policies. Booing is always an immature act.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Of course, in general Americans don't seem to care much about honor, respect, or etiquette much anymore. I would be annoyed at any side that acted like that.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

This has never been an issue of sides for me, Chad. My argument from the start was that there's only one side after the election's been decided: the side of The United States of America. 

The President of the United States should not be disparaged, insulted or ridiculed. That is not to say that we must agree with Presidential policy or that we should not vociferously campaign against a sitting President.


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

Jeff said:


> This has never been an issue of sides for me, Chad. My argument from the start was that there's only one side after the election's been decided: the side of The United States of America.
> 
> The President of the United States should not be disparaged, insulted or ridiculed. That is not to say that we must agree with Presidential policy or that we should not vociferously campaign against a sitting President.


So the impeachment of Nixon was wrong then? Or the idea of impeachment is wrong?
Protesting is wrong?

I'm not talking booing or shoe throwing but peaceful marches.

If thats what you meant then you do not understand what the USA is based on. If that isn't what you meant then I apologize.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

I don't think that is what he means. I think he means that the office should be treated with respect. 

Technically speaking, Nixon was not impeached, he resigned before it happened.


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

OK you caught me posting under the influence of medication  pain mend + posting = dumb dumb moments..

Ok so say clinton.. I know officially Nixon wasn't impeached. But that doesn't answer my question. Is impeachment wrong in your views?


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Maggie,

I am in favor of law, honor and loyal opposition. That would certainly include impeachment, although I am of the opinion that the Clinton impeachment damaged our Country enormously.

Jeff


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

if egregious illegalities are made then yes, but it has devolved to automatic "Impeach Bush", "Impeach Clinton" for minor points of law or policy disagreements. Its getting ridiculous. I'm sure it won't be long before the "Impeach Obama" stuff starts too.

Not to mention we will probably spend millions on "probes" into the past administration and prove nothing except liberals don't like his  policies.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

You are quite right, of course, Chad. Billions have been wasted on Special Prosecutors since the Water Gate scandal and unsubstantiated claims of wrong-doing have become a political weapon. I’m not sure how we as citizens can change that trend but I know that if can be done; only we can do it. Perhaps it begins here with being polite to one another, even when we disagree.


----------



## Gables Girl (Oct 28, 2008)

I'm going to stick my two cents here and climb on my soapbox.  

In my opinion politics has devolved into a gotcha mentality since Watergate.  The Republicans have never forgiven the Democrats for digging up the Watergate mess and so they waited for their chance to get even.  I have a feeling if Carter had been reelected he would have been the subject of serious investigation, but he lost so they didn't get a chance.  Then there was Iran-Contra from the Reagan years which fueled the Republicans ire. The first chance they had they jumped on Clinton with Whitewater and then the icing on the cake was Monicagate and the chance to impeach Clinton.  In turn that fueled the Democrats to go after Bush.  Now we have Obama and I'm sure the Republicans will come after him.  Unfortunately we have gotten to the place in American politics where there is more time spent on hating your opponent then actually doing the work they are supposed to do and they were elected to do.  As a taxpayer and voter I think it's about time we tell all of them to knock it off and get to work.  This country has enough probelms right now we need everyone to pull together and solve them.  If you are right or left you need to stand up and say let's get this country moving again.  The direction of the country changes, but we all sink we wont' ever have a direction change again.

Yes we can disagree with the President and what he wants to do, but lets be civil about it.  I didn't agree at times with what Bush did , but then again I didn't agree with Clinton either.  As a citizen I have the right to disagree and to let them know when I don't, if I'm that unhappy then I need to vote them out.  So everyone vote and then let the majority rule as our founding fathers intended and let's stop the petty partisan bickering.  Look at what we have accomplished when we all pull together, we have won wars, we have abolished slavery, we have gone to the moon and we have created a country that others envy.

Climbs off soapbox.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Climb up there any time. Just call me first so I can listen.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Well said!!


----------



## Marci (Nov 13, 2008)

GG,

Like your post.  Thanks for climbing up on the box.

Marci


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2009)

Gables Girl said:


> As a citizen I have the right to disagree and to *let them know when I don't*, if I'm that unhappy then I need to vote them out.


I think this is the part we're debating. Is it your _duty_ to let them know, and what constitutes an appropriate way of doing so?


----------



## Michael R. Hicks (Oct 29, 2008)

Gables Girl said:


> I'm going to stick my two cents here and climb on my soapbox...


To echo what Chad wrote, well said!!


----------



## mumsicalwhimsy (Dec 4, 2008)

Jeff makes a lot of sense.  He expresses my thoughts.  Now, I MUST read his books...    thank you, Jeff.


----------



## Linda Cannon-Mott (Oct 28, 2008)

Well said Gables Girl! My sentiments exactly.


----------



## Gables Girl (Oct 28, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> I think this is the part we're debating. Is it your _duty_ to let them know, and what constitutes an appropriate way of doing so?


You write letters to them, you call them, you email them, you support those groups that lobby, you ultimately stay involved with the process. How many people even know who their representatives are until there is an election or pay any attention to how they vote. In the case of this administration there have been numerous opportunities so far to interact with them during transition. There have been meetings for suggestions to them, they have solicited opinions on their web site etc. As long as you are respectful of the office it does not mean you can't disagree with the policy or the person. If we all agree we are either lying to ourselves or we are too afraid to disagree and we know what happens when that is the case. See Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany for those too afraid to disagree.

I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it to my dying breath. Can all of you say the same? American has always been about the free flow of ideas, even the founding fathers didn't all agree. See Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, Madison, etc. But look what they built and the guidelines and checks and balances they left, it is very humbling to see how well it all still works 200+ years later. It proves that democracy does work, even if it is messy sometimes.


----------



## tessa (Nov 1, 2008)

Gables Girl

Very good !!

Tessa


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2009)

GG: You are absolutely correct that the new administration has been excellent about showing an "open door" policy and allowing the common man access to their ears.

I personally do not feel that the previous administration did this.  (In fact, I felt that they really didn't give a damn what the majority of Americans thought or wanted.)  In that situation, where the "everyman" feels that his voice is being completely ignored, are less "polite" or "respectful" avenues for making your opinion known (protests, rallies, carrying signs in front of the White House) still inappropriate?


----------



## Gables Girl (Oct 28, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> GG: You are absolutely correct that the new administration has been excellent about showing an "open door" policy and allowing the common man access to their ears.
> 
> I personally do not feel that the previous administration did this. (In fact, I felt that they really didn't give a damn what the majority of Americans thought or wanted.) In that situation, where the "everyman" feels that his voice is being completely ignored, are less "polite" or "respectful" avenues for making your opinion known (protests, rallies, carrying signs in front of the White House) still inappropriate?


Civil disobedience is sometimes appropriate if there is no other way to gain attention. Look at the suffragettes, the sit ins in the south for civil rights, the marches against the Vietnam war and even the rallies this week about Roe vs Wade, those are all effective use of protest. When it turns violent on either side is when it goes too far. This country was founded on the disobedience to the King. This says it best:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Thank you founding fathers who wrote and signed it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2009)

GG:  Okay, it sounds like you and I are pretty much in agreement.  It was sounding earlier like you didn't think protest and civil disobedience was "being respectful of the office of President."  But if you agree that sometimes such measures are not just necessary but one's duty as an American, then we're on the same page.


----------



## Gables Girl (Oct 28, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> GG: Okay, it sounds like you and I are pretty much in agreement. It was sounding earlier like you didn't think protest and civil disobedience was "being respectful of the office of President." But if you agree that sometimes such measures are not just necessary but one's duty as an American, then we're on the same page.


I just believe that other methods should be tried first.


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2009)

Gables Girl said:


> I just believe that other methods should be tried first.


And I agree. Like I said previously, much depends on how much respect an administration shows _me_ and how much input I feel I can actually make through those other, more "polite" measures.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> And I agree. Like I said previously, much depends on how much respect an administration shows _me_ and how much input I feel I can actually make through those other, more "polite" measures.


Well, I think many of the Bush hating protests went too far. I'm sure Obama will have policies that I don't agree with...but I'm sure I will not be burning any effigees, showing any "I hate ____" signs, pouring toxic chemicals on convention goers, smashing windows, throwing rocks or roughing up old ladies. There is a difference between disagreement and spewing hate.


----------



## thejackylking #884 (Dec 3, 2008)

chobitz said:


> So the impeachment of Nixon was wrong then? Or the idea of impeachment is wrong?
> Protesting is wrong?
> 
> I'm not talking booing or shoe throwing but peaceful marches.
> ...


Since impeachment is covered by the constitution no it is not wrong. That is not what he was saying at all. As a matter of fact Jeff never mentioned impeachment at all. He simply said that you need to respect the office of President and not act immaturely when the office is being handed over from the sitting president to the newly elected president.

Read his comment again: The President of the United States should not be disparaged, insulted or ridiculed. That is not to say that we must agree with Presidential policy or that we should not vociferously campaign against a sitting President.


----------



## MonaSW (Nov 16, 2008)

thejackylking said:


> Since impeachment is covered by the constitution no it is not wrong. That is not what he was saying at all. As a matter of fact Jeff never mentioned impeachment at all. He simply said that you need to respect the office of President and not act immaturely when the office is being handed over from the sitting president to the newly elected president.
> 
> Read his comment again: The President of the United States should not be disparaged, insulted or ridiculed. That is not to say that we must agree with Presidential policy or that we should not vociferously campaign against a sitting President.


I agree. Those who booed President Bush should be ashamed of themselves.


----------

