From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

George Sherwood wrote:
> "Phil Payne" 
wrote in message
> news:44acf120{at}w3.nls.net...
>> http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060706/2006-07-06T002812Z_01_N05368896_RT
RIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-USA-OFFICER-DC.html
>>
>> "'The reasons (sic) why they are going after him for the
things he said is
>> because they want to muzzle him,' Seitz said."
>>
>> If that's the case, it's a dumb way to go about it.  They've made it
>> global
>> news.
>
> He joined the Army and then refused to do what he swore he would do when he
> joined.  Officer's have been charged under the contempt regulation before
> also.  I would have to read the exact words he said to know why this is
> being done in this case.  Of course the defense is putting out the muzzle
> him line since it makes for good press.  Refusing to obey an order is cut
> and dried.  It is more sensational to claim the muzzle him charge.  This
> gets the media on their side.  From my point of view it probably would have
> been better to just go after the missed movement charge.  It would make a
> better case and give less for the press to jump on.
>
> George
>
>
Shrug. Depends on the legality of the war. Refusing to obey an order ain't
been cut & dried since Nuremberg & other similar events.

If he were to argue the war was a war of aggression & thus unlawful
then he might have some legs to stand on otherwise it's ye olde place for
the just man in unjust times is in prison.

Adam

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5