Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Ehren Watada is a 1stLieutenant in the US Army. He refused to deploy to Iraq on the grounds that the war is illegal. As a US soldier, he has been given the mixed signal that he is not to obey any illegal orders but that he must deploy under orders to engage in an illegal war.

This makes perfect sense, coming from Satan.

Lieutenant Watada is undergoing a military trial, a court-martial. The judge ruled that Ehren may not use as his defense that he is refusing to follow an illegal order because the war itself, the entire war, is illegal under the US Constitution.[357]

Well, the military doesn't care. It only cares about carrying out the orders of its lord and master, Satan. Satan's word is the law of the military.

Don't confuse them with their hypocrisy is what they are saying to Ehren Watada.

Ehren needs to see the whole light, convert, and be a conscientious objector to all war, period.

No war is legal. Even the so-called divine war isn't even real. God isn't in a war. Rebels are fighting an illusory war in their own heads. There is no war in the real, which is the real heaven. Satan is a figment of his own imagination.

Of course, this is contextual. It is semantical. See the point though. We choose, and only peace is real, only love is real. That's the truth, the way, and the life.

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

The day [Monday, February 5, 2007] began with Seitz [Ehren Watada's civilian lawyer] offering several motions to strengthen his chances for a Nuremberg defense, one based upon the international conventions and military policies against unlawful orders. They grew out [of] the Nazi war-crimes tribunals after World War II, when a common defense was "only following orders."

Head [the last name of the head military judge in the trial] rejected the motions.[358]

This military court openly disagrees with the findings of the Nuremberg tribunal that rejected the defense of just-following-orders. It was established, actually just clarified, that every human being has a duty to not just follow unlawful orders.

The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.

Before the end of World War II, the Allies suspected such a defense might be employed, and issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which specifically stated that this was not a valid defense against charges of war crimes.

Thus, under the Nuremberg Principles, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty.

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

The United States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying this 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 (and in some countries probably killed), and one who accepts one will probably be jailed.

All US military personnel receive annual training in the Law of Armed Conflict, which delineates lawful and unlawful behaviors during armed conflicts, and is derived from the Geneva Conventions, a subset of international law. This training is designed to ensure that US military personnel are familiar with their military, ethical and legal obligations during wartime.[359]

Yet, this court that is trying Ehren Watada is telling Ehren and the world that US military personnel will follow legal orders or be punished by this government. It is corruption through and through.

Ehren is right and the court is absolutely wrong. The court itself has demonstrated that it is illegally constituted. It has no intention of upholding even the semblance of mundane military law let only the divine law of which it knows absolutely nothing.

Those who sit outside the military base where Ehren is being tried calling him a "weasel," "wimp," and a "traitor" are sympathizing with the Nazis and fascists just as the military court is doing.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Sup7 No Such Thing Conservative-Republican Christian. Bookmark the permalink.