Sorry. I sure can see how my rendition (genuine "rendition", not the send you away type < s >) is laughable.
But I am glad to hear that it is illegal to follow an illegal order (which was what I was getting at).

As for the higher ups in the prisoner abuse scandal... can't be helpful to morale and gotta get the grunts thinkin.



>The NSA is government, NOT military. There is no such thing as "if you honestly believe it's illegal then you need not comply." That is so outrageous (sorry) but it makes be laugh. The problem is actually that it is ILLEGAL to FOLLOW AN ILLEGAL order. However, you have to KNOW when an order is illegal and when it is not. Regardless, if it is not illegal, you must follow it, or else if it is in the time of war you can be shot on the spot. Really a catch22 and puts too much responsibility on privates and inexperienced soldiers and that is why the leaders (NCOs E-5 and above or Squad Leader if in charge and enforcing orders) is ultimately responsible and shows what a FARCE the entire due process for the prisoner abuse scandal was. Those piddly idiots were punished, but NOT those that actually enforced and condoned and were responsible. I'm talking about a 1st Sergeant, Sergeant Major, Lieutenant, Caption, Major. Where are they? Who are they? Funny how I didn't see major media
>coverage of their trials...
>
>Also, I neglected to mention that those prosecuted were MPs, not interrogators. They were also not active duty but national guard and reserves.
>
>I evaluated both the national guard and the reserve units when I was assigned to HQ, 9ID, Fort Lewis, WA. We went on training site to Fort Drum, NY and Georgia and Louisian. On the majority of instances, allowances were made for them when they didn't know the regs and FMs because they were only part time soldiers and it was commonly stated that they would receive refresher training before actual duty. My evaluations were routinely modified after I completed them. Sadly, the refresher training appears to be insuffient or totally missing.
>
>
>
>>Bravo Tracy!!! (just read your words, not the articles).
>>
>>I've seen/heard lots of average Joes say something akin to "I've got nothing to hide, so it doesn't bother me and they should go ahead and find the things people are hiding". Imagine that!
>>
>>One thing I'm curious about that your military experience can possibly answer... the NSA being military (that's what CNN et. al. have said), does the military there still have the 'if you honestly believe it's illegal you need not comply with the order', and if so do you think it would apply here?
>>
>>Absolutely positively, in any place that enjoys freedom (of speech, of assembly, of security of self, of privacy, of...) THE PEOPLE cannot allow this to happen. Ever, no matter the pretext.
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179067,00.html
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/nsa/index.html
>>>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/19/opinion/courtwatch/main1135144.shtml
>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458
>>>
>>>My personal opinion is that no matter how good a leader in a war against terrorism is, how important they are to the success of the security of the country, or what our options were, no President can make his own law or ignore the law. My libertarian viewpoints are showing through here, I'm sure. This is not a country meant to be run by a monarch or a dictator. The executive branch cannot supercede law and privacy for the citizens and especially not when it breaks the law and the Bill of Rights. To do so gives total power to one person and in essence a dictatorship. It does not matter whether or not it has saved lives or prevented further acts of terrorism. You cannot punish the few to protect the many. The same may be true of the Japanese internment camps, McCarthyism, et al. All were thought to protect the masses. If it could be justified then closed door sessions would have approved it (other classified actions have been condoned and made legal in the past when national
>>>security required it but never based solely on the decision of the President and always voted on by congress to provide an avenue outside the current legal bounderies to protect the country).
>>>
>>>I'm sorry, but this action deserves investigation and consideration for impeachment. I'm not saying he should be impeached at this time, but if he personally allowed spying on U.S. citizens outside the Bill of Rights and laws and he is guilty and solely responsible, then it should be considered. If congress did not pass a law to allow it and no congressional action allowed it, then it should be considered. If it is determined that a previous president allowed the same, then that needs to be investigated as well. If congress determines or possibly a joint judicial committee finds sufficient evidence that such spying is necessary then the law will be made to allow for it even clandestine and classified, but no President can make the law or break the law independently.
>>>
>>>The current sense is either you support him 100% or you are just like the other liberals and that is total nonsense. Suddenly Republicans and Libertarians are forced into a "you're with us or against us" position. This is ridiculous. If you give up even a part of your rights as a citizen of this country, what else will you give up in the future? Who will be allowed to determine what we must sacrifice? How many personal liberties and how many rights? For how long? What if the war on terrorism lasts 20 or 30 years? Will our children be accustomed to living without civil liberties? What will the mindset of our youth be when it is all over - if it is ever over? If such unilateral actions are allowed then we become no better than the average citizen in any dictatorship. It is not any different imo than watergate. If the spying is necessary in order to protect our country and its citenzens then congress will agree even if it is behind closed doors. I hope we learn in the near
>>>future that it was indeed approved or that the action was not taken and the law broken under the authority of solely one man. It is an abuse of power.