Part of the drill when you’re a War Criminal

Panetta's afraid the US Marines will kill him

In a highly unusual move, around 200 U.S. Marines were asked to leave their weapons outside the tent where U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was set to speak during his trip to Afghanistan on Wednesday.

He [Maj. Gen. Mark Gurganus] said he had given the order because the two dozen Afghan soldiers also there were unarmed and he did not want to treat them differently.

Murdered Afghans, murdered Marines… all the same to Panetta. He knows any and all of the people he’s so brutally abused in Afghanisan are as likely to kill him as look at him. Probably more likely to kill him than listen to him.

Part of the drill when you’re a War Criminal. At least his bodyguards didn’t kill any disarmed Marines.

About jfl

A 66 year-old American male living in Chiangrai, Thailand
This entry was posted in People, Politics, US politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Part of the drill when you’re a War Criminal

  1. Patrick H. says:

    A soldier’s oath requires him/her to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. No wonder Panetta is getting nervous. But of course, it’s the same oath he was required to take to serve in the Congress and again as Secretary of Defense. Might he have forsworn himself?

  2. jfl says:

    “After speaking with their security advisors, they changed their mind on coming to the event … decided it was better for their personal safety they stay out of Canada.”

    Not the only War Criminal afraid to leave the Fatherland.

    Spanish judge on Friday re-launched an investigation into the alleged torture of detainees held at the U.S. detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, one day after a British authorities launched a probe into CIA renditions to Libya.

  3. charlie says:

    This is NOT in any way critical of you or your comments. I just wanted to add that some of us who took an oath to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, actually took that oath seriously. I wonder how serious Panetta was when he took the oath. Also, he would have done so more than once, like as he started each of his many government jobs.

  4. jfl says:

    I don’t think Leon Panetta was ever serious about anything but Leon Panetta.

    I’ve always thought that the ‘domestic’ bit of that oath ought to be dropped… I don’t know when it was added but it smells like McCarthyism. Living in Thailand now… where the Royal Thai Army ONLY kills Thais… I say to hell with having any army enforcing ‘law’… the next step is the army making the law, as they do here in Thailand, and then enforcing that too.

    That used to be the thinking in the US… the Posse Comitatus Act… prior to the NDAA… and I think that’s another good idea that needs to be reinstated. Like Glass-Steagal.

    I admit that I daydrean about the soldiers and marines turning their guns on their REAL enemies, the ones behind them and not the poor Afghans, Iraqis, and Pakis in front… but you’ve got it right Charlie. ALL killing is wrong. It happens, but it’s wrong. Every time.

  5. Patrick H. says:

    I’m unsure Sec Def Panetta would defend the Constitution or not but I’m certain from this exchange between Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) at a Congressional Hearing earlier this month that he intends not to follow it.

    Panetta argues that the president does not need any sort of approval from Congress to wage war, but that international permission is what matters. It may be quaint to bring this up, but the Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8 does not agree with him.

    “The Congress shall have Power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”

    The War Powers Act puts some flesh on the bones of Article 1, Section 8. The WPA’s constitutionality has been questioned from the moment of its passage, but the Obama regime was the first to openly and intentionally violate its 90-day limit, in the 2011 Libya conflict.

    Panetta does admit that the regime might inform Congress of the use of force, after the fact. However, that’s something Congress will have learned from CNN by the time the regime gets around to talking about it.

    As for the dropping of the “domestic” part of the military oath, I’m in agreement. The military is far too blunt and dangerous an instrument to be used domestically.

    • jfl says:

      Yes, I noticed that. Ron Paul did, too. I don’t like libertarians. But I believe, as Mike Whitney put it at, that it is immoral to vote for anyone who supports The Wars… and Ron Paul is the only duopol who is standing against them. I’d prefer to vote for Rocky Anderson… but if it looks like Ron Paul has a real chance of winning… I’ll vote for him. Number One is to stop the killing.

      I don’t know why Obama has not been impeached, his violation of the (unconstitutional) War Powers Act alone constitutes gounds for impeachment. I mean… ‘we’ used to impeach presidents for blow jobs, didn’t we?

      According to Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office, there are two oaths, one for grunts and one for officers…

      “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.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

      “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

      I don’t see the need for two…

      “I, _____, do solemnly affirm (or swear) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and that I will discharge my duties well and faithfully (; so help me God).”

Comments are closed.