Biden?

[Lobowolf]

John McCain's courage in terrible circumstances does say something profound about his character. So I think it is legitimate and sensible for a voter to consider McCains character when considering him as a candidate.

I'm sure to get blasted for this but pardon me, how does getting captured show character? If you live through the ordeal, you must have great character? What would happen if someone with bad character was captured, would they just topple over? It was surely an awful experience, I would never want it to happen to me, but being captured and tortured is NOT a positive attribute toward being president.

After McCain had gone through a great deal of torture, his father was placed in a very elevated position in the military, and McCain was offered early release, for political purposes (e.g. it would be a high profile release, showing them to be nice guys, and at the same time, they could use it for the other POWs, that an officer would go home, but the grunts had to stick around). McCain refused release unless other POWs (I think all the ones at the camp who were captured before him) were released, as well. When they said they wouldn't do that, he stuck around another several years, incurring worse torture (and it had already been pretty bad).

I suspect that for most people, it's the decision to stand by his men, and not the getting tortured part, that is a positive reflection of character. But maybe that's just semantics...

[boris3161]

As an outsider with no political axe to grind and no vote, isn't it a bit strange that Obama whose message is "change" picks a political insider like Biden?

 

To me, this tends to suggest the change he brings won't be very profound....

[Lobowolf]

As an outsider with no political axe to grind and no vote, isn't it a bit strange that Obama whose message is "change" picks a political insider like Biden?

 

To me, this tends to suggest the change he brings won't be very profound....

It's the president's show...he's gotten a lot of mileage from the "change" message, but he's still open to attack on lack of experience, particularly from a foreign policy perspective. Biden won't be setting policy, so I think it makes sense for Obama to add some experience to the ticket and fill in some of the gaps.

[jdonn]

As an outsider with no political axe to grind and no vote, isn't it a bit strange that Obama whose message is "change" picks a political insider like Biden?

 

To me, this tends to suggest the change he brings won't be very profound....

It is generally normal, and good strategy, to pick someone who fills in perceived weaknesses rather than someone who reinforces perceived strengths. Likewise I would expect McCain to pick someone a fair amount younger and more conservative.

[jtfanclub]

After McCain had gone through a great deal of torture, his father was placed in a very elevated position in the military, and McCain was offered early release, for political purposes (e.g. it would be a high profile release, showing them to be nice guys, and at the same time, they could use it for the other POWs, that an officer would go home, but the grunts had to stick around). McCain refused release unless other POWs (I think all the ones at the camp who were captured before him) were released, as well. When they said they wouldn't do that, he stuck around another several years, incurring worse torture (and it had already been pretty bad).

I suspect that for most people, it's the decision to stand by his men, and not the getting tortured part, that is a positive reflection of character. But maybe that's just semantics...

It's not quite that simple. For one thing, first-in first-out is part of UCMJ, as I understand it. If he'd accepted, he'd have been court-martialed. For another thing, he was a prisoner. If they wanted to tie him to a stake and leave him for the American forces to find, there wasn't anything stopping them. Certainly his refusal to be a political pawn was lauditory, but then he also wrote several documents denouncing America, under duress of course. Somehow, he was able to resist being freed but not able to resist denouncing America?

 

The weirdest part is, if Hillary was captured and raped, nobody would want her as President. But John McCain can actually considers it building character. If you say so.

[Lobowolf]

After McCain had gone through a great deal of torture, his father was placed in a very elevated position in the military, and McCain was offered early release, for political purposes (e.g. it would be a high profile release, showing them to be nice guys, and at the same time, they could use it for the other POWs, that an officer would go home, but the grunts had to stick around).  McCain refused release unless other POWs (I think all the ones at the camp who were captured before him) were released, as well.  When they said they wouldn't do that, he stuck around another several years, incurring worse torture (and it had already been pretty bad).

I suspect that for most people, it's the decision to stand by his men, and not the getting tortured part, that is a positive reflection of character.  But maybe that's just semantics...

It's not quite that simple. For one thing, first-in first-out is part of UCMJ, as I understand it. If he'd accepted, he'd have been court-martialed. For another thing, he was a prisoner. If they wanted to tie him to a stake and leave him for the American forces to find, there wasn't anything stopping them. Certainly his refusal to be a political pawn was lauditory, but then he also wrote several documents denouncing America, under duress of course. Somehow, he was able to resist being freed but not able to resist denouncing America?

 

The weirdest part is, if Hillary was captured and raped, nobody would want her as President. But John McCain can actually considers it building character. If you say so.

I'm certainly no expert on military justice, but this really doesn't sound right. Got a citation to the Uniform Code of Military Justice? ESCAPE is authorized, so I have a very hard time believing that a soldier is required to refuse release.

 

(from article 105: Misconduct as a prisoner)

"(:) Escape. Escape from the enemy is authorized by custom. An escape or escape attempt which results in close rconfinement or other measures against fellow prisoners still in the hands of the enemy is not an offense under this article. "

 

Anything on this "first-in, first-out" policy?

[mike777]

"Articles III through V, are guidelines for United States service members who have been taken prisoner. They were created in response to the breakdown of leadership which can happen in an atypical environment such as a POW situation, specifically when US forces were POWs during the Korean War. When a person is taken prisoner, the Code of Conduct reminds the service member that the chain of command is still in effect (the highest ranking service member, regardless of armed service branch, is in command), and that the service member cannot receive special favors or parole from their captors, lest this undermine the service member's chain of command."

 

My understanding is that the chain of command who were POW's established an elaborate code of conduct. Example first in first out.........how much torture and what type of torture you had to endure before you could say XYZ...etc.

 

Of course in some instances those far down the order line broke this order and went home early.

 

In one famous case when offered to go home early the POW on orders from higher ups memorized every POW name and was released.

[Lobowolf]

"Articles III through V, are guidelines for United States service members who have been taken prisoner. They were created in response to the breakdown of leadership which can happen in an atypical environment such as a POW situation, specifically when US forces were POWs during the Korean War. When a person is taken prisoner, the Code of Conduct reminds the service member that the chain of command is still in effect (the highest ranking service member, regardless of armed service branch, is in command), and that the service member cannot receive special favors or parole from their captors, lest this undermine the service member's chain of command."

 

My understanding is that the chain of command who were POW's established an elaborate code of conduct. Example first in first out.........how much torture and what type of torture you had to endure before you could say XYZ...etc.

 

Of course in some instances those far down the order line broke this order and went home early.

 

In one famous case when offered to go home early the POW on orders from higher ups memorized every POW name and was released.

Does that make one subject to court-martial? That's not the UCMJ.

[mike777]

"Articles III through V, are guidelines for United States service members who have been taken prisoner. They were created in response to the breakdown of leadership which can happen in an atypical environment such as a POW situation, specifically when US forces were POWs during the Korean War. When a person is taken prisoner, the Code of Conduct reminds the service member that the chain of command is still in effect (the highest ranking service member, regardless of armed service branch, is in command), and that the service member cannot receive special favors or parole from their captors, lest this undermine the service member's chain of command."

 

My understanding is that the chain of command who were POW's established an elaborate code of conduct. Example first in first out.........how much torture and what type of torture you had to endure before you could say XYZ...etc.

 

Of course in some instances those far down the order line broke this order and went home early.

 

In one famous case  when offered to go home early the POW on orders from higher ups memorized every POW name and was released.

Does that make one subject to court-martial? That's not the UCMJ.

I am not sure what you are asking.

 

If you disobey a direct legal order from the chain of command I would think you could be court martialed or be subject to nonjudicial punishment

 

 

" I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way."

 

 

 

 

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_United_St...Code_of_Conduct

[Lobowolf]

"Articles III through V, are guidelines for United States service members who have been taken prisoner. They were created in response to the breakdown of leadership which can happen in an atypical environment such as a POW situation, specifically when US forces were POWs during the Korean War. When a person is taken prisoner, the Code of Conduct reminds the service member that the chain of command is still in effect (the highest ranking service member, regardless of armed service branch, is in command), and that the service member cannot receive special favors or parole from their captors, lest this undermine the service member's chain of command."

 

My understanding is that the chain of command who were POW's established an elaborate code of conduct. Example first in first out.........how much torture and what type of torture you had to endure before you could say XYZ...etc.

 

Of course in some instances those far down the order line broke this order and went home early.

 

In one famous case  when offered to go home early the POW on orders from higher ups memorized every POW name and was released.

Does that make one subject to court-martial? That's not the UCMJ.

I am not sure what you are asking.

 

If you disobey a direct legal order from the chain of command I would think you could be court martialed or be subject to nonjudicial punishment

 

 

" I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way."

 

 

 

 

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_United_St...Code_of_Conduct

My (limited) understanding is that the Code of Conduct is not legally binding. The post from jt indicated that there was a provision in the Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibited accepting release, which clearly WOULD, if violated, subject one to a Court Martial.

 

I agree that if the alternative to remaining as a POW was a Court Martial, that doesn't necessarily say a lot about his character (though I think I'd rather do 20 years in an American military prison than 5 in a Vietnamese one). If he wasn't subject to a Court Martial, though (and I don't know that violation of the ethical guidelines of the Code of Conduct subject one to a Court Martial), then I think it says a great deal about his character.

 

Having said that, I'm much more interested in policy than character as a general rule for presidents (or other politicians). But if he had a bona fide option to leave, and chose not to, that's a far cry from just getting caught and tortured.

[blackshoe]

It's not quite that simple.

This much is true.

 

  For one thing, first-in first-out is part of UCMJ, as I understand it.

 

No. There are provisions of the Code of Conduct that make accepting any special privilege or advantage a no-no, but that's not the same thing.

 

Somehow, he was able to resist being freed but not able to resist denouncing America?

 

I cannot speak to this, as I do not know if it's true.

 

The weirdest part is, if Hillary was captured and raped, nobody would want her as President.  But John McCain can actually considers it building character.  If you say so.

 

Frankly, that kind of remark is just silly. What the Hell has getting raped got to do with anyone's qualifications to be President? Absolutely nothing! As for McCain, I can't recall him (or anyone else with a brain) saying that being raped builds character.

[blackshoe]

My (limited) understanding is that the Code of Conduct is not legally binding.

Read, carefully, article 134 of the UCMJ. When I was in the Army, we used to call it the "and anything else you do that we don't like is illegal, too" rule.

[mike777]

Let us all back up.

 

In case of war and under combat or extreme war conditions we are given a legal order by chain of command. I repeat a legal order.

 

 

If we choose to ignore it, in this case get POW release from Hanoi Hilton on non orders.

 

1) In real life we may get no legal punishment

2) In real life we cannot be shocked if we get some form of punishment.........shunning by POWS........etc......

 

 

In USA.....Obama may win by huge landslide or

undecided may vote on some Character issue.

Agree if You think Obama is one hundred times better than McCAin...easy vote.

 

 

btw side issue I thought Bill Clinton Speech was not a home run..it was a GRAND SLAM OUT OF THE PARK.

[luke warm]

As an outsider with no political axe to grind and no vote, isn't it a bit strange that Obama whose message is "change" picks a political insider like Biden?

 

To me, this tends to suggest the change he brings won't be very profound....

It is generally normal, and good strategy, to pick someone who fills in perceived weaknesses rather than someone who reinforces perceived strengths. Likewise I would expect McCain to pick someone a fair amount younger and more conservative.

the rumor i started hearing a few days ago is that mccain and powell are talking about the possibility... whether it happens or not, what would you think of a mccain/powell ticket? how would america at large like it, in your opinion?

[PassedOut]

the rumor i started hearing a few days ago is that mccain and powell are talking about the possibility... whether it happens or not, what would you think of a mccain/powell ticket? how would america at large like it, in your opinion?

Powell has the baggage of explaining his presentation to the UN about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction." Everyone with common sense saw that he had not come close to making the case, and he had to be aware of that himself.

 

Some of us (me, anyway) thought then that he must have been aware of real evidence that he could not present in public. But there was no such evidence, and he went on anyway.

[jdonn]

As an outsider with no political axe to grind and no vote, isn't it a bit strange that Obama whose message is "change" picks a political insider like Biden?

 

To me, this tends to suggest the change he brings won't be very profound....

It is generally normal, and good strategy, to pick someone who fills in perceived weaknesses rather than someone who reinforces perceived strengths. Likewise I would expect McCain to pick someone a fair amount younger and more conservative.

the rumor i started hearing a few days ago is that mccain and powell are talking about the possibility... whether it happens or not, what would you think of a mccain/powell ticket? how would america at large like it, in your opinion?

I think it would be an awful choice from a Republican perspective on pretty much every front. Such a bad choice that I can't believe there is even a rumor in existance that he might be chosen, much less a chance he actually will be.

 

- McCain should not choose anyone who served in a George W. Bush administration, this should in fact be his most important rule in choosing a running mate.

- Powell's main political strength is under foreign policy, which is already an area of perceived strength for McCain.

- Powell is percieved as very moderate, again already a strength for McCain. His choice would do nothing to excite hardcore Republicans.

- He is from New York, a state McCain has no chance of winning.

- HE IS 71 YEARS OLD!

- HE TRIED TO CONVINCE BUSH NOT TO INVADE IRAQ!

 

I mean really, what is the gain? That he is relatively popular, black, and speaks well like Obama? He brings absolutely nothing McCain needs.

[Lobowolf]

Let us all back up.

 

In case of war and under combat or extreme war conditions we are given a legal order by chain of command. I repeat a legal order.

 

 

If we choose to ignore it, in this case get POW release from Hanoi Hilton on non orders.

 

1) In real life we may get no legal punishment

2) In real life we cannot be shocked if we get some form of punishment.........shunning by POWS........etc......

 

 

In USA.....Obama may win by huge landslide or

undecided may vote on some Character issue.

Agree if You think Obama is one hundred times better than McCAin...easy vote.

 

 

btw side issue I thought Bill Clinton Speech was not a home run..it was a GRAND SLAM OUT OF THE PARK.

What order by a chain of command? The chain of command applies if you've been captured, meaning if a superior officer in the prison camp ordered him to refuse release, that would presumably have affect; the Code of Conduct isn't a direct order from a superior officer.