Survey - Should deserters be given refugee status in other countries?

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.wesh.com/news/4534806/detail.html

Do you think soldiers who desert the U.S. military because they feel the war in Iraq is wrong should be granted refugee status in other countries?
Yes
No

[knowbody0]

1. yes

[davepc]

2. If we had a conscripted military...

I could see it.

But since nobody forced anybody to sign up to our all volunteer force, no.

And yes, I know all the arguments about "backdoor draft" and IRR call-ups and the rest.

[Nite Owl]

3. They were lied too

They trusted their country to do the right thing not use them. Their is a break of honesty here. Sure they knew that they could be called to war to defend our country but they expected that it would be done with good reason, that their lives would not be put in harms way unjustly.

[davepc]

6. In the service you don't get to agree or disagree with the reasons

You go where your told, and do what your told to do.

If being in an organization that has that much power of you, without allowing you any input, is a problem then one shouldn't join it.

[NNN0LHI]

7. And the argument that they are being ordered to commit war crimes...

...doesn't bother you either? Because if that doesn't bother you that makes you complicit in the crime. Just so you understand that.

Don

[davepc]

8. The UCMJ has provisions for dis-obeying an illegal order

If soldiers are being ordered to commit what they believe are war crimes then they have an legal recourse, and are under no obligation what-so-ever to comply with the order. In fact, military members are obligated to REFUSE to comply with an illegal order.

read it for yourself if you do not believe me: http://www.army.mil/references/UCMJ/

[NNN0LHI]

9. How do you resolve that with your comments in post # 2 then?

Do you see a conflict with what you say here and what you said there? Would some kind of qualifier be in order?

Don

[davepc]

10. no conflict

Not being under an obligation to commit a war crime is not the same as being giving a green light to desert, ESPECIALLY since the military has a robust legal code that gives strong protections and makes it the moral obligation of the soldier to report/refuse to participate in any war crimes.

The problem with war crimes, like any other crime, is that for anybody to know about it, they need to be reported and witnessed for the perpetrators to be identified and arrested.

But, if a soldier has enough problem with his military service to want to desert because he is witness to or participant in a war crime, and takes no or insufficient action to report it, then that soldier -- in my oh so humble opinion -- has been derelict of duty and in violation of US law, and does not deserve refugee status by a foreign government.

Now, if your of the opinion that all war is a war crime and all that, then all the specifics of the UCMJ and what it requires from the individual soldier is mute to your point of view. So be it.


And, I'll add, the Abu-Ghrab torture and the Mai Lai massacre and dozens upon dozens of war crimes committed by US military personnel have be exposed only because of soldiers and Marines and airmen, and seamen who have fulfilled their moral obligation as United States servicemembers to report and expose such activities.

Unfortunately even when the crime is exposed and the perpetrators tried, the punishment does not merit the crime. That problem is not a fault with the organization and implementation of the system. That problem comes from a lack of political pressure being put on the military by its civilian leadership to take a stronger stand against such atrocities.

That being said, I still don't think such realities give a volunteer servicemember just cause to become a deserter.

[NNN0LHI]

13. Are you suggesting that invading and occupying Iraq was not...

...a war crime on the face of it? Because if you are suggesting that it means you believe doing so was legal. Is that correct?

Don

[davepc]

15. I suggested no such thing.

I merely stated that if you belive that to be true (that the entire war on its face is a war crime, and all participants war criminals) then the argument I have made holds absolutly no water for you.

But by a vote of 77-23 in the United States Senate, and 296-133 in the United States House of Represenatives authorised the President in October of 2002 to invade Iraq, so the moral argument that the whole war is a war crime has no bearing on the actual legal realities that exsist on the ground in Iraq today for the US Servicemebers who are there.

[drdtroit]

18. The "legal realities" do not alter the empirical fact that this is illegal

immoral and unjust. The fact that the senate and house both voted for the invasion serves only as an indictment of them and our entire legislative representation. It still ain't right! The troops are being used as a private "get down or lie down" goon squad. And like the POS are NOT protecting, nor defending the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, which is their only sworn duty!

[davepc]

19. I don't disagree with you

but even in the face of all that I still don't think it gives solders justification to desert.

Serve your time, don't willingly or knowingly participate in any attrocities while you are there (and report any and all you might see in the process), get out when your obligation is up, and fight to change the public perception of the war and work to elect represenatives who will end it.

[Fovea]

11. Let's say you bought a house at 7%

and paid off the mortgage.
Then, after the final payment was in the mail, the prime rate
moves up two points.

A day later, you get a bill in the mail from the mortgage payment for the extra intrest. What if the Repuglikan congress passed a law letting them do it?

How would you respond? I agree that someone signing up now would have to be a dolt to expect amnesty, but some of these folks have been used and abused in ways that seem inconsistent with contract law.

Stop loss has been abused, the National Guard has been abused. But if as you say, you have no sympathy for that, well. Ok. No one is going to force you to be humane. Justice untempered by mercy looks more like the furies than the eumenidies... So to those defectors out there I say 'run, Oresties, run...'

[davepc]

12. Where did I say I had no sympathy for them?

Please, give me a link and highlight the text.

I do have sympathy for them. Their leadership has failed them, the American people have failed them by not replacing that leadership. But that does not justify desertion.

Servicemebers do not have that luxury of picking and choosing what operations they participate in.

What if the soldiers sent by Eisenhower to the South during the 1950's to enforce civil right laws had decided that they thought such actions were immoral and unconstitutional and deserted rather then participated? There were large segments of society during that time that would of supported and endorsed them for taking such action.

You sign the contract, and you go where you go, and you do what your told because if you don't then system breaks down, and is unreliable and worthless.

[Fovea]

16. Servicemebers do not have that luxury of picking and choosing what operati

I'll take the Nuremburg defense for $500, Alex... or maybe not.

And Oxford Miss does not make a compelling example in the face of Nuremburg, which, I assert is far more germane.

To assert a dubious contractual clause against their safety and self interest, particularly in the face of a clearly illegal war, is, if you pardon me saying so, coldly legalistic and not in the interest of justice. That is the framework in which I used the term.

[davepc]

17. I'm repeating myself...

Nuremberg? Please. Where have I asserted that "just following orders" is a justification for illegal or immoral behavior?

I've already said, more then once, if you feel that the entire war in Iraq is clearly illegal then the argument I have made has zero merit to you. I can make my case all day long, but it wont do much of anything to sway you, because you believe the war itself is a war crime, and any and all participants are war criminals. Thats a valid opinion to have, and very well may be factually true. But what does that mean for the man or woman with sand in his shoes, memories of dead friends, and the knowledge every waking second that his or her next hour may be their last on earth?

Very little.

If an individual service member believes that the war is de-facto illegal, and the orders they are given illegal, then they are under obligation to say so.

Once they have made their feelings known, and refused to participate, then an investigation will probably be held into the validity of those claims.

The investigation will probably find (quickly) that the orders given to the servicemeber *are* legal and not immoral, based not on small part by the October 2002 (http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf) Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq in which Congress gives the President the power to order the said service member into operations in Iraq.

The service member will then be charged with -- depending on the circumstances -- refusal to obey a lawful order, being absent without leave, or similar charges depending on the specific circumstances of the individual case. A courts martial will then be held, and most likely that service member will be found guilty and sent to a federal military prison to serve some sentence, be reduced in rank, lose pay, and in short order be separated from service.


Now, lets say in the interests of Justice, that service members are permitted to up and leave the service whenever they believe they are ordered to do things which they find imoral. Lets say that after stating as such, and having their claims heard, and a finding by the government/military based being handed down (on a reasonable legal basis) that the soldiers claims have no merit. But, since we're talking about justice and not legality, the military feels a duty to not compel any member of its all volunteer force to participate in any military operation the servicemen has a personal problem with on perceived legal or moral grounds.

What, if any, use is that military then? What if, the military is called on to perform a mission that *you* KNOW in your heart of hearts is perfectly legal, just, moral, and necessary. Now, what if when called to that mission the members of the military share a different opinion then you (and the leadership who ordered said mission) and decide that the mission is unjust or immoral and decide to separate themselves from the military.

What use is that military when the membership itself gets to decide wither they want to fight or not, irregardless of the will of the people or the leadership?

You can not have a military that has any effectiveness in ANY mission or operation where the soldiers get to decide on the validity of the mission.

If during a legal operation they are party to actions they believe to be war crimes, they have a moral duty codified in the law to report such activities, and are under no compulsion to participate in them, but no solder gets to pick and chose which war he is sent off too.

If you're about to be shipped off to Iraq and you don't agree with the war and the service you volunteered to perform, then you have limited options. You can suck it up and soldier on, being mindful of the actions you take and the actions your superior and fellow soldiers take. You can refuse and do a stint in Leavenworth, or you can desert, and be subject to penalty if you are apprehended.

Thats why volunteering to sign your life away to the US government is a very serious decision, and should not be taken lightly. But, I also believe once a person has made that choice and signed their contract then they have a legal and moral obligation to fulfill it, and any refusal to do so without consequences should be punished. That is the only way to maintain a military organization that has the ability and fortitude to perform any and all tasks it may be asked to by the President and Congress of the United States.

It's not like the citizenry have no recourse if they disagree with the leadership.

We as a party, need to stop failing our solders and get good Democrats elected into office who will BRING THEM HOME.



edit:typo

[Fovea]

22. Your full statement has more merit

But the critical fact still remains that one cannot make a legal contract to perform an illegal activity.

Such a contract is unenforceable.
To insist on a party performing such an act, for contractual reasons is not justifiable. Yes, it is the Nuremburg defense and it is damned applicable in this case, as future events will doubtless show.

It has always been a grave matter to volunteer for military duty. But as recent news shows, coercion and fraud are used against vulnerable teens to get them to 'volunteer' on a routine basis.

In war, the moral and the legal are wrapped in a gordian knot. A moral decsion may be punished with the pretence of legality, but that constitutes a crime against both humanity, and the divine. History generally shows us the distinction clearly. Witness the current rhetoric of Robert MacNamera, on nuclear re-armament for example.

[Nite Owl]

14. Even some who have joined

recently have they been brainwashed by Limpballs and such and get there and find out the war protesters were right? Some of these are impressionable kids who get there and wake up to the reality of the situation not what they were falsely told it would be.

[FloridaPat]

4. This is another place we have to fight for because we might be next

the way * is going. First we need to get our soldiers refugee status. That way when we need it things are set up.

[kaygore]

5. Yes, this war is illegitimate

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

20. Bush deserted and was made President.

His father abandoned his crew and let his plane crash, killing all aboard. He also ended up as President.

When they skip out after they're charged with war crimes, do you want them brought back into the country or not?

Just askin'. :evilgrin:

[blue northern]

21. Yep. n/t