Army Officer Refuses to Deploy...

[Cuivienen]

For what it is worth, whether you call it a police action, hostile engagement, etc. etc. its stll a war.

If it smells like war, looks like war, you step in it and it looks like war on your boot, then by all means its war.

If you doubt me go tell a Korea War vet that he was only involved in a police action. But dont blame me for the black eye you will receive.

Legally, it is not a war. And legally is what matters. You can yammer on about de facto wars as much as you want, but the fact remains that the President cannot declare war.

 

[Zamecnik]

Well, I freely admit I'm not an expert on what does or does not qualify someone as a political prisoner but you're definition seems a bit narrow. He may be going to jail in a strict legal sense for disobeying a direct order or breaking a contract but if his reasons for doing so are political (and he suffers consequences for those beliefs, such as prison), how is he not a political prisoner?

Political prisoner? He isnt going to be a political prisoner. He isnt going to jail because of his political views. He is going to go to jail for disobeying a direct order. He could still retain his political views and obey the order - many do.


Well, at least your system has a cool name.heh.

 

[MobBoss]

Legally, it is not a war. And legally is what matters. You can yammer on about de facto wars as much as you want, but the fact remains that the President cannot declare war.

Your view is too narrow. The United States has fought in a wide variety of wars without congressional approval. Were those engagements wars? Yes indeedy. To think that something is or is not a war because congress didnt vote on it is just silly.

EDIT: For your trivia file: While the United States has waged about 125 military actions, war has only been formally declared five times.

 

[Cuivienen]

Your view is too narrow. The United States has fought in a wide variety of wars without congressional approval. Were those engagements wars? Yes indeedy. To think that something is or is not a war because congress didnt vote on it is just silly.

No, it isn't. Battles fought without congressional approval are not wars. End of story. They may be military interventions to the benefit of the United States, but they are not wars. It is not narrow to believe in the Constitution.

 

[spankey]

Legally, it is not a war. And legally is what matters. You can yammer on about de facto wars as much as you want, but the fact remains that the President cannot declare war.

Okay,
So the US hasn't been in a war since August 1945. Therefore, peace. Please ensure that all of textbooks are changed...

I would have to research the death penalty for desertion in a police action. I do know that treason is punishable by death outside of a war--just ask the Rosenbergs.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

I'd say it was patriotism and the naive believe his government won't start any unnecessary wars.

Naive is right, you need only an elementary knowledge of history to determine that most wars won't measure up to his idea of a "just" and "necessary" war.

 

[Cuivienen]

Okay,
So the US hasn't been in a war since August 1945. Therefore, peace. Please ensure that all of textbooks are changed...

You don't get it, do you? No war does not mean peace, but it does mean no war. It's not a black-and-white issue.

 

[MobBoss]

No, it isn't. Battles fought without congressional approval are not wars. End of story. They may be military interventions to the benefit of the United States, but they are not wars. It is not narrow to believe in the Constitution.

So, the Civil War was not a war, but a "military intervention"?

 

[IglooDame]

Okay,
So the US hasn't been in a war since August 1945. Therefore, peace. Please ensure that all of textbooks are changed...

I would have to research the death penalty for desertion in a police action. I do know that treason is punishable by death outside of a war--just ask the Rosenbergs.

Scroll up, Elrohir has already provided the relevant info. Answer is, "hazardous duty" or "important service", not war, triggers a desertion charge.

 

[Cuivienen]

So, the Civil War was not a war, but a "military intervention"?

Both sides believed that they had the right of the Constitution and that they were the legitimate successor. In any case, it was not really a war in the traditional sense as it took place entirely (or close enough to entirely) within the country.

 

[MobBoss]

Both sides believed that they had the right of the Constitution and that they were the legitimate successor. In any case, it was not really a war in the traditional sense as it took place entirely (or close enough to entirely) within the country.

Why then you better haul off down to the local VFW and let them know.

Edit: Opps, you edited the part where you said Korea and Vietnam were not wars. Why did you do that?

 

[Cuivienen]

Scroll up, Elrohir has already provided the relevant info. Answer is, "hazardous duty" or "important service", not war, triggers a desertion charge.

But execution can only be performed during "time of war" as a punishment.

 

[Cuivienen]

Why then you better haul off down to the local VFW and let them know.

Well, yes. It was not a war. It was a conflict. You who do not draw distinctions between different forms of conflict attempt to use the same strategy in each situation. It's why you will fail.

 

[MobBoss]

But execution can only be performed during "time of war" as a punishment.

Incorrect. Captial punishments can be given for capital offenses regardless of "time of war" or not.

 

[Rik Meleet]

It is interesting that you are from Nijmegen, the 82nd airborne shed lots of blood in that area--they must have been deficient in "brain power" in your mind as well.

If they joined voluntarily, Yes.

If a thief believes that it is okay to steal, does that make him a political prisoner when he is incarcerated for stealing???
He is not being punished for his beliefs--he is being punished for his actions. His actions of signing up as a commisioned officer in a volunteer army, taking the pay and benefits thereof, and then cravenly refusing to honor his obligation for taking these benefits--that is why he is getting in trouble.

No. This is incorrect. As I understood it he is perfectly ok with his actions as a soldier. He is not ok with the war (declared or undeclared) in Iraq. As I understood it he would be ok to be a soldier in Afghanistan for example; it's that because he thinks / believes / has the political opinion that the war in Iraq is not right he is refusing to cooperate there. It has nothing to do with his actions, nor with refusing to honor his obligations.

Your parallel of a thief is completely inappropriate since stealing is -unlike war- not a political policy.

He's not being jailed simply for what he believes in. If he wasn't under contractual obligation to do what they told him to...a VOLUNTARY contract, you'd have a point.

If he on principle disagrees with the war in Iraq than he has the moral right to refuse to go there. If he refuses to do and go anywhere; even non-Iraq related tasks and missions; then I agree that he isn't jailed for what he beliefs in. That is not the case here.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Well, I freely admit I'm not an expert on what does or does not qualify someone as a political prisoner but you're definition seems a bit narrow. He may be going to jail in a strict legal sense for disobeying a direct order or breaking a contract but if his reasons for doing so are political (and he suffers consequences for those beliefs, such as prison), how is he not a political prisoner?

He is being put in jail because it is his duty as an officer to follow the legal orders of the officers appointed above him. If he truely believes it is illegal, then it is his duty to disobey. I think most will agree the court won't agree with him, so he will most likely go to jail. Ideally they would also make him repay for the training he has received.

He is not a political prisoner becasue he is being put in jail because of the duty of his position. If the US started putting the average anti-Iraq war protesters in jail then they would be political prisoners. This is not comparable.

 

[Cuivienen]

Incorrect. Captial punishments can be given for capital offenses regardless of "time of war" or not.

As a punishment for desertion. I assumed that such could be read from context.

 

[nonconformist]

He knew what he was getting when he signed up.
he knew from the moment he put his signature on the forms he was at the mercy of his superiors, and would wear a uniform with a target on.

I have little sympathy.

 

[Zamecnik]

What does "because of the duty of his position" mean exactly, I'm not following you here.

Like I said, I understand the legal reasons he'll most likely end up in jail, but it doesn't change the fact he will be incarcerated because of his political beliefs, thus a political prisoner?

Seems very comparable to me.

He is being put in jail because it is his duty as an officer to follow the legal orders of the officers appointed above him. If he truely believes it is illegal, then it is his duty to disobey. I think most will agree the court won't agree with him, so he will most likely go to jail. Ideally they would also make him repay for the training he has received.

He is not a political prisoner becasue he is being put in jail because of the duty of his position. If the US started putting the average anti-Iraq war protesters in jail then they would be political prisoners. This is not comparable.

 

[IglooDame]

But execution can only be performed during "time of war" as a punishment.

Right, I didn't read that far down. And in doing another bit of research, per RCM 103(19) "time of war" as far as the UCMJ is concerned can be triggered by a congressional declaration of war (which hasn't happened since the UCMJ was written in 1950) or by a written executive finding that a state of war exists - which did happen, during the Korean War. President Bush hasn't issued that finding, and it doesn't appear that he is going to, so our Army first lieutenant won't be facing a firing squad.