Army Officer Refuses to Deploy...

@Cuivienen: Legally, you are right, it isn't a war. But practically speaking, it either is a war, or it isn't. All the words and jargon in the world cannot change it's nature.
 
Evil Tyrant said:
@Cuivienen: Legally, you are right, it isn't a war. But practically speaking, it either is a war, or it isn't. All the words and jargon in the world cannot change it's nature.
"Legally" is the difference between "Illegal combatant" and "Prisoner of War".
 
The rules are clear but then in the UK at least they were willing to forgo those rules when the SAS NCO did it. In this case it's an officer though so I doubt very much they could choose to acknowledge the moral issue's he believes in, even if they believed him. Yes he probably should face some punishment if he has been found to have broken the rules, but no I don't think what he did is wrong, everyone has the right to refuse an order they think is against there better judgement or moral code.
 
Zamecnik said:
What does "because of the duty of his position" mean exactly, I'm not following you here.

The duty of his position is he took an oath when he became an officer in the military.

"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."

If he does not deploy he is refusing to obey an order. This is not political, it is a belief. There are those across the political spectrum that disagree with the war.
 
Padma said:
I applaud his conviction to stand up for his beliefs, however dubious and misinformed they may be.

And I will also applaud his conviction at the court-martial....

My view stated much more succinctly.
 
Sidhe said:
everyone has the right to refuse an order they think is against there better judgement or moral code.

Actually, they dont. They can only refuse such an order if it is patently an illegal order. Being ordered to deploy with your unit is not an illegal order.

If they did have the right to refuse legal orders, they wouldnt get court-martialed like this guy will be.
 
You should always be able to follow your conscience, even if it's misguided, legality and morallity aren't always such good bed fellows. As always though he's making the case that the war is illegal and therefore he can legaly refuse to fight.

By right I mean the basic human right. Not necessarily a military legal right, of course I wouldn't claim he should recieve punishment if I believed he was militarilly justified.
 
It is not up to the individual soldiers to determine the legality of the war. Their elected leaders (including their Command In Chief) do that. It is the soldiers' duty to deploy as ordered.

Now, if they are geven a patently illegal order such as "Murder that bunch of civilians!", then they have the obligation to refuse it, and also to report same up the chain of command.
 
Padma said:
It is not up to the individual soldiers to determine the legality of the war. Their elected leaders (including their Command In Chief) do that. It is the soldiers' duty to deploy as ordered.

Now, if they are geven a patently illegal order such as "Murder that bunch of civilians!", then they have the obligation to refuse it, and also to report same up the chain of command.

I guess his defense rests on trying to prove that its morally equivalent,no? That it is essentially an illegal order.
 
Padma said:
It is not up to the individual soldiers to determine the legality of the war. Their elected leaders (including their Command In Chief) do that. It is the soldiers' duty to deploy as ordered.

Now, if they are geven a patently illegal order such as "Murder that bunch of civilians!", then they have the obligation to refuse it, and also to report same up the chain of command.
I understand that's the military way.

Might be time for a change though. I completley understand that when your platoon is attacked you do follow orders immediately without hesitation. This man is not directly putting anyone in danger; he isn't even outside the USA. He has a problem with the legalty of his mission and he (apparently) doesn't mind to go anywhere non-Iraq related. Why on earth is it so hard to honor his beliefs, political point of view and morals and let him serve on Diego Garcia for instance ???
Nobody is helped by him courtmarshalled, jailed or killed. And nobody certainly is helped by him fleeing to Canada, cutting his finger off or going to Iraq where his inactivity or his turning of sides might actually be hurtful.

What is there to gain in not honoring his opinion?
Come on; it's the 21st century.
 
Zamecnik said:
I guess his defense rests on trying to prove that its morally equivalent,no? That it is essentially an illegal order.

Well, as wrong as the war is, there is nothing in this war that hasn't happened in any other war, and he was commanded to be deployed. He got himself in this mess.

Still, I applaud his efforts of peaceful rebellion, we need more people like him who will stand up for their beliefs. I support him fully, too bad he can't get deployed smewhere else.
 
The thing that bothers me most as a Soldier is this guy has been training with a unit that is about to deploy. He is an integral part of a team that is used to working with him. If he refuses to go at the last minute or after much of the training has been completed, then he is putting his fellow Soldiers at risk. If he truely felt this way he should have refused to train for the deployment.
 
Rik Meleet said:
Why on earth is it so hard to honor his beliefs, political point of view and morals and let him serve on Diego Garcia for instance ???
Nobody is helped by him courtmarshalled, jailed or killed. And nobody certainly is helped by him fleeing to Canada, cutting his finger off or going to Iraq where his inactivity or his turning of sides might actually be hurtful.

What is there to gain in not honoring his opinion?
Come on; it's the 21st century.

It's what they have to lose that is at question, lest example breed.
 
Rik Meleet said:
Why on earth is it so hard to honor his beliefs,...

Because when you volunteer to be a Soldier you don't get to pick and choose your jobs. It is certainly not fair to the Soldier who will have to replace him or the unit that will be left short a leader.
 
accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated

I find it hysterically funny that the USA would court martial (and in time of war execute) its military in the event for instance of the Marines poaching soldiers from the Army or the Air Force poaching helicopter pilots from the Navy which is regarded as comparable with:

.or enters any foreign armed service..

for example deserting to the Iraq insurgents.
 
A'AbarachAmadan said:
Because when you volunteer to be a Soldier you don't get to pick and choose your jobs. It is certainly not fair to the Soldier who will have to replace him or the unit that will be left short a leader.

True enough, but don't we always admire that soldier who refuses immoral orders? Is it so hard to believe that this soldier might feel the same way about this particular war?
 
Sidhe said:
You should always be able to follow your conscience, even if it's misguided, legality and morallity aren't always such good bed fellows. As always though he's making the case that the war is illegal and therefore he can legaly refuse to fight.

By right I mean the basic human right. Not necessarily a military legal right, of course I wouldn't claim he should recieve punishment if I believed he was militarilly justified.
The right answer is, of course, to "Do a Jimi".
 
Jimi as in Hendrix. Did he dodge the draft?
 
Zamecnik said:
True enough, but don't we always admire that soldier who refuses immoral orders? Is it so hard to believe that this soldier might feel the same way about this particular war?

Yes & yes, see post 66 (though illegal is more important in context). But then why continue to train with your unit for the deployment so that when you refuse to go you've put your troops in danger? He should have refused to serve 3 years ago or whenever his convictions hit him he should have stopped training for the deployment. Everyone in the military knows their time for deployment will come. You can be sent as an individual from any unit to fill a critical shortage.
 
Top Bottom