Army Officer Refuses to Deploy...

[Elrohir]

Calling a mod a fag, even if you disagree with him, isn't the greatest idea. Just a tip.

That's where the slippery rope is though, in determining which orders are legal and which are not.

Like MobBoss, I don't see how this is difficult. Deploying to Iraq is not an illegal order. Following this order does not violate the Geneva Convention; it is not an illegal order.

Killing and raping civilians would be an illegal order, and he could legally refuse that order. But refusing to simply deploy to Iraq makes him insubordinate; and if he refuses to go and his unit does, that makes him a deserter as well. I hope he goes to prison for at least as long as US troops are in Iraq, if not longer.

 

[CaptainF]

Well, I on the one hand admire his conviction, and agree with his statesments. I support his decision to do what he did, though he will undoubtedly be flogged for it.

On the other hand, it seems selfish of him to abandon his unit RIGHT before he's deploying. He also did sign up, so therefore he knows full well the extent of the asswhipping he will receive.

This war is scary to me, because one sector of the populous is languidly relaxing in the United States, whilst the other is engulfed in a living hell, thousands of miles from here.

 

[Cuivienen]

There is what happens legally, and there is what actually happens. Let us say for example that I were to murder someone, and due to my diabolical cunning(or weasel lawyers, whichever you find more believable) I were to be found not guilty. Does this make me any less guilty? Legally, I am innocent, but in truth I am a murderer. Calling me innocent does not change that I am a murderer, it merely means that the legal system is identifying me by the wrong label. An undeclared war is much the same in my book. It is just as much a war as any other, only it "officially" does not exist.

The Courts, just like the President, cannot declare something a war if Congress has not done so. Thus, the courts must abide by the fact that, officially, it isn't a war.

 

[tomsnowman123]

There isnt anything that hasnt happened in this war that has happened in any other war throughout history?

Surely you must be joking?

I dont recall coalition troops razing cities to the ground, sowing the fields with salt, burning civilians alive, or piling up a mountain of skulls from enemy combantants or innocent civilians!

Oh and we havent commited genocide either.

Can you say that all that has happened?

I think you miss understand. There hasn't really been anything in this war that's been entirely new or controversial in wartimes. We have seen guerilla warfare, suiciders, dead civilians. I was saying there isn't much in this war that has not happened in previous wars.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Once more...you dont have a "right" to disobey legal orders. None. El Zippo. Nada. Non-existant. ZERO.

And blind obedience to unlawful orders (i.e. atrocities) gets you about as much sympathy today as it did in Nuremburg.....ie...where is the rope?

"Legal" orders are defined by the army. If someone doesn't stand up for unjust wars, or even unjust military behavior, there is no way to prevent it. Soldiers have been commanded to do unjustifiably horrible things in the past, with or without the pretense of war. Usually they carried out their orders because of the same attitude you describe.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

"Legal" orders are defined by the army.

Actually it is defined by the civilian government. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a federal law, enacted by Congress. The first recourse for disagreement will be in the military courts, but if one disagrees with their results you can generally go to a federal court for a civilian ruling. For example, the soldier who refused to wear a UN beret eventually went to federal civilian court and lost. Some others who thought the promotion system was biased went to federal civilian court and won. Assuming he is court-martialled, he will most likely take it to federal court, who may or may not hear the case. In theory it could go all the way to the Supreme Court, but I find that unlikely.

 

[MobBoss]

"Legal" orders are defined by the army. If someone doesn't stand up for unjust wars, or even unjust military behavior, there is no way to prevent it. Soldiers have been commanded to do unjustifiably horrible things in the past, with or without the pretense of war. Usually they carried out their orders because of the same attitude you describe.

Uhmmm. Nope. You need to realize that the men and women that serve in the United States military dont exactly have the same rights as you, as a civilian, enjoy. We cant just quit our job and move on for example. This man, isnt in any way, shape or form, being commanded to do an "unjustifiably horrible" act.

However, each and every member of the military gets initial and refresher training on what is and what is NOT a legal order. We are trained to specifically NOT follow orders to kill unarmed people, prisoners, children, innocent bystanders, fire on or destroy religious sites, medical personnel, etc. etc. and in fact we are COMMANDED and ORDERED to report such illegal orders to the higher command as soon as possible. To do any less is to make one guilty of not obeying the order commanding to identify and report such illegal behavior. Soldiers get jail time for not reporting illegal orders. I feel you may see that first hand in the Haditha incident.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Actually it is defined by the civilian government. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a federal law, enacted by Congress. The first recourse for disagreement will be in the military courts, but if one disagrees with their results you can generally go to a federal court for a civilian ruling. For example, the soldier who refused to wear a UN beret eventually went to federal civilian court and lost. Some others who thought the promotion system was biased went to federal civilian court and won. Assuming he is court-martialled, he will most likely take it to federal court, who may or may not hear the case. In theory it could go all the way to the Supreme Court, but I find that unlikely.

That act simply unified the code, so that all branches had the same charges and penalties. These charges were all defined by the military.

 

[MjM]

Should be thrown in prison.

Be Anti-War by quitting the millitary, not pulling some ******ed publicity stunt.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Uhmmm. Nope. You need to realize that the men and women that serve in the United States military dont exactly have the same rights as you, as a civilian, enjoy. We cant just quit our job and move on for example. This man, isnt in any way, shape or form, being commanded to do an "unjustifiably horrible" act.

No, he's not, and this is why he will likely face punishment. There is no specific order he can point to that he can disagree with. He is opposed to the campaign in general. I realize it's out of his league but someone has to do it. Until a new president enters office or until Congress grows some testicles to stand up to the president, the campaign will continue. The Vietnam War was little different. I'm sure that, 99% of the time, there were no specific "illegal" orders that soldiers were commanded to perform there, but the whole war was a sham.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

That act simply unified the code, so that all branches had the same charges and penalties. These charges were all defined by the military.

Agree it was mostly written by military personnel. Just wanted to make the point that it is meaningless words without the civilian legislation saying it is law. And the civilian legislation can change it whether the military agrees with it or not.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Agree it was mostly written by military personnel. Just wanted to make the point that it is meaningless words without the civilian legislation saying it is law. And the civilian legislation can change it whether the military agrees with it or not.

Technically true, but from what I understand, this is a rare occurance, stemming from the well founded suggestion that to change military practice by a civilian agency is akin to telling the military how to do its job.

 

[cgannon64]

There are many, many soldiers who re-enlist out of loyalty to their unit - not the cause.

What seperates this guy from them, except selfishness?

 

[MobBoss]

You two are only half right. The UCMJ is pretty much the final authority when it comes to military courts. It has jurisdiction over crimes done by soldiers on base, or in a foreign country.

A soldier, for example, who goes off base and kills someone downtown, is under the jurisdiction of the local authorities. That soldier would be tried and punished according to the laws of that state. However, if that same soldier killed someone on post, the would be subject to the UCMJ and court martialed accordingly and most likely sent to a military prison like Leavenworth.

It has been my experience that very, very few civilian courts have any desire to hear cases originated under military law, largely because the military itself has a review board (the ABCMR for the army - Army Board for Correction of Military Records) to see if there is any possible legal descrepancy in its Legal/administrative process.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

It has been my experience that very, very few civilian courts have any desire to hear cases originated under military law,

Agree, but it can be done. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48288 is one source but you can google others.

A U.S. soldier court-martialed for refusing to wear the insignia and blue beret of the United Nations and serve under the world body's command is now appealing his case to a federal appeals court.

Michael New was among several hundred troops sent to Macedonia by President Clinton in 1995 on a U.N. peacekeeping mission. But New refused to obey the order, calling it illegal for him to serve under a foreign power.

I suspect this case to be one of those rare ones.

 

[MobBoss]

Agree, but it can be done. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48288 is one source but you can google others.

Actually, if you read that story it is a huge waste of someones time. While the military does have regulations that cover the wear of the uniform, this can often be superceded by local commanders. Case in point, we often have Special Forces units dressed as Afghani regulars when patrolling with those forces. Will you see that anywhere in the Army uniform reg? Nope.

Cases like that are just some attorneys doing it pro bono in order to make some street cred. Frankly, I am shocked that a civilian court would even deign to hear the matter.

 

[blackheart]

Actually, if you read that story it is a huge waste of someones time. While the military does have regulations that cover the wear of the uniform, this can often be superceded by local commanders. Case in point, we often have Special Forces units dressed as Afghani regulars when patrolling with those forces. Will you see that anywhere in the Army uniform reg? Nope.

I disagree. Those Special Forces in Afghani uniform are still under the command of the US military aren't they? In this case, I think the soldier was protesting the fact that he was subordinate to a UN authority, instead of an American one.

 

[MobBoss]

I disagree. Those Special Forces in Afghani uniform are still under the command of the US military aren't they? In this case, I think the soldier was protesting the fact that he was subordinate to a UN authority, instead of an American one.

Then his argument is already fundamentally flawed. His commander may be subordinate to an allied commander, but the soldier himself is subordinate to his unit commander.

Allied command structure is not anything new, only been going on since Pershing went to Europe in WW I and was given deployment orders by the French commander-in-chief.

 

[blackheart]

Then his argument is already fundamentally flawed. His commander may be subordinate to an allied commander, but the soldier himself is subordinate to his unit commander.

Allied command structure is not anything new, only been going on since Pershing went to Europe in WW I and was given deployment orders by the French commander-in-chief.

But the whole UN insignia and beret was thrown into this.

 

[MobBoss]

But the whole UN insignia and beret was thrown into this.

Bottom line the kid didnt want to wear a blue hat. FYI, the blue nato helmet or more recently the blue beret has been worn for decades by peace keeping forces all over the world to include US forces. Heck, we had folks wearing them in the Sinai back in the late 80s when I first got in. Not a big deal.

Not anything new by any means. The kid just wanted to make his point, like our captain does as well....well....he made his point...and got his court martial.

As always, there are ramifications of what one does and the choices you make. Me? I'd just shut my mouth and put the damn blue beenie on until I was done with the duty. Then I would burn the ****.