U.S. deserter or conscientious objector ?

[taper]

My belief is that if you voluntarily sign up for the Armed Services, you choose to take part in what ever our elected officials decide is best for our country. Don't like it? Tough, you signed up for this, and we are a democracy, not some dictatorship spreading it's wings.

 

[Akka]

Well, if I understand correctly, first, he isn't from the regular military, but from the National Guard, which is, if I'm not mistaken, supposed to only defend US mainland against foreign attacks, and not engage in exterior war (if I'm wrong, please correct).

So the argument "he did enlist to protect the motherland but refuse to fight an unjust war" could be valid.

On the other hand, as it has been pointed out, if you want to be a conscious objector, you file the paperwork, and not just decide you are relieved from following order just because you want it.
Additionnally, deserting and THEN saying you are a conscious objector, isn't really the way to do.

One year of jail seems pretty fitting to me in this case.

 

[zulu9812]

I'd like the point out that the reason this man left his post was in part because he did not want to follow orders to abuse/torture Iraq prisoners. This shows us 2 things. Firstly, that commanding officers did give orders to abuse/torture prisoners (that it wasn't just a few "bad eggs" taking th law into their own hands). Secondly, it is within International Law that a soldier is justified to leave his post in order to avoid committing war crimes - the defense for war criminals of "I was only following orders" only holds true if the person in question made some attempt to avoid following those orders. If this soldier had not deserted, and had then followed his orders, he would be guilty of war crimes. If I was in his position, I would have deserted.

 

[Zamphyr]

I'd like the point out that the reason this man left his post was in part because he did not want to follow orders to abuse/torture Iraq prisoners.

Where are you getting this from ? I don't see it in the article Tassadar linked, nor do I remember him saying anything about torture in his 60 minutes interview...and since their the ones that had the torture pics, I would have thought they'd have asked him.

 

[zulu9812]

read it in the paper yesterday

 

[nonconformist]

What the....? A soldier is sentenced to one year in prison for refusing to fight, and another has the same sentence for carrying out routine torture? Great legal system ya got there.......

 

[Wolfe Tone]

He had no business joining the millitary. Soldier shouldn't be able to pick and choose the wars they have to fight in, they should follow orders

 

[Tassadar]

wolf tone,

I dont agree, if a soldier is only a submissive yes man, then he s nothing more then a dangerous drone in the hands of politician.

I have learn that we cannot trust politican, especialy those with an old grudge or power lover.

So if a soldier is drag into an illegal invasion, ordered to rape and torture, then he should have the right to immediatly quit the army, without any punition and or dishnorable status.

But the conscentious objector status is only given to those who said they dont want to kill human beeing, whoever they are, for moral,religious, or ethical issue.

According to Zulu , the '' i was following order" doesnt hold in international court, so thats why i hope this guy have a second trial under a more credible and impartial judge. you just cannot write the law, apply it to whoever you want and be the judge at the same time. Interest conflict we call this.

So if this soldier have been realy ordered to torture iraky prisoner and refuse he should search for international judgment on war crime insteed of applying for the conscentious objector status.

Nonconformist, you show a very good exemple of human madness, one is jail to folow torture order and the other jail for disobeeing order. It prove that once you are in the military system your done.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Conscientious objector status only applies when theres a draft. In an all volunteer army, how can it apply? He chose to join the armed forces, he wasnt forced to. Now, if he was really serious about being against the war, or about being forced to commit war crimes, what he should have done is contact a lawyer as soon as he got home when he went on leave. Running away and basically becoming a fugitive implies that it was an impulsive decision, not well thought out, and motivated more by fear than by principles.

 

[stormbind]

Interesting, very interesting...

Mejia should have read the rules: Ignorance of the law is no defense!

As for whether or not I would so the same, it's hard to tell. One has to note that I'm an Imperialist bastard from Britain! I have no objections to controlling foreign oil wells...

$#@&%#!

However. If I did consider a war unjust, as in if I thought my government was causing harm to the lives of others, I would probably refuse to serve them...

$#@&%#!

See, there's a fundamental difference is controlling & doing good with that control (i.e. British imperialism)... and controlling and doing evil with that control (i.e. non-British imperialism)...

$#@&%#! :arrow:

I'm utterly drunk, requesting to be excused of any responsibility for what I post, and nobody should pay attention to what is written here... (emphasis)

$#@&%#!

 

[Chaos_BF1942]

He likely joined the military hoping that he would never be deployed in a war zone. There are huge financial benefits to joining the US military, particularly for long periods of time. However, there are risks. If one can't deal with the risks, they should never have signed up. They aren't there to question...if they want to do that, civilian life is a better place for them...maybe he should become a politician.

Yeah, I remember reading some one joined the army to pay for college that preson then got sent to war (forgot what one), they quit the army after the war and started speaking about "That not what I signed up for"

I'd like the point out that the reason this man left his post was in part because he did not want to follow orders to abuse/torture Iraq prisoners. This shows us 2 things. Firstly, that commanding officers did give orders to abuse/torture prisoners (that it wasn't just a few "bad eggs" taking th law into their own hands).

You know he could just be saying that, because he doesn't want to get sent to war. I'm sure his commanding officers are not telling them to torture prisoners and training them on how to.

 

[Tassadar]

Conscientious objector status only applies when theres a draft. In an all volunteer army, how can it apply? He chose to join the armed forces, he wasnt forced to. Now, if he was really serious about being against the war, or about being forced to commit war crimes, what he should have done is contact a lawyer as soon as he got home when he went on leave. Running away and basically becoming a fugitive implies that it was an impulsive decision, not well thought out, and motivated more by fear than by principles.

1.- Read Duke of Malbrough link ( the third one), an already enlisted soldier was able to get the C. O. status, briefly he said that he turn out atheism recently, so he didnt use the religious issue but the moral one. Saying that his value now are against killing poeple, whoever they are, he succeed but it wasnt so easy.

2.- If the C.O. procedure is not knowed ( even eirey didnt know about it, and i think he serve in the army) then it could explain why soldier choose the fugituve insteed of the legal way. I mean, if you follow the procedure given into D o M link, it look feasable, not easy, but feasible. But how many soldier know this C. O. procedure, very little, because only 10 % succeeded in the first golf war, the others 90 % fail, because they didnt follow eactly all the procedure. And i bet you cant trust your officer to give the right information.

 

[zulu9812]

I'm sure his commanding officers are not telling them to torture prisoners and training them on how to.

Now THAT's naievity!

 

[stormbind]

Now THAT's naievity!

Yah, but isn't everyone brain washed with drowning-out thoughts of USA! USA! USA!?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

1.- Read Duke of Malbrough link ( the third one), an already enlisted soldier was able to get the C. O. status, briefly he said that he turn out atheism recently, so he didnt use the religious issue but the moral one. Saying that his value now are against killing poeple, whoever they are, he succeed but it wasnt so easy.

2.- If the C.O. procedure is not knowed ( even eirey didnt know about it, and i think he serve in the army) then it could explain why soldier choose the fugituve insteed of the legal way. I mean, if you follow the procedure given into D o M link, it look feasable, not easy, but feasible. But how many soldier know this C. O. procedure, very little, because only 10 % succeeded in the first golf war, the others 90 % fail, because they didnt follow eactly all the procedure. And i bet you cant trust your officer to give the right information.

I dont disagree with that. My point is that he wasnt thinking, he was reacting. If youre thinking this thing through, you make it your business to find out exactly where you stand legally and what exactly your rights are here. Thats why I say the first thing he should have done is drive from the airport directly to a lawyer who could find out what his rights are under military law. Then act. But he did it in reverse, he acted, and then thought.

 

[Tassadar]

But he did it in reverse, he acted, and then thought.

I totaly agree that this guy would have needed counseilling, no doubt, but what i find radical, is ; because he didnt follow the right procedure ( call it paper work) he was sent to jail, insteed of honorable discharge.

He wasnt on the battlefield at all when he left, he didnt endanger anybody by refusing to report after vacation, he did a stupid move, sure , by not following ''procedure", but justice is not their to put in jail a human beeing inability/uninformed to fill paper work.

He dont deserve 1 year within a steel cage for that.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Personally, I prefer the 19th century way of treating deserters- the firing squad. That's what I'd call a deterrent.

 

[Tassadar]

Personally, I prefer the 19th century way of treating deserters- the firing squad. That's what I'd call a deterrent.

First and very important: i do not compare US army with Nazi army, ok


According to you, all nazi/german soldier which refuse to follow order should have been executed without trial, right? you have proven to yourself that you are just yes man drone without any conscientious feeling, pretty scarry isnt it, you have been added to the list :devil2:

 

[nonconformist]

Tassadar.....as much as I find Smellincofee's post nasty, he was in no way comparing it to the German army. And the German army is way too over-stereotyped anyway. You didn't get shot as easily as most people'd think.

 

[Tassadar]

But what could have justify the murder of conscientious objector during the 19 th century, he was refering to ?

One thing nobody yet have talking about, is the mental distrese a soldier can fall into, if he was depressive or too much stressed by what he saw, then he wasnt able to make the official good way of retiring, which is filling the appropriate paper.