Here is an update on the soldier who refused to go!

[Sand]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17032609/?GT1=9033

 

Now, he says that the war in Iraq is illegal, that Bush lied about the intelligence reports so that we would invade Iraq. As a responsible soldier, he should refuse to follow illegal orders or be held accountable for doing illegal acts but if the legality of the war cannot be questioned how can a soldier refuse any order or judge it illegal or legal? Just interesting stuff.

[Walsingham]

If I recall correctly, my previous conclusion when we discussed this was that while we may be happy for a day if soldiers start disobeying orders and deciding national politics today ...the consequences more generally are not so happy. Viz Thailand's recent coup.

[213374U]

Didn't you make the exact same thread a few months ago?

[Laozi]

You join the army, you do what the army tells you. Pretty simple.

[213374U]

But don't get to become famous that way!

 

It's like attention whoring on a message board, only this guy's a pro.

[Laozi]

If the soldier was really super-serious he could become a conscientious objector, right?

[213374U]

After purposefully joining the Armed Forces and willfully giving up a good portion of his personal freedoms?!?

 

Yeah, I guess he could.

[Pop]

Depends on when he signed up. I know guys who never wanted to go to Iraq who signed up for peacekeeping in Kosovo. I'm not aware of when this kid joined up, but if he did so before war was imminent it's safe to say that he didn't sign up to fight in Iraq. That's not saying much, though. The contract he signed is much more broad than that. I doubt that any part of it states that he can opt out of unjust or arbitrary conflicts.

 

So legally, he has no case. I say that unequivocally. No judge with even the tiniest pragmatic bone in his body is going to let this slide. Ethically, he may very well have some legitimate claim. It depends on the spirit and the letter of the agreement he signed, and whether or not the command to fight in Iraq breaks those. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that they don't. You either had a snake-oil salesman as a recruiter or you're stupid if you didn't realize that signing up to fight in the armed forces could realistically entail actually fighting at some point. My friends didn't sign up to fight in Iraq, but when the war started their previous commitment compelled them to go, and that was the end of it.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Pop

[213374U]

Armies and ethics don't get along well.

[Sand]

The problem I have is that, yes, our soldiers are suppose to follow orders no questions asked but if those orders have them do something illegal they are held responsible and not those who gave the order. In his mind he was given illegal orders, so should he follow such orders then when he gets arrested and held on trial should he just use the "I was just following orders" excuse or should he disobey the orders to begin with?

[Walsingham]

If you want to choose your fights then you become a merc. It's not rocket science, boys and girls.

 

Nuremberg did state that a soldier has a duty to not participate in crimes against humanity and illegal orders. However, as has been tested numerous times in court, that does not mean you get to debate the decision of whether the war itself was correct!

[Sand]

So, it is okay to participate in an illegal war but not follow illegal orders? :confused:

[Dark Moth]

Here's hoping the "responsible" soldier gets dishonorably discharged.

[Hell Kitty]

Depends on when he signed up. I know guys who never wanted to go to Iraq who signed up for peacekeeping in Kosovo. I'm not aware of when this kid joined up, but if he did so before war was imminent it's safe to say that he didn't sign up to fight in Iraq. That's not saying much, though. The contract he signed is much more broad than that. I doubt that any part of it states that he can opt out of unjust or arbitrary conflicts.

 

If I remember correctly he signed up specifically to fight in Iraq, later deciding he believed that the war was wrong.

[Sand]

Dark Moth, are you saying that it is alright for a soldier to obey illegal orders? He views his orders are illegal, that the war is illegal, thusly if he was held responsible the only recourse he has to defend himself would be "I was only following orders" which is not a defense in following illegal orders. So in either way he is screwed.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Sand

[Dark_Raven]

Send him to the gallows. You are a soldier, it is your duty to follow the orders of your superiors. If you can not than you should have never enlisted. I may be against the war in Iraq, but the duty of the soldier is to follow orders.

 

Now I got no problem with any man does what he's told, but when he don't, the machine breaks down. And when the machine breaks down, WE break down.

[Diamond]

Dark Moth, are you saying that it is alright for a soldier to obey illegal orders? He views his orders are illegal, that the war is illegal, thusly if he was held responsible the only recourse he has to defend himself would be "I was only following orders" which is not a defense in following illegal orders. So in either way he is screwed.

Illegal? Oh yeah, they are very legal as they come from the source that can't get any more official. Ethical? Maybe no. But legal, yes definitely.

[Sand]

So Dark Raven, you see that "I am just following orders" excuse as a way to circumvent liability for conducting illegal, unethical, and immoral acts?

Edited February 8, 2007 by Sand

[Diamond]

So Dark Raven, you see that "I am just following orders" excuse as a way to circumvent liability for conducting illegal, unethical, and immoral acts?

Why do you keep bringing up legality when it is perfectly legal?

[Sand]

That is something for the courts to decide and the Supreme Court hasn't decided one way or another yet. The man contends that the war in Iraq is illegal and being ordered to go and fight is an illegal order. So, what constitues a illegal order then? In Abu Grajb (msp) they were ordered to interrogate the prisoners and use whatever means to get the information necessary out of them. Those soldiers were following their orders. If this is a legal war then their orders were legal, yet there are those who are being sent to prison, but those who gave the orders are free as a bird in an open birdcage.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Sand

[Dark Moth]

He's a soldier (an officer no less), not a mercenary, nor were the orders illegal. Even still, he's not the supreme court, therefore it's not his place to decide whether the war's illegal or not. He lost his right to decide for himself whether the war is legal or not when he signed up.

[Tale]

"Watada's civilian defense attorney said he would invoke the protection against double jeopardy if the government followed through with plans to retry his client."

 

His attorney is an idiot, isn't he?

[Sand]

He's a soldier (an officer no less), not a mercenary, nor were the orders illegal. Even still, he's not the supreme court, therefore it's not his place to decide whether the war's illegal or not. He lost his right to decide for himself whether the war is legal or not when he signed up.

So, he is to follow his orders no matter what, no matter what those orders to be? If that is the case then why are the soldiers who were "just obeying orders" are criminally responsible for their actions at Abu Grajb? They were just following orders from a legally appointed superior.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Sand

[Tale]

He's a soldier (an officer no less), not a mercenary, nor were the orders illegal. Even still, he's not the supreme court, therefore it's not his place to decide whether the war's illegal or not. He lost his right to decide for himself whether the war is legal or not when he signed up.

So, he is to follow his orders no matter what, no matter what those orders to be? If that is the case then why are the soldiers who were "just obeying orders" are criminally responsible for their actions at Abu Grajb? They were just following orders from a legally appointed superior.

I'm not reading "no matter what" in that quote. I'm reading "the war is not illegal/it's not his place to decide if the war is illegal."

[Sand]

It is not his place to determine his orders are illegal or not? Then whose place is it to tell him that he is following illegal orders? If no one tells him that he is following illegal orders should he be held accountable for following those illegal orders?