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

[alanschu]

If there are international laws that dictates what a soldier can and cannot do when occupying a foreign country such laws need to be readily available and our soldiers trained in obeying them to the letter

 

Aren't the Geneva Conventions included in the Army Field Manual?

[Sand]

They weren't part of my training when I was in boot camp.

[alanschu]

When did you take part in boot camp?

[Sand]

When I joined the military back in '93.

Edited February 19, 2007 by Sand

[alanschu]

NCO?

 

 

It's also pretty interesting, given the Pentagon was under fire for removing the Geneva Convention Standards from Training Manuals, particularly those involving treatment of prisonsers, in the wake of Abu Gharib.

 

You may not have been explained "These are the Geneva Conventions," but I wouldn't be surprised if they were at one point mentioned to you.

Edited February 19, 2007 by alanschu

[Cantousent]

NCO?

 

 

It's also pretty interesting, given the Pentagon was under fire for removing the Geneva Convention Standards from Training Manuals, particularly those involving treatment of prisonsers, in the wake of Abu Gharib.

 

You may not have been explained "These are the Geneva Conventions," but I wouldn't be surprised if they were at one point mentioned to you.

 

Once again, unless things changed dramatically between 87, when I did basic, and 93, when Sand did basic, we did learn about the Geneva Conventions. On the other hand, you learn a lot of stuff in basic, and most of it centered on making sure you behaved properly. However, it's difficult to live long enough to enlist in the military without exposure to the Geneva Conventions, even if as nothing more than an idea. For some people, particularly people in the field, the term should encompass more than an idea. Nevertheless, it's an idea to which we're acquainted very early in life. Ain't that a shame?

 

Moreover, is that the grounds for refusal? I think the twists and turns of this thread have led us to a confusing place. As is customary, we have the usual hyperbolic and strident voices, the suspects we've come to know and love, railing about the injustice of the military and the government and all thing in the world not of their design or choosing. *shrug*

 

I don't need the Geneva conventions to tell me that raping an innocent woman is wrong, whether she's a citizen of Iraq or is born and bred American. We don't need the convention to tell us that torturing other humans is not only a bad idea, but morally wrong. If I were ordered to do so, I would refuse. If I were compelled by force, I would seek escape. If I, or heaven forbid my family, were under threat of violence, I would comply as minimally as possible. Yes, there are reasons I might refuse orders. I'm an American, after all, and I didn't cease to be free when I volunteered to serve my country.

 

However, the threshold for refusal must be high. It must transcend mere politics or petty personal concerns. It must be of such a dramatic nature that I am compelled to break ranks and put my country's interest, as well as my safety and the safety of my fellows, at risk. Sure, you can refuse an order, but not because you have such an intemperate nature that you cannot abide fulfilling the very obligations for which you volunteered. If you have no stomach for following orders, then don't volunteer for them in the first place.

 

Your trivial grievances are not legitimate grounds for abrogating your commitments.

 

EDIT: Included the word NOT.

Edited February 19, 2007 by Cantousent

[Walsingham]

Again, if you have problems with following orders without question then you will find you make an awful private... and a first class NCO. As an officer yu willl find that although you have a right to unquestioning obedience, you cannot command properly by drawing on it all the time. Particularly as our societies alter. However, at the final analysis every good soldier needs to be capable of accepting their viewpoint can be inferior.

 

Speaking personally I find it is a common negative sde-effect of modern commmercial society that we're told we're fantastic so often that we find it difficult to commit sucesfully to anything we aren't the focus of.

[Sand]

Well, my Basic Training was rather skimpy compared to others. A mere 6 weeks long. They skipped a lot of stuff from what I have heard, like the tear gas exercise.

Edited February 19, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

Well, my Basic Training was rather skimpy compared to others. A mere 6 weeks long. They skipped a lot of stuff from what I have heard, like the tear gas exercise.

 

Which bloody unit were you part of? The 101st Cannon Fodder Brigade?

[Sand]

Close. Navy. DD990 USS Ingelsoll.

[Walsingham]

I'm not certain I'd want to equate Navy with Army bootcamp. In nay case when the hell are matelots going to encounter a situation they have any individual effect on?

[alanschu]

And why would you assume that your bootcamp would be similar to the basic training of an Army soldier?

[Sand]

We might not have gone through the same physical and weapon training, but when it comes to book work where the military branches over lap, such as going over the USMJ or Geneva Convention materials they should.

[metadigital]

Well what I meant was that you seemed to have a fairly large beef with the fact that he joined VOLUNTAIRLY then decided that the war was illegal and refused.

 

Now if you were to draft an 18 year old into a war he REALLY didn't want to go into and then he said no... I think you'd be on the boy's side rather than the nations.

 

I personally never EVER asked to be made a citizen of the US, nor am I a proud member. BUT I still need work, so what am i supposed to do?

 

besides, you still didn't answer my question about how the tyrrany of the majority affects the presidential election process.

Is this directed at me?

 

Volunteering for action and then deciding that he didn't want to do his service is even worse than being drafted, yes. But either are indefensible from the point of view of the social contract.

 

And No, I wouldn't be on the boy's side. Duty is duty, it's not an arbitrarily determined role (or punishment), it is every individual's implicit contribution to the society to form a part of its collective defence. This doesn't prevent anyone from exercising their own right to protest or conduct political activities to try to change the policy; it just means that individuals are not permitted to counter the will of the society (Rousseau's "sovereign").

 

Again, if you don't want to be a member of the US society, then migrate. You might also try to sway public opinion to what you think it ought to be, too.

 

The tyranny of the majority can affect society in a number of ways. John Stuart Mill illustrated it well

Chapter IV Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual

...

But the strongest of all the arguments against the interference of the public with the purely personal conduct, is that when it does interfere, the odds are that it interferes wrongly, and in the wrong place. On questions of social morality, of duty to others, the opinion of the public, that is, of an overruling majority, though often wrong, is likely to be still oftener right; because on such questions they are only required to judge of their own interests; of the manner in which some mode of conduct, if allowed to be practised, would affect themselves. But the opinion of a similar majority, imposed as a law on the minority, on self-regarding conduct, is quite as likely to be wrong as right; for in these cases public opinion means, at the best, some people's opinion of what is good or bad for other people; while very often it does not even mean that; the public, with perfect indifference, passing over the pleasure or convenience of those whose conduct they censure, and considering only their own preference. There are many who consider as an injury to themselves any conduct which they have a distaste for, and resent as an outrage to their feelings; as a religious bigot, when charged with disregarding the religious feelings of others, has been known to retort that they disregard his feelings, by persisting in their abominable worship or creed. But there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no more than the desire of a theif to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep it. And a person's taste is as much his own particular concern as his opinion or his purse. ... [T]he dictate of religion and philosophy ... teach things are right because they are right; because we feel them to be so. They tell us to search in our own minds and hearts for laws of conduct binding on ourselves and on all others. ... The evil here is ... the public of this age and country improperly invests in its own preferences with the character of moral laws.

...

As a first instance, consider the antipathies which men cherish on no better grounds than that persons who religious opinions are different from theirs, do not practise their religious observances, especially their religious abstinences. To cite a rather trivial example, nothing does more to envenom the hatred of Mohomedans against them, then the fact of their eating pork. ... It is, in the first place, an offence against their religion ... Suppose now that a people, of whom the majority were Mussulmans, that the majority should insist upon not permitting pork to be eaten within the limits of the country. This would be nothing new for Mahomedan countries.* Would it be a legitimate exercise of the moral authority of public opinion? and if not, why not? ... Neither could the prohibition be censured as religious persecution. It might be religious in its origin, but would not be persecution for religion, since nobody's religion makes it a duty to eat pork. The only tenable ground of condemnation would be, that with the personaltastes and self-regarding concerns of individuals the public has no business to interfere.

 

To come somewhat nearer home: the majority of Spaniards consider it gross impiety, offensive in the highest degree to the Supreme Being, to worship him in any other manner than the Roman Catholic ... married clergy are not only irreligious, but unchaste, indecent, gross, disgusting ... if mankind are justified in interfering with each other's liberty in things which do not concern the interests of others, on what principle is it possible consistently to exclude these cases? or who can blame people for desiring to suppress what they regard as scandal in the sight of God and man? ... unless we are willing to adopt the logic of persecutors, and to say that we may persecute others because we are right, and that they must not persecute us because they are wrong[/color], we must beware of admitting a principle of which we should resent as a gross injustice the applications to ourselves.

 

How this relates to the Presidential Election? Can you see the way that a minority might be biased against?

 

By the way, I would seriously recommend reading some of these classics; JS Mill's On Liberty is less than 130 pages: one could read that in an afternoon, instead of watching television, for example; this would help make more informed personal decisions.

[Calax]

Except that the Tyrrany of the Majority arguement is only viable if the Legislative branch were dead. Given the House and the Senate exsist and the other skillion checks and balances we implemented to keep everyone in check there is no way for a president to get into office and promptly reinstate slavery.

 

Electoral college just gives the fringe groups more power because they become a deciding factor rather than a marginal movement because of their zaniness. Thus your average american is eiter ignored or lumped into a group that he has a tenuous attachment to at best.

[Walsingham]

I'm confused. I don't like the electoral college, but how does it link?

[Calax]

I'm confused. I don't like the electoral college, but how does it link?

because with electoral college only certain states get attention paid to them and in those states the wannabe leader will usually try to work the unions and church groups to drum up more support rather than work on the general public.

 

Also meta. HOW THE HECK DOES ELECTORAL COLLEGE CHANGE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!? Other than giving the less popular candidate the office every so often.

[metadigital]

Except that the Tyrrany of the Majority arguement is only viable if the Legislative branch were dead. Given the House and the Senate exsist and the other skillion checks and balances we implemented to keep everyone in check there is no way for a president to get into office and promptly reinstate slavery.

 

Electoral college just gives the fringe groups more power because they become a deciding factor rather than a marginal movement because of their zaniness. Thus your average american is eiter ignored or lumped into a group that he has a tenuous attachment to at best.

Yes, there are mechanisms that have been put in place since Rousseau wrote in 1762. That's the main defence of a bicameral parliament. That's why the smallest states (population-wise) get equal say in the Upper House, as it is a place of validation, rather than creation of legislation.

 

Calax, what you are basically complaining about is a disconnect with society ("I don't even want to be American").

 

As I said, there are (at least) two ways you can approach this:

1. re-engage with society, or
   
2. run away.
   

Have you tried getting together with some of your neighbours? There's no need to be so distressed; look at Kurt Cobain, he wasn't born of privilege, yet he was able to influence a significant percentage of the population. The "Moral Majority" was nowhere near a majority; it was just a motivated group of people. Y'know, "the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step", so just try to find some friends together. Creating a little community, even if it's "guys who wear black make-up", it's a start. Soon you'll be able to find other people who think that the government needs some assistance in policy ...

[Calax]

Except that the Tyrrany of the Majority arguement is only viable if the Legislative branch were dead. Given the House and the Senate exsist and the other skillion checks and balances we implemented to keep everyone in check there is no way for a president to get into office and promptly reinstate slavery.

 

Electoral college just gives the fringe groups more power because they become a deciding factor rather than a marginal movement because of their zaniness. Thus your average american is eiter ignored or lumped into a group that he has a tenuous attachment to at best.

Yes, there are mechanisms that have been put in place since Rousseau wrote in 1762. That's the main defence of a bicameral parliament. That's why the smallest states (population-wise) get equal say in the Upper House, as it is a place of validation, rather than creation of legislation.

 

Calax, what you are basically complaining about is a disconnect with society ("I don't even want to be American").

 

As I said, there are (at least) two ways you can approach this:

1. re-engage with society, or
   
2. run away.
   

Have you tried getting together with some of your neighbours? There's no need to be so distressed; look at Kurt Cobain, he wasn't born of privilege, yet he was able to influence a significant percentage of the population. The "Moral Majority" was nowhere near a majority; it was just a motivated group of people. Y'know, "the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step", so just try to find some friends together. Creating a little community, even if it's "guys who wear black make-up", it's a start. Soon you'll be able to find other people who think that the government needs some assistance in policy ...

Kinda hard to make people join you when A) you have no talant other than being a sociopath with add and B) on a scale of one to ten (one being Most liberal 10 being most consevative) you rate a one and everyone within five miles is a 10.

[alanschu]

I'm confused. I don't like the electoral college, but how does it link?

because with electoral college only certain states get attention paid to them

 

 

You won't find this going away without the Electoral College. There's already a huge amount of attention paid to states like Florida and California, two states which get "the shaft" when it comes to the amount of people represented by their electoral college votes. Getting rid of the Electoral College will shift the already lopsided focus moreso in favour of the more populous areas.

[metadigital]

Also meta. HOW THE HECK DOES ELECTORAL COLLEGE CHANGE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!? Other than giving the less popular candidate the office every so often.

Isn't that answering your own question?

 

The point is why is the Electoral College necessary, anymore.

Chapter 15: Deputies or Representatives

Sovereignty cannot be represented, for the same reason that it cannot be alienated; its essence is the general will, and will cannot be represented

[Sand]

I'm confused. I don't like the electoral college, but how does it link?

because with electoral college only certain states get attention paid to them

 

 

You won't find this going away without the Electoral College. There's already a huge amount of attention paid to states like Florida and California, two states which get "the shaft" when it comes to the amount of people represented by their electoral college votes. Getting rid of the Electoral College will shift the already lopsided focus moreso in favour of the more populous areas.

 

As it should.

[taks]

Anyway, I hate the damned electoral college. Always have. Anyway, I suspect taks will be here shortly to explain why the Electoral College is a gift from God, and should never, ever be repealed, amen.

i'd never explain anything as a gift from god simply because i'm an atheist. also, you are probably mischaracterizing my position (albeit a slightly ambiguous position) on the electoral college. better than most systems currently in play, though certainly not the best, nor even good, is my actual opinion. what i'd prefer is probably not possible to implement after all the voting fiascos we've had in the recent past.

 

no offense taken, btw. i saw the humor in your post.

 

taks

[alanschu]

I'm confused. I don't like the electoral college, but how does it link?

because with electoral college only certain states get attention paid to them

 

 

You won't find this going away without the Electoral College. There's already a huge amount of attention paid to states like Florida and California, two states which get "the shaft" when it comes to the amount of people represented by their electoral college votes. Getting rid of the Electoral College will shift the already lopsided focus moreso in favour of the more populous areas.

 

As it should.

 

 

Absolutely. I'm sure the interests of those in California closely mimic the interests of people in Alaska.

 

I mean, taking the states that already receive the most attention when it comes to electoral campaigns, and making it so that they receive even more will work wonders.

Edited February 20, 2007 by alanschu

[Sand]

That is what the House and Senate are for, Alan. It is their responsibility to keep the interests of the individual state they represent in mind while the president has to keep the needs and wants of the entire US population, thusly those in higher population areas should warrant greater presidential attention, in mind.

Edited February 20, 2007 by Sand