Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Would you consider soldiers who had deserted Hitler's military due to moral objections "cowards"?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes, he was.Only history can judge his actions. But he is lucky he wasn't shot.
Damn straight!In my view, the guilty parties here, and the real traitors, are those who promoted, launched and pursued an illegal and immoral war based on false evidence.
I don't know that it's quite that cut-and-dry, but I definitely consider it the lesser evil.In the face of such a war, there's nothing unethical about desertion.
May I ask which war?My great-grandfather deserted the army in time of war, and I think he did the right thing.
Would you consider soldiers who had deserted Hitler's military due to moral objections "cowards"?
The Civil War.May I ask which war?
Which side?The Civil War.
He deserted from the Confederate army.Which side?
If the United States cannot get him extradited, then they should revoke his citizenship.
I don't see a difference in the damage done. I only see a difference in that refusing to perform you are also owning up to your actions to face the consequences. Desertion is running from the consequences.Leaving aside the issue of volunteerism, I would think desertion does less damage than refusal to perform. Does that make sense?
Maybe because I have made the same promises this man has broken I react a little stronger. In a way, it could be seen as virtual slavery. After all, when you sign any contract you are, in a way, becoming a virtual slave in some aspect of your life.Also, I have to say that your strictness on this issue strikes me as virtual slavery. I do not agree that agreeing to serve in a just capacity equals a moral obligation to violate one's conscience.
It is illegal to follow illegal orders. The old excuse "I was just following orders" will not fly in a military court. If a commanding officer gives you an order that is illegal, and you carry the order out, both you and the commanding officer will be held accountable.Also, Apex, I have to wonder, how far do you take it? Is a soldier compelled to follow orders that violate his conscience? How about illegal orders?
OK, that makes sense. What I was getting at was, if you're not there, nobody's depending on you.I don't see a difference in the damage done. I only see a difference in that refusing to perform you are also owning up to your actions to face the consequences. Desertion is running from the consequences.
Yes but most contracts sdon't require you to kill people.Maybe because I have made the same promises this man has broken I react a little stronger. In a way, it could be seen as virtual slavery. After all, when you sign any contract you are, in a way, becoming a virtual slave in some aspect of your life.
Exactly. We hold soldiers accountable for thheir actions, and demand that they not violate our (collective) conscience. So if we say that they have to obey their contracts, too, it's a Catch-22.It is illegal to follow illegal orders. The old excuse "I was just following orders" will not fly in a military court. If a commanding officer gives you an order that is illegal, and you carry the order out, both you and the commanding officer will be held accountable.
Besides the point. A contract is a contract, and you should be well aware of what it says before you sign.Yes but most contracts sdon't require you to kill people.
You are confusing "violating conscience" with "illegal".Exactly. We hold soldiers accountable for thheir actions, and demand that they not violate our (collective) conscience. So if we say that they have to obey their contracts, too, it's a Catch-22.
Congress voted for the war, thus it is legal. All the conspiracy theories that Bush "duped" Congress are exactly that, theories.Also, do you have the answer to the earlier question of whether or not all orders in an illegal war are likewise illegal? I honestly don't know.
Besides the point. A contract is a contract, and you should be well aware of what it says before you sign.
You are confusing "violating conscience" with "illegal".
Congress voted for the war, thus it is legal. All the conspiracy theories that Bush "duped" Congress are exactly that, theories.
That doesn't address international law at all. Nor does it really answer the question, which was intended as a hypothetical.Congress voted for the war, thus it is legal. All the conspiracy theories that Bush "duped" Congress are exactly that, theories.
I would:yes:Would you consider soldiers who had deserted Hitler's military due to moral objections "cowards"?
But a "Declaration of War" does not need to be called such to be a constitutional action. Any action by Congress that sanctions a war or supports a war effort can be called a "Declaration of War" action.Congress voted for authorization to use force, not for war. It has never been decided by the Supreme Court whether or not undeclared wars are constitutional, and most constitutional scholars show their belief that, yes, it is unconstitutional. Thus, the deserter could be seen as protesting the legality of the war under U.S. law.