US Army Deserter Living The High Life In Duetschland

[Father Heathen]

Would you consider soldiers who had deserted Hitler's military due to moral objections "cowards"?

 

[Smoke]

Only history can judge his actions. But he is lucky he wasn't shot.

Yes, he was.

 

[Storm]

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.

Damn straight!

In the face of such a war, there's nothing unethical about desertion.

I don't know that it's quite that cut-and-dry, but I definitely consider it the lesser evil.

My great-grandfather deserted the army in time of war, and I think he did the right thing.

May I ask which war?

 

[3.14]

Would you consider soldiers who had deserted Hitler's military due to moral objections "cowards"?

depend if there moral objection is that they find it immoral to use lead to shoot people or that there moral issue is that they dont wanna gun down unarmed civiliance from pointblank range

one is an obvious cowards way out

 

[Valjean]

Aren't soldiers taught in basic training that they are under no obligation to follow illegal orders?
It seems to me that a great many illegal orders are issued in the military. In fact, if our "war" in Iraq is illegal, couldn't any orders in support of it be considered illegal?

 

[Storm]

They could indeed.

 

[Smoke]

May I ask which war?

The Civil War.

 

[Storm]

The Civil War.

Which side?

 

[Smoke]

Which side?

He deserted from the Confederate army.

 

[Storm]

Figured. Thanks for indulging my curiosity.

 

[jacobweymouth]

As far as this deserter is concerned, I don't think he's a coward. I think he's an idiot. I think he's a criminal, and no longer deserves the title "U.S. Army Soldier", regardless as to whether or not he wants it.

 

[Elessar]

If the United States cannot get him extradited, then they should revoke his citizenship.

It is unconstitutional to revoke or renounce U.S. citizenship, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, under any circumstances.

 

[Apex]

Leaving aside the issue of volunteerism, I would think desertion does less damage than refusal to perform. Does that make sense?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Apex]

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?

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.

 

[Storm]

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.

OK, that makes sense. What I was getting at was, if you're not there, nobody's depending on you.

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.

Yes but most contracts sdon't require you to kill people.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Apex]

Yes but most contracts sdon't require you to kill people.

Besides the point. A contract is a contract, and you should be well aware of what it says before you sign.

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.

You are confusing "violating conscience" with "illegal".

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.

Congress voted for the war, thus it is legal. All the conspiracy theories that Bush "duped" Congress are exactly that, theories.

 

[Elessar]

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.

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.

 

[Storm]

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.

Also, I feel compelled to point out that we are not at war, technically speaking. Iraq is a military action. I'm not sure how Congress' vote works with that.

 

[zippythepinhead]

Would you consider soldiers who had deserted Hitler's military due to moral objections "cowards"?

I would:yes:

 

[zippythepinhead]

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.

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.

The President is also Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. What he says goes with or without immediate Congressional action. Congress can choose to act or not act. Congress, by constitutional design controls the flow of money. If Congress disagrees with a war it can cut off funding to the soldiers, and in effect, stop the war.

Further more this puts the full power of funding with the House of Representatives. All fiscal spending bills must originate there. They cannot arise in the Senate, only be approved, rejected, or sent back to the House for modifications recommended by the Senate.