US Army Deserter Living The High Life In Duetschland

[Valjean]

Congress may declare whatever they want, but our little adventure in Iraq is illegal under International and UN Law, to which we are signatories. Congress cannot legally disregard these contracts.

Furthermore, what kind of example are we setting when we flagrantly violate the law and disregard international contractual obligations?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When a person signs up for the military they don't sign up to opt out of wars that they think are immoral. They sign up to fight for their nation and defend it regardless of their personal feelings on the matter or war in question.

I recognize that myself, and to a large degree, it's what's kept me out of the military. My morals are more restrictive than the law; there is quite a bit that I would consider immoral that is still legal.

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

But in virtually any other employment contract, the employee still has some sort of option to quit before the term of the contract runs out.

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

There's more to legality than just Congress voting for something. There's also the Constitution and international law. I don't think it's nearly that clear-cut that the Iraq War was legal.

 

[zippythepinhead]

Congress may declare whatever they want, but our little adventure in Iraq is illegal under International and UN Law, to which we are signatories. Congress cannot legally disregard these contracts.

Furthermore, what kind of example are we setting when we flagrantly violate the law and disregard international contractual obligations?

I will try to compose myself. But I don't give a #$%@@@^%$#!!!!!!! about UN Law. I care about US Law. I care about the US Constitution. The UN be damned....uh yeah.

 

[Apex]

The words "UN" and "law" make no sense when placed in the same sentence together.
:run:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I will try to compose myself. But I don't give a #$%@@@^%$#!!!!!!! about UN Law. I care about US Law. I care about the US Constitution. The UN be damned....uh yeah.

Look at it another way: do you care about your nation keeping its word? Does it bother you when your politicians make a liar of your government?

 

[Elessar]

Congress may declare whatever they want, but our little adventure in Iraq is illegal under International and UN Law, to which we are signatories. Congress cannot legally disregard these contracts.

Furthermore, what kind of example are we setting when we flagrantly violate the law and disregard international contractual obligations?

Power without authority is tyranny.
Power with authority is G-d.
Authority without power is the United Nations.
--Rabbi Jeffrey Forman

 

[Valjean]

I will try to compose myself. But I don't give a #$%@@@^%$#!!!!!!! about UN Law. I care about US Law. I care about the US Constitution. The UN be damned....uh yeah.

Sorry Zippy, but when the US signed on the dotted line it became US law. It's a contract!
Weren't you going on about the importance of obserbing contractual obligations a few posts back?

 

[Valjean]

Power without authority is tyranny.
Power with authority is G-d.
Authority without power is the United Nations.
--Rabbi Jeffrey Forman

Good point.
That's why I favor ceding entire US military, save the coast and national guards, which might actually have some utility, to the UN.

 

[Elessar]

Good point.
That's why I favor ceding entire US military, save the coast and national guards, which might actually have some utility, to the UN.

Unconstitutional. Congress is not authorized to hire for and arm military forces for any other purpose than in providing for the common defense of the United States (Congress is, however, constitutionally allowed to declare that offensive actions and even wars of pure conquest are in the interests of the "common defense of the United States"). It has also been ruled unconstitutional for Congress to raise an army or navy not under the authority of the President.

 

[Apex]

Good point.
That's why I favor ceding entire US military, save the coast and national guards, which might actually have some utility, to the UN.

Now that is something that would cause massive desertion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now that is something that would cause massive desertion.

But assuming the law was modified to make it legal to do so, they'd have no moral or legal right to desert... right?

 

[Apex]

But assuming the law was modified to make it legal to do so, they'd have no moral or legal right to desert... right?

Nope, they would need to sign new contracts, and take new oaths. That can not be legally forced.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope, they would need to sign new contracts, and take new oaths. That can not be legally forced.

Well, that would depend how they do it, wouldn't it?

The United States fought under the flag of the United Nations in Korea; did those soldiers have to sign new contracts? Do the soldiers who go on the officer exchanges between the US and its allies have to sign new contracts?

It seems like there's plenty of precedent to say that American troops can fight under UN control and can be made to obey orders from superiors who aren't part of the US armed forces. I'm not sure why ceding military control of the US armed forces to the UN necessarily has to mean anything more than that.

Edit: but here's a hypothetical. Say you're a soldier when something like this transpires. Congress and the President say it's legal; you disagree. Do you have the right to desert? What about on the eve of battle between UN forces (the US included) and some enemy?

And here's the bonus question: if your answer is "yes", how is this fundamentally different from a soldier deserting because he feels the Iraq War is illegal?

 

[Apex]

Well, that would depend how they do it, wouldn't it?

The United States fought under the flag of the United Nations in Korea; did those soldiers have to sign new contracts? Do the soldiers who go on the officer exchanges between the US and its allies have to sign new contracts?

It seems like there's plenty of precedent to say that American troops can fight under UN control and can be made to obey orders from superiors who aren't part of the US armed forces. I'm not sure why ceding military control of the US armed forces to the UN necessarily has to mean anything more than that.

Edit: but here's a hypothetical. Say you're a soldier when something like this transpires. Congress and the President say it's legal; you disagree. Do you have the right to desert? What about on the eve of battle between UN forces (the US included) and some enemy?

And here's the bonus question: if your answer is "yes", how is this fundamentally different from a soldier deserting because he feels the Iraq War is illegal?

Now it sounds like you are mixing "US forces fighting with/alongside UN forces" with "UN absorbs all US forces 100%". As someone already stated, the latter is unconstitutional.

 

[Storm]

That's why the question was hypothetical, Apex. In fact, your objection just makes it more relevant.

 

[Apex]

That's why the question was hypothetical, Apex. In fact, your objection just makes it more relevant.

I do not see it as relevant. It is not making a distinction between the two. Some people in the military already serve under UN, or Joint, commanders. There is no problem with this as these are joint assignments (and if you want to have any hope of promotion you need to eventually have a joint assignment under your belt). I was referring to a complete and total take over of all US forces by the UN. Now that I think of it, I do not even know how that could even be accomplished without abolishing the US military first and then turning over all military equipment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now it sounds like you are mixing "US forces fighting with/alongside UN forces" with "UN absorbs all US forces 100%". As someone already stated, the latter is unconstitutional.

And there's a legal process to amend the Constitution. Sure, it seems highly unlikely that it would be amended this way in the forseeable future, but the prospect of war with Iraq must have seemed very unlikely to someone signing their enlistment contract in early 2001, wouldn't it?

 

[Apex]

And there's a legal process to amend the Constitution. Sure, it seems highly unlikely that it would be amended this way in the forseeable future, but the prospect of war with Iraq must have seemed very unlikely to someone signing their enlistment contract in early 2001, wouldn't it?

How many wars has the US been involved in over the course of its history? Now compare that number with the number of times that the entire US military has been abolished and transferred over to a foreign power.