Top court refuses to hear cases of U.S. deserters

[ruksak]

Quote by: Praxius So what happens when finally the government turns these soldiers against their own people due to some revolution? Not question what they are doing and mow down the "Terrorists?" I am sure in this worst case scenario, your above logic will be put to the test.

Thats a great point, Prax. But this "revolution" scenario is too vague. It would depend on what the context of the revolt was. Also, this is the reason why it is forbidden for the American military to be utilized against it's own civilians.

Quote by: Praxius But they are firing on civilians due to the enviroment they have been placed in, the orders which have been given to them, the mental issues most of these soldiers have gone through, it's not just being sent off to a war zone and doing their job.... it's everything around it.... and you can not ignore what is going on around you and the affect it has on you.... and I'm not talking about the typical effects of war on a soldier in a "Normal Justified" war.

I maintain that it is not the responsibility of the individual soldier to make military and political decisions. This CANNOT stand. Chaos would ensue if we allowed this. A flood of defectors would stream out of our military to follow suite.

It is not his place to justify the war. If he had knowledge of illegal orders being handed down, such as we saw with Slobodan Milošević in Kosovo, than it is his duty to refuse such orders and report them. But a soldier cannot be allowed to decide that an international coalition led offensive is "immoral" and abandon his post.

Clearly you have not been reading much of what I have been reporting in these forums, as many of these cases in which shooting civilians, torturing suspects for information, holding an enemy officer's family hostage, all seemed to have been justified in one manner or another.....

Here is something our enemy would never see though;
Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seven soldiers were convicted in court for this.

Line Between War, Murder Tough to Draw - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum

Since the war began, at least 11 US servicemen and eight British soldiers have faced murder charges.

Again, I cannot think of any American enemies in war showing the capacity to hold its own soldiers accountable for war crimes.

Quote by: Praxius Denied... The international community does see this war as illegal.... hell the UN claimed it was illegal before the US invaded.... go see some news and opinions from other countries besides the US for once.

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan | Iraq | Guardian Unlimited

Quote by: Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington Thursday September 16, 2004 The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Please note the date; Thursday September 16, 2004. Post invasion. Also it post-dates this incident with the defecting soldiers.

Let it be known, again for posterity, that I am opposed to the Iraq war. This does not prevent me from seeing what these soldiers have done as a direct dereliction of duty.

That wouldn't be the case, as during that time Canada also had a Draft, there was no escape to this war, and WWII had some more justifications and principles to stand for then this.... a comparison of Iraq to WWII is pretty silly.

I wasn't comparing the wars, per say. Rather citing a precedent for alarm if military defection was given the thumbs up due to personal political views.

Maybe it was.... but if they thought that when joining up, then they were stupid..... but somehow they seemed to have gotten some brains in forming a plausible story in which everybody believes and finds logical.... so this isn't the case.

"Everybody"? C'mon man. This is hardly the case.

A coward for wanting to still be around to help raise their families rather then being cannon fodder in some forign land? You have some odd priorities.

If this was the case than I'd say they chose poorly. America always seems to have their hands in some dirt. They knew this when they joined, or at least they should have. To use your logic, I would find it incredibly selfish for them to join only to mean to stand around looking cool with their guns in hand, commencing to endless exercises and collecting a monthly check all while accruing college money. So when they get called up, all the sudden they don't want to be apart of the American military? I see through that like wet tissue. Cowardice.

What exactly will this acomplish? They already oppose the war, they already know what's going on over there in which they want no part of. Asking them to clean up the bloody messes in which everybody else is responsible for? Is this a punnishment thing or something you think will teach them a lesson?

Lets just cal it "poetic justice".

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: ruksak Soldiers have no business using their personal political views as an excuse to evade their duty.

And yet, Nuremburg showed that the claim of "duty" is no defense for a soldier to NOT use his personal views in the conduct of war.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Zeebadee And yet, Nuremburg showed that the claim of "duty" is no defense for a soldier to NOT use his personal views in the conduct of war.

What is that called when people always use the "Nazi" reference in every thread? Bahhhh someone should coin a phrase for that. Like "Zeebadee's law".

I already addressed this so for you to stoop to the elementary level intellect required to regress to "Zeebadee's law" is just plain silly.

Zeebadee's Law: This law states that in every thread on an internet discussion board, no matter what the topic is, if the thread goes on for more than 2 days, someone will eventually reference the Nazi's.

Personal views are not in question. Legality and international war crimes laws are applicable and to be considered in a soldiers commission of duty. Not his personal political views.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: ruksak What is that called when people always use the "Nazi" reference in every thread? Bahhhh someone should coin a phrase for that. Like "Zeebadee's law". I already addressed this so for you to stoop to the elementary level intellect required to regress to "Zeebadee's law" is just plain silly. Zeebadee's Law: This law states that in every thread on an internet discussion board, no matter what the topic is, if the thread goes on for more than 2 days, someone will eventually reference the Nazi's. Personal views are not in question. Legality and international war crimes laws are applicable and to be considered in a soldiers commission of duty. Not his personal political views.

The issue is individual soldiers deciding what is legal and what isn't. We (the U.S.) made it clear at Nuremburg that "just doing my duty" isn't enough to escape legal punishment. It really has nothing to do with Nazis, the point is personal responsibility for following orders.

Like you said, it's a soldier's duty to "... refuse such orders and report them". Perhaps that's what these guys believe that they are doing.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Zeebadee The issue is individual soldiers deciding what is legal and what isn't. We (the U.S.) made it clear at Nuremburg that "just doing my duty" isn't enough to escape legal punishment. It really has nothing to do with Nazis, the point is personal responsibility for following orders. Like you said, it's a soldier's duty to "... refuse such orders and report them". Perhaps that's what these guys believe that they are doing.

They received deployment orders. Not orders to break international war crimes laws. It is not their place as soldiers to question their commanders unless they have just reason to perceive these orders as a directive to violate international war crimes laws.


I'm sure their former peers would love five minutes alone with them in a locked room.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: ruksak They received deployment orders. Not orders to break international war crimes laws. It is not their place as soldiers to question their commanders unless they have just reason to perceive these orders as a directive to violate international war crimes laws.

In our other recent wars, we have either been attacked or asked to intervene by legitimate governments. Some consider invading a sovereign nation an act of aggression and therefore illegal, in violation of international law.

[Praxius]

Quote by: ruksak Thats a great point, Prax. But this "revolution" scenario is too vague. It would depend on what the context of the revolt was. Also, this is the reason why it is forbidden for the American military to be utilized against it's own civilians.

Well, let's see..... my situation would most likely be a revolution by the people against the government... let's say for now, oh I don't know.... Bush.

Now although it would be a considderable amount of citizens who have formed in this organizational revolution, do you suppose it could be possible that Bush and his Minions, as they have already done in the past in other situation... attempt to play a spin on the situation and media and isolate the group as a small number compared to the select few who wish to sit on their asses, and therefore brands them either home grown terrorists, or traitors, thereby deciding the use the military on this group to supress them.... what do you suppose in this detailed situation would be going through the soldier's mind?

Do you believe as a soldier, you would defending your country, or would you be defending your country if you sided with the revolution because they made more sense?

Or should you just follow orders and be a man.... shoot those terrorists!

All kinds of decisions one could make.... but as I attempted to point out about your logic, there can be only one.

I maintain that it is not the responsibility of the individual soldier to make military and political decisions. This CANNOT stand. Chaos would ensue if we allowed this. A flood of defectors would stream out of our military to follow suite.

Then that should tell you something about your country. If you can't keep your soldiers in the army and to be willing to fight for something worth believing in and willing to ditch the country they were born and raised in..... doesn't that situation sound a bit odd to you? That you need to force and oppress your soldier's individuality when it comes to decisions on where they're country goes?

Think about it.... there is a very large % of the US population which serves in some form or another in the armed forces.... so say these people have no say in what happens, means there is a pile of voices not being heard in your country.

It is not his place to justify the war. If he had knowledge of illegal orders being handed down, such as we saw with Slobodan Milošević in Kosovo, than it is his duty to refuse such orders and report them. But a soldier cannot be allowed to decide that an international coalition led offensive is "immoral" and abandon his post. Here is something our enemy would never see though; Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Seven soldiers were convicted in court for this.

Oh I know about the situation.... great mentality.

Line Between War, Murder Tough to Draw - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum

Here, let me take you back a few more years, back in 2002 - Oh and in Detail:

IRAQ – UNITED NATIONS – VIOLATION OF UNITED NATIONS CHARTER – VIOLATION OF ART. 6 OF THE TREATY OF AMSTERDAM BY THE UNITED KINGDOM AND SPAIN -- News release of the I.P.O., 15 March 2003

15 March 2003 - (5 days prior to the official invasion date) In a message delivered earlier today, the President of the International Progress Organization, Professor Dr. Hans Koechler, urged the Secretary-General of the United Nations to make use of his powers under Art. 99 of the Charter in connection with the escalating crisis over Iraq. The President of the I.P.O. stated that the threat of the use of force by the United States and the United Kingdom against Iraq constitutes a grave breach of Art. 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter and endangers international peace and security. The Secretary-General should have the courage to bring this fact to the attention of the Security Council. The urgency of the matter is obvious in view of tomorrow's meeting – that appears to be planned more like a "war council" than a last-ditch peace meeting – between the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain and Portugal at an airbase on the Azores island of Terceira. In conformity with the I.P.O. Memorandum of 18 February 2002, addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly, Dr. Koechler outlined the basic legal aspects of the present crisis: – The large-scale military build-up around Iraq by the United States and the United Kingdom constitutes a threat of the use of force against the political independence of Iraq in the sense of Art. 2 (4) of the UN Charter. – The repeated intrusions by US marines, since 4 March 2002, into the demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait, reported to the Security Council by United Nations peacekeepers, constitute a serious breach of the Security Council resolution on the basis of which the zone was set up after the Gulf War ceasefire in 1991. – It is the sole responsibility of the Security Council to decide on compulsory measures to restore international security in the region. However, because the threat of aggression emanates from two permanent members of the Council, the supreme executive organ of the United Nations is paralyzed because of those countries' veto power.

You gotta love Veto power

– The unilateral imposition and enforcement by fighter jets of so-called no-fly zones in the North and South of Iraq have constituted an act of aggression against the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Iraq. This measure, including bombardments of Iraqi air defense and civilian installations, is an act of war and is not authorized by the Security Council. – Security Council resolution 1441 (2002) does not authorize the use of force against Iraq. Any decision on the use of force is to be taken by the Security Council in a specific resolution; such decision is not within the powers of individual member states. If this would be the case each and every member state of the United Nations could wage war against Iraq and international anarchy would result from such arbitrary action. According to Art. 42 of the UN Charter, any armed action with the aim to enforce the Council's resolutions is to be taken by the Council itself, not by individual member states. Operative Par. 13 of resolution 1441 (2002), warning Iraq of "serious consequences" in case of non-compliance with Security Council resolutions, does in no way authorize the United States or the United Kingdom to attack Iraq. No armed action against Iraq may be waged without a specific additional resolution of the Security Council.

^ BIG Key point right there....

– The efforts of the United States to induce elected members of the Security Council by means of economic pressure and bribery to support a draft resolution for the authorization of war against Iraq constitute a serious violation of letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter and run counter to the basic principles of civilized behaviour among nations.

It keeps going.... the US was rotten to the core long before it all started.

– The presentation of fake documents by the US Secretary of State in a session of the Security Council has constituted a serious breach of diplomatic rules. The documents were used as evidence of alleged Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Niger and were declared "not authentic" by the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In a letter addressed to FBI Director Robert Mueller, Senator John Rockefeller asked that the FBI investigate this matter.

The evidence is piling up like a three year old out house.

– According to a report in the London Times of March 4, 2003, later confirmed in a CNN debate by the Times' United Nations correspondent, the United Nations Secretariat has drawn up a secret plan to establish a post-Saddam government in Iraq. The 60-page document commissioned by Under Secretary-General Louise Frechette, envisages the establishment of a United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), similar to the one established in Afghanistan. The commissioning of such a report by the United Nations Secretariat at a time when the United Nations Security Council has not authorized the use of force against Iraq and when the world organization is still trying to find a peaceful solution to the crisis, constitutes not only a blatant violation of the UN Charter, but the most serious breach of obligations a civil servant of the United Nations can commit. By this illegal action (that runs counter to the UN Charter's basic aim of peace), the Secretariat has undermined the legitimacy of the very organization which it is supposed to serve, and has made itself an accomplice of a policy of aggression against a United Nations member state.

"Illegal" "Accomplice"

[Praxius]

– Should the three sponsoring countries of an "Iraq war resolution" in the Security Council – the United States, the United Kingdom and Spain – decide to wage war against Iraq on a unilateral basis (with a "coalition of the willing"), their action will constitute an act of aggression in the sense of Art. 2 (4) of the UN Charter. Should they finally choose this avenue, those countries will undermine the very foundations on which the United Nations Organization was built after World War II. Such action will threaten the entire global order and negate the principles of collective security as enshrined in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. What is at stake is the international rule of law as such.

In other words, Bush and his Nazis have been purposely destabalizing everything they are claiming to be keeping stable.... WHY HASN'T ANYBODY PUT BUSH ON TRIAL YET!!! My God it just hurts the head.

– It is to be recalled that the "crime of aggression" will be one of the crimes over which the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction according to Art. 5 (2) of the Rome Statute. Both the United Kingdom and Spain are States Parties to the treaty. Although this particular provision for the Court's jurisdiction will enter into force at a later date, it is to be noted that the listing of the "crime of aggression" as international crime, over which there exists universal jurisdiction, in the Statute of the International Criminal Court is a warning to all political leaders not to violate the UN Charter's ban on the use of force against another state except in self-defense.

^ And there is where it all boils down to basics of where these troops have a legal right to not serve in the Iraq war.

It would have been – and still is – the solemn obligation of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to bring these grave facts to the attention of the Security Council. Although the Council cannot act against the interests of the permanent members, such an initiative by the Secretary-General may have a decisive impact on international public opinion. The office of Secretary-General – as defined in the UN Charter – has no meaning if he remains silent when the world organization faces its deepest crisis since its foundation and is threatened by marginalization as a result of unilateral action by the only superpower and its allies.

Therefore, they knew it was illegal, they have all the evidence proving such that it was and still is illegal, because the US had veto power, they had the ability to go ahead with little bickering, because if they officially ruled it illegal at the time, then hince, they worried the entire UN system would be destroyed, and then the US would still invade Iraq, and everything would have been screwed even more so, because then there wouldn't even be a union of countries which could easily oppose the US when the time comes.

Again, I cannot think of any American enemies in war showing the capacity to hold its own soldiers accountable for war crimes.

I have seen plenty over the years from various countries, perhaps you should view some other news sources outside of the US, because the media in the US is clearly 100% constricted.

How do I know?

Because just last week I was watching CNN and they were just "breaking news that has just come to our attention" ~ And they started talking about what happened to Arar here in Canada who was sent off to Syria years ago, which not only has been going through our media for the last 3-4 years or more..... but I've been posting the news here for the last year or more to boot.....

I could not believe how twisted your media down there is.... it's shameful.

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan | Iraq | Guardian Unlimited Please note the date; Thursday September 16, 2004. Post invasion. Also it post-dates this incident with the defecting soldiers. Let it be known, again for posterity, that I am opposed to the Iraq war. This does not prevent me from seeing what these soldiers have done as a direct dereliction of duty.

Well then I hope the above may change your mind. It maybe a long read, but it is quite full of goodies.

I wasn't comparing the wars, per say. Rather citing a precedent for alarm if military defection was given the thumbs up due to personal political views.

I imagine there were still who fled and didn't want to fight... you can't catch them all... but as we could see in WWI and II, there were more then enough people willing to fight.

"Everybody"? C'mon man. This is hardly the case.

As blaitent as it was when this all occured, and as blaitent as the above evidence shows.... everybody should know, due to common sense.

If this was the case than I'd say they chose poorly. America always seems to have their hands in some dirt. They knew this when they joined, or at least they should have. To use your logic, I would find it incredibly selfish for them to join only to mean to stand around looking cool with their guns in hand, commencing to endless exercises and collecting a monthly check all while accruing college money. So when they get called up, all the sudden they don't want to be apart of the American military? I see through that like wet tissue. Cowardice.

Hey, if your country invaded mine, I'd be ready to pop a few of your heads off as you crossed the border and willing to die for my way of life.... But I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some guy at a desk tell me to go off to some god forsaken land halfway across the world to go start a war that didn't need to happen.

I'd join the military if I had no other options left in my carrer, or if my way of life was threatened in some way in which I felt I needed to defend it, but you loose a part of yourself everytime you kill another person, so I sure as hell ain't wasting it on people I don't feel diserve it......

You want to know what a coward is? Someone who is told to shoot someone innocent, knows it, and does anyways because they're too much of a coward to oppose and stand up for a little humanity.... another prime example of "I was just following Orders."

Lets just cal it "poetic justice".

maybe in your view.... I see it as pointless morbidity because you don't understand their point of views and for some reason, you take offense. meh.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Praxius I have seen plenty over the years from various countries, perhaps you should view some other news sources outside of the US, because the media in the US is clearly 100% constricted. How do I know? Because just last week I was watching CNN and they were just "breaking news that has just come to our attention" ~ And they started talking about what happened to Arar here in Canada who was sent off to Syria years ago, which not only has been going through our media for the last 3-4 years or more..... but I've been posting the news here for the last year or more to boot..... I could not believe how twisted your media down there is.... it's shameful.

Bull!

Don't try and spin that to be a fault of our media. Japan, Germany, Iraq, Vietnam, North Korea, NONE OF THEM (speaking of the regimes in power during said wars) would hold any of their soldiers accountable for a war crime. Nice try at a redirect though.

Prove me wrong?

This isn't North Korea, Praxy. We get international news and unlimited live streaming news from any outlet we wish to connect to. Bush is not a Nazi-esque dictator. Our media is not under exclusive control of his minions. This science fiction BS is getting out of control. Do you Canucks actually think that we Americans are for the most part sheepish idiots that can only draw our information from government approved outlets? Jeepers.

Quote by: Praxius In other words, Bush and his Nazis have been purposely destabalizing everything they are claiming to be keeping stable.... WHY HASN'T ANYBODY PUT BUSH ON TRIAL YET!!! My God it just hurts the head

He hasn't committed any war crimes, thats why. You can shout and cry all you want claiming that he has. But it doesn't make it true.

Plus we have too many allies. Among the most powerful and influential (and rich) in the world.

Well then I hope the above may change your mind. It maybe a long read, but it is quite full of goodies.

The UN addressed the Iraq invasion as unjust AFTER THE FACT. Too late.

As blatant as it was when this all occurred, and as blatant as the above evidence shows.... everybody should know, due to common sense.

Sorry. Not everybody is a liberal fear monger.

You want to know what a coward is? Someone who is told to shoot someone innocent, knows it, and does anyways because they're too much of a coward to oppose and stand up for a little humanity.... another prime example of "I was just following Orders."

Soldiers should not kill unarmed innocents just because they were following orders. America prosecutes and hands down prison sentences for this crime. We do not Martyr our war criminals like Muslims do. And you're right, it is cowardly.

Then that should tell you something about your country. If you can't keep your soldiers in the army and to be willing to fight for something worth believing in and willing to ditch the country they were born and raised in..... doesn't that situation sound a bit odd to you? That you need to force and oppress your soldier's individuality when it comes to decisions on where they're country goes?

2 cowards defecting to Canada is not reflective of an ongoing trend. This is a minor and isolated occurrence.

Don't read too much into it. They are just selfish cowards that signed up to a time honored and sacred American trust (serving in the military) and breaking North Canada way when they realized that this wasn't gonna be a cake walk to pay for their college. I see no evidence or reason beyond their incompetent claims of moral difference to believe anything otherwise.

[Praxius]

Quote by: ruksak Bull! Don't try and spin that to be a fault of our media. Japan, Germany, Iraq, Vietnam, North Korea, NONE OF THEM (speaking of the regimes in power during said wars) would hold any of their soldiers accountable for a war crime. Nice try at a redirect though. Prove me wrong?

I already did, but continue in your ignorance, I honestly have little care.

This isn't North Korea, Praxy. We get international news and unlimited live streaming news from any outlet we wish to connect to. Bush is not a Nazi-esque dictator. Our media is not under exclusive control of his minions. This science fiction BS is getting out of control. Do you Canucks actually think that we Americans are for the most part sheepish idiots that can only draw our information from government approved outlets? Jeepers.

One can wonder.

He hasn't committed any war crimes, thats why. You can shout and cry all you want claiming that he has. But it doesn't make it true.

Then you are clearly blind to the evidence, not just what I have supplied, but also what all has transpired since the invasion, heck even before the invasion, there is plenty one can charge him for. But where did I say anything about War Crimes?

Speaking of redirecting.

By the way, I noticed you didn't even respond to anything I have provided to you, which sez something in itself.

Plus we have too many allies. Among the most powerful and influential (and rich) in the world.

Oh wow, ok, that makes it alright then I suppose frig.

The UN addressed the Iraq invasion as unjust AFTER THE FACT. Too late. Sorry. Not everybody is a liberal fear monger.

Oh wow after the fact you say.... so even though they decided to act on this above report "After the Fact" ~ That somehow makes what is going on irrelivent? You're logic is certainly "Different"

Soldiers should not kill unarmed innocents just because they were following orders. America prosecutes and hands down prison sentences for this crime. We do not Martyr our war criminals like Muslims do. And you're right, it is cowardly. 2 cowards defecting to Canada is not reflective of an ongoing trend. This is a minor and isolated occurrence.

HA HA HA.... Oh my..... there's that media thing I was speaking about:

Soldiers flee to Canada to avoid Iraq duty | Iraq | Guardian Unlimited

Hundreds of deserters from the US armed forces have crossed into Canada and are now seeking political refugee status there, arguing that violations of the rules of war in Iraq by the US entitle them to asylum. A decision on a test case involving two US servicemen is due shortly and is being watched with interest by fellow servicemen on both sides of the border. At least 20 others have already applied for asylum and there are an estimated 400 in Canada out of more than 9,000 who have deserted since the conflict started in 2003.

I suggest you go educate yourself.... and this is just in Canada alone, not including those who left to Mexico. Clearly this isn't just some isolated incident.

Don't read too much into it. They are just selfish cowards that signed up to a time honored and sacred American trust (serving in the military) and breaking North Canada way when they realized that this wasn't gonna be a cake walk to pay for their college. I see no evidence or reason beyond their incompetent claims of moral difference to believe anything otherwise.

And I see no evidence proving your above statement but rather is just your limited opinion on their reasons.... in other words, you don't like them for their actions and now you're trying to shove excuses into their mouths which you have no clue as if they are true.

What I see here once again, is I am supplying all the damn evidence proving my side, and all I see is you mouthing off your opinion, with no sources or evidence backing you up.

Until you seem to show you are registering the information given to you, further debate with you is a waste of my time.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: thx1138 True but the U.S. only follows international law when it suits its interest, the rest of the time it could careless about international law.

There is no such thing as "international law" since there is no real "international government."

[Chancellor]

Quote by: pahl Alright, i was under the impression that we where talking about men that deserted after learning that they would be deployed at a later date.

We are.

Surely the military would not then deploy the unit in which deserting would have been in, if such things had already been decided, with people missing. They would create units of the people they had at disposal, wouldent they? I dont see how them deserting would lead to lack of manpower or certain skills in a operational unit, unless they actually fled the scene in the middle of serving.

No. People are assigned to units based on the needs of the service (and sometimes even at the individual soldier's request). Whenever a soldier deserts or is otherwise absent without leave, his absence degrades the combat effectiveness of the unit as a whole.

You seem to have missunderstood what i meant by that. I simply meant that there was no draft, so people are not obligated to serve. I did not read anything in to any post about a draft and did not try to correct anyone either. Perhaps i was vague, lets just drop that.

Consider it dropped.

I'm questioning the seriousness of their actions... thats my whole argument. Show me why their actions are so serious.

See my comments above regarding the unit.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: another day Quite the opposite, they contend that they were asked to do something illegal - invade iraq. Invading iraq was against international law. It was and still is an illegal war.

There is no such thing as "international law" and we both know that the United States does not recognize what people are claiming is "international law." The war is, indeed, illegal but it is illegal because it violates the Constitution of the United States, which is the highest law in our country. But these soldiers don't get to decide whether or not they're going to fulfill their duties based on whether they think the war is legal or not.

If only more soldiers actually stood up for what they believed in, and only fought when it was for a good cause, like protecting your homeland from invaders (like the iraqi insurgents are), then the neo-cons in power wouldn't have the ground force they require to orchestrate aggressive wars on false pretenses for their own financial and political gains.

Considering that every military action the United States has engaged in subsequent to World War II was illegal (because each was unconstitutional), these characters should have known that it was likely they could be called on to engage in an illegal military action against another country. They are without excuse. As for the so-called "insurgents," a significant portion of them are not from Iraq but from neighboring countries like Syria and Iran.

Do you think these guys would have deserted the army when pearl harbour was attacked and they were asked to fight against the japanese?

Not relevant.

If they would, then they are cowards. But not in this instance. In this case they have more balls then all the other gutless idiots who blindly go along with whatever the authorities tell them is right. It takes alot of guts to do that, and I think you really know these guys didn't desert because they were scared of going to war. They disagreed with it on a moral level and you know that.

They signed a contract and took an oath: it is not their place to decide whether or not a particular war is legal or moral or whatever.

[xyzer]

President Carter should have never pardoned any of these deserters after the Vietnam War. It set a bad precedent.
IMO these 'turds' should be sent back to serve time in jail. They broke the law deliberately and should pay the consequences. If a Canadian deserter asked for asylum from the 'igloo wars' would we grant it?

You guessed it! Its none of our business what the Canadians do or who they are fighting. If one of their military came across the border and claimed he didn't want to fight the Eskimos would we ignore a warrant for his return?

[Praxius]

I love how many here are stating things like "these characters should have known that it was likely they could be called on to engage in an illegal military action against another country." ~ Which to me seems like an excuse for them to continue to inact illegal wars without question.

Oh, but nobody did anything about it in the past, so why do something about it now? It's the Norm it would seem, therefore why question something that we all know isn't right, just because nobody bothered to before?

Anywho... I feel that if they want to desert and head to Canada, all the power to them, much as I wouldn't care if Canadian soldiers fled to the US in a similar situation.

In honesty, I'd rather these guys fleeing then to suck it up and go and fight, as their mentality alone would put the rest of their unit in danger in the first place, and then they'd get shot and die, and then their unit would have to deal with that and the government will have to pay for the funeral, etc etc.... I figure they're doing you a favor.

[pahl]

Qoute by: Chancellor Quote: Surely the military would not then deploy the unit in which deserting would have been in, if such things had already been decided, with people missing. They would create units of the people they had at disposal, wouldent they? I dont see how them deserting would lead to lack of manpower or certain skills in a operational unit, unless they actually fled the scene in the middle of serving. No. People are assigned to units based on the needs of the service (and sometimes even at the individual soldier's request). Whenever a soldier deserts or is otherwise absent without leave, his absence degrades the combat effectiveness of the unit as a whole.

So they dont replace missing members? So if for example a marksman is AWOL from a squad and they dont have any other marksman, they will not replace that person with some other marksman? Or if they are undermanned? I find that kinda hard to believe, though i must admit i dont know that much about the inner workings of the US military.