AWOL From Illegal War? Commendable?

[gr8fuldaniel]

This was posted on What Really Happened, last night:

The deserters: Awol crisis hits the US forces Posted May 16, 2005 05:32 PM PST Category: WAR/DRAFT [Note: This is a precursor to the story, from WRH] As I see it, there can be no law that enforces one to serve in a war which is itself illegal. The precedent is a simple one. Let's say you contract to move the contents of warehouse A to warehouse B, but you discover that the man who contacted you does not actually own the contents of Warehouse A. So you stop doing the work. Would any court force you to continue to move the contents of warehouse A to warehouse B because you signed the contract? No, because the underlying premise of the contract; that the work was legal, is null and void, and all contracts based on that false premise are likewise null and void. The war in Iraq is illegal. Bush lied when he activated the Congressional Authorization for the use of force in Iraq. Therefore the Congressional Authorization for the use of force in Iraq is not legally in effect at this time. Therefore, no serving soldier is obligated either legally or morally or remain in Iraq.

This makes it sound like our men have a moral obligation to desert. Or be deemed accompices to murder and grand theft.
Hell of a dilemma, eh?
Whaddya think?

[Trotsky]

They do not have a moral obligation to desert. They are in the military, they are there to obey orders unless those orders are illegal under the military code of conduct. Desertion is a crime punishable by time in Levingworth (sic??)

[Gorgo]

Because of Nuremberg, soldiers have the duty to disobey illegal orders. It was illegal to attack Iraq.

AWOL is probably a different matter.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Moral Oligation?
To fight an immoral war?
From the link above:

Belfast Telegraph JE McNeil, who heads the Centre for Conscience and War in Washington DC, a Christian group whose members also staff the GI Rights Hotline, said many troops she spoke with had been lied to by recruiters. "I had an 18-year-old who was told he did not have to serve in Iraq. 'I was told I'd get a job where I would not be sent', he told me," said Ms McNeill, a lawyer. "He was recruited to be an military policeman. They are the people they are sending to Iraq. People all the time are told [by recruiters] 'I can get you a job where you will not have to go to war'."

Do you think the recruiters have any "Moral Obligation", or is it OK to flat out LIE to potential cannon fodder?

[Dieval]

If you join the military durring war time and believe that you'd get to sit out of the war, well, you're a moron.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Dieval If you join the military durring war time and believe that you'd get to sit out of the war, well, you're a moron.

So you shouldnt believe ANYTHING a government representative tells you. Even if he promises? That makes the lying recruiter the worse kind of coward. Put THAT asshole in Leavenworth for 20 years. I am ok with that.
I thought the military built character and all that happy horseshit? Guess some people gotta die to find out how gullible they are. That puts the blame on the victim. SOP? Somebody is living in a fucked up reality.
I am a fool for trying to use moral obligation and war in the same sentence.

[Dieval]

I agree that recruiters shouldn't make promises they can't keep. But like I said, you'd have to pretty low in the IQ department to think that you could sit out of the war if you joined the military durring the war.

[RickSp]

Each of us has a moral compass. Some choose to ignore it. Some have the courage to follow it. If I signed up to "fight for my country" and found instead that I was killing civilians and guerillas in a country that never attacked us, I'm not sure what I would do. Refuse to fight? Not return to duty after going on leave?

I certainly wouldn't simply follow orders to fight in a war that I considered to be immoral and wrong. There have been too many My Lias and Abu Ghraibs. Sometimes all we can do as individuals is say "no."

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Dieval low in the IQ department to think that you could sit out of the war if you joined the military durring the war.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Following orders is no excuse. Attacking Iraq was illegal. If you find that out after your enlist, then what are you going to do? Compound the problem by staying?

I don't know that I would have that kind of courage. I'd probably go AWOL and disappear if I did anything. I'd hope I'd have the courage to protest and take the flak, but I don't know.

[tinybear]

Don't enlist unless you're country is in danger. That might be the answer.

[Dieval]

The whole 'illegal war' thing is getting old...

Legal basis for use of force against Iraq 17 March 2003 The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, has set out his view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq: Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security: 1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area. 2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678. 3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678. 4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution. 5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not. 6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach. 7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach. 8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today. 9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.

Article

[RickSp]

Your trotting out the UN resolutions isn't just old, it is slightly surreal. The UN opposed going to war in Iraq, which I am sure even you noticed. Using UN resolutions to justify ignoring the UN is ridiculous at best.

Besides we have the smoking gun anyway which shows that by July of 2002, Bush was going to going to war regardless and that he was prepared to shape the intel to fit.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

The secret Downing Street memo

If you don't consider an undeclared war wholly justifed by lies, illegal, then I guess the rule of law doesn't mean much to you.

[Dieval]

Sure he was prepared to go to war regardless of what the UN said as it was in our best interest to stop him from ever making and using WMD's and to protect the interests of the US. This is something that took courage to do. He stood up to the world to do the right thing even when the rest of the world can't get out neutral when it comes to making decisions like this.

The UN created the resolutions and unanimously agreed to them. Just because they wanted to back out of them when it actually came time to follow through is just sickening and shows how utterly useless the UN really is.

[Dieval]

I don't want to get into a discussion about this, but it comes down to the UN created the resolutions and agreed that he was in violation of them, thus justifiying the force necessary.

[RickSp]

That's right. Bush wanted to go to war and was willing to lie about WMD and ties to terrorists to do it. He wanted to go to war in the worst way and that is exactly the way we went to war.

Which, to return to the original thread, is why some soldiers are just saying "no." Of course, it could be worse, and may yet be. In my day, the Vietnam draftee/cannon fodder just rolled a grenade into the officers tent. Just like Vietnam, Rumsfeld, like MacNammara, may succeed in nearly destroying our armed forces.

[Gorgo]

Illegal

[Zeebadee]

If any of the AWOL troops are counting on the courts to declare that Mr. Bush's war is illegal, they're going to be disappointed. Their best hope for leniency will continue to be that the military wants to keep this kind of thing as quiet as possible to keep it from spreading.