War dodger gets help from human rights groups

[estesbob]

wabrams:

I think it shows that their ranks are tainted with desenters and tax payer dollars aren’t wasted on tracking down AWOL troops, processecuting them, then jailing them; the money is instead put back into the system for better weapons, armor, etc.

That was my thinking although beleive me it wouldnt make me sad to see him server some time at Leavenworth. ive seen that prison and it is not a nice place to be.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Monica:

I wonder which part is most important, bc one surely can’t serve in Iraq & uphold the Constitution of the United States at the same time!

Please either address the topic of this thread or start your own thread.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

estesbob:

That was my thinking although beleive me it wouldnt make me sad to see him server some time at Leavenworth. ive seen that prison and it is not a nice place to be.

No money will be spent tracking down this guy, nor any of the other 200 deserters known to be in Canada.

So if the priority is not spending money then, yeah, I say don’t bring these guys to justice. In fact, why spend money on anything if money is more important than troop morale, a clear command structure, justice?

This kind of thinking is a false dichotomy: that if money is spent bringing deserters to justice, then money is not spent on materiels and kit. Who said that money cannot or should not be spent on both?

 

[wabrams]

Ani Ibi:

Please either address the topic of this thread or start your own thread.

I think the post was relevant. Alot of the objectors believe the oath and the mission in Iraq contradict each other.

 

[Monica]

It seems to me that the topic at hand is whether a person can be a conscientious objector if they enlist in the military. Now, of course there are rules about this type thing and the military does make it perfectly clear (ha, ha…I bet no one explained that they would be expected to torture the “enemy” and that the ememy may be civilian, but it’s too hard to sort out so just shoot now and we can determine that bit of triviality after they are dead) what they expect from the onset. However, a person can grow in understanding of their own beliefs and in understanding of exactly what that oath means. Many young Americans have a very limited picture of American history, Consitutional history and military history. And especially how they converge into a narrative of History. So, what I hear from most posters on this thread is that no one really cares about the oath unless it serves their purpose which seems to provide proof to put this person away for a very long time.

It should mean something and it should be upheld completely, huh? Well lets hold the rest of the military, including our Commandar in Chief to the same high standard.

 

[Matt25]

As I posted above the Catholic Church supports the right of “selective conscientious objection” where opposition to a particular war is no less valid than opposition to all war in general. Now this man fought in Afghanistan but declined to fight in Iraq. You may think that this means he is a coward. On the other hand declining to fight in a war which many consider to be illegal and which the current Pope described as being waged without sufficient cause is precisely the sort of thing we should be supporting.

“Obeying orders” is not a defence against criminal charges if a person commits a criminal act. If a person serving in an army believes in all conscience that they are being required to obey an illegal order then they are morally obliged to follow their conscience. And the Catholic Church should support them 100%

The Catechism say’s

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way

The Second Vatican Council points out-

*On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience faithfully, in order that he may come to God, for whom he was created. *(“Declaration on Religious Freedom,” n.3)

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Monica:

It seems to me that the topic at hand is whether a person can be a conscientious objector if they enlist in the military.

Partly. But that is not what your previous post said, is it?

Monica:

Now, of course there are rules about this type thing and the military does make it perfectly clear (ha, ha…I bet no one explained that they would be expected to torture the “enemy” and that the ememy may be civilian,

Why am I expecting a but after this so obviously clear observation about there being “rules about this type thing”?

Monica:

but it’s too hard to sort out so just shoot now and we can determine that bit of triviality after they are dead) what they expect from the onset.

Ah! There is a but after the clause involving rules, because you mean to derogate those rules. If you meant to derogate those rules, then why did you pretend to concede the existence of rules?

As for your comment about the military making it clear; to wit, haha: what part of the explanation of what would be involved in enlisting do you believe was not clear?

Do you expect us to take this comment as logically sound?

Are there rules? Yes. Are folks who sign up expected to follow those rules? Yes. There are no buts about it.

As for the possibility of “illegal commands”: soldiers are not expected to follow illegal commands. There are procedures in place to appeal the issuing of illegal commands. Outright desertion does not form part of those procedures.

Monica:

However, a person can grow in understanding of their own beliefs and in understanding of exactly what that oath means.

1. This argues for moral relativism.
2. Regardless of one’s growth in understanding, one’s oath is just that: an oath, a promise, an agreement, one’s word about what one will do and what one will not do.

Monica:

Many young Americans have a very limited picture of American history, Consitutional history and military history. And especially how they converge into a narrative of History.

Many young Americans… What does one’s age have to do with one’s ability to honour one’s word? What does one’s knowledge of American history, Constitutional history, and military history have to do with honouring one’s word? What is the point of giving one’s word if one intends to break it?

The guy in question was not enlisted to teach American history, Constitutional history, and military history. He was enlisted to follow orders. If he encountered an order which he believed to be illegal, then he was expected to follow the procedures available to him to bring the matter to the light of justice.

Compare this to the case of Private Kyle Brown who was the whistleblower in the Canadian Airbourne Regiment’s involvement in the torture of the Somalian youth Arone. Brown used the procedures in place to report the abuses. Brown did not desert.

Monica:

So, what I hear from most posters on this thread is that no one really cares about the oath unless it serves their purpose which seems to provide proof to put this person away for a very long time.

Most posters… how many exactly? Who exactly?

Where did any of us say that we don’t care about the oath? Where in what we said did we open the door for you to make this most serious and false accusation? An accusation made without the benefit of any support whatsoever.

As for the proof to put this person away for a very long time: he provided that proof himself by his own choices and by his own actions.

Did he use the procedures available to him to report an illegal command? No. He deserted. Desertion carries with it a penalty which may include prison time.

Monica:

It should mean something and it should be upheld completely, huh? Well lets hold the rest of the military, including our Commandar in Chief to the same high standard.

And it is this particular agenda of yours which is off topic. If you want to hold Dubya and the military to your own standards then please be kind enough to start your own thread please.

 

[Monica]

Ani Ibi:

Partly. But that is not what your previous post said, is it?

Why am I expecting a but after this so obviously clear observation about there being “rules about this type thing”?

Ah! There is a but after the clause involving rules, because you mean to derogate those rules. If you meant to derogate those rules, then why did you pretend to concede the existence of rules?

As for your comment about the military making it clear; to wit, haha: what part of the explanation of what would be involved in enlisting do you believe was not clear?

Do you expect us to take this comment as logically sound?

Are there rules? Yes. Are folks who sign up expected to follow those rules? Yes. There are no buts about it.

As for the possibility of “illegal commands”: soldiers are not expected to follow illegal commands. There are procedures in place to appeal the issuing of illegal commands. Outright desertion does not form part of those procedures.

1

) This argues for moral relativism.
2) Regardless of one’s growth in understanding, one’s oath is just that: an oath, a promise, an agreement, one’s word about what one will do and what one will not do.

Many young Americans… What does one’s age have to do with one’s ability to honour one’s word? What does one’s knowledge of American history, Constitutional history, and military history have to do with honouring one’s word? What is the point of giving one’s word if one intends to break it?

The guy in question was not enlisted to teach American history, Constitutional history, and military history. He was enlisted to follow orders. If he encountered an order which he believed to be illegal, then he was expected to follow the procedures available to him to bring the matter to the light of justice.

Compare this to the case of Private Kyle Brown who was the whistleblower in the Canadian Airbourne Regiment’s involvement in the torture of the Somalian youth Arone. Brown used the procedures in place to report the abuses. Brown did not desert.

Most posters… how many exactly? Who exactly?

Where did any of us say that we don’t care about the oath? Where in what we said did we open the door for you to make this most serious and false

accusation? An accusation made without the benefit of any support whatsoever.
As for the proof to put this person away for a very long time: he provided that proof himself by his own choices and by his own actions.

Did he use the procedures available to him to report an illegal command? No. He deserted. Desertion carries with it a penalty which may include prison time.

And it is this particular agenda of yours which is off topic. If you want to hold Dubya and the military to your own standards then please be kind enough to start your own thread please.

 

[Monica]

Ani Ibi:

Partly. But that is not what your previous post said, is it?
What was the topic of this thread? There are many things in the article that could be debate/discussed/disagreed upon!!

Consciencious objecters, the difference betwn US and Canadian law, the process for getting consciencious objecter status…

Why am I expecting a but

after this so obviously clear observation about there being “rules about this type thing”?

Someone else brought up the oath. I am not denying there is an oath and that this man took that oath. But you are missing the point…every public servant in the US takes an oath, I say make them all follow the oath!! I am pointing out the hypocrocy. What just the soldiers have to suck it up and do what they are told bc they took an oath. Well who are we really accountable to…?

Essentially this man made a contract with the US government. Who is violating this contract? Well obviously he is if he is deserting. However, I would say the US government–specifically GWB has long ago broke that contract when he sent troops to Iraq as that is Unconstitutional. Now, don’t ask for my source because this my OPINION based upon much research and thoughful discussion with others who agree/disagree. I don’t have all my readings handy at this moment to provide that bibliography to you.

As for the possibility of “illegal commands”: soldiers are not expected to follow illegal commands. There are procedures in place to appeal the issuing of illegal commands. Outright desertion does not form part of those procedures.

Is there a procedure to object to the war bc the war “…amounted to an atrocity because the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal.” (Ani Ibi this is from the article you cited) My understanding of this quote from the man is that he believes the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraqi is unconstitutional and therefore would be violating his oath.

1. This argues for moral relativism.
2. Regardless of one’s growth in understanding, one’s oath is just that: an oath, a promise, an agreement, one’s word about what one will do and what one will not do.

See above paragraph

Many young Americans… What does one’s age have to do with one’s ability to honour one’s word? What does one’s knowledge of American history, Constitutional history, and military history have to do with honouring one’s word? What is the point of giving one’s word if one intends to break it?

Exactly–what about GWB, Cheney and others??Or for that matter the general in the military or congress.

The guy in question was not enlisted to teach American history, Constitutional history, and military history. He was enlisted to follow orders. If he encountered an order which he believed to be illegal, then he was expected to follow the procedures available to him to bring the matter to the light of justice.

the point is not that he objected bc he thought there were illegal orders from his direct superiors but from the US president! As to the history of the US being relavant, I say (Ani Ibi this is my opinion) the lack of knowledge does indeed affect a persons ability to understand the oath and the implications of the oath. But it seems he has learned something in the military–ie that the constitution does provide a procedure for war, declaration, etc but that in this case it was not done and is not …you know what I just realized this is not worth the effort. I am going to go live my life!!

Matt25 ROCK ON

]

 

[Wolseley]

Monica:

However, I would say the US government–specifically GWB has long ago broke that contract when he sent troops to Iraq as that is Unconstitutional. Now, don’t ask for my source because this my OPINION based upon much research and thoughful discussion with others who agree/disagree.

And the fact that this is your OPINION says it all.

You believe the war in Iraq is unconstitutional based on your OPINION.

Well, I can have an OPINION that the moon is made out of Havarti cheese, but that doesn’t make it so. I can even passionately BELIEVE that the moon is made out of Havarti cheese, based on much research and thoughtful discussion with those who agree/disagree.

But it still doesn’t make it true, or accurate. (shrug) It’s an OPINION.

And OPINIONS are like cesspools----everybody’s got one, and they all stink.

 

[mary_bobo]

I admit I have not read all of the post, however it seems to me that this is all just a case of abetting an enlistee to shirk his responsibility. Lots of that today–no one is responsible for anything. True, the country may not have been at war when he enlisted, but the possibility is always there. If you don’t want to go to war—don’t enlist.

 

[Matt25]

mary bobo:

I admit I have not read all of the post, however it seems to me that this is all just a case of abetting an enlistee to shirk his responsibility. Lots of that today–no one is responsible for anything. True, the country may not have been at war when he enlisted, but the possibility is always there. If you don’t want to go to war—don’t enlist.

He fought in Afghanistan.