If a soldier who volunteers in good faith is faced with unspeakable acts that go against his conscience, why is he not allowed to desert?

I was just reading this (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/36899/) article on Joshua Key:
As explained in a new book, Mission Rejected, the sight of U.S. troops kicking the heads of decapitated Iraqis around 'like a soccer ball' made Army soldier Joshua Key desert to Canada.


And this (http://www.amazon.com/Deserters-Tale-Ordinary-Soldier-Walked/dp/0802143458/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200215528&sr=8-1) review of his personal story, The Deserter's Tale:

In 2002, Key, a good ol' Oklahoma boy with a wife and two children (but no money), enlisted in the U.S. Army so he could learn a trade and provide for his family. He was assured that he would be sent to a "non-deployable" military base: he would never see combat. Instead, he was sent to Iraq to hunt for terrorists, a mission that involved beating civilians, kidnapping innocents, and destroying homes and families (all of which he relates in precise, damning detail). Stateside, on a two-week furlough, Key decided he couldn't go back to Iraq, couldn't participate in what he decided were mindless atrocities being committed in the name of world peace. Thus, he did what so many Vietnam protestors did: he took his family to Canada, where he now lives, a wanted man in his own country.

What does a soldier or troop embroiled in a war he does not want do?

Not sure what you are asking here.
I mean there are very practical reasons why they make it difficult to get out of the army once you sign that dotted line.

Not sure what you are asking here.
I mean there are very practical reasons why they make it difficult to get out of the army once you sign that dotted line.

Yeah, but if you are promised a noncombat deployment and then expected to beat up civilians, shouldn't you have the option to say, that is not what I signed up for?

Yeah, but if you are promised a noncombat deployment and then expected to beat up civilians, shouldn't you have the option to say, that is not what I signed up for?
I've never personally seen the paperwork of what you have to sign to join the military but, from what my friend tells me, its legally extensive (in the words of gustav - keep shit flexible to cover your ass) - BTW the promises they give you about non-combat are verbal (sucker)

Its seems problematic to determine what constitutes a transgression of military standards, particularly when dealing with guerrilla forces taking shelter of urban communities. And the issue becomes even more difficult when you start to think about how such rules of conduct can be introduced to the training of soldiers. (16 weeks boot camp plus 16 weeks legal issues of combat 101?)

Actually now that I think of it, the more we progress with advancement of military technology, the less the battlefield becomes governed by heroism. To say the least, the soliders of yesteryear who would wait for an enemy to pick up his sword before they challenged him or even the soliders of WW1 who had a ceasefire at christmas certainly didn't have to go to a militia school to learn such values.

Yeah, but if you are promised a noncombat deployment and then expected to beat up civilians, shouldn't you have the option to say, that is not what I signed up for?

In the Al Quida organization you must sign up saying you will behead anyone that doesn't believe in your own views and become a suicide bomber to kill innocent women and children. Which is the worse?

In the Al Quida organization you must sign up saying you will behead anyone that doesn't believe in your own views and become a suicide bomber to kill innocent women and children. Which is the worse?

You tell me. If you were Joshua Key what would you prefer?

If a soldier who volunteers in good faith is faced with unspeakable acts that go against his conscience, why is he not allowed to desert?

Might be offtopic, but the volunter army is a missnomer. Correctly it is professional army, mercenaries if you wish, when they are not deffending their own country. Just like people working for McDonalds or Ford are not volunteers, neither are PAID soldiers.
Volunteering is when you attend PTA meetings or pick up garbage on the highway or looking for missing persons.

"A volunteer is someone who works for free serves in a community or for the benefit of natural environment primarily because they choose to do so."

Now about the specific case, a paid employee (soldier) signs a contract. Depending on what is in the contract, he can breach it on MORAL grounds if he feels that the contract was breached first by the employer. BUT that doesn't mean he can not be held LEGALLY responsible. It boils down to the interpretation of the signed contract....

Case closed....

Might be offtopic, but the volunter army is a missnomer. Correctly it is professional army, mercenaries of you wish, when they are not deffending their own country. Just like people working for McDonalds or Ford are not volunteers, neither are PAID soldiers.
Volunteering is when you attend PTA meetings or pick up garbage on the highway or looking for missing persons.

"A volunteer is someone who works for free serves in a community or for the benefit of natural environment primarily because they choose to do so."

Yeah but if MacDonals hired someone to flip burgers and he found himself sent to a farm to butcher cows, he could quit, right?

Yes. See the edited post. I have the bad habit of posting first and keep rereading and editing...

Yes. See the edited post. I have the bad habit of posting first and keep rereading and editing...

No problem, so do I.


Now about the specific case, a paid employee (soldier) signs a contract. Depending on what is in the contract, he can breach it on MORAL grounds if he feels that the contract was breached first by the employer. BUT that doesn't mean he can not be held LEGALLY responsible. It boils down to the interpretation of the signed contract....

So you're saying the army has legal clauses that cover beating up civilians, kidnapping innocents and destroying homes and families (including using heads as soccer practice), so he would be held legally responsible if he did not report for duty.

Is there no way out for anyone who does not wish to do the above?

Well, I like to say: Don't get mad, get even. So when you feel the system is cheating you, instead of getting mad and trying to fight the system (it is usually a losing battle) try to find the weakness in the system and cheat it.
Morally this might not be so kosher, but very effective. Example: people who were able to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam war. It was basicly a test of how smart you are. And I am not talking about going to Canada, but getting deferments, saying they are gay,etc.
So going back to the specific case, the soldier is better of lying about his condition then directly confronting the system...

When the system is immoral, so can you be....

You should report any crimes you witness. In realistic terms, you can get out of military service. This not only goes for U.S but all soldiers in foreign armies. Including Canada and Finland.

then why didn't he sign up as a conscientious objector?

What is that?

In realistic terms, you can get out of military service. This not only goes for U.S but all soldiers in foreign armies. Including Canada and Finland.

If it was THAT easy, most military organizationns would lose half of their soldiers. Let's keep it real, shall we?
And neither Finnland nor Canada attacks other countries on a daily occurance....

Well, I like to say: Don't get mad, get even. So when you feel the system is cheating you, instead of getting mad and trying to fight the system (it is usually a losing battle) try to find the weakness in the system and cheat it.
Morally this might not be so kosher, but very effective. Example: people who were able to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam war. It was basicly a test of how smart you are. And I am not talking about going to Canada, but getting deferments, saying they are gay,etc.
So going back to the specific case, the soldier is better of lying about his condition then directly confronting the system...

When the system is immoral, so can you be....

Ah, but he's already in the system. What can he do then?

Or are you saying proclaiming yourself as gay can get you sent home after you are commissioned?

What is that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

If you have ever seen MASH, Radar was a CO, which is why he worked in a clerical position. (He was a Quaker)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

If you have ever seen MASH, Radar was a CO, which is why he worked in a clerical position. (He was a Quaker)

I think he supported the war until he realised what is entailed. Can one become a conscientious objector retroactively?

I think he supported the war until he realised what is entailed. Can one become a conscientious objector retrospectively?
Here you can find answers regarding getting CO status.

http://www.objector.org/advice/contents.html

In times of a draft it is always better to be registered as a CO long before you care called up. It seems less likely to be opportunistic.

And that's what I don't understand. How stupid can you be not to know that war is hell? has he never seen the news? Did he think he was playing GI Joe in a cool uniform with a kick-ass gun but never has to do harm?

He cant handle it. When under extreme stress people say and do a lot of things.

Thanks

I found this (http://www.objector.org/advice/conscientious_objector-4.html#pgfId-161) statement:



When you joined the military, you probably didn't even think about being a conscientious objector. You may not have known there was any such thing. At your enlistment, you signed a statement saying you weren't a conscientious objector. And you probably weren't at the time.

So he probably signed up that he was not a CO.

This is really interesting:

In the two World Wars of this century, there were many conscientious objectors, and some of them were in the military. Because there was no provision for discharge or transfer for COs, no one knows how many soldiers could have applied for CO status. But a controversial survey after World War II by Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall seemed to show that many soldiers fired in the air or simply didn't fire their weapons as ordered. In many units, 75 percent of the soldiers did this.2

These people didn't apply for discharge, and most of them probably supported the war. But they also found that they couldn't kill.

In 1962, the Department of Defense finally provided for conscientious objector status. The number of applications for discharge or transfer remained low until the Vietnam era (from about 1966 through 1973). Many soldiers and sailors refused to be part of the Vietnam War. Desertion rates went to their highest levels in history. Thousands were court-martialed for many different offenses. Occasionally entire units simply sat down and refused to fight. And the number of applications for CO discharge doubled, and then doubled again, until, in 1971, 4,381 members of the military applied.

So there have always been people who refuse to follow orders.

And the law:
Under today's law, you have to object to war on moral or religious grounds. You have to be against all war. And you have to be sincere. All of these standards are easy to understand--though military officials sometimes don't know very much about them.

Military law, like the draft law, recognizes two types of conscientious objectors. The first, classified 1-A-O, is a person who won't take part in war, but is willing to serve in the military if he or she doesn't have to use weapons. The second, classified 1-O, is a person who can't accept any military service. 1-O COs are discharged.

So does this mean that a soldier can apply for CO status during the war and be discharged?

Perhaps the soldier in the OP was unaware of his choices? I shall have to read his personal history.

And that's what I don't understand. How stupid can you be not to know that war is hell? has he never seen the news? Did he think he was playing GI Joe in a cool uniform with a kick-ass gun but never has to do harm?

I think he was naive, he was told he would not be deployed for combat and he believed it.

In the Al Quida organization you must sign up saying you will behead anyone that doesn't believe in your own views and become a suicide bomber to kill innocent women and children. Which is the worse?

Two problems with this:

1) There is no code in the Al Quida "organization" which requires these things.

2) Even if these things were required by "Al Quida" (assuming it exists, for argument's sake), why should the US try and be even more barbaric and ruthless than them?

Yeah, but if you are promised a noncombat deployment and then expected to beat up civilians, shouldn't you have the option to say, that is not what I signed up for?

My dear Princess, the questions themselves speak of your life as a civilian, naiveté at is most endearing. stop one moment & ask yourself, if, as Alexander stormed into India & 1 of his second-rank rearguard infantrymen said, "that's enough, I'm heading back to Greece", what do you think would have been the answer? or if on the road to Jerusalem, a young shield-bearer had deserted Saladin's armies? desertion in wartime is a capital offense, then & now

then you come across one of the worst & most noble traits of humans; that is so perverse that it shows our bondage to the Devil, our fallen nature, that during war we sacrifice more, strive harder, we show kindness to our dying, men cry for fallen brothers & live under codes of war that promote self-sacrifice, teamwork, heroic effort and the most brutal acts against enemies.

in war, many people bond as brothers, comrades, that they would take a bullet for each other, sacrifice for each other, doing counterintuitive acts of stupid foolishness, that are called bravery, heroism, noble, daring.

and there are those codes of war, that many cultures carry, check out Japan's samurai warriors code for example:
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2127.html

or the US Marines, that even a mechanic or chef is a Marine rifleman first
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifleman's_Creed

so to answer your questions; once you sign on the dotted line, your life is not your own, any higher ranking officer, president, general can tell you what to do & yes, you can say, “that’s not what I signed up to do”, but that’s as far as it would go, cause his buddies would say, “yeah, I’d rather be having a beer at Joe’s in Philly right now too, so lets get back to killing & go back home quicker”.

And as AWOL Bush showed all our Reserve & National Guard units, in war, you can call up any unit & send them into the jaws of death. What he has done is unprecedented in modern era, by using homeguard to shore up his failed war in Iraq, the cost to Americans’ life is kept to a minimum, while the cost to those families that have children/spouses in the military is high

as one of our generals said, ”war is hell”, see the twin movies by Clint Eastwood, ”Flags of our Fathers: & “Letters from Iwo Jima”, I think they’re 3 hrs each, so plan to use up the whole day

stop one moment & ask yourself, if, as Alexander stormed into India & 1 of his second-rank rearguard infantrymen said, "that's enough, I'm heading back to Greece",

That is exactly what happened. Haven't you read history? At the Beas, his war weary troops refused to go on and he turned back.

I'd rather they let him out than keep him next to one of my brothers. They need someone who's got their back. Someone they can count on.

He better pay back all the money they spent on his training and any bonuses he got. And if he got money for college, he can kiss that good-bye as well.

I find it strange that someone like you would support a pointless war like this; what do your brothers think of the mess of Iraq?

I find it strange that someone like you would support a pointless war like this; what do your brothers think of the mess of Iraq?

They think something should have been done a VERY long time ago. They were in Kuwait the first time around and think it should have, well....shouldn't have stopped.
My brothers are getting out though. They miss their families. Neither sees action (Air Force) so they aren't as involved as Army or Marines.

They think something should have been done a VERY long time ago.

Something was. Its been done several times in the last 60 years. Too much intervention in the Middle East.

That is exactly what happened. Haven't you read history? At the Beas, his war weary troops refused to go on and he turned back.
my dear Princess, that was the whole army, not just one or a few, not a mutiny, they had nothing else to prove, under one general, they had conquered most of their known world, if Alexander had had 1 more "forward march" speech, he may well have made it to China


ever read about the 10K?

my dear Princess, that was the whole army, not just one or a few, not a mutiny, they had nothing else to prove, under one general, they had conquered most of their known world, if Alexander had had 1 more "forward march" speech, he may well have made it to China


ever read about the 10K?

And they did not all desert him at once, but bit by bit.

I don't see anything wrong with him deserting in this scenario. Its a war without reason, and he joined before realizing it was a lie. If anything, him leaving is a good thing. Especially after seeing what he saw...

Just wondering, were the soldiers kicking the heads like a soccer ball reported?

Additionally, all troops are not only permitted but requried to refuse illegal orders. Orders to kill innocent civilians and commit atrocities are an illegal orders under the Uniform Code of Military Justice of which governs all our our armed forces.

That does not mean that innocents will not get killed in any military action. But it means that civilians are never the target and all action that can be taken to avoid killing non combatants is always to be taken. It is very difficult to avoid civilian causalities when you have an enemy who hides behind children and burkas. We have even found a few dressed in burkkas...real men - i think :).

You can refuse to serve. They will put you in military jail, but you won't have to kill anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada

You can refuse to serve. They will put you in military jail, but you won't have to kill anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada


They sure will, you can make any claim. But there is a difference between making a claim and reality. If you had better be able to prove it. In the case of this gentleman. He claimed it was an illegal war. There is no basis for that claim. But he had a chance to prove his case in a court of law.

He volunteered to do the things the Army is called upon to do. In the Army, the goal is to get the enemy to die. That means killing the enemy. And when he was called to duty he refused...cannot have that kind of conduct in the military.

What does a soldier or troop embroiled in a war he does not want do?
Perhaps you'd prefer a "no fault" divorce type rule? The soldier could cite irreconcilable differences and just walk away. Better yet, the army would have to pay alimony!

Perhaps you'd prefer a "no fault" divorce type rule? The soldier could cite irreconcilable differences and just walk away. Better yet, the army would have to pay alimony!

Sounds good to me. If you enrol in good faith and are asked to commit unconscionable acts, there should be reparation.

Sounds good to me. If you enrol in good faith and are asked to commit unconscionable acts, there should be reparation.

and then you need a court to decide. a military tribunal is unlikely to approve since this is an admission of systemic guilt. government court is also unlikely to approve. how can it approve a war and then the money to carry it out and then keep doing these things and also say these soldiers get to leave because we are being bad.

If the UN had the power to oversee an international court, sort of like a referee at a hockey match, well.

Not that I disagree with you SAM in essence - whatever these in essence agreements are worth - but basically you need someone to admit they are being bad and do it officially.

And I think we both know the liklihood of military or government agencies to do this about an ongoing war.

and then you need a court to decide. a military tribunal is unlikely to approve since this is an admission of systemic guilt. government court is also unlikely to approve. how can it approve a war and then the money to carry it out and then keep doing these things and also say these soldiers get to leave because we are being bad.

If the UN had the power to oversee an international court, sort of like a referee at a hockey match, well.

Not that I disagree with you SAM in essence - whatever these in essence agreements are worth - but basically you need someone to admit they are being bad and do it officially.

And I think we both know the liklihood of military or government agencies to do this about an ongoing war.

Yeah, which is why I find it hilarious that some veterans here expect to see official orders for this stuff.

It is not the soliders responsibility to determine when, or how they go to war. The president makes that decision. He/she has the sole ability and authority to order them into action. That is legal. The job of the soldier is to carry out legal orders. In the case you referenced he received legal orders to move into action. When he entered the service, he swore an oath to protect the consitution and to obey all legal orders. In the instance you referenced, he broke his oath.
If soldiers get an illegal order (verbal or written), then they are required to refuse it. There are very strict rules about what is and is not a legal order. As I said earlier, murder is an illegal order and commiting atrocities are ilegal actions and orders. See the legal history.

Killing combatants is not an illegal order. That does not mean innocent civilians will not be killed. When the enemy hides behind civillians, civillians are bound to be killed. When our troops go to war there will also be accidents. When the United States invaded Iraq (both times) we killed more of our people by accident than Saddam's troops did in direct confrontation with our troops.

There are only two courts that have authority here. The United States military courts and the Supreme Court of the United States, not the United Nations or any other court.

Joe ever herd of the Geniva Convention?

Joe ever herd of the Geniva Convention?

Yep, Geneva convention rules apply and are honored by the United States Miilitary. The United States is a signatory to the convention. Our soliders are trainned in the Geneva Convention Treaty.

this can be tried international if you refused to prosecute an offender

The US does not recognise international jurisdiction.

Nicaragua vs United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States)

Helps to get away with war crimes.

The US does not recognise international jurisdiction.

Nicaragua vs United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States)

Helps to get away with war crimes.

Wrong reference SAM.

This is the correct rerference. The United States does not want the international courts second guessing its decisions. And has never surrendered its soliders for procecution by other countries for conducting warfware. The United States will and has procecuted its own troops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13257-2004Nov25.html

yet if they travel to a country that DOES recognise the ICC and there is a warent for there arest then to bad, off to the ICC they go:)

I suppose them is the breaks! But the United States takes the position that it will take care of its own. If you look to the past you will see the United States has a long history of prosecuting its troops when they step out of line...just look at Iraq for some recent history.

Another little quirk with American troops is that we never release control of them to another country. They will always be commanded by Americans.

i dissagree. They have feed the lowest in the chain to the wolves but not seen one high ranking officer to take responcability for things like abu graib

Look at Abu Grabe in Iraq. Prisoners were ill treated. Not only were the individual soliders who commited the acts prosecuted, but so was their commanding general and command chain.

Now there are those who say it should have gone all the way to the Secretary of Defense. That might be to far up the chain for one incident. If there were repeated incidents, then I think it should go higher up the command chain.

So your suppostion did not occur in Abu Grabe...the higher ups were prosecuted as well as the perpetrators.

yet if they travel to a country that DOES recognise the ICC and there is a warent for there arest then to bad, off to the ICC they go:)

No, they have bullied all countries with ICC agreements into Bilateral Immunity Agreements (http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/2003/0606usbilaterals.htm). They really do not want to be called to account for their crimes.:)

Here (http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/2005/0329usobstructs.htm) is an example of US policy.

do you know if Australia has one of those?
Or countries who are outspoken against war crimes like some of the westen eroupian countries or is it only countrys that recive US aid?

SAM is correct, the Untied States has signed aggreement with other countries that prevent such actions...it a cost of doing business with the United States.

as i said it doesnt stop those countries that dont need or CARE about US aid like those in the EU. So US solder goes to the Nethlands for example, nice little copper arests him and sends him the the Hauge. Or better yet ex-president BUSH gets of the plane at the nethlands and is arested and sent to the Hauge:)

there are not many who have not signed, as for Bush II you can have him any time.

as i said it doesnt stop those countries that dont need or CARE about US aid like those in the EU. So US solder goes to the Nethlands for example, nice little copper arests him and sends him the the Hauge. Or better yet ex-president BUSH gets of the plane at the nethlands and is arested and sent to the Hauge:)

I doubt it. Who wants to take chances on getting liberated, US style?

i SERIOUSLY doubt the US would atack any country in westen Europe. Can you Imagin what would happen if the US invaded the Nethlands? You honestly think even England or Australia would surport them then?

It would be another world war with the US on one side and everyone else on the other

i SERIOUSLY doubt the US would atack any country in westen Europe. Can you Imagin what would happen if the US invaded the Nethlands? You honestly think even England or Australia would surport them then?

It would be another world war with the US on one side and everyone else on the other

Now that you mention it Asguard, I have had a hankering to invade the Netherlands for quite some time now....good idea!

Now all the countries in Northern Europe are a part of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). We are all pledged to come to each others aid if a member country is attacked. So why would we attack our Allies...I cannot think of any reason. Americans do not like war. George W II and his daddy like war...not the American people.

that was kind of my point, if the nethlands handed your defence minister or some general over to the ICC you might complain alot and rename stuff but you wouldnt do anything else

Allies dont take hostages either, and if the Netherlands did take a citizen as you referenced it would be looked upon as hostage taking. And if you take hostages you can expect American military forces on your doorstep. Along with some global economic sanctions.

How can it be hostage taking, if there was a warrent issued for there arrest then the nethlands would be abliged to inforce it. Ie the US salor who was charged with sexual assult in perth (or it might have been sydney) was not a hostage he was a suspect. yes the US tried to get the courts to turn him over to them but the crime happened in an Australian juristiction

Americans abroad live under the rules of that country. So if a sailor committed a crime in Australia, he is subject to Australian law. If however, he were in a combat zone and was accused of a crime. He would be tried and punished by the Navy. If a foriegn government tried to do the same, it would be viewed as hostage taking regardless if a warrant was or was not issued.

joe my point is that ALL countries have jurstiction over war crimes unless they surender such to the ICC. I have herd of the US procicuting Nazis, Australia definitly has. If the ICC issues an international warrent for someones arest and they turn up in a signantry country then they would be arested and handed over inspite of what the US wants

Oh and as i said the US goverment REALLY objected to us charging that salor in an Australian court but it was one of the 2 issues that the fed goverment didnt bend over and take it, so the US just had to suck it up

Did the crime occur on Australian or US property?

umm, thats a hard one. He contacted her by computer from a ship in Australian waters and was charged with grooming a child for sex i belive

i will have to see if i can dig up the case, it was about 6 months ago so its not fresh in my memory

Sounds good to me. If you enrol in good faith and are asked to commit unconscionable acts, there should be reparation.LOL I was kidding, of course. If you sign up for the military, you need to honor your agreement. The military makes no claim that you'll not have to do unpleasant things. The purpose of the military is to kill people and break stuff. If that sort of activity offends you, don't sign up.

umm, thats a hard one. He contacted her by computer from a ship in Australian waters and was charged with grooming a child for sex i belive

i will have to see if i can dig up the case, it was about 6 months ago so its not fresh in my memory

Traditionally jurisdiction lies with the location of the crime. It sounds like in this case the location occured in Australian and United States property at the same time. Jurisdiction is less clear in this case. Had the crime clearly been committed in Australia they would have jurisdiction. However, as with embassies, US War vessels are US property regarldesss of the waters in which they sail.

Sounds good to me. If you enrol in good faith and are asked to commit unconscionable acts, there should be reparation.

great idea for the Pakistani army to adopt first, lets see how it works in real life, as opposed to cyberspace simlife?

If a soldier who volunteers in good faith is faced with unspeakable acts that go against his conscience, why is he not allowed to desert?
One could simply point out that soldiers have an obligation to follow the civilian command's directives, and that this obligation supersedes their individual judgment of whether or not an order is moral except when it would lead to an illegal act of war (war crime).

The notion that the serving military should be deciding what is, and is not, when to engage (or disengage) in conflict based on their ethics and judgment calls is the fast-track to the collapse of any liberal state.

One could simply point out that soldiers have an obligation to follow the civilian command's directives, and that this obligation supersedes their individual judgment of whether or not an order is moral except when it would lead to an illegal act of war (war crime).

The notion that the serving military should be deciding what is, and is not, when to engage (or disengage) in conflict based on their ethics and judgment calls is the fast-track to the collapse of any liberal state.

So you think if called upon to commit murder or torture, soldiers should not think before they act?

A good tactic to get out of the military, might be to act crazy, and then actually do something crazy, like shoot a general or a captain in the ass, or something. Or maybe just break his nose, but go "troppo" first.

You would probably end up in a psych ward for a while, but I doubt they'd still want you on the front line (or holding a gun).

So you think if called upon to commit murder or torture, soldiers should not think before they act?
No. Thank you for asking!

No, they have bullied all countries with ICC agreements into Bilateral Immunity Agreements (http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/2003/0606usbilaterals.htm). They really do not want to be called to account for their crimes.:)

Here (http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/2005/0329usobstructs.htm) is an example of US policy.


SAM it is called diplomacy.

Yeah, which is why I find it hilarious that some veterans here expect to see official orders for this stuff.

You know the odd things is that sometimes people with power do write things down and then they don't even throw them away.

Remember the whole Irangate thing Reagan? You know the sneaking around of money and weapons and breaking the law and so on. Well King Bush 1 - not yet officially Pres - kept saying over and over that he had no idea this had happened. He kept claiming hundreds of times that he was out of the loop as Vice P. I mean repeatedly. Then later, in his own notes, he is clearly present at the meetings where these decisions were made.

I mean it is almost wonderful relaxed. he lies. he lies more. he never throws out the damning bits of paper. Later when no one cares it comes out that he was lying.