Conscientious Objection

[wooderson]

I think there's room for a change of heart - a religious awakening, perhaps, that some of us might disagree with but can't be discounted completely.

Not 'conscientous objectors,' but I sympathize with people who joined up before Iraq, hoping to serve in Afghanistan or somewhere in the explicit defense of the US. They didn't sign up to invade and occupy an unrelated country. That sympathy wears more thin as the years pass, however - if you're signing up or re-upping in recent years, you know what's up.

[Nitrogen]

Not 'conscientous objectors,' but I sympathize with people who joined up before Iraq, hoping to serve in Afghanistan or somewhere in the explicit defense of the US. They didn't sign up to invade and occupy an unrelated country. That sympathy wears more thin as the years pass, however - if you're signing up or re-upping in recent years, you know what's up.

While I can understand this, I still hold that if you join the armed forces, you go where your government sends you, and do what they ask of you, wether you agree with it or not.

If you don't like those terms, don't join up.

[Len Budney]

While I can understand this, I still hold that if you join the armed forces, you go where your government sends you, and do what they ask of you, wether you agree with it or not.

Those are not the terms of enlistment. You are sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic--not to do "whatever is asked of you." Soldiers are required to refuse unlawful orders. Granted, the military will punish the hell out of you if you do ever refuse an order. But you are technically supposed to.

The Nuremberg doctrine, which was created by the United States herself, says that you are guilty of a war crime if you engage in aggressive war, orders notwithstanding. If the US applied her own standards to herself, Lt. Watada would be one of the few soldiers left outside Leavenworth.

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

Not 'conscientous objectors,' but I sympathize with people who joined up before Iraq, hoping to serve in Afghanistan or somewhere in the explicit defense of the US. They didn't sign up to invade and occupy an unrelated country. That sympathy wears more thin as the years pass, however - if you're signing up or re-upping in recent years, you know what's up.

I sympathize with them, too, so long as you don't imagine that it is the place of individual soldiers to decide which war or which campaign they will go along with.  Unlawful orders being the exception, of course. 

You are sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic--not to do "whatever is asked of you." 

I think you are essentially correct.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The Nuremberg doctrine, which was created by the United States herself, says that you are guilty of a war crime if you engage in aggressive war, orders notwithstanding. If the US applied her own standards to herself, Lt. Watada would be one of the few soldiers left outside Leavenworth.

Could you flesh that out a little?  "Aggressive war" could be interpreted any number of ways, so I trust the wording is more specific.  No? 

[Nitrogen]

While I can understand this, I still hold that if you join the armed forces, you go where your government sends you, and do what they ask of you, wether you agree with it or not.

Those are not the terms of enlistment. You are sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic--not to do "whatever is asked of you." Soldiers are required to refuse unlawful orders. Granted, the military will punish the hell out of you if you do ever refuse an order. But you are technically supposed to.

The Nuremberg doctrine, which was created by the United States herself, says that you are guilty of a war crime if you engage in aggressive war, orders notwithstanding. If the US applied her own standards to herself, Lt. Watada would be one of the few soldiers left outside Leavenworth.

--Len.

I think these are 2 different issues.
I don't disagree with you here.

I'm saying if you don't agree with a specific war (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc) and being enlisted, that's not a good reason.

If you believe that the United States is acting Illegally, that's another matter.  I wasn't under the impression that CI's were in this category.
 

[Zeke]

The point is that anyone with half a brain should know better than to put themselves voluntarily in the position of being prosecuted for defending themselves and their buddies in a firefight.  The volunteer military will soon be history though.  We're already recycling "volunteers" so often they are getting out at any opportunity, and if we get a Democrat in the Whitehouse the government will have "permission" to reinstate the draft, just like Nixon could open relations with China because he was a Republican.

The fiction of being able to serve in a non-combatant capacity is morally bankrupt.  Those who believe war is wrong find any direct support of combat operations unconscionable.

[Thor]

Zeke, I don't know where you get your data from, but re-enlistments in the Army & Marine Corps are exceeding their re-enlistment goals.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-09-army-re-enlistments_x.htm

[Scout26]

Okay as a former Army Officer (Military Police) I think I can speak with some authority on the enlistment oath and "Illegal Orders".

The oath states to "Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, Foreign and Domestic.  To obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over me....."

Both houses of congress passed HJ Res 114 The Iraq War Resolution (296 members from the House of Representatives voted Aye along with 77 Senators).    In fact there was a even a court case, Doe vs. Bush.   The case was first dismissed on February 24th, 2003 by US District Court Judge Joseph Tauro. It was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On March 13th, a three-judge panel affirmed the decision to dismiss the complaint. Judge Lynch wrote:
An extreme case might arise, for example, if Congress gave absolute discretion to the President to start a war at his or her will... Plaintiffs' objection to the October Resolution does not, of course, involve any such claim. Nor does it involve a situation where the President acts without any apparent congressional authorization, or against congressional opposition... To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress.
Lynch concluded that the Judiciary could not intervene, because there was not a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress at that time. On March 17th, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing. Their petition was denied the next day.

Sorry, if Congress authorizes it, the president signs it and even the courts agree, it's legal.  You can stomp your feet, hold your breath until you turn blue and throw a hissy-fit tantrum, but no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it illegal.  If you refuse to obey those orders you are refusing to obey a lawful order and will be prosecuted under the UCMJ.

Illegal orders are those orders in violation of the UCMJ or other US Laws (including treaties we've signed).

Yes, you pretty much have to go where-ever they send you and do whatever they ask you to do.  Yes, you can put in your contract what training, duty station and special schools you want, but all enlistment contracts have the "needs of the Armed Services come first" clause in them.  Illegal orders are ones like "Go shoot those Prisoners", "Steal that stuff from those Local Nationals", or "We're going to stage a coup, your job is to_________."  Go and invade Iraq because Congress, The President and courts say to is a Legal order.
   
Now as far as CO's go.  I've seen it happen first hand.  Had an MP in my platoon back in '88-89.  Good soldier, wanted to do his time, earn some college credits/ get his Assoc Degree in Criminal Justice, go back to his hometown and become a Cop/Deputy/Trooper and live happily ever after.   He "got religion" and "figured out" that he couldn't be a soldier anymore (or a cop for that matter).   Went through the CO process (took about 4-5 months) and he got out.  Last I had heard he was a missionary in South or Central America.   

Once you enlist (or accept a commission) you don't get to pick and choose what wars you want to fight. 

[Len Budney]

The Nuremberg doctrine, which was created by the United States herself, says that you are guilty of a war crime if you engage in aggressive war, orders notwithstanding. If the US applied her own standards to herself, Lt. Watada would be one of the few soldiers left outside Leavenworth.

Could you flesh that out a little?  "Aggressive war" could be interpreted any number of ways, so I trust the wording is more specific.  No? 

At Nuremberg, "aggressive" meant "not defensive"; it wasn't a synonym for "vigorous." In other words, the one who starts the war is guilty of war crimes. Note: rattling sabers and saying "yo mama" doesn't count as "starting the war."

--Len.

[Len Budney]

Sorry, if Congress authorizes it, the president signs it and even the courts agree, it's legal.

Technically,  "legal" and "lawful" are not synonyms here. If Congress and the President were to decide to invade and annex Mexico, then I guess the war would be "legal," but the order to invade would still not be lawful. Here the Nuremberg doctrine applies. If we weren't hypocrites when we invented it at Nuremberg (which we probably were), then anyone obeying the order to invade Mexico would be a war criminal liable to the death penalty.

Once you enlist (or accept a commission) you don't get to pick and choose what wars you want to fight. 

We hanged German soldiers for failing to pick and choose what wars to fight.

--Len.

[Scout26]

Careful Len, you're on sllippery ground there.

The Iraq War does not fall under the "Aggressive War".  Aggressive war is Armed Robbery writ large. They have it, we want it, let's go take it.   

1.  We did not invade Iraq alone. 
2.  Remember the 17 UN resolutions that Iraq violated and the UN did authorize use of force to deal with Iraq.  (including the ones from the first Gulf War, which basically said, if you don't comply we'll come back and finish what we started in '90-91.)
3.  Comparing what we're doing in Iraq to what Germany did with Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, The Low Countries, France, USSR, etc. is apples to oranges.  We went to Iraq to remove a evil dictator, stop his WMD programs, liberate the people, etc.....  not for lebensraum or to steal their resources.   


Len, learn the facts and make an informed decision.   



We did not hang any German soldiers (or their officers) for choosing the wrong war.  Those who went and fought were they were sent went home after the war.  We hanged those that participated crimes against humanity (e.g. death camp guards and the leaders/decision makers of Nazi Party.) 

 

[Len Budney]

The Iraq War does not fall under the "Aggressive War".

"Aggressive war" is anything other than self-defense against someone else's aggressive warmaking.

1.  We did not invade Iraq alone. 

That doesn't make it self-defense. Iraq did not threaten the US.

2.  Remember the 17 UN resolutions that Iraq violated and the UN did authorize use of force to deal with Iraq.  (including the ones from the first Gulf War, which basically said, if you don't comply we'll come back and finish what we started in '90-91.)

That doesn't make it self-defense. It's also a bit of a rabbit-hole, since the UN did not support the invasion.

3.  Comparing what we're doing in Iraq to what Germany did with Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, The Low Countries, France, USSR, etc. is apples to oranges.  We went to Iraq to remove a evil dictator...

Which is NOT self-defense. Every war is always justified by all participants as a good, moral and just thing. Hitler's justification for war (WAR, mind you, NOT the Holocaust) was actually quite plausible: Europe and the US beggared Germany with the ruinous treaty of Versailles. They had a just complaint.

We did not hang any German soldiers (or their officers) for choosing the wrong war...

It's true that we didn't hang all the German soldiers. We mostly picked out the worst ones. But the first two counts in the the actual charges were: conspiracy to wage aggressive war; and waging aggressive war. The defendants were not all death-camp commandants either. For example, rank-and-file soldiers were accused of participation in the "Malmedy Massacre", and most of them were hanged after a trial notably lacking in due process, including allegations of "aggressive interrogation techniques."

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

The Nuremberg doctrine, which was created by the United States herself, says that you are guilty of a war crime if you engage in aggressive war, orders notwithstanding. If the US applied her own standards to herself, Lt. Watada would be one of the few soldiers left outside Leavenworth.

Could you flesh that out a little?  "Aggressive war" could be interpreted any number of ways, so I trust the wording is more specific.  No? 

At Nuremberg, "aggressive" meant "not defensive"; it wasn't a synonym for "vigorous." In other words, the one who starts the war is guilty of war crimes. Note: rattling sabers and saying "yo mama" doesn't count as "starting the war."

--Len. 

The one who starts the war, eh?  Doesn't really clear up anything.  If you didn't want to flesh it out, just say so. 

[Len Budney]

The one who starts the war, eh?  Doesn't really clear up anything.  If you didn't want to flesh it out, just say so. 

When I defined "aggressive" to mean "not defensive," I think that was clear enough. Anything other than defense against an aggressor, is aggression. Both sides in every war claim to be acting in self-defense, of course--but you can just about always identify the liar: he's the one who can only point to hypothetical threats.

In WWII, for example, Germany was the aggressor against Poland. That part is clear and simple. England and France sucked in by mutual defense treaties with Poland. They were not acting in self defense, but arguably their decision to join the war is defensible in terms of Polish self-defense, in whose behalf they acted. US involvement can potentially be defended on the same grounds, or else as self-defense following Pearl Harbor, but it can also be attacked on the grounds that Roosevelt worked hard to manufacture an excuse to join the war. Similarly, Lincoln can be blamed for starting the war between the states, although he provoked the South into firing the first shot at Sumpter.

The latter example illustrates how it can be non-trivial to identify the aggressor in a given confrontation, because both sides attempt to maneuver the other into firing the first live round. But that doesn't alter the principle that the aggressor is the one who is not acting in self-defense, whether or not he falsely claims to so act.

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

But you said saber-rattling didn't count as starting a war.

[Len Budney]

But you said saber-rattling didn't count as starting a war.

And when did I ever say otherwise? Are you suggesting that Lincoln was "saber-rattling" when he decided to provision Sumter, instead of turning it over to the South as he had promised to do? I wouldn't. If Saddam had decided to send reinforcements to an Iraqi fort just offshore of America's most important naval base, then it would be relatively easy to justify a confrontation over that base. In the same way, Sumter was a key position from which to blockade southern sea trade, which was Lincoln's stated intention when the South defied, e.g., the Tariff Act of 1857. Said Lincoln:

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

Are you suggesting that none of Hussein's actions could be described as saber-rattling, or worse? 


Anyhoo, if we are in violation of the Nurenburg doctrine, who has called us on it, and what have the consequences been? 

[yesitsloaded]

Aggressive war is Armed Robbery writ large. They have it, we want it, let's go take it.

Oil. I don't see us invading Darfur to free those starving oppressed people. Hell, they even want us. If I could be guaranteed to stay on the border with Mexico or in some other fashion actually defend the country instead of shooting up some third world dictatorship that has a natural resource I would join up in a minute.

Anyhoo, if we are in violation of the Nurenburg doctrine, who has called us on it, and what have the consequences been?

Who is going to? Russia isn't, Putin is too busy consolidating power. China isn't going to call for sanctions as long as they can sell us cheap junk by the boatload. You don't accuse the bully of being a bully unless you can slug it out with him. Not to mention the UN is located on American soil and we founded it.

[Len Budney]

Are you suggesting that none of Hussein's actions could be described as saber-rattling, or worse?

He never posed a threat to the United States.

Anyhoo, if we are in violation of the Nurenburg doctrine, who has called us on it, and what have the consequences been? 

Zilch. The Nuremberg doctrine was supposedly an articulation of our own nation's morals; the only outcome today is to make it obvious to anyone who's paying attention that we're a buncha hypocrites.

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

Are you suggesting that none of Hussein's actions could be described as saber-rattling, or worse?

He never posed a threat to the United States.   

If you say that enough times, it might become true!   

[Len Budney]

Are you suggesting that none of Hussein's actions could be described as saber-rattling, or worse?

He never posed a threat to the United States.   

If you say that enough times, it might become true!   

Lacking a navy, missiles or any air force to speak of, I'd be delighted to read your explanation how Saddam was going to invade the US. Since he had no WMDs in the first place, I can't wait for your explanation how he was going to use these nonexistent weapons against Americans or in American territory. And since he had nothing to do with 9/11, I'd like to see how you construe that into evidence that Saddam posed a threat.

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

Now the first two sentences are the usual bull-droppings we're all bored with by now.  But the last one is one of those bull-droppings that still makes me laugh.  Saddam wasn't involved in such-and-such attack, therefore, he couldn't have contributed to attacks in the future.  Aw, shucks, Len, you really know how to get me tickled.   

[Paddy]

Lacking a navy, missiles or any air force to speak of, I'd be delighted to read your explanation how Saddam was going to invade the US. Since he had no WMDs in the first place, I can't wait for your explanation how he was going to use these nonexistent weapons against Americans or in American territory. And since he had nothing to do with 9/11, I'd like to see how you construe that into evidence that Saddam posed a threat.

You should know by now not to ask a sensible, reasonable question here and expect a sensible reasonable response.  What you'll get instead is the kind of nonsense that appears in reply #46.

[Len Budney]

Saddam wasn't involved in such-and-such attack, therefore, he couldn't have contributed to attacks in the future.

I never said he couldn't. How can anyone say that? How can anyone say that you couldn't "contribute to attacks in the future"? And that's the point: outside Philip Dick novels, we don't prosecute possible future crimes. Being an armed man, you've been trained to distinguish between potential and actual threats, and you've been taught that shooting actual threats is justifiable homicide, while shooting potential threats is murder.

As an aside, your post illustrates why I like you. You're articulate, funny and honest. Wrong, maybe, but always a fun read. 

--Len.

[wooderson]

What makes those particular statements BS, fistful?

Should we invade nations based solely on their potential for doing harm? Because, you know, England and France happen to be nuclear powers...