This is going to sound strange coming from me, I guess, if you haven’t always read what I actually say in Iraq threads, but I agree with the Canadian decision.
I think the soldiers should have publicly refused to deploy to Iraq, maybe at a press conference, taken the legal consequences in the US (stockade, I’d assume), and become media figures for it. They’d do a lot more good that way.
Fair enough. This is GD afterall, not IMHO…which, I admit, is what I’m going by. I’ll see what I can come up with – if anything.
BTW, I’m rather torn by MrD’s post. I can understand what he is saying as I also understand the Canadian’s Gov position…but the war, such as it is, remains illegal by international standards (see cites above, including Johnny LA’s). Needless to say, I disagree with Parker’s interpretation – which appears to me, more legal weaseling of the kind that’s been beaten to death around here.
I agree entirely, which is why I support the Canadian court’s decision. Going off to Iraq may or may not be immoral, but either way, it’s not Canada’s problem. These guys aren’t refugees. They aren’t going to forced at gunpoint to go kill Iraqis. They aren’t going to be hung for dessertion. They’re going to get, what? A few months in prison, some fines, and a black mark on their permanent record. Which sucks, sure, but that’s the consequence of their decision to break their agreement with the military. Breaking that agreement might have been the right thing to do, but that doesn’t spare them the consequences of their actions. Trying to claim refugee status alongside political dissidents fleeing China, or displaced citizens from Darfur, or any of the tens of thousands of people who have been forced to leave their country for fear of their lives and the lives of their families is a joke.
Well, like you said, this is GD, not IMHO. You are of course free to disagree with my legal analysis, but it would help if you supplied arguments, instead of empty labels.
Your dismissal of my reasoning is especially frustrating given my opposition to the war, and my belief that it is illegal under international law. Indeed, in my previous post I even posited that the aspects of the war may be illegal under domestic law as well, just not because of the UN Charter. That I would, apparently because of my own bias, use legal weaseling to interpret domestic law in this one instance makes no sense at all.
No. Richard Parker has offered a very cogent (and most likely less snarky) rebuttal of this point, so I’ll content myself with endorsing his post above.
Bryan, will research further when I have more time, but I think this article shows that I am not so far out in left field as you seem to feel:
Richard, seriously, no offense meant, but perhaps you’d like to argue the case with the likes of Richard Perle (!) and Kofi Annan– who both apparently agree on the illegality of said invasion.
Or else you could take on this whole group of lawyers specializing in International Law:
International Law Aspects of the Iraq War and Occupation including British Attorney General’s Advice to Blair on Legality of Iraq War
Fortunately, I don’t have to argue with any of your cites since they all agree with me. All three say what I’ve stipulated in every post of mine in this thread: the war is illegal under international law. The question being debated was whether this makes the war illegal under US domestic law.
Richard, seriously, no offense meant, but perhaps you’d like to argue the case with the likes of Richard Perle (!) and Kofi Annan– who both apparently agree on the illegality of said invasion.
Or else you could take on this whole group of lawyers specializing in International Law:
International Law Aspects of the Iraq War and Occupation including British Attorney General’s Advice to Blair on Legality of Iraq War.
As I said, cites such as those is the reason I call those ‘arguments’ that attempt to refute the illegality of the invasion on legal grounds, “weaseling,” for there appears to be no end to lawyer-speak to defend the indefensible.
Obviously, IMNAL, not did I ever want to be one. Which is not to say that there are some great ones out there. Hell, Bricker, as much as we disagree, was more than likely one hell of a barrister…
PS-Pardon the double post. Missed the edit window while adding content…
Alright then. Guess what we have is a difference in perspective. Being a non-US citizen, I really couldn’t be bothered with what your country (unilaterally) considers “legal.” Which, seeing what you did in 'Nam and now Iraq – not to mention any number of coups worldwide) appears to be “anything it wants.”
Thus, yes, you are certainly correct from said perspective. Apologies are in order and hereby offered.
Accepted.
Bit of a tangent, but I thought it relevant to the topic of this thread anyway. Desert or stay put and then off yourself?
Suicide Epidemic Among Veterans
Much more at source. Quite sad really.
TY, Richard.
You don’t have a clue what I feel - I only challenge the implied claim that desertions are on the rise because of dissatisfaction with this particular war. To me, this betrays a blatant ignorance of what military life is like. Desertion has always happened among new recruits who quickly realize they’ve gotten into something they weren’t expecting and, rather than go through the paperwork of a formal discharge, just walk away. Further, if stresses go on for too long, even in a just cause, some veterans will inevitably declare they’ve had enough just because they want to get back to the relative normalcy of civilian life. The “left field” aspect of your stance is over-generalizing a few cases because they comfortably reinforce your bias.
Wow, 120 a week among “those who served in the armed forces”. Compared to national stats, that leaves ~500 people a week in the U.S. who committed suicide but didn’t serve in the armed forces.
Just spitballing here, but “those who served in the armed forces” over what time-frame? Are we counting WW2, Korea and Vietnam vets in there? And since military service is still mostly a male pursuit, and males have higher suicide rates than women, I can see the potential for bias, here.
Please stop misusing statistics. You’re making my MIS degree cry.
This is an excellent point. I think the soldiers would have acted best to break their oath deliberately in front of their commanders, as Lemur suggested. What they did, by fleeing, is less good than taking responsibility for their oath–but I still believe it’s a helluva lot more moral than fulfilling their oath would have been, since fulfilling their oath would have meant the unjustifiable endangerment of the lives of innocent people. But Miller, you’ve persuaded me that Canada decided correctly: while these guys did the less bad thing in fleeing to Canada, their dispute over the oath isn’t Canada’s business, and Canada shouldn’t get involved, given that the guys are going to suffer a pretty minor penalty for breaking the oath.
Polycarp is absolutely right to reject the reasoning that following a legal order absolves the follower of moral responsibility. We humans cannot be absolved of moral responsibility: it is our great privilege and burden as moral agents that we are responsible for the foreseeable outcomes of our own actions, whether or not we took the actions at someone else’s behest.
Daniel
While it supports the statement that suicide rates are higher among those with military experience, there’s no indication such rates are getting higher or lower (let alone reaching “epidemic” proportions), nor that the philosophy of this particular war is having any effect.
No Amazing Kreskin am I to be sure. OTOH, I can only go by what you write. And you wrote, and I quote, that I was making “a huge leap in logic.” And while I acknowledged initially that it was indeed MHO, I did follow-up with a cite or two that appear to disclaim – and once again, I quote – your assertion that I have “a blatant ignorance of what military life is like.”
Look, I have no particular admiration nor, surely, any affiliation with the Armed Forces of any nation and while I admit their need, I’d also like to have a magic wand for said need to disappear. And also a pony to boot. But my whole point from the start has been relatively simple and it doesn’t take an ex-soldier to make it. Quite simple really. While all that you’ve said remains true, I can’t possibly phantom how you could argue against the fact that an unpopular war (to be clear, one that lacks both national and international support) cannot affect troop morale. To say or imply that what’s going on right now with the desertion and suicide rate is ‘business as usual’ for armed forces anywhere, not only strains my credulity but obviates centuries worth of historical record.
To wit: U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
So, no, Bryan, I really don’t think I’m the idiot/ignorant civilian you’re trying to make me out to be. Again, granted, you are the ex-soldier, but there’s no way in hell what’s going on right now within the US armed forces vis-a-vis desertions and suicides is ‘business as usual.’ No way, no how. And the numbers and polls (both civilian and enlisted) are simply a reflection of that – after all, soldiers are people too. Right?
Sorry. Or not.
Hey, I can only go by what you write.
The story cites mental health professionals saying that the rates of suicide found qualify as an epidemic. It goes on to note that:
I’ve got no dog in this fight, but I think you’ve got to at least read the story and the methodology before criticizing it.