Bravo, GusNSpot
Well said.
So because the military is run in a way that threatens its soldiers with death for following their conscience…
Help me fill in the blank here.
The picture you paint is being of iniated into a street gang that’ll kill you if you don’t do something you know you shouldn’t. This is honorable, why?
No, see, that’s the thing. Morals remain morals whether there’s a gun to your head or not.
The defense “Well, they’ll kill you if you follow your conscience” does not seem, to me, to be a compelling argument as to the morality of obeying. But it does speak to the immorality of such a system.
If not, then what?
Actually, I’ve got stronger beliefs than that. Such as the possibility of Saddam being executed being appalling.
And who said anything about execution, anyway?
What FinnAgain said. How does a willingness to kill and be killed equate to moral high ground?
Willfully mis-reading?
Well, Execution of traitors is pretty common when it applies to a military man in combat that refuses what that his military leaders considers a lawful order. ( Not the UN’s position or GorillaMan’s on the conduct of the soldier. )
You are in a combat zone as a regular soldier or as an medic ( CO ) and you say to the Officers, "Nope, not going to do my job today because the UN says it is illegal and I think it is too, so there. " If lucky, you can get out on a dishonorable discharge, lose a lot of things that most people take for granted etc. Sometimes, depending on the circumstance, it might be called treason and you will be convicted in a military court and the penalty is death. So, are you saying that you will accept that sentence for your beliefs or are you saying that you will not serve in the military?
If you are a ‘pacifist’, why not just say so? Why call regular soldiers ‘war criminals’ when you are unwilling to do the job?
Who cares about SH? How did he get into this? That opinion or attitude is not a threat to your life. I like ‘Cher’, so what, has nothing to do with what we are talking about because holding that opinion will not cause me harm. ( * :: leaving out true music lovers of course, they will try to hang me. ::: *
I know people who will not lift a hand to save their own children from harm, that is how high their ‘ground’ is. They believe in not killing to that extreme extent. ::: shrug::: ( Glad I am not their kid, I would prolly have not survived. ) At least they admit they are that way and do not condemn those that protect others, like police officers who sometimes have to kill to protect others. They understand that not all people are nice if you just let them be.
You make claims about illegal and what not, well, what do you consider a legal order to kill in the military? Is there one?
Is it only legal for the attacked party to shoot and kill? Please explain your ‘high ground’…
Back to topic. You seem to be of the opinion that every military person should refuse to go to the combat zone because you and the UN say it is illegal, correct?
At first I thought you were saying that each soldier should check his conscience about going to Iraq and fighting. Well, say he did and he found it was okay on his own soul. So you will be ok with this? Or are you saying that if on reflection, he goes, he should then be held accountable to the UN for the war crime of being in the US military and being in Iraq? Are you saying that the UN should be the defining decision maker on what is legal for all people?
Soldiers defy and disobey orders all the time for a lot of reasons, some times for the right reasons. Trying to paint them all as mindless followers is silly and you know it. Just because they go to Iraq and fight against the wishes of the UN, Finn and GorillaMan does not make them stupid or wrong or bad or anything else.
This is smelling more and more like good old US of A bashing.
Excellent. I see nothing that could do with any improving in that system.
What exactly is the point of this thought experiment? Since when did the military and its way of doing things become sacred? Why is it a good thing that the military might murder you for refusing to go against your conscience? Shouldn’t the question be, why isn’t the military acting in an honorable and moral fashion?
Even though selective service wants us in nice little boxes, it doesn’t work that way. It’s absurd to expect a human being to give up critical thinking and declare that all wars are wrong if, instead, they think that only some wars are right.
Does this actually make sense to you?
I’m unwilling to be a garbage man too, but I can say that their clothes probably stink by the end of the day. If a soldier violates international law, I don’t also have a be a soldier to notice that fact.
If it was a simple question of ‘protecting others’ then perhaps you’d be able to cast the debate in those terms. If America was attacked, that’d be a different situation than using our armed forces to invade a sovereign state and change their system of government. Just because someone signed up with the military in order to protect American lives, doesn’t mean that’s what they’re actually doing.
Of course there are legal orders to kill. They do not, however, involve wars of aggression.
Yes, that is pretty much the law.
Having a clear conscience is not a defense against commiting a war crime. But it’d be fun to see someone argue that at a trial.
Are you saying that the United States should become a rogue nation, ignore our obligations as a signatory nation of the UN Charter and a member of the security council?
Nobody’s tried to paint them as mindless followers… although some statements made in this thread in support of military policies have come awfully close to painting them just that way.
Not stupid, and not necessarily ‘bad’. But participating in a war crime? Possibly legally responsible, and at the least morally responsible. Why wouldn’t they be?
Pffffffffffffffffffft.
I’d request you not play the “I’m a better patriot than you!” game. Especially if your only point of evidence as to 'US of A bashing" is that we’d prefer the US didn’t commit war crimes.
Refusing orders on the grounds of dubious legality is not treason. If you can give any example where such a refusal has led to such a conviction, please tell.
You really love your simplistic labels, don’t you?
That’s not the point. We’ve pointed out many times that a war of aggression, an invasion of a sovereign state, is not legal.
Cite?
Come on skeptic. I’ve given the relevant portions of the UN charter.
The UN Charter is a statement of intent. Not a legal obligation. It outlines what the signatory parties would like to be the case not what they promise to do.
Cite?
Where does it say that signatory nations shouldn’t take it seriously? It says they “shall act” in a certain way, that sure sounds like a binding promise to me. I don’t see it as being any different than any other international treaty, can you explain why you see it as such?
More to the point:
[
](http://www.hrweb.org/legal/unchartr.html)
Obligations is a rather strong word, no?
I am addressing GM’s assertion that invading a soveriegn nation is somehow illegal. Thats just false. What would make it illegal. Not even the Nazi’s were tried for invading poland, france or other countries, but for what they did there. In fact most of the Nazi’s were tried for acts involving german citizens. No german soldier was punished for killing an allied soldier during combat operations.
I sympathize with the position you and gorilla man are taking. As I repeatedly state I believe the current war in unjust and immoral, but it is not illegal, and the soldiers participating are not criminals they may become criminals through there own actions. The time to decide whether you will fight a war is before you join the military. Once you join you accept that you do not make policy decisions. No military could long function if each soldier could evaluate for himself the decision to engage in war.
Yeah, and no law has been created since 1945 :rolleyes:
Violating an international agreement would do the trick. The UN even contains the ICJ, so I fail to see how it’s not a legal compact.
That’s because the UN wasn’t up and running until 1946. In short, Germany wasn’t bound by the non-aggression clause because there was no such thing at the time.
Well, international law could be sticky. If our nation was hauled before the ICJ then we might find that our soldiers ‘became’ war criminals overnight.
I’m not sure you’re right, and I’m not sure that’s moral.
Simply having a functioning military, in my mind, does not justify all steps taken towards the efficiency. The ends do not justify the means, after all. Moreoever, the military structures of western warfare have remained relatively unchanged since ancient greece; this is not necessarily a good thing. War is not always conducted the way we know. Total war is not always the norm, and various societies through time have managed to have working fighting forces without forcing their citizens. The ‘raiding war’ style of combat common in native American tribes and many African tribes speaks to that fact.
In the final analysis, I believe that if the US military was to operate at reduced effectiveness due to following morality and honorable practices, then so be it. We already restrict the military’s ability to act. It is, for instance, not legal to simply carpet bomb civilian centers into submission, even though that would be a very efficient way of waging war.
GMan, I am really not trying to get into a fight here I am on your side. But the UN charter is not law. It is a treaty that the US freely entered and can freely withdraw from. The UN can take no action if a single Permanent member of the Security Council vetoes that action. The US knew this when it signed and therefore knew we would never be bound if we chose not to be.
Sure some people might like it if the US was subject to some higher authority like the UN (I would not) but the fact is the UN is a pie in the sky dream that never was meant to constrain the actions of the “Victors” of WWII. Not my idea thats how they wrote the damn thing.
Fair enough, askeptic - I’ll accept I’m teetering on the edge of my knowledge of the facts! (Maybe GusNSpot will do the same? Here’s hoping…)
Check out the jurisdiction of the court:
by the conclusion between them of a special agreement to submit the dispute to the Court;
by virtue of a jurisdictional clause, i.e., typically, when they are parties to a treaty containing a provision whereby, in the event of a disagreement over its interpretation or application, one of them may refer the dispute to the Court. Several hundred treaties or conventions contain a clause to such effect;
through the reciprocal effect of declarations made by them under the Statute whereby each has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory in the event of a dispute with another State having made a similar declaration. The declarations of 65 States are at present in force, a number of them having been made subject to the exclusion of certain categories of dispute.
Seems prety clear that the ICJ is a voluntary court. ie that a member may withdraw consent to jurisdiction at anytime.
I don’t think anybody’s fighting skeptic, at least since LTAF left the thread. This is actually shaping up to be a pretty good Pit thread in terms of discussion and debate.
GM provided you with the Neurenberg precedent though.
I don’t believe that the ICJ requires the security council to authorize them to make decisions on a case by case basis.
Can we get some sort of cite for this? Reading over the charter, I see nothing to indicate that it’s not to be taken seriously as an obligation.
And yet
Now, I’ll admit as GM did that since IANAL I may be out of my depth… but I think my understanding of this subject is fairly accurate.