I have no real problem with people that object to war, I have no real problem with people that have the courage of their convictions and take the penalty that comes with taking a stand, but I do have a problem with people that run away and hide.
Time to pay your debt, guy. Sorry about your luck. Did you think that the Marine Corps would forget? Did you forget that you committed a crime? Well, that misjudgment came back to bite you. Next time either take a stand or fulfill your obligations, pal.
I’ll feel the scales of justice are a LEETLE more evenly balanced when McNamara and Kissinger are properly housed in jail cells, too. Never happen, of course. Which is why I don’t agree with your rant. The filter only works one way: those who committed crimes in avoiding/stopping the war are prosecuted, those who committed crimes in prosecuting it get off scot-free.
I doubt anything happens to him beyond deportation. It isn’t worth the negative publicity, not for a 40 year old desertion charge. Now, if he had deserted under fire…shoot him. But if he was drafted, and he split rather than go to Nam, he isn’t worth the trouble to try. Besides, if he goes to trial, just think of all the editorial parallels that will be drawn about “unjust wars” and the like. Better to just kick him out and get on with things.
How about this for a response: we let the guy off? We apologize saying, “We’re sorry, we fucked up and we fucked up horribly. We the leaders of the US let our egos get ahead of the national interest. We prosecuted a war we never should have, and in doing so we put political constraints on our generals that made it almost impossible to win, and that’s even if it could be won under any circumstances. We killed a lot of young men needlessly, we maimed many others without cause, and we drove many like yourselves out of the country for no good reason. We were fools, full of pride and ignorance and too many have paid the price that we should have paid. We won’t be extending our folly in your case. Accept our apologies and return, we’re all through fucking up.”
On review, I see what was meant about “parallels.”
Carter granted amnesty to draft dodgers…people who were drafted but didn’t show up for induction. This guy was arrested for desertion from the military…he was a Marine already.
What’s interesting is that they apparently were’nt chasing him all these years. As we’ve discussed in other threads, Canada would likely have deported a deserter if the US had really wanted them to. Draft dodgers could flee to Canada because draft dodging isn’t a crime in Canada, so you could not be deported for it; but desertion WAS a crime in Canada, as it is now. Deserters are fighting extradition orders in Canadian courts right now, as a matter of fact.
If the U.S. government wasn’t chasing the guy all this time how did his name even come up for arrest?
Oh, I’m sure some liberal equivalent of Alito could come up with a legal justification for it. Their basic crime is against humanity – killing thousands of Vietnamese to no good purpose. And remember the quote from McNamara: “If we lose, they’ll be trying us for this decision?” (Or something to that effect?) I think they should be tried for it.
I disagree. If I find whatever law/obligation morally abhorent, I see absolutely no reason to accept a punishment for not complying. In some cases, it can serve a purpose to make your choice public and as a consequence take the the penalty. Then it might be worth considering. In many cases, there’s no point in doing so. And in some cases it would be a completely stupid decision.
You probably don’t have the same references I have, but my reading of general history and family history alike makes me conclude that generally speaking, the correct and smart attitude is to not comply and not be open about it. Acting otherwise usually results in achieving nothing and ending in a Very Bad Situation ™.
Anyway, why one should accept to be punished for doing the right thing? I’m sorry, I’m no first century christian martyr. I’m not going to wawe at the lions.
Actually, I don’t even have much of an issue with not complying with laws I personnally dissaprove (even when they don’t fall in the “morally abhorent” category) and not taking a stand. Yeah, you could bust me for not obeying a merely stupid law, for instance, but I’m not going to help you doing so.
No, he’d have to violate some specific statute. He had the legal authority to do what he did, under US law.
Yes, I saw Fog of War (an excellent film, btw), but you misinterpret the quote. If we lost the war, and had been conquered by the other side, they probably would’ve been tried as war criminals. But not in a US court. So, for either of them to be behind bars, the US would have had to have been conquered by the North Vietnamese. Still want them behind bars under those conditions, comrade?
Gee, John, I just don’t think your heart’s in the task of finding an appropriate US law to prosecute the bastards under. I’ll bet someone with liberal tendencies and thorough job of the law could manage it. I have faith in our legal system, you see …
You’re right, letting the North Vietnamese conquer the US just to nail the guys who prosecuted Vietnam is just too much trouble, however much they deserve it. But the general sentiment was, the guy in charge knew that what they were doing could be viewed as war crimes by the Vietnamese. And if the Veitnamese can, why not the UN? Letting the UN have some teeth wrt how the US conducts itself … not so horrible, from my POV.
He volunteered. In 1968. He knew what he was getting into. He’s a deserter, plain and simple. Until now I was willing to offer a certain amount of leniency (with some minor hand-slap punishment), but now I say they should throw the book at him.
Saying, “I’m willing to break this law but only if I don’t get punished for it” isn’t really a huge moral stand.
In a democratic society the rule of law is an important principle and one worth defending for its own value. You can’t just choose to obey the laws you personally agree with. If you disagree with the law, work on changing it. If you feel it’s so abhorrent that you can’t live within it, then break it if you must. But regardless of whether you’re desegregating a lunch counter or smashing windows at an abortion clinic, recognize you’re breaking the law and must embrace the consequences of your actions.
Shrug. The guy’s biggest mistake was not marrying someone who could create enough political discomfort for the U.S., like Sgt. Jenkins did.
If it’s handled like the Jenkins case was, the U.S. gov’t will stomp and shout and rattle all the sabres it wants, sentence him to 30 days confined to base, maybe with an additional suspended sentence, and then just let him go back to whatever he was doing before.
Hrm… maybe one of our resident lawyers could add more, but I do think you’re pretty much correct. I’m not sure that warcrimes can even be prosecuted except in an international setting.
But you are right, it isn’t a strict 1:1 correlation.
