By the same token, how is charging, convicting, and imprisoning a guy like Ken Lay anything but vindictive? He’s not a danger, he’s a thief. I’ll tell you why: it’s because he broke the law. How else does his (eventual) imprisonment benefit society?
This guy broke the law, and now he will pay a penalty for his crime.
Violations of the GC, I believe.
I haven’t studied the allegations in full, so I really can’t offer more than that at present.
Why does it have to be US law? Are war crimes and political assasinations not really crimes in your book? Are you familiar with the illegal bombing of Cambodia?
No. But if the law is immoral, it still beats “I will not break it”.
Yes, yes, sure it is…
Not only I can, but I did and probably will again.
That’s fine, but it doesn’t prevent not abiding by it meanwhile.
The case of a really abhorrent law (as opposed to marginally so, or just idiotic) would precisely be the case when I would be the least willing to embrace the legal consequences of breaking it. The more unjust the law, the more unjust the punishment, so why would I accept it? Once again, I’m not a martyr (and martyrdom is rarely productive) and I’m not willing to be punished for doing the right thing. The “rule of law” comes distant second to my morals. If I can break an immoral law and get away with it I will enthusiastically do so. If “facing the consequences” can be productive (PR-wise, for instance) and I’m brave enough (which isn’t a given) maybe I’ll consider doing so. But even if I don’t, once again it still beats obeying an immoral law.
Because he won’t steal again?
What should happen to people who elope from the National Guard?
This does not follow at all from my post. All I said was that laws are there to maintain social order, not vindictivness. If you disagree with that, then say so and explain why. This post is simply nonsense that doesn’t speak at all to that point.
His imprisonment benefits society becuase it serves as a deterent to those that will destabilize the economy by inaccurate bookkeeping, and other shady business practices.
By this logic, Bush, Clinton, and over half of America should be jailed for at least their violation of marijuana laws. Whats the point in tossing productive upstanding citizens in jail for crimes they committed 30 years ago as teenagers?
They should be…TADA! charged with desertion. But guess what? I’m not talking about President Bush. I’ve weighed in on that in the past, and I’ve said all I’m prepared to say on the subject until January 20, 2009 at 12:01 p.m.
And this doesn’t have the same effect? If I know that my crimes follow me forever and I can never go home again, don’t you think that I would think twice about it? Your average person would understand that they have to fulfill their obligations or be punished. Especially since in his case it was voluntary. Nobody made this guy assume that obligation, he did it of his own free will.
You think that over half of America should be criminally sanctioned for their past crimes, no matter how minor and no matter how long ago they occured? Come on, you can’t seriously think expending all of those resources, wasting all of that time, and disrupting all of those lives is a good idea.
I hardly think “in thirty years I might be arrested on vacation” registers in someones decision process compared with things like, I could be arrested tommorow for this crime. When I crack open a beer at a party I sure as hell don’t think, “Hey you know what, I might be arrested for this in 30 years when I am 50, I better not.” That concern is much, much, much less pressing than the one “I might be arrested in 5 minutes when the cops bust in.”
1). I never said it was illegal. I still don’t know what it is that Bush did illegally. But if you want to head down this path, I’d say protesting America on foreign soil and stating in a letter that you “loathe the military” is less than a stellar equation to getting a deferment or being stationed at a different base. And if one can protest, why can’t one serve at a different base? Neither went to Nam, so it’s a moot point.
2). Well, Bush never fled the country. By default he didn’t desert when compared to the punk in the OP. Sure, he never served in Nam, but he did serve. More than can be said of your boy wonder. And Bush should have been prosecuted for desertion if that’s what happened. Haven’t seen any strong cases made, but if you think it’s the fact, have at it.
Bob Dole suffered permanent injury fighting in WWII after falling on a live grenade to save his fellow soldiers. Did you vote for him? Is military service really that important to you? Or are you angling for anything to hit Bush with?
I have my own problems with Bush. There are quite a few things he does that pisses me off. But overall I think in 20 years the good will outweigh the bad.
That belief is based on American’s. I don’t think any President can destroy the country in 8 years. We heard Clinton was the end. We still hear Bush is going to be the end. We heard FDR was the end. Nixon. Jackson. Lincoln.
Whatever you want to say about American’s by electing Bush twice, I trust us to keep the Republic ticking along.
We’ll be just fine. No one man can get a coalition together in less than a decade to destroy the country.
Take a breath. If it’s as bad as you say it is, we’ll get someone in the White House to reverse it all.
The sky is not falling.
Feh, if we don’t feel like obeying a law a law we don’t like, so what. What do we owe “our” country anyway?
No, I think that deserters should be sanctioned for their crimes, because that is not minor.
“I didn’t think that it was a big deal” is not a valid defense in the case of desertion. That’s what we’re talking about, not beer or weed.
In Airman’s defense, I’m pretty sure that post was specifically an answer to my thinly veiled question about Bush two posts above it.
If you sign a contract of your own free will you owe service.
shrug I see no reason to consider deserting before being sent to Vietnam any more of a major crime than snorting some blow.
You missed the point of that portion of my post, try re-reading it.
Hehe, sorry, was my lame attempt at being sarcastic. I’m for prosecuting the deserter for treason or whatever his violation technically is.
sigh
He volunteered for service. He enlisted. Enlistment is basically a contract for service.
By not fulfilling the contract he signed, he was in violation of it. He was in violation of not serving his obligation to the US. A pain in the ass? Depends on how you look at it, I guess. I’ve never heard of enlistment papers that have an “opt-out” clause.
You don’t get to sign a contract and then decide you don’t like it after doing so. Well, you can, but only if you have an agent. The government doesn’t deal with agents. That contract is arbitrary. They decide if you don’t have to fulfill the commitment. And if it’s found you have reason to not have to fulfill the obligation, you’re likely in for a rude awakening when you hit the civilian world. Anything short of an honorable discharge is tough to make up for.
Enlisting is a choice. When you enlist you know you’re commiting to a number of years in the military. You also understand that you’re going to be trained to fight a war if needed. That’s the point of a military. To fight wars if needed. It’s not fun, and I’d prefer nobody fights, but that’s what it is.
If people could enlist, then refuse to fight because they don’t feel like it, what the hell would be the point of having a military?
Seriously. I’d like an answer to that. If the military is voluntary, and the soldiers could refuse to fight for whatever reason, what’s the point of having a military? Taking it a step further, we have the perfect argument for gun ownership. And militias. If the shit hits the fan, and the military can’t be counted on, we need people that have arms and are willing to defend their land. Granted, up here we’d be fending off the Canadians, at least for the first few months. After that? Well, who knows what may come.
Every country must depend on the military for security. Every country. If you can’t depend on your country’s military, you’ll never be secure.
If we disband the US military, can we still feel safe? I’m not talking about terrorist threats. I’m talking about Mexico and Canada. I realize our military force erases just about any thought of a takeover from either country, but without a standing army, what would stop them?
That’s a major reach as I’m sure (or at least I hope) it will never be an issue. But if the military personnel can decide to opt out whenever they wish, who’s left to defend the country?
Do we really want to set a precedence that a soldier can leave service whenever he or she wants to?
So why bring it up.
He was AWOL from the Air National Guard for more than a year. Being AWOL for more than 30 days is technically defined as desertion.
Irrelevant and perfectly legal
Also irrelevant and perfectly legal but also something that Clinton did not do. The “loath the military” letter is a canard. Here is what Bill Clinton actually wrote to Colonol Eugene Holmes in 1969
As you can see, he did not say “I loathe the Military.” Don’t believe everything you hear on talk radio.
I don’t know where you’re getting this “different base” stuff from. The problem wasn’t that Bush got transferred to the Alabama ANG, the problem is that he never showed up for duty there.
Leaving the country has nothing to do with whether a person is a deserter.
[snicker] If you call using family connections to get yourself into a rich boys’ ANG sanctuary, and then not even bothering to show up for it “serving,” then he served. But so did the guy in the OP before he deserted.
You seem to have mistaken me for somewhat who actually gives a shit whether other people served in Nam. I couldn’t care less. If I had been of draftable age at the time I’d have quickly become a season ticket holder for the Winnipeg Blue Bombers.
Fact: he was AWOL for more than 30 days.
Fact: More than 30 days AWOL is desertion.
Military service is completely irrelevant to me. This is not a thread about whether people should serve or not. It’s a thread about Military deserters. As I’ve already said, I don’t care of people desert. I just wish that if we’re going to punish them, we should punish ALL of them. Rich kids from prominent political families should not get free passes.
Incidentally, I liked Bob Dole a lot. I thought he was a very good Senate Majority leader. There are some Democrats who would not get my vote over Bob Dole. Clinton was not one of them.
Neither do I. Now, can you show a signed contract with the government where this phanton person committed to avoid the nose candy?
And the enlistment was done while the Viet Nam war was ongoing. Are you justifying desertion because he thought he wouldn’t be subject to being deployed there? Maybe we didn’t need this dipshit over there after all. If the country is at war for over 10 years at the time (we all knew it was war, the folk songs told us so), I can see an argument that enlisting didn’t mean you faced the chance of going overseas. :rolleyes: