Doesn’t matter. You can’t be charged in a US court with “violating the GC”. We’ve been over this a number of times, but I can review it again with you if you want. Let me know.
Beacuse a US court can only prosecute against violations of US laws. Can you cite a precedent of someone being prosecute in a US court of law for something other than a violoation of US law?
But let’s be clear: Are you advocating a judicial system for the US in which a person can be prosecuted without violating a law? Would you want to give that authority right now to George Bush’s justice dept.?
If it was illegal, meaning there was a violation of a US law, than by all means prosecute. Can you provide details about what specific action violated which specific law? If so, I have no problem proceding with legal action against the perps.
I’m completely serious here. If he was a deserter, jail him. I have no doubt there are competent lawyers in this country that will take the case. If we have a President that deserted, prosecute. hands down, no matter what party.
I’ve said before, I have serious issues with Bush and some of his policies. The military stuff? Meh. I’ve seen this shit play out for over 10 years now. After the '92 election, military service isn’t an issue for a President. That’s why I keep tryng to point out the hypocricy of the ANG schtick. It’s not an issue. Service isn’t important.
Protest your country on foreign soil? Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. But hardly a base point to start pointing fingers. I’d sure appreciate a link about a protest on American soil. I don’t expect one, and I really don’t care that it won’t be provided.
The guy in the OP link actively left the country he swore to serve. That’s proven. Whatever defelction you want to post doesn’t justify it. His actions are his own. Excusing it because of a political beef doesn’t make your argument right.
If it’s illegal under international law, it’s illegal.
If you’re only trying to make a point about whether Kissinger could theoretically be spefifically prosecuted under US law (and I’m not sure he couldn’t be. US treaties like the GC ARE binding under US law according to the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution), then I think it’s a sophist point.
You guys have got to be kidding! Treis, duffer, you’re equating military desertion with snorting coke?!! They’re both crimes, yes, but so is jaywalking. One affects you only, the other, the military’s plans. Desertion is an egregious crime. Not only is there the contract angle—someone renegs on their obligations while the other party is living up to theirs—but there is the very military that protects us being threatened. What would happen if peolpe could just leave whenever they want?
“The South Pacific? all those mosquitoes, no thanks, think I’ll be a lifeguard in Malibu.” "
Thanks for the flying lessons guys, but I have to go. A CEO wants me to fly his Lear."
“Afghanistan? Jeeze, I don’t think so guys. I’ve just never been into the whole desert thing.”
This guy, and ANY deserter should be—and has to be—made an example of. We have to be able to depend on our military. And they in turn need to depend on the people serving. If someone disrupts that—especially after they enlisted while a war was in progress—they should be made to opay for their actions. Anything under five years(?)makes a mockery of the oath of service.
And Ill add: if anyone deserts during battle, 25-life in prison. Anyone who turns arms on his own troops, death inside of three weeks via military tribunal in the field.
I can see Airman Door’s point.
When a person joins (or is inducted into) the US Military, they are then under the authority of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (Try exercising freedom of speech to a commanding officer. )
I believe that desertion can be punished by hanging. (It gives you an idea of what a [sub]dim[/sub] view the US military has for people who pursue such actions).
If nothing else, should a person take that course of action, they should realize it is going to be something that will affect the rest of their life. I’m not saying this guy should get the death penalty, but he shouldn’t have been so cavalier about crossing a border into the US without thinking that a charge of desertion just might cause him some problems.
As for the “Darft Dodger” Clinton vs “Deseter” Dubya debate? Rather than take sides and hijack this into another topic, let’s just say that Bill Clinton and Dubya Bush are seriously out of the running in ever being compared to Nathan Hale, Pat Tilman, etc.
I am amazed at the couple of guys who want to dump US law and go on with their lives under international law with the UN doing the deciding…
But that explains why they don’t care if people in the military don’t show up for any cause just like a Mickey D employee…
They think they will still be free to say those stupid things much less actually do it if what they want comes to pass…
Intersting that you didn’t actually answer any of my questions.
A sophist point? As opposed to what… trying to state that something is “illegal” but that no one can be prosecuted for doing it? To me, that is the sophist’s position. A law that has no means of enforcement is not a law. If you want to talk about the morality of an action or the wisodom of an action, that’s one thing. But legality means something very specific. And if you don’t want it mean something very specific, then go back and answer my question about how much you want Bush’s justice department to operate independently of the statutory system.
You can no more be prosecuted for violating the GC than you can be for violating the constitution. That’s why you see all over the constitution the phrase: “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation” or the equivalent.
Hey! I think we have our new anti-desertion campaign! A poster of some slutty girl. . . Paris Hilton! Half naked and saying, “Desertion is so, like, not hot!”
Again, thats the entire point. For example, a G.I. could be charged for “fucking up” becuase it violates:
Article 119 of the UCMJ:
There is no such law for the President getting people killed through negligence. Hence, he can fuck up without legal repercussions, but a G.I. could be sent to leavenworth for fucking up.
So one can be tried for breaking a law, and the other can’t be tried for not breaking a law?
The UCMJ has specific laws for military personnel. That’s why Lynndie England isn’t sunning in Tahiti. She broke the law. Pray tell, what did Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld do wrong?
My grandfather lost 5 friends in southern Germany. My dad introduced me to 2 friends that lost thier legs, and one that lost his arm in Nam. At the age of 13 I watched him tear up as he touched the names of 2 other friends that he lost when we were at the Wall.
FDR, Truman, Johnson, Kennedy, Nixon. Never heard a bad word about them. Never heard a bad word about them from you, either. Well, except for one, maybe.
War is a shitty proposition. In any sense of it. You need to sit back for a moment and realize that it happens. It’s not a cut and dried situation. Sometimes it’s neccessary. Sometimes it prevents a larger conflict.
The US didn’t want to enter WWI. I know it’s ancient history to you, but it’s important. We tried to stay out of problems that didn’t directly affect us. We stayed out of it until it did affect us. By then we had to play catch-up. And we paid dearly.
The Versailles Treaty. Remember that one? America was happy to have it. Germany had to give up more than she had, and the French pretty much wrote the rules. (This is my one post, BTW, where I don’t take a dig on the French.)
The US wanted out of the war, and would accept anything to end it. Let Europe handle the problem, we’ll go back to the bobby socks and jazz.
Oh, but the answer was clear! The League of Nations! An international body that would handle any strife between the Continiental nations.
Then the Versailles Treaty went to shit, and the world again had to go to war. It was another Continental war, but guess who had to butt in?
Yup, America. We just can’t keep from interfering.
So now we have 2 wars, within a span of 25 years. This time it’s on two fronts. We not only have a Continental war, the Japanese decide to spice things up.
I’m sure that was in the war plan. How stoopid was America to not plan for that shit?
After more than 4 years and 500,000+ dead, the war was won. The President was a hero. We won WWII. (Which was an extension of WW I).
Sure, FDR was considered a hero, though he never served, but we entered the Cold War. Nuclear testing by us, claims of radiation sickness, increased money spent for defense. Not a good legacy to leave behind.
Of course, today we all celebrate the decisions. Hindsight, What a pain in the ass.
I wonder what history might say in 60 years?
Well, I think in any civilized society we should take into account the morality of the law in the first place, instead of blindly throwing the book at anyone who has the fucking audacity to break a law, ANY law, because by golly they need to be punished!!
Does it serve any purpose to punish this man? I’m sure he already forsaken many family ties to run away to Canada. And we punish him 3 decades later for trying to return.
I understand your argument. Those who wish to civlly disobey should have the courage of their convictions. Fucking go to Prison, serve their time. That’d make a hell of a huger statement than running away. I fully agree. Running away won’t do as much as standing your ground and doing your time. But running away was STILL the right thing to do regardless. But even if what this Marine did was not the Ideal response, it was still a morally valid response to the situation.
The reason it is different from walking out of a job at McDonald’s is because desertion can cost lives and harm natoinal defense.
To pretend you don’t understand the difference is ludicrous obtuseness. If you aren’t pretending then you’re hopelessly stupid and not worth debating with any further.
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?[/QUOTE]
Honestly? If enough people don’t voluntarily wish to defend our country from foreign invaders without being literally forced to do it, then what the fuck is so great about our country in the first place? Why even defend it if we have to force people to defend it? If we are so fucking great, people should be clamoring to defend it instead of defending it at gun point.
)