I don’t know if one wrong outweighs the other. But I agree that all of them got off too lightly.
Sigh. I see that not only is Tapioca dextrin humorless, she’s also slow. I was talking about pain, and I even stated I was going over the top to mirror Diogenes’s lack of perspective in his defense of desertion (Enron a shop lifter? come on.). At any rate, electric chairs use a sustained shock - neither stun guns nor the soldiers (presumably) used sustained exposure.
To be fair, I’ll note that death by electrocution is really more a matter of amperage than volts and that the total amperage for a stun gun is a hell of a lot lower than in your household wiring. But it’s really the volts that cause the pain from a stun gun, and also from 110 volt household current.
The article said “power converter”. This could mean one of two things. The soldiers hooked it up to a car battery, in which case the amperage was a great deal lower than household current (but still a bit greater than a stun gun due to the larger battery) or they were using it in conjunction with Iraq’s grid (probably more likely), which runs at 230 V. The latter would provide some dangerous amps, but not much different that what is delivered to thousand of homeowners across the nation on a daily basis. All in all, if the exposure was brief, then due to the low voltage it would be less painful than a stun gun. However, a higher amperage certainly makes it more dangerous.
At any rate, it’s assualt, and no amount of hand wringing is going to make it torture.
As much as I would like to take credit for that, it wasn’t me. It was Coin.
:smack: Apologies to Coin.
For me too. I’m just curious about whether or not this is a typical outcome if you do go through proper channels. I have some sympathy for Meija, but there’s no question he screwed up in how he handled his decision. WTF was he thinking? (or was he just not thinking at all?)
BTW, here’s another interview with Massey, with more details about the many reasons he turned against the war.
That’s it. I’m burning all my Police albums.
I’ve had two bridges since I was 13 because I grabbed a live 110V wire on a bare spot by accident - I broke eight teeth and my jaw has popped ever since.
I also shocked myself (albeit on the foot) with a 75,000 volt stun gun. Totally different experience.
It’s the amperage that will kill you, not the voltage. House current has a lot more of that than a couple of nine-volt batteries (what most stun guns run on).
Mine, too. This is what Meija should have done.
As to whether it would have turned out the same way…well, as in the civilian world, picking the right lawyer is a very, very good idea.
Dio, due respect, you seem to have a profound misunderstanding of desertion. It isn’t just opting out of a war, whether noble or unjust. It is abandoning friends and comrades who are depending on you to guard their backs. There are channels available to conscientious objectors, but walking away from duty is not one of them.
If it is not too much of a GQ, a little background please:
This page outlines the text of Article 85 on Desertion:
What I would like to know (having no knowledge or experience of anything military), is at which point in your training does this come into affect? Is it from the moment you choose to sign up, on on completion of basic training, or when? Do you have to sign a contract to say you fully accept and abide by these laws before you even go to basic training?
I understand that armed forces membership is seen as much more ‘just a job’, but how can it be justifiable for someone to sign up for ‘work’, only to find later they are not capable (mentally or physically) to do the job (or have no willingness or desire to), yet cannot leave as they would from a post in a different civil service job? Or, as Liberal says, are there other easier routes to getting out, if one should desire to?
Thanks.
Here is a cite from Selective Service, explaining what to do if you’re a conscientious objector or prefer alternate service.
Thanks for that.
This line is troubling though:
My bolding.
So you have to find suitable justification for leaving your post based on individual moral principle with regard to something other than personal reaction to the duties you are being asked to undertake? If you can’t make a decision based on your personal political view (of a situation) or your own self interest, on what grounds can you make it?
It is also interesting to note the strength of the evidence you provide will not necessarily grant you the status. What if you are unwilling yet can’t make a decent case for your unwillingness? Would it not be more dangerous for an unwilling soldier to be placed in a situation where his friends were relying on him only to have him not interested or able to perform the tasks attributed to him?
Apologies to the OP for the hi-jack away from his particular example.
You’re welcome. I think it’s pretty clear that the intent of the process is to weed out people who will not serve because they hate Bush, or because they are cowards, or because they would rather be surfing.
Why would you want a coward watching your back?
Why would you want to trust anyone at all who didn’t believe the cause was just?
I know it’s wrong. But, this just cracked me up.
Dude.
Technically, “amperage” may be a word, but using it instantly makes your knowledge of electricity suspect. Try “current.”
Also, you’re really over-simplifying things here. Any of the power supplies you’ve listed above (US mains, Iraqi mains, car battery) can easily deliver enough current to kill someone under the right circumstances. Any of them could be used in a matter that’s just as painful as the other. The relationship between voltage, current, and the human body is pretty complex.
Arguing about the current source our soldiers used on captive subjects for the purpose of causing pain in order to extract information (which, evidently, is assault and not torture) is a bit like saying “Well, we were only beating them with batons–it’s not like we were using long, hard, sticks or anything.”
The standard for conscientious objection isn’t an objection to this war. It’s an objection to war in general.
The means to oppose a conflict is available in the normal democratic process. But once our country has made the decision to go to war, we don’t give our soldiers or draftees (if there is a draft) the option of sitting out an individual conflict just because they don’t like the politics of it.
If you cannot fight at all because of a moral objection to violence in general, though, you can become a conscientious objector. This may not get you off the hook for national service in a general emergency, however. There are many cases of CO’s enlisted and placed into alternate service in hospitals and clerical jobs to free up more soldiers for combat.
All of this is settled and well established law.
The law is an ass. That’s my point. Opting out of an immoral war should not be a crime and not allowing a soldier to decide for himself what he is willing to kill or die for is a gross violation of human rights.
No, it’s not, Diogenes. Soldiers aren’t free to discuss politics on the battlefield, like it or not.
I knew that when I joined the Navy, and participated in military campaigns I had political issues with myself.
What you believe should be so isn’t so, and shouldn’t be so if good order and discipline is to be maintained in conflict. If you object to war, become a CO. If you don’t and find yourself in combat be joining voluntarily or because your country has drafted you, follow your orders. There is no middle ground here.
Fuck that. I have a huge problem with the dichotemy that I must support all wars or none of them. Some wars are justified, most are not. It is possible to have a genuine moral objection to a specific war without opposing war in general.
If you were in the military and you suddenly got a White Supremacist CiC who wanted you to invade Ethiopia as part of a campaign to kill all black people would you do it? Would you be a criminal if you didn’t? Would you deserve to go to prison?
It’s not complicated at all. You just don’t join the military in the first place. Congress votes on whether a war is justified or not. We don’t allow soldiers to veto Congress. If you have a problem with Congress abdicating its authority to the executive branch, that’s a whole 'nuther subject, and I’d be with you 100% on that.
CiC = president. Are you saying: what would you do if David Duke became president? I think that’s a hypothetical we don’t have to worry about.