Proof that the military has its priorities all fucked up.

The BBQ Pit
41

And with that you’re absolutely correct. More to follow on this in the next part of the post.

OK, first of all, that’s a huge strawman, since an action like that wouldn’t survive even the first five seconds of scrutiny from Congress, the judiciary, or Joe Blow with a high-powered rifle lurking somewhere around Washington, D.C. In simplest terms, it could never happen. But I’ll still play along with your scenario for the purposes of this discussion. Just don’t expect all of my response to be serious, either.

OK, first of all, if we’re going to assume that President Racist wants to kill all black people, he’s first going to have to suspend the Civil Rights Act of 1964, get a Constitutional Amendment passed that repeals the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and reinstitute segregation to facilitate elimination of said black people. After that happens, since you liberals like to complain that minorities constitute the majority of the Armed Forces, how do you suppose President Racist will be able to raise an army, as he’s already killed/imprisoned/segregated the “inferior” minorities from the rest of the populace, with their approval? :dubious:

Anyway, assuming that President Racist does somehow raise an army to go kill him some black people, and by some incredible quirk of fate you volunteered to be in that army, and somehow you find it in your heart that you can’t go kill you some black people, you have two choices. You can apply for Conscientious Objector status, or you can desert/refuse to fight. If you are unable to get CO status, then if your principles dictate that you cannot or will not fight because you think it’s the wrong thing to do, you must accept the punishment issued to you. Technically (and ethically, as you signed up knowing up front what the deal was), you have in fact committed a crime. Now, from a moral perspective you may be absolutely correct, but you have given up your right to make that kind of moral decision freely when you joined the military. Once you sign on the dotted line you lose the ability to make that decision with impunity. You retain the right, but to exercise that right you must pay the price.

Therefore, you may make the personal decision that something is wrong, and you may choose to do something about it, but by doing so you may be breaking the law. The classic example of this is Muhammad Ali. He made the principled decision that he would not accept a draft notice, and as a result he went to jail for it. He paid the price the correct way. By resisting he broke the law, and by going to jail he proved to everyone (including himself) how powerful his principles really were. This deserter we are speaking about broke the law based upon his principles, and he has done the right thing by facing up to his responsibilities and accepting his punishment. Good for him. Admirable, in fact, at least the part about returning and accepting punishment, because the desertion was not particularly admirable in my view.

42

Definitions of “torture”:

From the OP’s cite:

So, severe pain was inflicted upon the prisoner as punishment for acts he committed. Depending on how one defines “public official” and depending on how high the prison scandal reaches, describing this and some of the other acts perpetrated upon prisoners as “torture” is not unreasonable.

43

Cowards don’t usually join up.

Sometime, if you get a chance, watch some of the specials on Discovery Times. It’s almost entirely NY Times documentaries. From time to time, they have specials about the military academies, special forces training, and basic training. Soldiers aren’t taught about causes, and whatever causes they might have had, they are trained to forget about. They are taught to lead, to kill, and to obey.

44

Fair enough. My earlier posts should really be thought of as trying to throw some humorous spitballs at the predictable and tiresome Diogenes (who is a half step away from Reeder status), and not knowing when the Hell to shut up.

Walked out too far on that limb, I did.

45

I’ve been through military training. I didn’t forget how to tell right from wrong.

Monkey. Electrocution is torture. Suck my dick.

46

I just conceded on that, ya idiot.

Fuckin Hell, no wonder I don’t respect you.

47

Hey, Dio. If you believed the cause was just, would you still have agreed with this soldier’s actions?

Soldiers do not a get a pass if they disagree with an objective. They do not get a pass if they are philosophically at odds with the Commander in Chief. It is not up to the soldier to decide. It’s up to the soldier to follow his/her orders. That is the way it has to be. Can you imagine the fucking chaos our armed forces would be in if they took a vote about whether or not the soldiers wantedor thought it was* right* to charge the hill?

I forget the name of the movie where the Officer says “We do not decide policy. We are instruments of that policy.” But he was absolutely right.

If you do not want to be an instrument of policy, do NOT join the armed forces. But if join, do your job until you are discharged.

48

Diogenes, I’ve been through military training, as has Airman Doors. We didn’t forget how to tell right from wrong.

Can’t speak for you, though.

That point, though, is not at issue here. What is at issue is what a military member is free to do to oppose war in general and a specific war in particular while he’s in.

As you can see, said member’s options are pretty limited. He can’t remain in the military if he’s a general pacifist. He’ll have to become a CO and get out, to remain on the right side of the law and his conscience.

If it’s a specific war he opposed, he’s more limited yet. He can only write his congressman and vote, just like all of us. He may even be prevented by order from protesting. CO status can’t be extended to him in this case, since he doesn’t have an objection to all war.

Complain all you want, but service members have certain restrictions placed on their freedoms. They can’t live where they want to, they can’t quit their job at a whim, they have to meet rigorous physical fitness, grooming, and behavior standards that most civilians would balk at. It has been so for a long long time.

49

Yes, as long as it wasn’t a literal desertion from the field.

Once they’re in the field, they should do as their told, but I think they should allowed to opt out of going to the field in the first place.

I agree with other posters that Mejia did not go through the proper channels, and I have no problem with a dishonorable discharge, I just think jail time is pointless for a victimless crime. I just can’t work up any hatred for a kid who doesn’t want to kill innocent people any more.

50

What’s that suppose to mean?

The point of my post was that military training does not inure people from knowing right from wrong. nor does it prevent them from having a conscience in the field.

I know what the laws are. I just think they’re too harsh. Like I said, I’m drawing a distinction between literal desertion from the field and the technical desertion of refusing to go.

I’m not even saying it shouldn’t be punished at all. Bust them, DD them, whatever. I can’t see how they’re a threat to society, though, and that’s the only reason people should be locked up.

51

An honest question, here, Mr. Cynic: Do you believe that vigilantism is right or wrong?

52

I see where you’re going and I’m not going to fall for it. I’m not arguing for the right of individuals to make their own justice, or to follow their consciences into violence. I’m talking about the right to refuse to do wrong. I’m talking about a passive right, not an active one.

53

Mejia was a twenty-eight year old Army staff sergeant. Calling him a kid is rather insulting to him, don’t you think? It’s implying that a grown man was acting childishly.

54

Anyone in his 20’s seems like a kid to me. I’m just old I guess. I don’t mean it to be insulting. I’m not going to apologize for it, thouigh. It seems like a rather petty thing to take offense to.

55

I don’t take offense at all. But you shouldn’t make Mejia out to be some starry-eyed child, when the reality is something very different.

56

What’s the difference between fleeing the field and not coming back to the field? He’s still NOT on the field, right? I really don’t see the difference.

Look, I’m not asking you to work up any hatred for the guy. But what he did was a crime. And soldiers do not get to opt out, because, and you have to admit this, it would leave our armed forces in chaos. The chain of command is pretty much useless if we have to ask soldiers if they agree with what we are doing. The time for people to opt out is before they sign up.

57

What does being “starry-eyed” have to do with anything. I would have just as much sympathy for the crustiest veteran as for the greenest E1. I don’t see personal conscience as a symptom of naivete or youth.

Let me rephrase myself. I can’t work up any hatred for anyone in the field who doesn’t want to kill people anymore.

58

When I first read your arguments, Diogenes, I thought you were referring only to situations regarding the draft. If that is/was the case, then I agree with you completely. A person who is called into service against their will should be able allowed to obtain CO status based on a moral or ethical objection to the specific conflict for which they are being drafted. This is both moral and practical (moral, because it is indeed possible to oppose certain wars without opposing all; and practical because, as has been said, it would not benefit the military to have combatants who didn’t believe their cause was just).

But if your argument extends to those who volunteered for service, I’m afraid that’s where I have to draw the line. By signing up for the military, you are in effect signing up to follow the orders of whoever happens to be in charge during your term of service, however moral or otherwise you may believe them to be. (This is one of the main reasons I would never join.) From a practical standpoint, the disadvantage is obvious; taking a poll of every enlisted man and woman before every operation to see who’s “up for it” would effectively halve the military’s manpower for any given undertaking, not to mention making long-term planning nearly impossible, since “enlisted conscientious objectors” could overrule any single mission. From the moral standpoint, nobody but the most hard-boiled idealist would ever expect the military to do something like this (and I’m a civil libertarian, so believe me, it’s not often I call anybody overly idealistic), especially since, as I said, you agreed to abide by your orders when you signed up. Volunteers, well, volunteered. They are not free to escape at will from the consequences of that decision.

59

Funny, that sounded like just what you were arguing for.

You should stand by what you said, Diogenes, or disavow it now. And yes, vigilantism is the moral equivalent of what you’ve advocated. It’s an individual deciding that his personal moral choices trump the rule of law.

60

The difference is that fleeing the field puts people in danger and refusing to return does not.

I don’t believe that the miltary would be significantly affected by the number of soldiers who would refuse to go. The vast majority would still go, and as I said, once they’re in the field, they should honor their committments. If they change their minds while in the field, they need to go through proper channels to get CO status and honor their obligation until that status goes through.

I would also increase bonus pay for soldiers in the field but Bushco has gone the other way on that.