I vehemently disagree that there is any equivalence and reject your assertions outright.
How so? The end result is one less soldier in the field in both cases. In both cases, commanders count on that one soldier. They plan for his being there. And there force is depleted by one and they do not have that soldier’s particular skill, whatever that may be. What is the big difference when that soldier chooses to scurry?
Reject all you wish.
The equivalence, as noted by Spoofe, is a very real thing. You can’t run away from these implications - they’re inescapable.
We’ve already spelled out the honorable and legal ways of avoiding combat and keeping your conscience clear, Diogenes. If you’re not willing to take these steps, you sully your conscience and run afoul of the law. I really don’t see why this is so hard for you to grasp.
I especially don’t see how you can fail to see that the law cannot be more lenient without causing a breakdown of discipline. That can cause more deaths in the field - something we’re all trying to minimize here.
No one would leave the field in the first place if there wasn’t an adequate replacement.
Anyway the miltary is specifically structured to not be dependent on any one individual.
I think the danger to troops in field of an action like Mejia’s is pretty much non-existent.
Moto. Passively refusing to do something morally repugnant is not the same as attempting enforce a personal morality or justice on others. There is no equivalency between opting out of a war and vigilanteism.
Actually, it’s kind of ironic that you would harp on vigilanteism since the invasion of Iraq was itself a massive act of vigilanteism which defied international law. If all countries did that we’d have chaos would we not?
Diogenes, if someone is counting on you to do a job, and you refuse to do that job, that is not a passive act. That is a very deliberate act of resistance.
In the military, where lives may well count on said job getting done, this is even more true.
Nobody can passively refuse to do anything. That’s just a sentence full of nonsense. Refusal is an action.
The actions of the U.S. government are quite another matter, well discussed in other threads. The fact that you’re bringing up this up again only shows that you’re losing this particular argument on its own merits.
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this, Moto. I think torturers deserve worse punishment than Mejio. YMMV.
I don’t disagree with that statement on its face, Diogenes. But I sure do have an issue with some of your arguments.
On this, I will agree. The torturerers should have gotton a lot more time in the slam. I still think Mejio deserved what* he * got.
Actually, I honestly don’t know how I would compare murdering one person with stealing from millions and possibly severely impacting the lives of several hundred or thousand. It’s an interesting question.
I think it is easier to make comparisons when the occur at approximately the same level in terms of the number of people they impact.
I deeply disagree with this . If you’re thinking you’re one of the wheels of a machinery leading an unjust war with unnaceptable methods, the moral thing to do is to leave, not to stay and going on supporting this unjust war by your active participation. Trying to prevent bad things for occuring, or to warm people higher up in the chain of command is fine and dandy, and even laudable, but if it doesn’t prove to be efficient, at some point one has the moral to break ties and walk away, or else, he will an accomplice of what is commited. If you’re morally strongly opposed to something, you can’t accept to stay involved.
As for leaving his comrades in need, my response would be : his comrades could have done the same. If they didn’t, it means that they were actually supporting what he’s morraly opposed to, and he had (morally) to leave them at their own devices.
The behavior of this man is precisely the most morally commendable in my opinion. I expressed this view several times on this board. I often give the example of the Israeli refuzniks who were recently sentenced because they refused to serve in the occupied territories, though they were perfectly willing to fight in a situation where, acording to them, Israel occupied the moral high ground. In France I could more readily give the example of desertors who refused to fight in the Algeria war, but it won’t be as familiar an example on this american board.
When things are as serious as involving blowing stuff, kiling, risking one’s life, torturing, IOW when war is involved, ultimately, nothing should weight more in one’s decision than one’s conscience. And the morale failure is in accepting to fight or support a fight for an unjust cause and/or by unjust means. Breaking an oath, abandonning people who are precisely involved in/commiting/supporting these actions is certainly of a very minor importance by comparison. Where the duty lies, in my point of view, is very clear.
Is there any indication that Mejia was involved or even knew about the torture? Because the two events happened at the same time and in the same general location does not mean that the two events are related.
Certainly orders and missions that are clearly unjust/unlawful (i.e., “Go shoot those prisoners”) should be resisted at any cost. The soldiers that were involved in the torture should be punished severely, and their officers and superiors should be right next to them.
Mejia was a soldier and deserted his post. Both the tortures and Mejia should be punished severly, but for different reasons.
I hope the torturers get a severe punishment, but Mejia got off too lightly.
For whatever it’s worth, there’s something of a quirk in the military justice system which provides a very strong barrier against guilty pleas which result in sentences longer than one year. Basically, under a Special Court Martial, the maximum sentence is a year plus a dishonorable discharge. To get more than that for a sentence, the military has to convene a General Court Martial.
Here’s where the problem is. Unlike the civilian system (in non-death-penalty cases) under a General Court Martial appeals are not waived by a guilty plea. Indeed, some of the appeals process is automatic, and there are additional reviews where officers may reduce (but not increase) sentences unilaterally. So if the persons here decided a few weeks in that they didn’t like life in a military prison, they could actively join their automatic appeals process. Even if they didn’t, they’d be agitating for a shorter sentence than whatever the original court handed out.
This creates something of a natural cut-off at a year for all but the most grevious crimes. A guilty defendant has a very strong incentive to insist that the plea come in a Special proceeding to minimize his sentence. A prosecutor has an equally strong incentive to close the books on a case. Unless the defendant thinks acquittal is a reasonable possibility or the prosecutor thinks the crime merits a sentence in the multiples of a year and has a strong belief that s/he’ll get it accomplished net after appeals and reviews, a Special is where a plea will occur.
In the interest of accuracy, he sounds more like a lying sack of shit. From the StL Post-Dispatch
Of course the fact Massey is liar has no relevence to the OP’s rant about Abu Ghraib prison abuses - but it does prove that sometimes the extraneous chatter that often accompanies these stories should be looked into
Wow. I was totally unconvinced by your argument, until I saw how big you made these letters. Then I thought to myself, “Self, anyone who isn’t afraid of making his letters really really big MUSt know what he’s on about. You’d be a fool not to listen to him!”