I was reading a post on Salon.com the other day excoriating Obama for targeting an individual affiliated with the Taliban who happened to be a U.S. citizen, claiming that the administration was essentially executing a death sentence without due process on secret evidence. I was thinking about that when I remembered a conversation I once had with a friend who was a captain in the army. I had asked him if he was allowed to summarily shoot one of the soldiers under his command. I had figured that that was an invention of the movies, but he said he could if the soldier in question left his post to join the other side in battle. Wouldn’t the former case be essentially the same thing?
Firstly, a soldier takes an oath and accepts certain responsibilities and the punishments that come with that. In the former case no such oath was taken, no responsibilities were accepted and no punishment can be attached to an oath that was never taken and a responsibility that was never accepted.
Secondly, the Captain, as any soldier, can shoot any active enemy soldier in time of war. If the soldier in question left his post to join the other side in battle, he has become an active enemy soldier. Of course he can be shot. What did you think was going to happen? Any US deserter can walk towards US troops and shoot them all one by one, and they aren’t allowed to shoot back? In contrast, in the former situation the person isn’t shooting at US troops and doesn’t present any immediate danger.
Why in the world would you think there was any comparison between the two situations?
I hadn’t thought of the case where the deserter became active enemy. I was asking him to see if he was allowed to shoot someone for desertion under fire or cowardice or something. It made sense when he told me the case where he was allowed to shoot someone who became the enemy.
I was under the impression that the individual in the former case was a terrorist (although now that I am not using my iPhone, I see that his role is more inspirational). I guess the question becomes At what point would a citizen become an enemy of the United States to the point where would could engage him militarily?
As far as the oath soldiers take, I believe they are subjecting themselves to the UCMJ, which is a bit different from the case I outlined. That is, I would be surprised to find that actively engaging US forces is a crime defined under the UCMJ. If I am wrong, please fight my ignorance. I would also expect that as a non-member of the military, if I started shooting at soldiers, they would be within their rights (to say nothing of duty) to shoot back.
In that case he never answered your question. The answer he gave specifically involved a soldier joining the enemy forces.
To the best of my knowledge officers can’t just shoot deserters without a trial.
As soon as he is amongst other enemies whom we are engaging militarily. If we are attacking a target for military reasons, and a US citizen happens to be in there. then tough luck. If we are sending drones to attack some target in Afghanistan, and this dude is there, then he is a legitimate target. If we are sending drones to target all military personnel in Afghanistan, and this guy is on the list he is a legitimate target.
Where it becomes fuzzy is if we specifically target this guy, and nobody else. But given that the US has been targeting individuals in that theatre for years, it would be impossible to make the case that he wasn’t just another person who’s name was on the list.
I would be astonished if it were not. I imagine that giving aid to the enemy is a serious crime in military law just as in civilian.
Yep, that’s what I said. Any active soldier can be shot.
Quote snipped, and it’s late as hell so I’m not doing any citing (actually, it’s early as hell, but…)
If I remember correctly, in the pre-contemporary phase, Sergeants (as non-commissioned officers) were given swords and pistols so that those retreating/deserting could be shot. Which makes a nice deterrent/incentive to do your duty.
IMHO, a soldier retreating (or “retrograding”) without permission, defecting, etc., is not doing his job. That’s not to imply that one should be shot for shitting his/her pants in a moment of panic, but every rifle not on the line has the potential to lead to a comrade getting dead. Which is not good.
