Well said, my friend. Well said. My sentiments exactly. I don’t, and never have, believed in the concept of “My country, right or wrong”. It is because I’m an American that I can say that (theoretically) without fear of repercussions. You don’t earn these rights. They are yours simply by being born in this country.
Being a soldier still does not make you “more” of a citizen than the rest of us. We need each other. Soldiers don’t survive without citizens any more than citizens can survive without soldiers. Simply going and fighting a war doesn’t make it the best thing to do for the welfare of those citizens. And in this case, I can see nothing but trouble on the horizon for our country.
The fundamental freedom would not exist if people didn’t want it to. Defending it with bullets is secondary to defending the concept.
Joining the military for reasons other than defending America can have some pretty shitty repercussions, can’t it? This is one of those times.
They weren’t forced into it. These are volunteer warriors.
So what? Unless an order given to a soldier is clearly illegal, he is obligated to follow it. And that holds true whether that soldier is a volunteer or not.
1: Because a coup d’etat is treason. Remember, that’s kind of illegal.
2:Trample or ammend? Um, that right is held by the Congress. As far as his trampling, huh? Where? When?
3: Using the powers of the state against the citizenry? Again, where, when? In fears of sounding like a board ass, cite please?
4: People being interrogated for what they say on message boards. Trust me, if what you’re saying is inflammatory enough to catch the eye of the FBI, then you need to be interrogated. Just like I said to Erek before, you ain’t that important.
5: Just whom are you speaking about? The prisoners down at GitMo? If so, please remember that those motherfuckers are lucky. Accoring to the Geneva Conventions of 1945 (as ammended,) an individual who is captured engaging in combat activities without being in uniform are allowed to be executed without trial.
Thank you Mr. Moto. Well said.
He’s still responsible…obligated by military law or not. Volunteer or not. He has the option to say no. Many have and I’m sure many more will. Given the option between killing someone for a reason I thought was wrong or going to jail? Feh. I’d do the time. At least you eventually get out of that prison.
So, basically, if the President and Congress turned out to be enemies of the Constitution, you couldn’t do anything because it would be treason. Essentially, your oath is worthless. Let’s face it, the people you fight will be the ones that the president and the military higher-ups decide are the enemies. And chances are, you’ll unquestioningly agree with them and follow your orders.
Sorry, I can’t agree.
I’m respectful of the tradition of pacifism and conscientious objection in this country. I’m willing to bet I’m better aware both of the history of this and the implications of it in the modern age, given the thought and training I’ve given the subject for my position on my local Selective Service board.
However, once the military member gets into the combat zone, or on a plane, or on a ship, he had better be able to follow orders and do his job. Failure to do so can have consequences far beyond a jail term for him - it can get him, his buddies or his shipmates killed.
There are lots of cases of conspicuous military heroism - where one man or woman, through hard work, training, and courage, saved lives and achieved almost impossible objectives. I have tried to spotlight some of these heroes here. Accepting that one person can make a huge difference for the positive in a war zone leads to an unavoidable conclusion though, that one person can get many others killed if he screws up.
Now, you might eventually get out of prison, but you’d have to live with that knowlege for the rest of your life.
Whether you’re a volunteer or a conscript, you had better be able to fight before you get to combat, and you have to fight once you get there. If you can’t do that, you have an obligation to not join up, or to become a CO.
So no, sorry. The soldier in the scenario you described doesn’t have the option to say no.
Mr. Moto, if soldiers do not have the option of saying now, what exactly does that make them?
But I don’t buy your logic, anyway. If a soldier says ‘no’ will there be consequences? Yes. But by the same token, you don’t get a magic pass on morality just because you’re following orders. It just doesn’t work that way. If you do something wrong because you were ordered to, you’ve still done something wrong.
It makes them warriors, of course.
I didn’t join the military to learn knitting, you know. We generally leave that to the Air Force.
I’m not saying you leave your morality at the door when you join, and the military specifically forbids soldiers from following unlawful orders. As an example, if an officer were to order his subordinates to violate the Geneva Convention - they couldn’t legally obey.
What I am saying is that if you have a moral problem being a soldier in general, you have no damn business in the military. I’m surprised this is a controversial comment.
Incidentally, this is what the military has to say about following orders. From the Uniform Code of Military Justice:
Now, in practice an imposition of the death penalty for disobeying an order is rare - a less severe punishment is typically imposed in cases severe enough to warrant court martial. Neverless, it is a severe matter.
Hey, you can take that attitude and shove it. The USAF is the only branch which can say “Whole planet destroyed in 45 minutes or your money back!”
No, it’s not. You seem to forget that Bush et al are the duly elected government of the United States. We follow their orders. Not unquestiongly, but the questions that you bring up had better be good, or else you will be brought up on charges. I forget who it was, but some joker in the Army refused to wear a blue UN cap with his uniform when his battalion was sent to Yugoslavia. He refused to obey a lawful order and recieved (I believe 30 days restriction and a reduction in rank) a punishment. If the Federal Government suddenly started giving orders to, say, bomb San Francisco, do you believe that the CinC USAFACC would carry out that order? No. Then he’d be relieved. And his vice would say “no.” And he’d be relieved, until at some point some jackass captain or major says “Sure, why not?” and issues orders to his flights. Then, his flight officers would be like “WTF?! Oh hell no!” and ‘relieve’ him of his post. Sorry, but stuff moves up and down the chain of command. It gets stuck somewhere if there’s something wrong with it.
HAY! I take offense to that. I get paid to build things that facilitate the killing of people and the blowing of shit up. I’m RED HORSE and I’m damned proud.
Will I take incoming fire? I will–not much of a choice once it’s launched in my general direction. Will I return that incoming fire? If I’m not too busy with my new quilt, yer damn straight I will!
Tripler
Oh, and we can’t knit. The TSA won’t allow our needles on rotator aircraft.
I think most folks at the SDMB know that I am definitely a left-leaning liberal (hey, I’m from Massachusetts). You also may know I have participated in and started numerous George “Dubya” Bush-bashing threads. Yes, my opinion of “Dubya” is, oh … something less than flattering. 
(He’s a jerk, okay?) So, when I side with AirmanDoors and Mr Moto it is not because of any conservative ideology.
As for politicians voting against a certain bill, that is not always an indication of their beliefs. (If someone votes against an anti-pollution bill, it could be that the legislation does not go far enough).
As for disobeying orders or plotting a coup d’etat? I think either course of action would be extremely inadvisable. The US military takes a VERY DIM view of insubordination or mutiny. The movie the “Caine Mutiny” states that the US Navy has never had a mutiny. Actually it had one. Wanna find out what happened?
http://users.bestweb.net/~rg/execution/USS%20Somers.htm
Also, the US Constitution is NOT in effect when you are in the military. As Mr Moto pointed out, you are governed by the rules of the “Uniform Code of Military Justice”. Try exercising your “right” to free speech in the military.
Gene Hackman, a submarine captain in the movie “Crimson Tide”, puts it quite well when he says “We’re here to preserve democracy - not to practice it”.
All I wanted to see was a post that said:
*I’ll serve my duty honorably and obey the orders I am given to advance the cause of the coaltion in Iraq. In that way I will support the war.
That doesn’t mean I have to blind myself to the a pack of lies selling this war, and that these are an appeal to the lowest and worst instincts of the American public.*
Was that too much to ask? Apparently it was.
That’s essentially what Airman said in post 62.
Sorry, but I know too many people in the military for me to believe you. I’ve overheard two generals discussing with a high level Singaporean naval officer how they wished the US military could deal with anti-war protestors the same way that Singapore does after hearing the Singaporean officer bragging that in Singapore, protestors are simply rounded up and thrown in jail.
If it was just a random nut wanting to bomb San Fran for no reason tomorrow, sure, nothing would happen. It’s too beyond the pale and too obviously crazy. But I think that Abu Gharaib and how the military handled shows the respect (or lack thereof) the higher ups have for the Geneva Codes or basic human rights. A few scapegoats to appease the public and a whitewash.
No, there’s little doubt that if it comes down to defending my freedoms from the government, the military is most definitely not going to be on my side.
Fuck Godwin!
This thread is yet one more illustration of why Hitler was able to do what he did.
“Why are you murdering countless innocent Iraqis?”
“Uh…just following orders, Sir.”
After the event.
Sorry but I’m not about to give ‘props’ when someone admits what is a matter of public proof.
That said, to his credit Airman hasn’t the cowardice to deny what’s evident or join the whitewash.
Gee, when this conservative Republican was sitting at an air base in Italy, pounding out aircrew briefs for recce missions over Bosnia and monitoring voice and data comms, do you really think I supported Clinton or his Yugoslavia policy politically all the way?
Or was I just supporting a military mission operationally?
You didn’t see a post to this effect because I thought it went without saying.