No, she’s from Alabama (no slight intended to the State of Alabama) and is of the opinion that the only thing preventing the NWO from installing a One World Government in America is gun ownership. The lack of formal declarations of war by congress since WW2 is no doubt part of a nefarious plan by the NWO types to undermine the constitution prior to sending everyone to secret government FEMA concentration camps.
That could be a whole other thread by itself. But Camp Bondsteel was a nice reward.
She has a point though - in the context of the UCMJ, wouldn’t the “at war” conditions of punishment not apply, because while the US has been very much at war in practice over the years, it has not in theory been officially and all legal-like “at war” since WW2 ?
[QUOTE=Qin Shi Huangdi]
Pinochet/Mujahadeen-The USSR did the exact same thing in many other countries not to mention that both Allende and the Communist Afghan government lacked popular support
[/QUOTE]
Ah. So you admit to not being any better than Soviet Russia. Well, that’s a start I suppose.
And Allende did have popular support. He was democratically elected, you see. Not sure what you’re talking about re: Communist Afghan government, since what the US did was deliver weapons and training to the muj’, the rabidly religious blokes you’re in the business of fighting right now. Or, as the end credits of Rambo 3 put it, “the gallant people of Afghanistan” 
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
In that sense, everything’s a choice, and no one is obligated to do anything. Sure, there are penalties for choosing not to do certain things, which may include jail, but that just makes the choice harder; it doesn’t remove it.
[/QUOTE]
Precisely.
That being said, and having checked further, it does seem to be harder than I thought to get right out of the military.
That being said, I don’t believe the Army has much incentive to bring along someone who’s strongly objecting to the war on moral grounds - a person who’ll just drag the unit’s morale down and might possibly even refuse orders while in country. If that person can prove (through stubbornness, mostly) that his convictions are not just a front to not get shot, they’ll likely find a compromise. An unmotivated fighter is no fighter at all. Which is sort of the point of having an all-volunteer military in the first place.
War, officially declared or not, is not required to be guilty of desertion. All of Article 85 is here. I think perhaps focus was placed there due to the bolding used, but it was in Mgalindo13 first post:
there’s also this specifically for comissioned officers:
Hazardous duty or important service is defined as:
So not only is duty in a combat zone specifically included as hazardous duty, the court martial has final say on determining if any duty is hazardous or service is important. The whole issue of the death penalty for desertion during wartime is rather moot, Eddie Slovik remains the only person executed for desertion since the Civil War - which as Mr. Moto alluded to was not accompanied by any formal declaration of war by congress.
That’s not what I was talking about, but I wasn’t really clear. I know you can be guilty of desertion even in peacetime. What I meant is that according to this:
[QUOTE=Article85]
c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”
[/QUOTE]
They can’t shoot you for it unless you desert “in time of war”. But since America hasn’t officially been in time of war since the 40s, they couldn’t shoot you for it today pour encourager les autres even if they wanted to, could they ?
Because if not, **Susannan **was correct in noting that **Mgalindo13 **going all **death **wasn’t called for, was my point.
You don’t know the Army, obviously. You refuse to deploy, you can pretty much guarantee jail time, bust to the lowest rank they can give you, and a dishonorable discharge, which will make you essentially unemployable for the rest of your life. That’s pretty severe consequences.
Yes, that was my point.
-
No it didn’t.
-
deserve?
For purposes of prosecutions under the UCMJ the courts have held, on numerous occasions, that “a time of war” has existed several times since WWII. A Congressional declaration is not required to constitute “time of war.”
A determination that a “time of war” exists does more than just trigger enhanced punishments. It also has the legal effect of altering peacetime procedural provisions, such as tolling statutes of limitations on criminal offenses, such as desertion, which might otherwise run during peacetime.
It was a tie!
I never stated we were at war or that someone today would be put to death for breaching article 85. I simply listed what the consequences may be for desertion. The bolding of “death” (as well as “confinement for 5 years” BTW) was simply to emphasize the seriousness of the repercussions in response to the statement that there was “no penalty whatsoever for breaching that contract.”
Soldiers basically do as ordered. They are trained, indoctrinated, and mostly have no choice. Hating on anyone below training and doctrine level is misplaced. Even then it ought to be qualified, because of the belief that tradoc must be a certain way to keep soldiers living and units effective.
Let’s put it this way - why would any nation want an army that *didn’t *do what it was ordered? Better not to have an army at all.
Obviously, I neither expect the grunts to actually take a stand against the illegality of the wars and refuse to participate, nor do I expect any court to actually prosecute them once they do participate. That is not the point. What I am arguing is the following:
PREMISE: It is acceptable to hate criminals for their criminal activities.
PREMISE: Individuals that participate in the commission of a crime become criminals themselves.
PREMISE: Ignorance of the law being no defense to criminal liability, it is irrelevant that some or most participants in a criminal war are not capable of appreciating its illegality.
CONCLUSION: US soldiers are criminals, and it is perfectly acceptable to hate them.
That’s ridiculous. My immigrant status does not render me some kind of second-class citizen. I do not have some special duty to adore this country or to avoid criticisms of it at all costs. I am not somehow required to turn a blind eye to your oppression of innocent peoples around the world simply because I happened to be born elsewhere.
The incentive the Army has in forcing someone to go to a combat zone is to ensure that other people don’t get the same idea. If you could just say “I object to war on moral grounds” and get sent home - more people would do it.
When you enlist you take an oath, and you know there is always the possibility that you will be in a combat zone. It doesn’t matter what your MOS is, almost every job has its combat equivalent. You can’t make that commitment and then back out because you get scared.
You’re missing a premise, and that’s:
PREMISE: The wars the US participates in are criminal.
That’s not what I believe. That’s not what most Americans believe, and consequently, your argument falls apart.
Exactly how often do people demonize German soldiers from WWII? Having them set as antagonists in, say, “Saving Private Ryan” or a video game i not “demonization.”
I would further point out that most German soldiers were not Nazis.
No, you’re wrong. You’re confusing two different concepts; the laws of war versus law IN war.
What is or is not legal with regards to the perpetrating and launching of wars, such as electing to invade Iraq in 2003, is the subject of the concept of just ad bellum, in effect “the right/justification to wage war.” You could argue that George W. Bush et al. were in violation of the traditions and international treaties that compose existing jus ad bellum.
The conduct of officers and soldiers in war is the concept is jus in bello, roughly “laws within war.” Those treaties and traditions concern the manner in which war is waged.
It is perfectly possible for a soldier to conduct himself legally in a war that was launched illegally - and it is equally perfectly possible for a soldier to conduct himself ILLEGALLY in a war fought legally. An American soldier who respects the laws of war while serving in Iraq is acting legally. An American soldier who murdered prisoners of war in World War II, a war that was legally entered into by the USA, was a criminal, irrespective of his country’s just stats in the war.
If you would like to live in a country where soldiers happily disregard civilian authority, I would suggest you first read up on the quality of life in military dictatorships, since that’s what you’ll be getting.
That’s why I said:
Realistically, it is very unlikely that anyone will ever be shot for desertion “during wartime” by the US ever again. It’s only happened once since 1865, and the Slovik case was rather unique; he was urged to return to his unit and have the whole thing forgotten repeatedly before being taken into custody, or at least to burn the note that he had written and handed over to the MPs in which he stated he was running away and would run away again if sent back to his unit. Slovik didn’t expect to be executed; he thought he would just be sent to jail since no executions for desertion had actually been carried out even when the death penalty was imposed. Unfortunately for him, he deserted at a time when there were concerns about morale amongst the infantry ebbing, punctuated by the sudden surprise German offensive in the Ardennes, the “Battle of the Bulge” in which two entire infantry regiments surrendered to the Germans en masse after being encircled.
On the other hand, several hundred soldiers were executed for desertion during the US Civil War. While there was of course no UCMJ back then, these didn’t occur “during a time of war” by Susananns definition of the term, since congress never declared war on the CSA.
Unless the soldier in question is a conscript, he is doing what he does by choice, and is morally responsible.
The US has been in Iraq for many years. As I understand, enlistment contracts in the US military are between 3 and 7 years, after which the enlistee may leave without penalty, or may sign a new contract. That means that every single soldier currently participating in that war either enlisted or re-enlisted at least once since the start. They enlisted or re-enlisted knowing that the war was going on and that their participation was likely.
Don’t tell me they don’t have a choice. They had the choice not to enlist at all.
All enlistment contracts are eight years. The ctive duty portion may be as little as three years (actually, I think I heard they have a two year program now), but inactive duty continues to the full eight years. During those remaining years you can be recalled to active duty at any time for just about any reason.
That being said, you are still correct; everyone serving today had a choice to enlist. Which anyone who doesn’t want to serve should be ecstatic about. It’s the people who volunteer who make it so they don’t have to. There are more than 23 countries around that world that require service from their citizens. Would you prefer that?