News U.S. Soldier Found Guilty of Deserting Iraq Unit

[Adam]

FORT STEWART, Ga. (Reuters) - A U.S. soldier who said he saw prisoners being abused in Iraq was convicted of desertion on Friday for failing to return to his unit after taking leave to the United States last year.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=5224712

Sure. Penalise the guy for refusing to take part in illegal actions.

 

[Hurkyl]

I thought he was being penalized for deserting?

And I wonder what happens if he tried to do something about it instead of running away?

 

[Adam]

In our military, soldiers have the right to refuse to obey illegal orders. That includes "go over there and be a part of these activities". Not sure about in the US though.

 

[kat]

In our military they do as well, but they need to follow certain procedures. This includes not only orders they deem to be "illegal" but also exclusion based on moral or religious reasons. Again, they can't just "run away" they need to follow the proper procedures to do so.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

In our military, soldiers have the right to refuse to obey illegal orders. That includes "go over there and be a part of these activities". Not sure about in the US though.

Wow, a democratic military. Just think, the massacre of all those brave Australian troops could have been avoided at Galipoli, if they had just raised their hands and said, "we ain't goin".

 

[Adam]

In WW1, Australia pretty much saw itself as England Junior. Our troops were under the command of the British, and that was seen as rather normal, since we'd all been British only a few years before. Basically, our troops were operating under British rule.

 

[studentx]

So your saying it was the British' fault, and the British were you

 

[Adam]

At the time, there was a wholle lot of stupidity and BS from Australia, England, and lots of others.

 

[aeroegnr]

Does anyone here post news of the good things that have been happening in Iraq?

Or are we just going to focus on everything that is negative and wrong?

 

[Adam]

1) https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=26796

2) It's an illegal invasion which killed thousands of civilians. What's good about it?

 

[studentx]

Proof that its illegal?

 

[Adam]

Proof that its illegal?

Once again, studentx, sit back and read some more. We've been through it all before.

Under USA law, is the president allowed to take the nation to war? No. The US Constitution allows only for the Congress to make war.

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power to...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

There is of course the USA's War Powers Act, which further defines who can do what in times of war. However, the War Powers Act also states:

Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

What about internaional law? One law of particular interest which the USA signed on for is the United Nations Charter, which states:

United Nations Charter, Chapter 1, Article 2:

Part 1: "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

Part 3: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

Part 4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

There is of course Chapter 7, but that is irrelevant since the SC did not make any such decision.

An interesting website: http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/ Obviously these people have a stated bias, but the law is written in black and white.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18607

 

[Kerrie]

In our military they do as well, but they need to follow certain procedures. This includes not only orders they deem to be "illegal" but also exclusion based on moral or religious reasons. Again, they can't just "run away" they need to follow the proper procedures to do so.

agreed, but what a dilema to be in...having your country's military dictate that you go against being honorable.

 

[studentx]

Adam i suggest you read your own thread again. It is YOUR OPINION that the war is illegal.

 

[Janitor]

Adam,

I could just about see you grudgingly admitting that the United States had a right to declare war on Japan after the Pearl Harbor attack. But Roosevelt also used that occasion to declare war on the European Axis nations, which did not play any direct role in Pearl Harbor. Your thoughts?

Also, if you have commented on the September 11 attacks, I have not seen your posts. What were your thoughts on that? I would call the perpetrators terrorists, but do you prefer the term 'martyrs'?

 

[Adam]

Adam i suggest you read your own thread again. It is YOUR OPINION that the war is illegal.

Please read the laws provided again. It has nothing to do with my personal opinion. The law is the law.

 

[Adam]

I could just about see you grudgingly admitting that the United States had a right to declare war on Japan after the Pearl Harbor attack. But Roosevelt also used that occasion to declare war on the European Axis nations, which did not play any direct role in Pearl Harbor. Your thoughts?

Start a thread about it.

Also, if you have commented on the September 11 attacks, I have not seen your posts. What were your thoughts on that? I would call the perpetrators terrorists, but do you prefer the term 'martyrs'?

Start a thread about that too, if you wish.

 

[Stanley_Smith]

Adam, I'm pretty impressed that you seems to know a lot about the US laws even though you are not from the US...

"It's an illegal invasion which killed thousands of civilians. What's good about it?"

So I guess the images of thousands of Iraqis cheering when the US pulled down Saddam's statue in Baghdad in April did not mean anything ? If the invasion is not so good than what are the Iraqi people happy about ? I'm talking about the Iraqi people who live in Iraq, not anyone else sitting in his/her comfortable house somewhere else outside Iraq telling others whether the war was just/necessary/legal or not... Given 60% of Iraqi are Shiite, in addition to Kurds and Chaldean and all of these people were oppressed... and Saddam's government was comprised of mainly minority Sunni...

I beg people didn't spend the same amount of effort talking about whether the war was legal or not when Saddam invaded Kuwait in the 90s :) And interestingly enough when saddam was around, the issues of innocent Iraqi being jailed, tortured, executed weren't brought up and made headlines like now. To sum up, from USA Today, according to recent poll :"The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it. Half say they and their families are better off than they were under Saddam. And a strong majority say they are more free to worship and to speak". I don't think the Iraqis speak for themselves, we don't need to sit here and judge subjectively about the war.

 

[Adam]

Adam, I'm pretty impressed that you seems to know a lot about the US laws even though you are not from the US...

It's one of my many magical talents, the ability to read.

So I guess the images of thousands of Iraqis cheering when the US pulled down Saddam's statue in Baghdad in April did not mean anything ?

Heck, if I had lived under Saddam Hussein, I'd be glad he was gone too! However, that doesn't change the fact that the invasion was illegal, the occupation is illegal, and a LOT of people have died.

If the invasion is not so good than what are the Iraqi people happy about ?

A lot of them aren't happy about it.

Given 60% of Iraqi are Shiite, in addition to Kurds and Chaldean and all of these people were oppressed... and Saddam's government was comprised of mainly minority Sunni...

The Kurds were bothered more by the Turks than by Saddam.

I beg people didn't spend the same amount of effort talking about whether the war was legal or not when Saddam invaded Kuwait in the 90s :)

That invasion was clearly illegal. As was this one.

And interestingly enough when saddam was around, the issues of innocent Iraqi being jailed, tortured, executed weren't brought up and made headlines like now.

Yeah it was. People were always talking about Saddam and his sons being nutters.

we don't need to sit here and judge subjectively about the war.

I don't judge subjectively. The law is black and white. It does not require subjective judgement.

 

[Stanley_Smith]

"Heck, if I had lived under Saddam Hussein, I'd be glad he was gone too! However, that doesn't change the fact that the invasion was illegal, the occupation is illegal, and a LOT of people have died"

"I don't judge subjectively. The law is black and white"

I agree that a lot of people have died. Also note that we at least know who died and how they died; under Saddam, the whole village could disappear and nobody would know anything about it.

Actually the law is not black and white, all of us should know this, most of the lawyers should be out of work right now if there isn't somethong called "gray area"
And speaking of the law, I don't think the common Iraqis don't know about the law like we do just simply because they never have a chance to know. Again, I think we need a lot of lawyers to argue whether the war was legal or not. Examples of the reasons for the war might be : the right of the US to defend itself, saddam wasn't a truly elected leader, etc... However, the fact is the Iraqi and the world are a lot better with no Saddam is clear.

 

[Adam]

the right of the US to defend itself,

How did any of it constitute "defence" of the USA?

However, the fact is the Iraqi and the world are a lot better with no Saddam is clear.

The world minus Saddam is good. The world plus a gigantic mobile military force driven by greedy, lying politicians, ignoring international laws and killing thousands of people, is bad.

 

[Stanley_Smith]

"How did any of it constitute "defence" of the USA?"

I'll let the international lawyers if hired by the US answer the question. I just happen to remember that "the right to defend itself" is often used by the Israel, too...

"The world minus Saddam is good. The world plus a gigantic mobile military force driven by greedy, lying politicians, ignoring international laws and killing thousands of people, is bad"

keep in mind that there is no such thing as a perfect or ideal government. We are living in a real world, not an ideal one. And sometimes it is the consequences that speak for an action...
Just a few thoughts...

 

[Adam]

"How did any of it constitute "defence" of the USA?"

I'll let the international lawyers if hired by the US answer the question. I just happen to remember that "the right to defend itself" is often used by the Israel, too...

Well, I've never heard ANYONE give any reason for saying that attacking Iraq was defending the USA.

"The world minus Saddam is good. The world plus a gigantic mobile military force driven by greedy, lying politicians, ignoring international laws and killing thousands of people, is bad"

keep in mind that there is no such thing as a perfect or ideal government. We are living in a real world, not an ideal one. And sometimes it is the consequences that speak for an action...
Just a few thoughts...

"The world sucks" is a completely lame justification.

 

[Stanley_Smith]

The world does not suck.. remember that... what view to be
"sucked" is relative from one to another...
Noone can disprove that there is no such thing as perfection.

 

[Kalimaa23]

I could just about see you grudgingly admitting that the United States had a right to declare war on Japan after the Pearl Harbor attack. But Roosevelt also used that occasion to declare war on the European Axis nations, which did not play any direct role in Pearl Harbor. Your thoughts?

Wrong. This is a commenly held misconception in the US, but Germany declared war on the US after it declared war on Japan, not the other way around...