Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by TacticalNuke, Jun 10, 2006.
That is all.
His "legal" basis for doing so is shaky at best. However, in this day and age he'll be praised as a hero, and lawyers will stampede each other to defend him.
This man deserves to be locked up/shot.
Not to play the devils advocate, but isnt that what all the German people would have said to anyone who spoke out against Nazi atrocities?
Not at all to say that we in any way do ANYTHING like that, but it makes you wonder what he saw to make him do this?
Hey man this place is for discussion, so that's fine.
However, I wouldn't exactly compare it to the Nazi atrocities.
I, too, wonder what exactly he saw as a basis for this decision. Sure, we swear to defend the Constitution, but that argument more works when you're told to, say, gun down a kindergarten class.
I guess anyone can say anything is illegal, but in terms of the Constitution I don't see anything wrong, and that's the basis for this, along with of course the Law of Land Warfare linked.
I don't see where he gets the idea that he was issued illegal orders. That, combined with the fact that he signed up in '03 makes me want to go against him. It seems he wants the benefits of the army, but not the risk of Iraq. I agree, Z.
I think that may be the problem though, we arent privy to the information of WHOs orders he has a problem with, or WHAT orders, or WHY. Were missing a lot of pieces to a probably complex puzzle. Either that or you guys are right and hes just a piece of ****
To quote another forum:
"Because we have no say in whether we go to war, we cannot be held responsible for the war itself. However, we can and do make decisions about how the war is fought, and we are in turn held responsible for those decisions. In the philosophy of war, these are called jus add bellum and jus in bello, which mean "rights to war" and "rights in war," respectively."
He should have gone to war, he should have done his part, and THEN once there, he would have a legal basis for refusal what he saw as illegal orders.
Ship his unit and give him orders to go with it, then in 30 days when he is not there shoot him for being a deserter. Problem solved, remember this is a time of war and deserters can be shot.
I can't grasp the concept. Think about it. Why be a dog catcher if you're not gonna catch dogs. Same concept to me. Don't even sign up for the military if you can't handle the large responsiblities. He is there to follow orders & took an oath to do so. Period. I know there will be some disagreement with what I think but I just don't get it. I watched my son take an oath. Its not a "maybe" kinda thing.
I agree with a previous poster about him signing up in 2003. If he had signed up prior to 2001 I would probably be more willing to give him a couple more seconds of my time. Signing up in 2003 meant he knew full well what the Army was doing, my bigger question is how in the world in today's deployment schedule was he not deployed prior to 2006???
Anyway, this is going to be a HUGE morale issue for the Army and particularly Ft. Lewis. If they do nothing to this guy there is going to be a huge letdown of morale; however, if they treat this as they should then I don't think it will be a big deal in the soldier's eyes. They need to prosecute him to the fullest and send him to jail followed by a discharge that is not honorable. The discharge will follow him for the rest of his life if it's not 'honorable'.
In fact, last I read, a dishonorable discharge (though I know the officer system is different in terms of nomenclature) precludes you from ANY federal service at ANY time in your life. You wouldn't be able to mop the floors of a school if you wanted to do so.
I dunno dude, as I said you dont know what he saw. He may have gone to war to **** up some arabs or something but maybe not to mow down 5 year olds with guns or something. Or maybe his Platoon Leader issued an order for him to mow down a crowd of civilians just for the hell of it!? As I said we dont know the real issues behind his refusal. ANd another thing is, if it wasnt serious why the hell would he be protesting? Another question we cant answer.
Im not saying anyone here is wrong but how can we so easily condemn this man for a situation we literally know NOTHING about? As Jamzmom said, we cant even grasp the concept of why he would protest because we know nothing about the circumstances. If hes protesting because of something like mowing down a kindergarten class then maybe we would think twice before condemning him.
I didn't think he went to war.
The guy hasn't seen anything, he hasn't gone to Iraq yet, he's saying he won't go. The thing he is protesting is his deployment to Iraq. The deployment to Iraq is a lawful order, the reason he isn't in trouble yet is because he hasn't gotten the official order to go.
If he were given an order to mow down a bunch of civilians he could refuse that order as it is an unlawful order and he would be in the right.
Ahhh your right, i was under the impression that he had been over before because the arcticle said that his unit was abt to be deployed for a 2nd time, i mustve taken that to mean he had been the first time lol. Your right, hes a coward, 2003 he knew what was up.
So let's see....
He HASN'T been to Iraq...
He signed up in 2003 when the Iraq War Drums were in full fury...
This guy is a yellow stinking COWARD. I can guarantee you that he did not receive an "illegal" order, because orders to deploy are not illegal. If he had been in-country and been ordered to mow down a group of people he KNEW were innocent, then maybe I'd listen, but that's not what he got.
"Standing up for principles" my big fat Cuban ***! You want to see someone who stood up for principles? Here, look at this: Desmond Doss, or this: Thomas W. Bennett.
These men were REAL Conscientious Objectors, with REAL moral reservation and with a REAL desire to serve THEIR country. I find these men to have more dignity in the fingernail they clipped off every now and then than the entire modern "Conscientious Objector" movement can muster on its best day. This Army clown who is refusing to deploy is unworthy to loosen these two men's jockstraps, and yet he's held up as a paragon of virtue, while these two men are all but unknown.
I hope his unti deploys and he goes AWOL and then deserter so he can be shot, as posted above. Serves the coward right.
Boy, I bet his men are going to be DYING to have HIM leading THEM into battle, even if he DOES go.
lock him in the brig
Actually depending on which articles of the USMJ are applied, he could be killed. Though that'll doubtfully occur.
Separate names with a comma.