Anti-War U.S. Marine Sentenced to Six Months in Jail

[Oerdin]

This A-hole signed a paper declaring he wasn't a conscientious objector and was very happy to take the military's money up until he had to actually do his job. To abandon his friends right when they need him and to renege on his solemn oath after years of training and preparation is unforgivable.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by laurentius
howbout if the guy joined the marines only to defend america-his homeland. If he doesnt want to fight legally unjust wars abroad, he IMO shouldnt be crusifield like this. Maybe hes just a patriot, no more.

Marines have never been a defense force. Since the very beginning the Marines have been designed as an offensive military force. He knew this when he signed up and he lso signed a contract declaring he didn't have any moral problems with going to war. He took the money, he made the commitements, and accepted the job... then he abandoned his position, ignored his orders, and violated his oath of service.

He should have been convicted for desertion.

[HershOstropoler]

"The fact that invading Iraq to get rid of Hussein displeases Lima Deltas around the world does not make it unlawful."

The fact that it was a criminal act under international law may have a little more clout in making it unlawful.

But more interesting, what are the rules for leaving the reserve? How far in advance do you have to say "I'm outta here"?

[Oerdin]

Please explain specificially what makes it illegal. Please keep in mind the numerous UN resolutions which specifically authorize the use of force against Iraq. It would also be nice if you would site actual binding treaties which were ratified by all parties and not simple wishy-washy declarations which were not legally inforcable treaties.

[HershOstropoler]

Not again.

Nuremberg and Tokyo precedence, UN charter.

No UN SC resolution has authorized the US and Britain to attack Iraq.

"But 1441 says", "but it was just a ceasefire", "but it wasn't a real war" are all lame crappy excuses. You needed SC authorization, you didn't get it, end of story.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
No UN SC resolution has authorized the US and Britain to attack Iraq.

I'll bet you $5 you're wrong.

Nuremberg and Tokyo precedence, UN charter.

Please show how the Nurmeberg & Tokyo declarations are legally binding treaties which national governments ever ratified also please show that the UN Charter has absolutely any relivence upon any war since it's inception.

[HershOstropoler]

First, you'll lose that bet. Second, treaties are not the only binding source of international law. Third, I doubt you can argue for desuetudo of the UN charter. Wanna try?

[chequita guevara]

The problem is, people think they'll just be assigned to defend the country or its allies or go someplace to help keep the peace, because they've never seriously analyzed America's previous militaqry actions. Then they find the U.S. going into a war of which they don't approve and they're like f*ck I don't support this, I sure as hell don't want to die for it.

But that's not what a consciencous object is. You have to be a pacifist, which makes you wonder why they joined in the first place. Fact is, people change, and while at one point you may have supported the military, you came to realize you don't support any war at all. So you hope just to serve out your time rather than make an issue of it until you have to.

[SlowwHand]

Hershey, once again, read 1441.
It calls for a cancellation of the CEASE FIRE.

No wonder you bastards whine so much.
You've not a clue as to wtf it's all about.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Hershey, once again, read 1441.
It calls for a cancellation of the CEASE FIRE.

I believe the phrase was serious consequences.

No wonder you bastards whine so much.
You've not a clue as to wtf it's all about.

Right back at ya.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Right back at ya.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
First, you'll lose that bet.

No he won't. You wrote this:

No UN SC resolution has authorized the US and Britain to attack Iraq.

They were authorized in 1990 to attack Iraq if Iraq hadn't removed itself from Kuwait by Jan 15, 1991.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Sprayber

I don't know about Leavenworth, but here at Ft Sill some of guys in my unit went on a walkthrough ( they all work at prisons in their cvilian life) and they said things were a litte stricter than where they work back in the state prisons. The regional correctional facility here at Ft Sill is used as an overflow for Leavenworth. Sorry I can't give ya more deails, but I had no interest in even going near the place. I did see some of the prisoners being escorted for a hospital vist during one of my visits about a month ago. He didn't look happy having the Marine pulling him through the hospital with shackles.

AFAIK they're thinking of closing down the military prisons (cost savings). I dont remember where I heard it though (C-span I think).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
AFAIK they're thinking of closing down the military prisons (cost savings). I dont remember where I heard it though (C-span I think).

I'm not thinking that's a good idea.

[MrFun]

Commies like the use of prisons -- look at their history . . . .

[Imran Siddiqui]

I've always had a problem with the (IMO stupid) argument that every war not sanctioned by the UN is contrary to international law. By this view if the US went to war against Afghanistan without UN approval, they would be violating international law. I don't buy it. When the US signed on to the UN Charter there was no intention to have wars where the UN didn't give approval to be 'unlawful' under international law. If that were the case, I'd be $10 that the US would not have been a signatory.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"The fact that invading Iraq to get rid of Hussein displeases Lima Deltas around the world does not make it unlawful."

The fact that it was a criminal act under international law may have a little more clout in making it unlawful.

Actually, no. The UCMJ doesn't give everyone in uniform their own special privilege to play guardhouse lawyer and second guess the President. An unlawful order in the UCMJ is one that specifically violates the UCMJ, the laws and customs of land warfare, etc. i.e. the summary killing of civilian prisoners, rape, etc.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
When the US signed on to the UN Charter there was no intention to have wars where the UN didn't give approval to be 'unlawful' under international law.

Actually, they were trying to stop all wars, if possible.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, they were trying to stop all wars, if possible.

Emphasis added . I seriously don't think the US believed it could end all war, the debacle of the Kellog-Briand Pact obviously in their minds. And I'm pretty damn sure they didn't consider the UN to be an international court deciding which war would be 'legal' or 'non-legal', especially considering the makup of the body (it ain't a court, but more akin to a legislature, making any 'ruling' a Bill of Attainder).

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Actually, no. The UCMJ doesn't give everyone in uniform their own special privilege to play guardhouse lawyer and second guess the President. An unlawful order in the UCMJ is one that specifically violates the UCMJ, the laws and customs of land warfare, etc. i.e. the summary killing of civilian prisoners, rape, etc.

What about a situation where a President orders troops to conduct a war without approval from the legislature, or in direct violation of a law passed by the legislature? Would that constitute an unlawful order?

Of course that's not the situation here. This guy is in the wrong legally and morally. He's sworn to obey the laws of the United States, not the UN. He has no legal reason to refuse the call-up order.

He's also wrong morally because in a democracy, members in the military must obey the decisions of government elected by the people (except in the cases mentioned by MTG). It is not the military's role to decide whether the government made the correct political decision.

But even if this guy is in the wrong, that doesn't necessarily make him a bloodsucking coward.

He is scum, if he suddenly decides that now that the chips are down, he's a pacifist and doesn't want the responsibilities that came with all the benefits he enjoyed.

He is a coward if he says, I'm going to disobey orders, but I shouldn't be punished for it.

But if he says, he believes the war is wrong and is willing to do time in Leavenworth because of his beliefs, and accept any other punishiments, then he is courageous. It takes a lot of guts to stand up to the system and accept the consequences of his actions.

That doesn't change the fact that he is wrong. The call-up order was lawful. The decision to go to war was made according to the laws of the US. If this guy wants to pick and choose what wars he will fight, he shouldn't join the military in peacetime.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmmm, very true Tingkai, perhaps he is willing to accept jail time for his actions, which means he isn't cowardly, but he undoubtably is wrong. Good post.

[Ramo]

The unjust part is that the other *******s got off as easy as they did.

Sometimes I wonder how much you legalistic fanatics would enjoy serving time in a prison.

If one knows the rules, how can it be called unjust?

I suppose there's nothing wrong with, say, indentured servitude then? Once again, can you tell me how it's just that if a soldier breaks a contract he should get sent to prison, while if a CEO in a big corporation breaks a contract, he doesn't have to pay a single cent?

I'll ask something else, that's only been alluded to, if you want to get into more unjust.
His professed Gaydom.
Not that there's anything wrong with that; but how will that be accepted ?

Coherent sentences, please.

And the deserting soldier is also working for a special branch of the government. Screw civil penalties, this ain't your ordinary contract. A government has an interest in deterring people from reneging on their promises after taking all these benefits from their end, and of course has the power to put these morons in jail .

Why is it so different? Given that there are serious ethical considerations that aren't existent in other contracts, it only makes sense that reneging on a contract with the USMC should carry lesser penalties than in other cases.

He should have gotten greater (the benefits he recieved probably overweighed, by far, the 6 months).

6 months of total subjagation to the state. Are you seriously trying to tell me that any amount of money is worth that?

Some people value freedom.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
But that's not what a consciencous object is. You have to be a pacifist, which makes you wonder why they joined in the first place.

Che hit the nail on the head here. If you would support any war in the history of humanity then you aren't a pacifist. When you enroll in the military you agree to certain things like following orders and you sign a contract stating you are not a pacifist. That means you lose your right to change your mind and later become a pacifist at least until your enlistement is up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why is it so different

Because the law decides it is. The state has an interest in making sure people don't steal the benefits the government is offering and then running when the obligations come due.

6 months of total subjagation to the state. Are you seriously trying to tell me that any amount of money is worth that?

It has a much better general deterant effect. Personally, I'd at least make him serve a year.

[Japher]

He should be hung for desertion.

The stupid punk said he'd do a job for his country, and when the time came he fled.

[Ramo]

Because the law decides it is.

Yes, and we're talking about why this law is justified. Why should the situations be so different?

The state has an interest in making sure people don't steal the benefits the government is offering and then running when the obligations come due.

Once again, why are soldiers the only people who have to go to prison when they break a contract? And why shouldn't the state have an interest in protecting the liberties of its people, including its soldiers?

It has a much better general deterant effect. Personally, I'd at least make him serve a year.

Yeah, our soldiers should be forced to kill people, even when they think such killing is wrong. But if a CEO reneges on a contract to contribute to his bank account, he shouldn't have to pay anything. What a great state we live in!

[Ramo]

Hell, maybe we should bring back debtors' prisons. The state isn't doing enough to protect property.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why should the situations be so different?

Very simply because the government wants greater penalties for violating your contract to it. It cares less for what happens when you violate your contract with others.

why are soldiers the only people who have to go to prison when they break a contract?

Because the government wants to have specific performance, because it is a unique good (military service), but because of the 13th Amendment cannot. Thusforth, it decides jail time is best... and very nice as a deterrent. The government doesn't like it when you **** with it, for example see what the IRS does to you when you tell it you won't pay taxes.

And why shouldn't the state have an interest in protecting the liberties of its people, including its soldiers?

Because having a military force where the people who joined up can just say, nah, I don't like this war and not participate are deemed more harmful to the government. The government wants a military force that can't just 'opt-out' and they decide that it's important enough. Ergo, that's the way it is.

Yeah, our soldiers should be forced to kill people, even when they think such killing is wrong.

Then don't join the military, DUH! You think that every administration is going to agree with your 'war'. Yeah, right.

But if a CEO reneges on a contract to contribute to his bank account, he shouldn't have to pay anything.

Of course... he doesn't have to pay damages.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I've always had a problem with the (IMO stupid) argument that every war not sanctioned by the UN is contrary to international law. By this view if the US went to war against Afghanistan without UN approval, they would be violating international law.

Didn't we forget a little thing there? What was that... ah yes, self defense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Didn't we forget a little thing there? What was that... ah yes, self defense.

Kinda a streach to call that 'self defense'. I mean, if you got punched in the head, then found out who did it, and then walked up to him and punched him, that's battery, not self defense .