A soldier who deserted from the US Army in Iraq because he found the war morally objectionable – partly because of the treatment of prisoners – faces the same punishment as those who abused the prisoners at Abu Ghuraib. I turn to those more knowledgeable: Can he plead that he deserted because the orders were illegal?
Related Posts
Independence Day
Happy 4th of July! 228 years old. Obligatory reading today are both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the US. There’s also a great op-ed in today’s New York Times talking about the relevance of the Constitution to today’s America. Current favorite president: FDR. Read something about his vision of America. Always remember Lincoln and what he had to say. Of course, now we are talking about a new type of slavery, a mental one. Where is our Thomas Paine?
100,000 down. How many more to go?
It seems that the number excludes Fallujah, and the count may actually be closer to 200,000 if Fallujah is included…. Iraq Body Count all of a sudden looks like a conservative website telling us how wonderful things are in Iraq.
It’s All About Us Indeed
Either we are doing this to people, or there were no people were involved. In which case I’m sure PETA can launch a more effective drive than the human rights community. From TPM Reader CR: One odd thing about this torture debate is that it’s all about *us.* Whether we committed a crime, how it affects our collective soul, how the wheels of justice ought to move (if at all). But nobody is talking about the victims–it’s as if torture were analogous to smoking the marijuana you grew in the woods behind your house. Something technically illegal, but something that…
2 thoughts on “Is it the same?”
Comments are closed.
With the caveat that I’m not familiar with the military code of conduct, I don’t think his claims are a defense to a charge of desertion. If he was given an illegal order,then there probably is a process to object to that order and refuse to carry it out. Deserting isn’t a legitimate option to an unlawful order and can cause serious consequences to military discipline.
The article also indicates that he now claims conscientious objector status against an ‘oil-driven’ war. To my understanding, that claim doesn’t give him conscientious objector status. To gain that status, one must object to war on any basis, and not pick and choose based on one’s view of the the political reasons for the war. In other words, one cannot be a conscientious objector only to this war, and perhaps not others.
Obviously you can’t have soldiers decide which wars they want to fight.
Thank you. That’s what I thought. It seems bad form on the part of the defense attorney to let his client run at the mouth. The story has been buried pretty far on most of the cable news outlets, so I wonder how much we’ll hear about it in the future.