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
Curbing
May God rest the souls of Jack Armstrong and Jack Hensley, the two Americans recently beheaded by Zarqawi, the slave of Satan. May give God give succor to the families of the two men. What constitutes the proper response to such violence? My first response was that Abd us-Shaytan and his men need to be curbed – in both senses of the word. However, the perennial question is does violence stop violence? For a very brief moment, I thought perhaps I was becoming like them, they have taken something from me – my religion – and I am powerless to…
It’s credible
when CNN reports it. The only thing more damning would be if Fox, for whatever reason, decided to report it. The ACLU has discovered that soldiers in Iraq abused detainees. In one instance, forcing a father to choose which of his two sons would be executed. In another, forcing a detainee to dig his own grave before being executed. Two things, nobody was actually killed, and these were not prisoners, they were detainees. Digging your own grave? Wasn’t that a no-no in Bosnia? The other thing we discover is that the Red Cross issued concerns to the Pentagon in 2002…
Graffiti
The BBC has a slideshow of graffiti on the dividing wall between Israel and Palestine. Found it here. Technorati Tags: dividing wall
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.