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
inna lillahi wa inna ilahi raji’un – for Mumbai
Starting yesterday afternoon, New York time, Mumbai (Bombay) came under a terrorist attack. Currently more than 100 people are dead and over 300 are wounded, with multiple hostage situations. I can offer nothing that the news is not giving, except a prayer for the souls of the deceased; a prayer for the wounded; a prayer that those who perpetrated this act face wrath of the God whom they so easily defame. Choose your mainstream news source: I’m using BBC, both for the local coverage, and to get some sense of distance from it all. Sepia Mutiny links to sources of…
Muslims for Secular Democracy [updated]
Update: The original post has been recovered here. Comments on this post are now closed. This post was originally sent in by Ghostdog. However, TypePad managed to lose all our posts from yesterday, so I had to re-post, and it’s now tagged with me as the author. To be clear, I am not.
What Rumsfeld said
Yesterday Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld apologized to Iraqis for the abuses of Abu Ghuraib…I think. Rumsfeld often speaks in a way that needs deciphering. Two of my favorite examples are: “Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” “There’s another way to phrase 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.