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
The world was created by magic
I was intrigued by this article in CNN on the Kansas Board of Education. It seems that the faulty logic that ID people are trying to put forward actually puts them at a disadvantage in terms of curriculum design. If their wording goes through, it should be fine to suggest that a grand wizard (not the KKK kind, but the Gandalf kind) brought the world into existence. We are, in fact, nothing more than a magic school exercise. Or, how about that life on Earth is not unique, but we were seeded here by aliens to see how we would…
AQ brought to justice!
I’m glad I’m not the only one thinking I got lied to last night. Overall I think Kerry did a good job, not only staying on message, but delivering that message a few different ways. I liked that he got in outsourcing – referring to the capture of Osama bin Laden – without talking about outsourcing. There were times where I felt his point could have been more effective if he didn’t use the full time, but in all it was a good show. Particularly favorite part was when Kerry told the de Gaulle story about the word of an…
Semantics
Look on the bright side, at least its not a civil war. Shock and Awe more like Fucked and Flawed.
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.