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
When Religion and Social Justice can go Wrong
The Revealer on how Hamas is a faith-based initiative. Do people really not see Bush’s plan as being flawed Constitutionally, and in terms of building an American ideal, where everyone is thankful to America, not to the group around the corner?
Isaac Osei, Taxi Driver in New York and Chief in Ghana – NYTimes.com
Just a great NYC story. Isaac Osei, Taxi Driver in New York and Chief in Ghana – NYTimes.com. By 7:30, Ms. Osei had taken her place in her thronelike office chair — she is the president of Napasei Taxi Management Corporation, after all — while Mr. Osei, who is vice president, took a more modest seat nearby. Then they prepared for the next 12 hours of fighting parking tickets, getting taxis inspected and helping drivers who came in to pick up their cash. But the Oseis call this grueling schedule a vacation compared with the real holiday they have ahead.…
Corporate Responsibility – with a dash of Kyrgyzstan
Check out this article on corporate responsibility in terms of not being complicit in human rights violations. The Global Compact sounds very cool. I have to check if Apple is a member. Also, note the part on Kyrgyzstan towards the end.
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.