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
Phear of Fobias [Updated]
Today Yahoo! News is reporting about the number of religious attacks made against Jews and Muslims in 2002. According to the FBI, the number of attacks against Jews greatly outnumbered those against Muslims. More telling are the numbers from 2001, where attacks against Jews outnumbered attacks against Muslims almost 2-1. Now, there very good reasons as to why the numbers of attacks against Muslims might be depressed, particularly in 2001 (see the DRUM website for an immigration angle). However, I still find the numbers telling. Judeophobia and Islamophobia spring from the same well [see Ali Asani’s excellent speech on the…
World Health
Do you want to help with drug development and distribution for third world diseases?… Will be added to the side shortly.
Gaza Crisis [12/31] [updated]
Updates from 12/28-12/29 and 12/30. The Dove quotes an American general on the folly of the current incursion. Money quote of the money quote: Politically, the ultimate result of ’06 was to make Hizbullah, and their Christian allies under General Aoun, the arbiters of events in Lebanon. “We have now seen the Israelis run through their target list in Gaza. Hamas is still firing at Ashkalon and Beersheba. One wonders just who has who by the testicles in this situation. If the Israelis back away with some sort of unilateral ceasefire, then the ’06 judgment of the Muslims on them…
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.