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
Political Humor
via the Dove, I found this wonderful cartoonist. Technorati Tags: cartoons, humor
Out of Context
One of the things that happens after a terrorist bombing committed by those who claim to be Muslim is that Islamophobes start quoting the Qur’an out of context saying that Islam is a violent religion dedicated to taking over the world and enslaving everyone else (yes, it is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion revisited). I’m waiting for the day when some Islamophobe says the proof that Islam is Judeophobic is that Muslims revere a prophet named Isa who entered a synagogue and flipped over tables and drove people out claiming that they were practicing a false religion. It…
ACTION ALERT: Title VI
Commentary coming. In the meantime, please distribute widely, and feel free to re-post on your own sites. [Disclaimer: We are not part of the Task Force. However, I believe the issue is important enough to get out the word.] ACTION ALERT: Title VI Funding Renewal Poses Dangers to Academic Inquiry, Integrity and Security Dear Fellow American Citizen: We are writing to alert you to proposed legislation, HR 3077, which poses a potential threat to academic freedom. Professor Rashid Khalidi has noted that this legislation creates “an ideological litmus test for academics” which could limit freedom of expression in the classroom…
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.