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
Iranian Executions
Iran has executed 29 people. For shame. What civilized country still executes people? Iran especially makes a show of their long history of civilization and still they execute. They also claim to be Muslim, yet they kill. It’s the mark of authoritarianism, not authority. Dictators in our past have done it, but the best of us never did. It is a disgrace. Iran, Untitled, executions
Mehta on Mumbai
Suketu Mehta, author of the magnificent Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found, has a moving Op-Ed in the NYT about the Mumbai tragedies. Anna at Sepia Mutiny does a close reading of the text. Both are worth your time. Mumbai
There was a Muslim on the Maersk Alabama
Zahid Reza said he and shipmates lured a pirate to a darkened engine room, where a struggle broke out. “I held him, I tied his hands and tied his legs. He was fighting me,” said Reza, who stabbed the pirate in the hand. “He was scared. He said he was planning to ask for $3 million. I told him, ‘You’re a Muslim and I’m a Muslim.’ “ Maersk Alabama crew recalls pirate attack – USATODAY.com.
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.