<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+May 26 2004, 03:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ May 26 2004, 03:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As to those talking illegal wars
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So why do some think Iraq should be any different? Only a year after his overthrow, they seem to have forgotten how hundreds of thousands perished during Saddam Hussein's tyranny, under a regime whose hallmark was terror, summary execution, torture and rape. Forgotten, too, is how the Kurds and Iraq's neighbours lived each day in fear, so long as Saddam remained in power.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or... Only after a decade or so the US seems to have completely forgotten that they provided Saddam with the tools with which to perform his large-scale atrocities, so no claims of moral high ground are plausible. The problem is not with the end of a tyrannical regime, but with the methods used to end it. Any country claiming to have a right for pre-emptive strikes is one that scares the heck out of me.
But about this Brandon person: He should have thought a bit more before joining up with the army, but in a way he's right. The Bush administration has done all it can to create a sort of a legal grey area in which they can wage war with any nation they want to. Since they have not formally declared war on either Afghanistan or Iraq, they can claim that all operations are peace keeping ones, and that international conventions that bind both sides in a war can not be applied to these conflicts. This results for example in prisoners of war who are (in Bush administration legalese) "enemy combatants", and thus not eligible for a POW status. Instead they can be physically and mentally tortured in Guantanamo for as long as their captors want.
As a side effect the war can be considered illegal. While the legality of wars in general can be debated until the polar ice caps melt, the fact is that a soldier has a right and a responsibility not to follow orders he considers illegal or immoral. If a soldier feels that invading another country without a just cause or even a formal declaration of war is illegal or immoral, he actually has the right and the obligation to stand aside and refuse the order. The Nuremberg trials stressed very heavily that a soldier or an officer is responsible for his actions, and for those of his subordinates. Claiming to just having followed orders does not shield against war crimes or otherwise unlawful behaviour.
As a hypothetical example, if the orders to torture prisoners in Abu Ghraib would have come from higher above, the soldiers and MPs in Abu Ghraib would have had the moral obligation to refuse obeying them. This is why those of the soldiers who base their defense around the claim of "just following orders" are actually only admitting their guilt. They shouldn't have followed them in the first place.
It also seems true that this Brandon fellow is simply afraid of having to go to Iraq. He would actually seem to have the law on his side, but I'd still chastise him for not thinking about the possible consequences of joining the army. I mean, with Rumsfeld in charge you can expect anything, so don't join the army if you're not prepared to go overseas to shoot people you've never even heard of before.
[edit] Oh, and [2iD]Captain[GeN], did you know that you can be court-martialed for following an order?[/edit]
America is the only other country to wage war at its own descresion. There has been countrys and Empires which have put this country (Iraq) through war, genicide, slavery ect..... And we are just like the Romans there is not one asspect that sets us apart from them. The idea of pressing are government on other countrys is wrong. Though we say one thing and go to another doesnt make it right for example i thought are sole purpise to goto war was to find the WMD. Yet we go there for a diffrent cause to free the Iraq people. And we are still not yet to find anything.... When you fail on a massive level you look at the person and fire him and go on but yet there is no acountablity. The world we live in is a killed or be killed, and i can bet that there will be more attacks to come. As you know in history that every great empire has fallen since Babylon to the fall of the USSR. Its time to ask ourselfs who is next?
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
edited May 2004
If he didn't want to fight his options are clear:
Step 1) Go to Iraq.
Step 2) Refuse the first morally dubious order he receives.
Step 3) Get courtmartialed for refusing to blow up a mosque.
Step 4) Become a celebrity for being morally upright and get released rapidly.
Invading another country might be a disgraceful thing to do, but so is shooting someone you don't know for an abstract reason. He could have refused to fight, or refused to follow orders and done the time. Desertion is a crime, regardless of whether or not the war was justified.
Instead, he is a coward that ran away when his number came up. He's in breach of contract and like any contract, it is legally binding.
So to clarify...
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>Shoot him in the face.</span>
It seems to me that: He deserted because he thought the War on Iraq was illegal and immoral. Under the Nuremberg trials decisions that is a legitimate reason for desertion. And what constitutes illegal and immoral (the immoral part mostly) is up to the soldier's discretion. And on the other side, the Bush administration has engineered this war so that it's outside the bounds of conventional statecraft, giving them a free pass because nothing like this has never been done before (preemptive strike against an intangible enemy). So it's not a war, and they can probably hit him with any charge they want. It's going to boil down to where this case is tried. If it's an international court, he'll be found innocent under the rules of UN and Nuremberg. If it's in the US, they'll tar and feather him and then plain old shoot him, or something drastic like that. Personally I hope it's an international court. I can't wait for this war to be finally declared illegal in front of the whole world. It should have happened two years ago.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->innocent under the rules of UN and Nuremberg<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well i dont see where this comes into play if you are refuring to the Declaration of Human Right 1948. Though this is a case for the united states not internatinal because it was a United States soldier, Within US borders.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Or... Only after a decade or so the US seems to have completely forgotten that they provided Saddam with the tools with which to perform his large-scale atrocities, so no claims of moral high ground are plausible<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I remember the fact quite well. I also remember that other countries provided Iraq with more weapons than the US and continued to do so after Iraq's war with Iran ended and after it became clear that Sadam was ruthless. We aided in the mistake the kept Sadam in power, why shouldn't we correct iur mistake? Anyhow this is for another discussion that has been posted about over and over again.
Brandon Hu*** was looking for a free ride off the government, nothing more. He was stupid for thinking that he wouldnt go to war. Shooting him is a bit extreme though. He will not be tried under international law, he broke an american law in america. The US court systems will handle it, if and when canada decides to send him back. He should be sentenced to 3 years and dishonorably discharged.
Well i think it is a little \.... obtuse to say <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->why shouldn't we correct iur mistake? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well for one was there a threat? Though we America says that he had WMD and thats why we went to war, where are they? We have (US) ocupided Iraq for over a year and still nothing not even a trace of anything. The fact of the matter is that we have to admit that we are wrong in going to war. We (US) went on faulse pretences, and inacurite information.
Are government passed a bill to give are GI's more money and attached to that b ill was called a rider so called The Patriot Act. This Act gives are government to inprision any person forien of demestic without the writ of habeas corpus. By correcting one mistake we create another thus sending us in the war with Iraq. There is a few things people need to understand this world is run by three main things (Money,Oil,Energy).
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+May 26 2004, 06:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ May 26 2004, 06:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Or... Only after a decade or so the US seems to have completely forgotten that they provided Saddam with the tools with which to perform his large-scale atrocities, so no claims of moral high ground are plausible<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I remember the fact quite well. I also remember that other countries provided Iraq with more weapons than the US and continued to do so after Iraq's war with Iran ended and after it became clear that Sadam was ruthless. We aided in the mistake the kept Sadam in power, why shouldn't we correct iur mistake? Anyhow this is for another discussion that has been posted about over and over again.
Brandon Hu*** was looking for a free ride off the government, nothing more. He was stupid for thinking that he wouldnt go to war. Shooting him is a bit extreme though. He will not be tried under international law, he broke an american law in america. The US court systems will handle it, if and when canada decides to send him back. He should be sentenced to 3 years and dishonorably discharged. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Aren't we a little hypocritical? You're willing to punish the germans with those rules but when it's in your own backyard you suddenly dont recognise them.. Other countries didnt consider Sadam a threat (atleast not enough to go to war) but USA did. Yet still sold them weapons.. Correct your mistake? But you made another and now the iraqi people is looser. Yes, Brandon Hu probably didnt want to go to war, but you dont know that
I agree with epidemic that <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->when it's in your own backyard you suddenly dont recognise them.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So true if there is anyone to be tried it should be are own government.
First, this war was based off the notion of pre-emption. This means removing a highly plausible future threat ( either direct or indirect; e.g. using the weapons himself or giving the weapons to someone else to use ). Whether this is a good enough reason or not I will not argue, but that was the basis for the war.
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+May 26 2004, 01:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ May 26 2004, 01:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Other countries didnt consider Sadam a threat (atleast not enough to go to war) but USA did. Yet still sold them weapons..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now, lets also get our timelines straight here. The US stopped giving Iraq weapons a long time ago. The US never considered Iraq a threat or future threat until recently. So there is no "Yet" there. That's just simply revisionist history or you're extremely confused about what all has really happened. Lets keep it factual please.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Correct your mistake? But you made another and now the iraqi people is looser. Yes, Brandon Hu probably didnt want to go to war, but you dont know that <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now, I'd say the Iraqi people are not the losers here. I'd say they have gained a lot. Was it easy? No. Will there continue to be problems? Yes. But they will be far better off and are not losers.
And yes, we do know this Brandon guy didn't want to go to war... He said so himself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> First, this war was based off the notion of pre-emption. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well **** though i have a pre-emtion to kill my brother doesnt mean i am going to do it. Though i plan to do it with a weapon doesnt mean i have it. We basied are attack on asumsions and fauls accusations not truth or fact. You know forget the iraqi people about what they have lossed look at we have hell we are over 700 dead american soldiers and billions of $ in tax payer money. Man look at the facts and dont come at me with faulse accusations.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dread+May 26 2004, 04:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ May 26 2004, 04:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But the fact still remains: as long as he can show that the war in Iraq is unjust and illegal, he's clean in front of the internation law.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think it should be made clear now that international law is pretty much null and void if it conflicts with American wishes. This man is not bound to international law in this case, he bound to American law, and he has broken it. We have every right to return him to America and punish him.
Care to elaborate on that reasa? In how far are the interests of the United States paramount to the International Law that its representatives did in fact significantly influence half a century ago?
Well removing the moral spectrum, American rights are paramount to the point the UN can stop them. I myself am no proponent of the UN, I personally think it should be abolished and then rechartered completely. But back to the matter at hand, international law really has no say in this case, and I will eat my hat (my large winter one) if the UN steps in if we arrest and convict him.
Edit: The Bush administration was kind enough to resize my sig for me. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But back to the matter at hand, international law really has no say in this case, and I will eat my hat (my large winter one) if the UN steps in if we arrest and convict him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it won't, but he has one, admittedly downtrodden, point. However, seeing how often <i>I</i> got the line "We won't go for appeasement <i>this</i> time around." fed to me by people in favor of the war, I don't see why it shouldn't apply now: Fifty years ago, people who <i>had</i> followed their orders into what was often enough declared 'pre-emptive strikes', got executed as criminals against the human rights by the Allies, among them the United States. Morallity and international law were considered sufficient to judge these soldiers for crimes that could all be brought down to 'not violating local law'. Seeing this precedent, which was, again, used <i>heavily</i> to justify this war, I for mine am willing to give him the favor of the doubt. If he truly has concious reasons for objection, he should not be forced into this conflict, period. Whether this is the case I can not assert from my position.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit: The Bush administration was kind enough to resize my sig for me. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How about a deal: You get your sig, and the rest of the world gets a competent American President <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+May 26 2004, 03:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ May 26 2004, 03:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But back to the matter at hand, international law really has no say in this case, and I will eat my hat (my large winter one) if the UN steps in if we arrest and convict him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it won't, but he has one, admittedly downtrodden, point. However, seeing how often <i>I</i> got the line "We won't go for appeasement <i>this</i> time around." fed to me by advocats in favor of the war, I don't see why it shouldn't apply now: Fifty years ago, people who <i>had</i> followed their orders into what was often enough declared 'pre-emptitive strikes', got executed as criminals against the human rights by the Allies, among them the United States. Morallity and international law were considered sufficient to judge these soldiers for crimes that could all be brought down to 'not violating local law'. Seeing this precedent, which was, again, used <i>heavily</i> to justify this war, I for mine am willing to give him the favor of the doubt. If he truly has concious reasons for objection, he should not be forced into this conflict, period. Whether this is the case I can not assert from my position.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit: The Bush administration was kind enough to resize my sig for me. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How about a deal: You get your sig, and the rest of the world gets a competent American President <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> the whole point is that he wasn't forced into the war. There was no draft. He joined after **** blew up over 9/11. He knew there was impending risk of war, and yet he still joins. In any case, getting UN approval is a bad basis for something being "legal and moral."
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+May 26 2004, 03:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ May 26 2004, 03:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How about a deal: You get your sig, and the rest of the world gets a competent American President <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't get the idea that I like Bush, I just support him, and I have my own deeply twisted reasons for that though. And you can't honestly think Kerry or Nadar are even in the realm of competent. We need a canadate from the middle, a landslide winner, maybe next election.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the whole point is that he wasn't forced into the war. There was no draft. He joined after **** blew up over 9/11. He knew there was impending risk of war, and yet he still joins.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd accept that argument if he joined right in the six-month 'preperation' of the war, but Iraq was not really target of choice right after 9/11, if you remember.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In any case, getting UN approval is a bad basis for something being "legal and moral."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In how far?
Reasa, I won't derail this thread <i>that</i> far. Sufficient to say that if you want a candidate in the political <i>middle</i>, you'd have to start looking between Kerry and Nader.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because they're slow as hell, with lots of conflicts of interest.
Look at the Sudanese civil war, it's been going on for more than a year and the security council *JUST* now issued a statement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This has little to say about either of the two qualifiers: Legality is a strictly formalistic matter - and the United States signed the treaties that made them subject to this form as well as every other country; the United Nations' approval is thus by definition basis for international legality, as the US' Parliaments approval is by definition basis for the legality of domestic law. As for morality - no institution can claim to be a source of that. But the human rights are widely considered some of the most refined determinants of the morallic treatment of humans, and the observance of these rights by the American troops is in many cases connected to the occupation of Iraq subject of controversy, as numerous of the UNs organs which are tasked with upholding these rights, first uncovered.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+May 26 2004, 03:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ May 26 2004, 03:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This has little to say over either of the two qualifiers: Legality is a strictly formalistic matter - and the United States signed the treaties that made them subject to this form as well as every other country; the United Nations approval is thus by definition basis for international legality, as the US' Parliaments approval is by definition basis for the legality of domestic law. As for morality - no institution can claim to be a source of that. But the human rights are widely considered some of the most refined determinants of the morallic treatment of humans, and the observance of these rights by the American troops is in many cases connected to the occupation of Iraq subject of controversy, as numerous of the UNs organs which are tasked with upholding these rights, first uncovered. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I should probably refine that.
The UN's sanction depends on a unanimous vote by the security council. As a matter of course, that is a bad way of determining legality. In my opinion there should be no security council at all.
I didn't say that the US war was legal, mind you, I just said I thought there should be a different way of determining its legality.
As for morality, he would have been perfectly justified had he, upon arrival in Iraq, find himself ordered to torture prisoners, as the case may be.
But as I recall, specific care was taken during the war itself not to cause unnecessary civilian casualties.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+May 26 2004, 09:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ May 26 2004, 09:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+May 26 2004, 03:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ May 26 2004, 03:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But back to the matter at hand, international law really has no say in this case, and I will eat my hat (my large winter one) if the UN steps in if we arrest and convict him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it won't, but he has one, admittedly downtrodden, point. However, seeing how often <i>I</i> got the line "We won't go for appeasement <i>this</i> time around." fed to me by advocats in favor of the war, I don't see why it shouldn't apply now: Fifty years ago, people who <i>had</i> followed their orders into what was often enough declared 'pre-emptitive strikes', got executed as criminals against the human rights by the Allies, among them the United States. Morallity and international law were considered sufficient to judge these soldiers for crimes that could all be brought down to 'not violating local law'. Seeing this precedent, which was, again, used <i>heavily</i> to justify this war, I for mine am willing to give him the favor of the doubt. If he truly has concious reasons for objection, he should not be forced into this conflict, period. Whether this is the case I can not assert from my position.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit: The Bush administration was kind enough to resize my sig for me. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How about a deal: You get your sig, and the rest of the world gets a competent American President <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> the whole point is that he wasn't forced into the war. There was no draft. He joined after **** blew up over 9/11. He knew there was impending risk of war, and yet he still joins. In any case, getting UN approval is a bad basis for something being "legal and moral." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah, at my point of view it actually justify him more. After 9/11 I can see the want to go fight for america. But after being lied/scammed (effectively) into going to war for political/economic interest (as I see it, he probably does too) or misinformation as they dress it up now.
The UN's sanction depends on a unanimous vote by the security council. As a matter of course, that is a bad way of determining legality. In my opinion there should be no security council at all.
I didn't say that the US war was legal, mind you, I just said I thought there should be a different way of determining its legality.
As for morality, he would have been perfectly justified had he, upon arrival in Iraq, find himself ordered to torture prisoners, as the case may be.
But as I recall, specific care was taken during the war itself not to cause unnecessary civilian casualties.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That depends largely on which sources you believe, but I won't derail this topic <i>that</i> far <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In the end, our tangent here is at a point where we should've established that the matter of the legality of the war and its subsequent morallic sancity are controversial enough to warrant serious doubts - and for the purpose of this discussion, that's more than sufficient.
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+May 26 2004, 04:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ May 26 2004, 04:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ah, at my point of view it actually justify him more. After 9/11 I can see the want to go fight for america. But after being lied/scammed (effectively) into going to war for political/economic interest (as I see it, he probably does too) or misinformation as they dress it up now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except the fact that he said he didn't want to go fight. On the site itself it lists his primary motivation as economic - it would be good money.
In fact, that's pretty hypocritical of him - to denounce going to war for oil (money), and yet to excuse himself for joining the army for money. Eh. It's not a bait-and-switch, as you claim.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In the end, our tangent here is at a point where we should've established that the matter of the legality of the war and its subsequent morallic sancity are controversial enough to warrant serious doubts - and for the purpose of this discussion, that's more than sufficient. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Um...refer to the "2 out of past 60 conflicts since WW2 were sanctioned by the UN." I'm claiming that using UN sanction as a basis for legality is meaningless.
Comments
As to those talking illegal wars
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
So why do some think Iraq should be any different? Only a year after his overthrow, they seem to have forgotten how hundreds of thousands perished during Saddam Hussein's tyranny, under a regime whose hallmark was terror, summary execution, torture and rape. Forgotten, too, is how the Kurds and Iraq's neighbours lived each day in fear, so long as Saddam remained in power.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or... Only after a decade or so the US seems to have completely forgotten that they provided Saddam with the tools with which to perform his large-scale atrocities, so no claims of moral high ground are plausible. The problem is not with the end of a tyrannical regime, but with the methods used to end it. Any country claiming to have a right for pre-emptive strikes is one that scares the heck out of me.
But about this Brandon person:
He should have thought a bit more before joining up with the army, but in a way he's right. The Bush administration has done all it can to create a sort of a legal grey area in which they can wage war with any nation they want to. Since they have not formally declared war on either Afghanistan or Iraq, they can claim that all operations are peace keeping ones, and that international conventions that bind both sides in a war can not be applied to these conflicts. This results for example in prisoners of war who are (in Bush administration legalese) "enemy combatants", and thus not eligible for a POW status. Instead they can be physically and mentally tortured in Guantanamo for as long as their captors want.
As a side effect the war can be considered illegal. While the legality of wars in general can be debated until the polar ice caps melt, the fact is that a soldier has a right and a responsibility not to follow orders he considers illegal or immoral. If a soldier feels that invading another country without a just cause or even a formal declaration of war is illegal or immoral, he actually has the right and the obligation to stand aside and refuse the order. The Nuremberg trials stressed very heavily that a soldier or an officer is responsible for his actions, and for those of his subordinates. Claiming to just having followed orders does not shield against war crimes or otherwise unlawful behaviour.
As a hypothetical example, if the orders to torture prisoners in Abu Ghraib would have come from higher above, the soldiers and MPs in Abu Ghraib would have had the moral obligation to refuse obeying them. This is why those of the soldiers who base their defense around the claim of "just following orders" are actually only admitting their guilt. They shouldn't have followed them in the first place.
It also seems true that this Brandon fellow is simply afraid of having to go to Iraq. He would actually seem to have the law on his side, but I'd still chastise him for not thinking about the possible consequences of joining the army. I mean, with Rumsfeld in charge you can expect anything, so don't join the army if you're not prepared to go overseas to shoot people you've never even heard of before.
[edit] Oh, and [2iD]Captain[GeN], did you know that you can be court-martialed for following an order?[/edit]
Step 1) Go to Iraq.
Step 2) Refuse the first morally dubious order he receives.
Step 3) Get courtmartialed for refusing to blow up a mosque.
Step 4) Become a celebrity for being morally upright and get released rapidly.
Invading another country might be a disgraceful thing to do, but so is shooting someone you don't know for an abstract reason. He could have refused to fight, or refused to follow orders and done the time. Desertion is a crime, regardless of whether or not the war was justified.
Instead, he is a coward that ran away when his number came up. He's in breach of contract and like any contract, it is legally binding.
So to clarify...
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>Shoot him in the face.</span>
He deserted because he thought the War on Iraq was illegal and immoral. Under the Nuremberg trials decisions that is a legitimate reason for desertion. And what constitutes illegal and immoral (the immoral part mostly) is up to the soldier's discretion.
And on the other side, the Bush administration has engineered this war so that it's outside the bounds of conventional statecraft, giving them a free pass because nothing like this has never been done before (preemptive strike against an intangible enemy). So it's not a war, and they can probably hit him with any charge they want.
It's going to boil down to where this case is tried. If it's an international court, he'll be found innocent under the rules of UN and Nuremberg. If it's in the US, they'll tar and feather him and then plain old shoot him, or something drastic like that. Personally I hope it's an international court. I can't wait for this war to be finally declared illegal in front of the whole world. It should have happened two years ago.
I remember the fact quite well. I also remember that other countries provided Iraq with more weapons than the US and continued to do so after Iraq's war with Iran ended and after it became clear that Sadam was ruthless. We aided in the mistake the kept Sadam in power, why shouldn't we correct iur mistake? Anyhow this is for another discussion that has been posted about over and over again.
Brandon Hu*** was looking for a free ride off the government, nothing more. He was stupid for thinking that he wouldnt go to war. Shooting him is a bit extreme though. He will not be tried under international law, he broke an american law in america. The US court systems will handle it, if and when canada decides to send him back. He should be sentenced to 3 years and dishonorably discharged.
Are government passed a bill to give are GI's more money and attached to that b ill was called a rider so called The Patriot Act. This Act gives are government to inprision any person forien of demestic without the writ of habeas corpus. By correcting one mistake we create another thus sending us in the war with Iraq. There is a few things people need to understand this world is run by three main things (Money,Oil,Energy).
I remember the fact quite well. I also remember that other countries provided Iraq with more weapons than the US and continued to do so after Iraq's war with Iran ended and after it became clear that Sadam was ruthless. We aided in the mistake the kept Sadam in power, why shouldn't we correct iur mistake? Anyhow this is for another discussion that has been posted about over and over again.
Brandon Hu*** was looking for a free ride off the government, nothing more. He was stupid for thinking that he wouldnt go to war. Shooting him is a bit extreme though. He will not be tried under international law, he broke an american law in america. The US court systems will handle it, if and when canada decides to send him back. He should be sentenced to 3 years and dishonorably discharged. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aren't we a little hypocritical? You're willing to punish the germans with those rules but when it's in your own backyard you suddenly dont recognise them..
Other countries didnt consider Sadam a threat (atleast not enough to go to war) but USA did. Yet still sold them weapons..
Correct your mistake? But you made another and now the iraqi people is looser.
Yes, Brandon Hu probably didnt want to go to war, but you dont know that
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So true if there is anyone to be tried it should be are own government.
They rejected the inspectors. Isn't that liable cause for us to move in? </b>
They let the inspectors in if you had watched the news.
<span style='color:white'>No doubleposts, please.</span>
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+May 26 2004, 01:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ May 26 2004, 01:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Other countries didnt consider Sadam a threat (atleast not enough to go to war) but USA did. Yet still sold them weapons..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, lets also get our timelines straight here. The US stopped giving Iraq weapons a long time ago. The US never considered Iraq a threat or future threat until recently. So there is no "Yet" there. That's just simply revisionist history or you're extremely confused about what all has really happened. Lets keep it factual please.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Correct your mistake? But you made another and now the iraqi people is looser.
Yes, Brandon Hu probably didnt want to go to war, but you dont know that <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, I'd say the Iraqi people are not the losers here. I'd say they have gained a lot. Was it easy? No. Will there continue to be problems? Yes. But they will be far better off and are not losers.
And yes, we do know this Brandon guy didn't want to go to war... He said so himself.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it should be made clear now that international law is pretty much null and void if it conflicts with American wishes. This man is not bound to international law in this case, he bound to American law, and he has broken it. We have every right to return him to America and punish him.
Edit: The Bush administration was kind enough to resize my sig for me. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
No, it won't, but he has one, admittedly downtrodden, point. However, seeing how often <i>I</i> got the line "We won't go for appeasement <i>this</i> time around." fed to me by people in favor of the war, I don't see why it shouldn't apply now: Fifty years ago, people who <i>had</i> followed their orders into what was often enough declared 'pre-emptive strikes', got executed as criminals against the human rights by the Allies, among them the United States. Morallity and international law were considered sufficient to judge these soldiers for crimes that could all be brought down to 'not violating local law'.
Seeing this precedent, which was, again, used <i>heavily</i> to justify this war, I for mine am willing to give him the favor of the doubt. If he truly has concious reasons for objection, he should not be forced into this conflict, period. Whether this is the case I can not assert from my position.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit: The Bush administration was kind enough to resize my sig for me. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about a deal: You get your sig, and the rest of the world gets a competent American President <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
No, it won't, but he has one, admittedly downtrodden, point. However, seeing how often <i>I</i> got the line "We won't go for appeasement <i>this</i> time around." fed to me by advocats in favor of the war, I don't see why it shouldn't apply now: Fifty years ago, people who <i>had</i> followed their orders into what was often enough declared 'pre-emptitive strikes', got executed as criminals against the human rights by the Allies, among them the United States. Morallity and international law were considered sufficient to judge these soldiers for crimes that could all be brought down to 'not violating local law'.
Seeing this precedent, which was, again, used <i>heavily</i> to justify this war, I for mine am willing to give him the favor of the doubt. If he truly has concious reasons for objection, he should not be forced into this conflict, period. Whether this is the case I can not assert from my position.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit: The Bush administration was kind enough to resize my sig for me. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about a deal: You get your sig, and the rest of the world gets a competent American President <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the whole point is that he wasn't forced into the war. There was no draft. He joined after **** blew up over 9/11. He knew there was impending risk of war, and yet he still joins.
In any case, getting UN approval is a bad basis for something being "legal and moral."
Don't get the idea that I like Bush, I just support him, and I have my own deeply twisted reasons for that though. And you can't honestly think Kerry or Nadar are even in the realm of competent. We need a canadate from the middle, a landslide winner, maybe next election.
I'd accept that argument if he joined right in the six-month 'preperation' of the war, but Iraq was not really target of choice right after 9/11, if you remember.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In any case, getting UN approval is a bad basis for something being "legal and moral."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In how far?
Reasa, I won't derail this thread <i>that</i> far. Sufficient to say that if you want a candidate in the political <i>middle</i>, you'd have to start looking between Kerry and Nader.
Look at the Sudanese civil war, it's been going on for more than a year and the security council *JUST* now issued a statement.
Look at the Sudanese civil war, it's been going on for more than a year and the security council *JUST* now issued a statement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has little to say about either of the two qualifiers:
Legality is a strictly formalistic matter - and the United States signed the treaties that made them subject to this form as well as every other country; the United Nations' approval is thus by definition basis for international legality, as the US' Parliaments approval is by definition basis for the legality of domestic law.
As for morality - no institution can claim to be a source of that. But the human rights are widely considered some of the most refined determinants of the morallic treatment of humans, and the observance of these rights by the American troops is in many cases connected to the occupation of Iraq subject of controversy, as numerous of the UNs organs which are tasked with upholding these rights, first uncovered.
Legality is a strictly formalistic matter - and the United States signed the treaties that made them subject to this form as well as every other country; the United Nations approval is thus by definition basis for international legality, as the US' Parliaments approval is by definition basis for the legality of domestic law.
As for morality - no institution can claim to be a source of that. But the human rights are widely considered some of the most refined determinants of the morallic treatment of humans, and the observance of these rights by the American troops is in many cases connected to the occupation of Iraq subject of controversy, as numerous of the UNs organs which are tasked with upholding these rights, first uncovered. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I should probably refine that.
The UN's sanction depends on a unanimous vote by the security council. As a matter of course, that is a bad way of determining legality. In my opinion there should be no security council at all.
I didn't say that the US war was legal, mind you, I just said I thought there should be a different way of determining its legality.
As for morality, he would have been perfectly justified had he, upon arrival in Iraq, find himself ordered to torture prisoners, as the case may be.
But as I recall, specific care was taken during the war itself not to cause unnecessary civilian casualties.
No, it won't, but he has one, admittedly downtrodden, point. However, seeing how often <i>I</i> got the line "We won't go for appeasement <i>this</i> time around." fed to me by advocats in favor of the war, I don't see why it shouldn't apply now: Fifty years ago, people who <i>had</i> followed their orders into what was often enough declared 'pre-emptitive strikes', got executed as criminals against the human rights by the Allies, among them the United States. Morallity and international law were considered sufficient to judge these soldiers for crimes that could all be brought down to 'not violating local law'.
Seeing this precedent, which was, again, used <i>heavily</i> to justify this war, I for mine am willing to give him the favor of the doubt. If he truly has concious reasons for objection, he should not be forced into this conflict, period. Whether this is the case I can not assert from my position.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit: The Bush administration was kind enough to resize my sig for me. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about a deal: You get your sig, and the rest of the world gets a competent American President <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the whole point is that he wasn't forced into the war. There was no draft. He joined after **** blew up over 9/11. He knew there was impending risk of war, and yet he still joins.
In any case, getting UN approval is a bad basis for something being "legal and moral." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, at my point of view it actually justify him more. After 9/11 I can see the want to go fight for america. But after being lied/scammed (effectively) into going to war for political/economic interest (as I see it, he probably does too) or misinformation as they dress it up now.
The UN's sanction depends on a unanimous vote by the security council. As a matter of course, that is a bad way of determining legality. In my opinion there should be no security council at all.
I didn't say that the US war was legal, mind you, I just said I thought there should be a different way of determining its legality.
As for morality, he would have been perfectly justified had he, upon arrival in Iraq, find himself ordered to torture prisoners, as the case may be.
But as I recall, specific care was taken during the war itself not to cause unnecessary civilian casualties.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That depends largely on which sources you believe, but I won't derail this topic <i>that</i> far <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In the end, our tangent here is at a point where we should've established that the matter of the legality of the war and its subsequent morallic sancity are controversial enough to warrant serious doubts - and for the purpose of this discussion, that's more than sufficient.
Ah, at my point of view it actually justify him more. After 9/11 I can see the want to go fight for america. But after being lied/scammed (effectively) into going to war for political/economic interest (as I see it, he probably does too) or misinformation as they dress it up now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except the fact that he said he didn't want to go fight. On the site itself it lists his primary motivation as economic - it would be good money.
In fact, that's pretty hypocritical of him - to denounce going to war for oil (money), and yet to excuse himself for joining the army for money. Eh. It's not a bait-and-switch, as you claim.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
In the end, our tangent here is at a point where we should've established that the matter of the legality of the war and its subsequent morallic sancity are controversial enough to warrant serious doubts - and for the purpose of this discussion, that's more than sufficient.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um...refer to the "2 out of past 60 conflicts since WW2 were sanctioned by the UN." I'm claiming that using UN sanction as a basis for legality is meaningless.