Originally Posted By gadzuux I've already said that I think he should serve time in prison, which is taking responsibility for his actions. But I also said that I wouldn't want his sentence to be so severe as to ruin his life. He's young, cut him a little slack. Find some forgiveness and compassion for others, and save the harsh judgements to forces greater than us.
Originally Posted By jonvn Actually, it is the responsibility of any person in uniform to disobey any order they deem immoral or illegal. The "I was following orders" thing is what the Germans did after WWII, and it was deemed an invalid defense. You are supposed to not do what you are told, if you think it is wrong.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger I think this guy has every right to do what he's doing. I also think the military, on our behalf since he's stiffing the taxpayers here, has every right to drag him up on every charge from dereliction of duty to desertion. Civil disobiedience means nothing if you aren't prepared to accept the consequences of your actions. Another question: Does the concept of conscientious objector still exist? I thought that would become obsolete with the all-voluteer army.
Originally Posted By jonvn I'm not saying this is what happened, but: Suppose you volunteer for the army, and you are ordered to shoot a bunch of innocent children whom your officers have lined up over a ditch? So you can be a volunteer, and still not do something you are ordered to if you find it immoral or illegal.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>So you can be a volunteer, and still not do something you are ordered to if you find it immoral or illegal.<< The case you cite would be obviously illegal/immoral. But that wouldn't be a conscientious objection, that would just be following the law. My understanding is that a conscientious objector is, or was at one time, a person who was morally opposed to war. And (IIRC) you had to be able to document it with letters from your clergy, show that you don't routinely get in bar fights, etc. Anything in your background that suggested this "conscience" just happened along because it was convenient would void your petition for conscientious objector status. When you refuse to follow orders (like "get on this plane and go to Iraq") it's the discretion of your commander to file charges if he believes that his orders were lawful. If you can defend your refusal, as your example would be easy to do, then you can turn it around to focus on your CO. But this guy's going to find it hard to defend, I think.
Originally Posted By jonvn Well, it's an extreme example, to illustrate the point that you just don't follow orders. I think you might find this info worth reading on the C.O. status: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C onscientious_objector</a>
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >> I think you might find this info worth reading on the C.O. status << Thanks. I was thinking about going wiki but too lazy to do the search myself. It kind of reaffirms what I said. The first paragraph "A conscientious objector is a person whose beliefs are incompatible with military service - perhaps with any role in the armed forces (in which case he or she is either pacifist or antimilitarist) - or who objects to a particular war." suggests that you can object to a specific war, but later paragraphs back me up. Snippets: In the United States, military personnel who come to a conviction of conscientious objection during their tour of duty must appear in front of a panel of experts, which consists of psychiatrists, army chaplains and officers. <snip> Common questions at hearings [noted as being commonly used in Switzerland, but similar to questions asked in other countries] <snip> * In general: How and when did you decide against the military service? Why can't you arrange military service with your conscience? What prohibits you to serve in the military? * Military service: Do you fear having to fight, or to use force? Do you want to abolish the army? What do you think about the phrase "We have the army to defend us, not to kill others"? * Use of force: What would you do if you're attacked? What do you feel when you see that others are attacked? What is violence, exactly? Would you rather experience losses than having to use force? * Belief: What does your belief say? Would you describe yourself as a pacifist? What basic values, besides objecting to violence, do you have? What entity gives you the certainty that your thinking and your feelings are right? * Implementation of your beliefs: Why didn't you choose to go into prison if your conscience is that strong? Why didn't you use medical reasons to avoid military service? What do you actually do to further peace, or is your attitude the only peaceful thing about you? * Personality: Who is in charge of defending your children in case of an armed conflict? Do you live your ethical principles inside your family? What books do you read? What do you demand from yourself? Are you merely a leader, a follower or a loner? <snip> Arguments like "The army is senseless", "It is not just to wage wars" or opposition to involvement in a specific war (World War II, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War; a hypothetical war of West Germany against fellow Germans from the GDR during the Cold War) will hardly ever be accepted.
Originally Posted By mele I really would like to know when this guy enlisted. I think it definitely matters. And if he joined to get an education, he should definitely repay the government.
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon Lt. Ehren Watada is a villian. What is worse, he is being used by the moonbat left for propaganda purposes. The military should court marshall him, he can spend 10 years in the stockade and then spend the rest of his life trying to hide the yellow stripe that runs down his back. And GOD BLESS every other American G.I. fighting and dying to keep the planet safe from islamo-fascists animals.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<What is worse, he is being used by the moonbat left for propaganda purposes.>> Moonbat is Beaumandy's term. If you can't be intelligent at least be original.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>What is worse, he is being used by the moonbat left for propaganda purposes.<< and by the moonbat right to criticise the left, as if everyone on the left considers him to be some sort of hero *rolls eyes*
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon I am sorry to disappoint you but Beau did not coin the term and I will post whatever I want. Roll your eyes if you want.
Originally Posted By friendofdd Moonbat is not found in my online dictionary, so maybe one of these two can claim it.
Originally Posted By DlandDug My father and two of my brothers served in the military. I have always been grateful that I was never called upon to serve. (I was too young to register for the draft, and when registration was reestablished, I was too old.) I did talk with recruiters, and friends who were wrestling with the decision. One aspect of military service that weighed heavily in my decision to not serve was the aspect of subjugating my will to that of the corps. In the military, individuality is not of value. Individuals must function as a unit. This is not a value judgement; it is a core principle. I don't feel that there is anything inherently superior in saying, "I am too much of an individual to effectively serve in the military." Indeed, I admire those who have the ability to become one with their unit, while remaining true to themselves and their own life. Those who have served in the military forge bonds that cannot be fully understood outside of that experience. Lt. Watada betrays the honor and trust of those who have come before him. His words are completely self serving: >>"I refuse to be silent any longer. I refuse to watch families torn apart, while the President tells us to ‘stay the course.’ I refuse to be party to an illegal and immoral war against people who did nothing to deserve our aggression. "I wanted to be there for my fellow troops. But the best way was not to help drop artillery and cause more death and destruction. It is to help oppose this war and end it so that all soldiers can come home."<< His selfish view has been couched in noble terms. But how can he say, "I wanted to be there for my fellow troops," when he essentially accuses all who choose to serve of being, "party to an illegal and immoral war against people who did nothing to deserve our aggression." I see from the article that Lt. Watada is "not against all wars, just this one." Therefore, he cannot lay claim to being a conscientious objector. The true C.O. does not pick and choose among options when faced with a moral dilemma. The true C.O. knows his own mind. I agree that this disgraceful young man should not be required to go to Iraq, and should not be allowed to serve with the troops he dishonors with his selfish and immature views. He should be required to serve his full term of military service, and should face appropriate punishment.
Originally Posted By PlainoLJoe Not sure where the thread was going since I have not read it all and apparently the Admin didnt like where it went either. LOL But, William. I completely agree with you. The US still has an all volunteer army. Meaning noone was forced to go and fight. Everyone involved decided to join. YOu sign a contract and you do what they say. Thats it. Millions of people go to work each day and dont like it one bit. But they say they are "forced" to work there. BS. Noone is makeing you work there unless you signed a contract saying you would. Anyone who joins the armed services, during peace or war, has to have at least the simple knowledge that they will go to war, see combat, and regularly do things that the dont like. If they join the army and dont know that, they should be weeded out in bootcamp. I was never in the armed forces because the trade-offs for me are just not worth it. Not enough money. But had I joined, I would have expected to do things I didnt agree with. Its a simple concept.
