Forums | MacLife

I'm wondering what Abu Ghraib really has to do with this. Were there a bunch of "grunts" who hated what they had to do there and tried to get it stopped but the Colonel squashed it?

StaticAge wrote:

matt wrote:

I still contend that a country which can't keep its military employment up is either not worth defending or is using its military in ways which would likely be considered unjust. While the military would love to (and is currently allowed to) prosecute people for abandonment, the desire of the military to do so should not be held above people's right of self-determination or right not to take part in action which is morally-unjust or supportive of action that is morally-unjust.

Fighting a war and then occupying a country which bore no threat to this one is not part of what should be considered appropriate military action.

And holding the desire of the military above people's rights is not part of what a supposedly free country should be doing.

War for fun and profit has nothing to do with the protection of this country, and while I believe in the concept of self-determination, the argument should especially be made when the government wants you to act not in the country's defense but in an act of offense.

Being prosecuted for leaving the military shouldnt affect that. Just because we will our own acts freely and are thereby accountable for them doesnt mean that we get off free from having to face consequences of our self determination.

Refusing to infringe on humans' right of self-determination would check, and would be the only check, to wanton military action.

You say "the consequences of our self-determination" and completely ignore that most military members would not exercise said self-determination were the military action just.

Humans would be (and are) exercising their self-determination in response to another action that must have its own consequences. Humans actions are the response. Humans actions are the consequences of unjust action, consequences which you argue against.

StaticAge wrote:

If people have the moral stomach to sign on to help our government forcibly end foreigners lives for certain reasons but not others, arent we already on a rather slippery slope of what is moral and what is not?

No.

StaticAge wrote:

And while we are on the subject of self determination and moral culpability, how noble is it to run away from the problem instead of facing it head on, standing one's ground for refusing to follow orders and serving as a testament to their precious moral dilemma?

Morality is not nobility.

Signing on to protect one's country and refusing to participate in the invasion and occupation of another are two distinct things in my mind. If they are not distinct in yours, I both pity and fear you.

StaticAge wrote:

If someone is ready to sacrifice their own life in pursuit of their nation's goals but not their own moral stance they take in defiance of what they perceive to be the wrong goals, then why should anyone else defend this so-called "stance" of abandonment?

Should the military be used to further a nation's *goals*?

Military should be used for defense, even if for the defense of allies. Using it for other purposes is immoral.

Jdude wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

sturner wrote:

Ah, but those are not lawful commands. And a soldier may force the issue in that case, especially since it isn't under fire in enemy contact, but requesting a written order, or simply refusing. The request for a written order would specifically stop an unlawful command since it would now be showing that it was issued, it wouldn't be circumstantial evidence.

Right.

As I said, Abu Ghraib and Haditha were covered up at very senior levels. Realistically, grunts aren't likely to endanger themselves by trying to parse what's legal and what's not.

When this smurf gets covered up, and "legal" but brutal smurf happens all the time, let's face it, there's only one way out for someone unable or unwilling to participate in such things.

There is only one way out? I suppose that would be releasing the info to the media when going to the chain of command, IG, and Chaplain fails. Each one of those is independent of the other, and they will all investigate reports. Reports can be made anonymously.
Unless the one way out means suicide, but that's another coward's exit (in this specific situation).

Wait wait wait wait.

So in the context of witnessing bad smurf, the preference is to break regulations (and risk God knows what) by going to the press, rather than break regulations (and risk God knows what) by deserting???

Is going to the press covered in the contract? Would going to the press thereby break the contract, or fulfill it?

This guy should stand up for his convictions. If he believes strongly enough in the fact that the Iraq war is criminal to run away from it, then he should also face the jail time that such a stand warrants. And not try to run from that. The penalty for abandoning your post and going AWOL is a jail sentence. He may have valid grounds for doing so in his mind, but it doesn't change the fact that his actions come with a penalty.

So he should take his medicine like a good martyr.

matt wrote:

I don't understand the reasoning that makes someone believe that because a person believes a government action is immoral, said person must also feel compelled to accept government's chosen punishment for disobeying it.

This reasoning has been presented numerous times by people posting on this forum, but there seems to be no reason for anyone to believe such reasoning.

whether he feels compelled to accept it is irrelevant. He did his dardnest to avoid punishmenet, but now despite his intentions doesn't really have a choice. Unless he can break free from the prison van and high tail it to mexico.
But, in my personal opinion, he should man up. He was moral enough to take a stand agains an unjust war. what if the penalty for doing so is that he has to go to jail, if caught. Is he not willing to accept THAT responsibility? Sounds like someone who wants to have their cake and eat it too.

matt wrote:

I don't understand the reasoning that makes someone believe that because a person believes a government action is immoral, said person must also feel compelled to accept government's chosen punishment for disobeying it.

This reasoning has been presented numerous times by people posting on this forum, but there seems to be no reason for anyone to believe such reasoning.

Well, since you don't believe that anyone should be held to things they promised to do, there's really jno way to explain it to you.

Tallgeese wrote:

matt wrote:

I don't understand the reasoning that makes someone believe that because a person believes a government action is immoral, said person must also feel compelled to accept government's chosen punishment for disobeying it.

This reasoning has been presented numerous times by people posting on this forum, but there seems to be no reason for anyone to believe such reasoning.

Well, since you don't believe that anyone should be held to things they promised to do, there's really jno way to explain it to you.

bullsmurf.

I just don't believe that someone gives up his morality by signing a piece of paper.

You are arguing that I believe that going back on one's word is acceptable, and that is not the case.

I am the one arguing from a point of morality. You are arguing from a point of legality.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Wait wait wait wait.

So in the context of witnessing bad smurf, the preference is to break regulations (and risk God knows what) by going to the press, rather than break regulations (and risk God knows what) by deserting???

Is going to the press covered in the contract? Would going to the press thereby break the contract, or fulfill it?

Illegal actions cannot be lawfully classified or marked secret and thus are eligible to be given to the press.


Notice I covered 3 other options before that. If they fail then the press is appropriate.
As a side note, writing a letter to elected representatives about illegal action is also an option. I forgot to add it.

So, here is the appropriate course of action (generally)
Chain of Command (unless they are involved)
Chaplain
IG
Elected Representatives
Press

And at no point was anything violating regulations done.
They may violate orders but illegal orders have only 1 use: toilet paper.

matt wrote:

bullsmurf.

I just don't believe that someone gives up his morality by signing a piece of paper.

You are arguing that I believe that going back on one's word is acceptable, and that is not the case.

I am the one arguing from a point of morality. You are arguing from a point of legality.

You're arguing morality when you call an obligation a "piece of paper"? No, you don't care about the morality of keeping oaths. You clearly do believe that going back on one's word is acceptable, you've been arguing it this entire time.

The U.S. has, in its past, used the military for actions that some people think are immoral though they were entirely legal. Anyone who signs up for the military should be aware of this and accepting of that possibility. Anyone who signs up for the military also is aware that the consequences for desertion may include imprisonment.

This isn't a difficult thing, here. If you think that a contract is just "a piece of paper" and that you shouldn't have to do things you really don't want to, then don't smurfing sign up. Nobody is making you do it.
You act like this guy was drafted.

matt wrote:

Not at all.

If they are held in government detention, they must accept the government's action because the government has the ability to compel them to do so.

If they are not held in government detention, there is absolutely nothing compelling them to accept the government's action.

if you want to take that approach, there is nothing compelling them to not gun down the police that come to arrested them. However, its still against the law and the governments job is to enforce it.

And to believe that they must accept punishment from an unjustly-acting government because of a signature on a piece of paper is to claim that a piece of paper should be held in one's regard higher than one's own morality. That's poor reasoning.

"What the government is doing is wrong, but I did sign that piece of paper. I better return home to face its punishment." That's laughable.

Face it, its the moral thing to do

Tallgeese wrote:

matt wrote:

bullsmurf.

I just don't believe that someone gives up his morality by signing a piece of paper.

You are arguing that I believe that going back on one's word is acceptable, and that is not the case.

I am the one arguing from a point of morality. You are arguing from a point of legality.

You're arguing morality when you call an obligation a "piece of paper"? No, you don't care about the morality of keeping oaths. You clearly do believe that going back on one's word is acceptable, you've been arguing it this entire time.

I don't believe that oaths have any bearing on morality. They're ceremonial things. Morality is not ceremonial. Morality is internal to the individual. Making a promise one does not intend to keep is immoral. Making a promise and then refusing to follow through with your end when you feel that the other party has not fulfilled its part or is acting immorally is not immoral. It is sound judgement.

If I make a contract with you, I should be required to fulfill that contract or forfeit any benefits you may be offering. I am not against requiring those who leave the military to return any benefits they may have received for work not done.

Tallgeese wrote:

The U.S. has, in its past, used the military for actions that some people think are immoral though they were entirely legal. Anyone who signs up for the military should be aware of this and accepting of that possibility. Anyone who signs up for the military also is aware that the consequences for desertion may include imprisonment.

The military should not legally be given that power.

Tallgeese wrote:

This isn't a difficult thing, here. If you think that a contract is just "a piece of paper" and that you shouldn't have to do things you really don't want to, then don't smurfing sign up. Nobody is making you do it.
You act like this guy was drafted.

It's a difficult thing if you have the ability to think independently and without relying of the thoughts of someone else to determine one's morality.

I don't believe I ever mentioned a draft.

I said that if a party to which I have made a commitment chooses to use my commitment to do something I feel is immoral, I no longer feel any need to fulfill my end of that commitment, and no need to fulfill any punishment such party might which to use against me.

I am amazed that you would attempt to make an argument that I am arguing from an immoral perspective.

Last edited by matt (2008-07-16 10:26 pm)

matt wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

matt wrote:

Not at all.

If they are held in government detention, they must accept the government's action because the government has the ability to compel them to do so.

If they are not held in government detention, there is absolutely nothing compelling them to accept the government's action.

if you want to take that approach, there is nothing compelling them to not gun down the police that come to arrested them. However, its still against the law and the governments job is to enforce it.

If you believe that you receive your morality from the actions or laws of the government, then you must have no internal morality, and you are someone to be feared.

Steyr AUG wrote:

And to believe that they must accept punishment from an unjustly-acting government because of a signature on a piece of paper is to claim that a piece of paper should be held in one's regard higher than one's own morality. That's poor reasoning.

"What the government is doing is wrong, but I did sign that piece of paper. I better return home to face its punishment." That's laughable.

Face it, its the moral thing to do

Not at all.

It certainly is in my opinion and the way I was raised.