Forums | MacLife

I have a question: if somebody wants out of the mafia, should our law enforcement agencies tell them, "Hey, sorry, but you have a contract with them.  Have you no honor?"

ShnickyShnack wrote:

davic3 wrote:

Yes I understand this war is terribly wrong on many different levels.
However when you are in the military you give up the right to pick and choose your job.
If you feel so strongly against the refuse  to deploy and face the music

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/0 … -iraq-war/

This I can respect and sympathize with

Once again, you're refusing to differentiate between the larger issues of whether a war is wrong -- which I think we can all agree, except in the most extreme circumstances, a soldier doesn't have a right to judge -- and whether the war is being conducted in a brutal, illegal manner on a day-to-day basis. That is to say, the soldier's role is unacceptable, rather than the issue of whether or not he's a soldier.

For example, someone can sign up, decide it sucks, but be stuck. But if he signs up, does his part, but finds he's being expected to participate in illegal actions, and I KNOW you're going to say "report it," but we're talking about stuff the officers know about and condone -- why should he be expected to just suck it up? What about the contract overrides legality and morality?

Your word means nothing does it.

Metacell wrote:

I have a question: if somebody wants out of the mafia, should our law enforcement agencies tell them, "Hey, sorry, but you have a contract with them.  Have you no honor?"

I'm surprised it took seven pages for this nonsense to come up.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Jdude wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

For example, someone can sign up, decide it sucks, but be stuck. But if he signs up, does his part, but finds he's being expected to participate in illegal actions, and I KNOW you're going to say "report it," but we're talking about stuff the officers know about and condone -- why should he be expected to just suck it up? What about the contract overrides legality and morality?

Nothing in the contract does.

So, a person sees abuse, reports it. the report fails.
He sends pictures to the news. Nobody cares.
He calls his congressman, who says "you are registered for the other party. F off."

Are we to believe that the person has gone through all of these steps and that they have all failed?
I doubt it.

But if they all fail, or there is no other choice due to the immediacy of the situation- that soldier can resort to the threat or force of arms, like the helo pilot did in Vietnam to stop a massacre of a village.

Jesus, so it's okay to mutiny but it's not okay to desert?

It's so odd to see you arguing like this since nothing else really would suggest to me that you're a coward. If there is illegal abuse or, say, massacre going on - running your craven ass to Canada is supposed to be the right thing to do instead of, say, doing everything you can conceivably do to stop the lawless killing??

Nice canned response. Care to refute my post at any point?

Tallgeese wrote:

Nice canned response. Care to refute my post at any point?

Refute what? Your embarrassing and repeated use of the label "coward?"

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Nice canned response. Care to refute my post at any point?

Refute what? Your embarrassing and repeated use of the label "coward?"

a person who lacks courage, esp. one who is shamefully unable to control fear and so shrinks from danger or trouble

Seems he knows the definition.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Jdude wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

For example, someone can sign up, decide it sucks, but be stuck. But if he signs up, does his part, but finds he's being expected to participate in illegal actions, and I KNOW you're going to say "report it," but we're talking about stuff the officers know about and condone -- why should he be expected to just suck it up? What about the contract overrides legality and morality?

Nothing in the contract does.

So, a person sees abuse, reports it. the report fails.
He sends pictures to the news. Nobody cares.
He calls his congressman, who says "you are registered for the other party. F off."

Are we to believe that the person has gone through all of these steps and that they have all failed?
I doubt it.

But if they all fail, or there is no other choice due to the immediacy of the situation- that soldier can resort to the threat or force of arms, like the helo pilot did in Vietnam to stop a massacre of a village.

Jesus, so it's okay to mutiny but it's not okay to desert?

Its not mutiny if they're opposing unlawful orders and command.

Or kiss a dude.

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

Or kiss a dude.

That might actually get you a special assignment in a congressman's office.

only if you're in the page program.

I kid.

Tallgeese wrote:

Metacell wrote:

I have a question: if somebody wants out of the mafia, should our law enforcement agencies tell them, "Hey, sorry, but you have a contract with them.  Have you no honor?"

I'm surprised it took seven pages for this nonsense to come up.

But why is it nonsense?  We all know from history that the militaries of all nations are guilty of far worse crimes than any racketeering outfit.  Is the badge of state all it takes to distinguish the path of valor from that of profiteering?

Metacell wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Metacell wrote:

I have a question: if somebody wants out of the mafia, should our law enforcement agencies tell them, "Hey, sorry, but you have a contract with them.  Have you no honor?"

I'm surprised it took seven pages for this nonsense to come up.

But why is it nonsense?  We all know from history that the militaries of all nations are guilty of far worse crimes than any racketeering outfit.  Is the badge of state all it takes to distinguish the path of valor from that of profiteering?

I have a question too: if you get out of the mafia, what moral logic does one use to deal with the people sent out to snuff you? Lets say you are a really small fish, not too much to offer in any way that your testimony is valuable for the government to deal for it, but pretty bad enough that your absence is definitely noticed.

"You cant shoot me- I am a free moral agent!!"

StaticAge wrote:

Metacell wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

I'm surprised it took seven pages for this nonsense to come up.

But why is it nonsense?  We all know from history that the militaries of all nations are guilty of far worse crimes than any racketeering outfit.  Is the badge of state all it takes to distinguish the path of valor from that of profiteering?

I have a question too: if you get out of the mafia, what moral logic does one use to deal with the people sent out to snuff you? Lets say you are a really small fish, not too much to offer in any way that your testimony is valuable for the government to deal for it, but pretty bad enough that your absence is definitely noticed.

"You cant shoot me- I am a free moral agent!!"

Heh, I hadn't thought of that response. Also, I was more expecting this to come in the form of an Al Qaeda member surrendering to U.S. forces and being told to get back and finish his obligation to Al Qaeda...

In either case, it's stupid. A more apt comparison would be if the wise guy were to come to the police and say "I want out! I was fine being a hit man, running numbers, helping with the prostitution ring... but my next hit was going to be Charlie up the street and I used to get the best sandwiches at his deli!" or the terrorist to say "I was okay in Al Qaeda as long as I was just blowing up the white devils but now they want me to blow up the mosque where my friend Ahmed goes!"

If the mafioso were to come to the police and renounce organized crime, he should be accepted. If the mad bomber were to come to the U.S. forces and renounce terrorism that would be a moral act.
...just like if an American soldier were to become a conscientious objector, renouncing the morality of serving in the military, he would be allowed to and it would be a moral position to take.