Jump to content

American War Dodgers


tml12

Recommended Posts

Its really quite simple. Hinzman signed on to serve in the military of a nation that is a signatory to several internation conventions. Ergo, his commitment to that miltary is predicated on the belief that that miltary will adhere to the commitments made by that nation. If in fact that military does not adhere to the commitments understood to be in effect at the time of his enlisting, it is the military, and not Hinzman, that has failed to meet its commitments. Once the US military ceased meeting its commitments from international agreements, all agreements that individuals made with the military predicated on those commitments ought to be null and void.

Um, who sits in judgement as to whether the US military has met it's commitments? I don't recall that decision coming down from any international body with an official capacity to render such a decision. The only international body that has the ability to authorize war in an international capacity is the UN Security Council, which authorized the use of any and all necessary means (including invasion) to see to it that Iraq comply with the ceasefire agreement of 1991. Iraq provided casus belli numerous times after the ceasefire was signed. It was fully legitimate for the US to invade the country and confirm that Iraq was in compliance, which is what has happened. (If you think this is a rough and terrible way to handle international relations, it is. It's also often the only way to get the job done. Here's hoping the international community gets around to performing a similar act of rough justice in Sudan before the janjaweed finish their job. Or do you think they'll just stop once they've had their fill of rape and murder?)

Besides which, all of this talk of international law constraining war or defining a particular military action as "illegal" is meaningless. The concept of international law is itself predicated on the the idea that signatories face international sanctions, including war, if they fail to live up to their agreements. There is no such thing as a legitimate international governing authority, other than the UN (which is an international governing body in the same way that an Elks lodge is a municipal town council). There is no International Constitution (other than the UN Charter, which is a nifty set of outdated idealisms, but doesn't carry any meaningful legal weight).

Some may read the above paragraphs and think, "But what about the International Criminal Court in the Hague?" What indeed? The US doesn't recognise the authority of the International Criminal Court over it's own citizens. Period. It's against their law to cede such authority to an outside judiciary. So, if the ICC were to decide that the United States acted illegally when prosecuting a war, it wouldn't mean anything to the Americans unless you actually started rounding up American diplomats and charging them. Which the Americans would consider an act of war, regardless of the opinions and motives of the ICC's supporters. And good luck with that.

The only people who have ended up in the ICC are people who were sent with the consent of their own governments. If you'd like to prosecute a sitting dictator for genocide, you pretty much have to do it in absentia, which is a meaningless waste of time if you refuse to do what it takes to go and get him, and there's no possibility he's ever going to be arrested.

War is the basest form of international relations. It's the physical solution for a conflict for which talk has provided no satisfactory resolution. It's ugly and horrible, but it does resolve the dispute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How so? Both involve the very same international agreements, and a debate on whether or not they do in fact transgress those agreements.
It is not the job of a soldier to question the political legalities of the war. An individual solider does not have the training nor the access to the information necessary to make such a determination.

The soldier's obligation to refuse illegal orders is limited to those orders which a soldier is qualified to judge. This usually includes orders regarding the treatment of civilians, combatants or prisoners he encounters while in the war zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, if given an illegal order - such as to shoot an unarmed man - he has the responsibilty to disobey it. That would be the point he might deserve some sympathy.

So what you're saying is that if he was ordered to deploy for an illegal war, it would be his responsibility to disobey?

For "shooting an unarmed man" I'll take the most extreme scenario, where a soldier shoots a civilian who is clearly unarmed and cooperative for no apparent reason. Such an act is against the Geneva Conventions and is agains the rules of modern warfare ("illegal").

As I iterated in my previous post, you have no evidence of the "illegality" of this war. In fact, existing Security Council resolutions clearly allow for the Iraq invasion, a fact which none of the Security Council member nations ever seriously disputed. (France, Russia and China were of the opinion that further resolutions should be made on top of those already existing, whether they were necessary or not.)

So you're trying to build a logical arguement using two incompatible scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The soldier's obligation to refuse illegal orders is limited to those orders which a soldier is qualified to judge. This usually includes orders regarding the treatment of civilians, combatants or prisoners he encounters while in the war zone.

Sorry, I don't see the difference. Both situations involve the soldier interpreting the EXACT same law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The soldier's obligation to refuse illegal orders is limited to those orders which a soldier is qualified to judge. This usually includes orders regarding the treatment of civilians, combatants or prisoners he encounters while in the war zone.

Sorry, I don't see the difference. Both situations involve the soldier interpreting the EXACT same law.

The argument is your general GI Joe isn't bright enough to interpret international law.

Which obviously this guy isn't or he'd realise the war in Iraq is completely legal under the UN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't see the difference. Both situations involve the soldier interpreting the EXACT same law.
A soldier is trained how to interpret that law when it comes to treating individuals he encounters. A soldier is not trained how to interpret the law when it comes to determining the legality of the war. Furthermore, a soldier has all the information he needs to know whether killing a prisoner or raping a girl is legal - the law is very black and white when it comes to those things. The law is considerably more ambiguious when it comes to deciding if the war itself is legal or not and making an informed decision requires access to information that a soldier does not have access to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Point IMT is missing here is:

THIS MAN SIGNED A CONTRACT. HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING. HE WAS SOMEONE WHO WANTED MONEY FOR COLLEGE AND HE GOT IN OVER HIS HEAD.

It was unwise. It was a foolish choice...the result is unfortunate but it is what it is.

All this stuff about the legality of the war and this and that is stupid leftist garbage in defence of this guy. I feel for him. But you know what? When you sign a contract, you are expected to live up to what you sign. When I sign contracts for my employer, etc. I don't tell them later: "What I meant, etc."

The fact is he wanted money for college. He was never prepared to go into that world. He was not mentally prepared for it. That doesn't mean he should not be held accountable for his actions.

All these questions of "legality" are completely irrelavent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't see the difference. Both situations involve the soldier interpreting the EXACT same law.
A soldier is trained how to interpret that law when it comes to treating individuals he encounters. A soldier is not trained how to interpret the law when it comes to determining the legality of the war. Furthermore, a soldier has all the information he needs to know whether killing a prisoner or raping a girl is legal - the law is very black and white when it comes to those things. The law is considerably more ambiguious when it comes to deciding if the war itself is legal or not and making an informed decision requires access to information that a soldier does not have access to.

YES!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His whole basis was the war is illegal...how can it be proven?

The war was undeniably illegal -- both under the laws of the USA and "international law" (which I give less respect to).

Further, the use of National Guard and reserve troops in the war is also illegal -- anyone in the national guard who signed up under the pretense of homeland defence has a very strong case against the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His whole basis was the war is illegal...how can it be proven?

The war was undeniably illegal -- both under the laws of the USA and "international law" (which I give less respect to).

Further, the use of National Guard and reserve troops in the war is also illegal -- anyone in the national guard who signed up under the pretense of homeland defence has a very strong case against the government.

I am no pro-Iraq war hawk and I will leave the question of the legality for a minute.

But let's get back to Hinzman and the soldiers there. What should we do about it?

Would you, YankAbroad, someone who shares an agreement with me about the ridiculousness of bloated huge government authoritarian policies, support paying to keep this guy appealing the system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you, YankAbroad, someone who shares an agreement with me about the ridiculousness of bloated huge government authoritarian policies, support paying to keep this guy appealing the system?

I don't view all government spending as unnecessary. . . certainly spending on courts and appeals.

My view is that the soldiers in question were conned.

The sad thing is, they'll get in trouble and go to prison if they return to the USA -- but George W. Bush won't -- even though he's the one who committed high crimes and misdemeanours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you, YankAbroad, someone who shares an agreement with me about the ridiculousness of bloated huge government authoritarian policies, support paying to keep this guy appealing the system?

I don't view all government spending as unnecessary. . . certainly spending on courts and appeals.

My view is that the soldiers in question were conned.

The sad thing is, they'll get in trouble and go to prison if they return to the USA -- but George W. Bush won't -- even though he's the one who committed high crimes and misdemeanours.

Neither do I...I am not an anarchist. I do believe that government should not force individuals to act in ways they see fit...it isn't an issue of government or no government...it is not black and white.

However, I don't support living off the system if you don't have to. I have friends on welfare and they deserve it because of medical conditions and other complicated reasons I won't go into.

The fact is, I do question our appeals system if a ruling can be laid down and years later you can still appeal it and live in the country.

It becomes a question of how many times is too many times?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
The argument is your general GI Joe isn't bright enough to interpret international law.

Which obviously this guy isn't or he'd realise the war in Iraq is completely legal under the UN.

The secretary general of the UN disagrees with you.

"The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter."

Iraq War was Illegal and Breached UN Charter, Says Annan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument is your general GI Joe isn't bright enough to interpret international law.

Which obviously this guy isn't or he'd realise the war in Iraq is completely legal under the UN.

The secretary general of the UN disagrees with you.

Why would anyone care what that hypocritical crook had to say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His whole basis was the war is illegal...how can it be proven?

The war was undeniably illegal -- both under the laws of the USA and "international law" (which I give less respect to).

Further, the use of National Guard and reserve troops in the war is also illegal -- anyone in the national guard who signed up under the pretense of homeland defence has a very strong case against the government.

I am no pro-Iraq war hawk and I will leave the question of the legality for a minute.

But let's get back to Hinzman and the soldiers there. What should we do about it?

Would you, YankAbroad, someone who shares an agreement with me about the ridiculousness of bloated huge government authoritarian policies, support paying to keep this guy appealing the system?

The question of legality of the war in this case is irrellevant.....under the act he cannot seek refugee status which was the decision: (the evidence regarding legality of the war was not heard as it is pointless in this case)....

97. (1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them personally

(a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or

to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if

(i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country,

(ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country,

(iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, and

(iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care.

I think Canada would really rather stay out of this one and unless he makes a stronger argument covered under the act, the issues that you are discussing here will not be heard. I think it would be great if they were heard, including the concept of the legality of the war. However this would leave Canada in the awkward position of hearing an awful lot of claims for refugee status everytime the US goes to war ! We know how frequent that will be. But compare this case to some of the other people living in this country under refugee claims. I don't think Canada would do that badly accepting a few trained military staff from the US...probably good for the labour pool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It becomes a question of how many times is too many times?

I tend to place morality above legality. Then again, I am a radical classical liberal. ;)

to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or

to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment

Military "justice," particularly sentences such as "20 years' prison with hard labour," more than qualify under this provision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This soldier has sworn and signed alligance to serve his country both home and abroad. No soldier has the right to decide which war or conflict they will serve in. This contract is no different than any other contract signed by any individual and it must be upheld in a court of law..

And as explained before He and the others that are in the same situation are Cowards. and should be returned to the US for what ever punishment they deserve.

His claim that he will be forced to commit crimes/ kill innocent people is utterly bullshit...Nobody can make a soldier kill or for that matter fire a wpn on the battlefield. If he's that concerned he could be a medical assistantant or strecher bearer

You don't have to pull the trigger but you have to atleast show-up. By not doing so he forces another individual to serve in his place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He joined and committed himself under the laws of his country, not Canada's. It is not for Canadians to interpret US law any more that it is for them to interpret ours. If our soldiers were deserting and claiming asylum in the US, we would expect them to be sent back. Like the draft dodger amnesty after the Viet Nam war, the issue of Iraq deserters must ultimately be decided in the US by Americans, not by Canadians in Canada. He should go home and fight his battle there, not expect Canadians to do it for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The secretary general of the UN disagrees with you.

"The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter."

Iraq War was Illegal and Breached UN Charter, Says Annan

When did Koffee resign as head administrator and become nine of the fifteen voting members of the UN Security Council, the only body empowered to rule this action illegal? His opinion while interesting, is no more valid than the lawyers for the 45 coalition heads of state that advised their leaders it was legal. Or, the over fifty other nations who gave support (Iran, Suadi Arabia etc) but did not wish to be publiclly named who figured the same?

Now, as for him being right. Imagine Chief Wiggams being told by the DA to arrest Al Capone.

DA: Arrest Al Capone.

Wiggams: No your honor, I think he is innocent. Therefore I will not arrest him so you can have a trial to decide his guilt.

Or if you prefer, fire hall gets a call stating house is burning and peoples lives are at stake'

911: Ten alarm fire at 34 Smith Avenus. Children trapped.

Fire Hall Dispatcher: Ahh, ok. (turns to ten firemen in boots getting on truck) 'Stand down guys, I don't think this is an emergency. In fact, I believe it is not one, therefore, let's file some paper protests in the morning.'

Imagine D Day, half a million troops all sitting around debating the guilt or innocence of Germany before they decide to board the ships. What a farce.

As for this guy in Canada. Let him stay, he broke no Canadian law but hasn't his visa expired? In reality, he had one decision to make as a soldier. When he follows orders and aims his weapon - hit or miss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this will be an unpopular opinion but it is an illegal war and occupation and we should allow draft dodgers to stay here, just like we did during Vietnam. Svend Robinson and Corky Evans are both draft dodgers and they have done a lot of good. I do not see a problem with letting them stay here. It is the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...