Wait wait, This is getting more confusing by each post but I'll try to make something of it. 1. The question of legal/illegality is irrelevant. International Law is voluntary at best and really doesn't answer this question. The only thing pertaining to this is the UN charter which states that you can't attack a nation unless they hit you in some way. But that's been violated before when we went into Kosovo and when we intervened in parts of Africa. There really aren't very many international bodies and international legal statues that pertain to this. 2. In terms of supporting the troops but opposing the war, I think its possible. Look even if troops are voluntarily participating, they don't choose where they are sent or how policymakers use them. I know a few soldiers who were sent to Iraq who don't agree with it at all. Yet, they've entered into a contract and must serve it out. Blame the policymakers and the generals but don't blame the soldier. Many of them are national guard and reservists who joined so they could help out with disaster relief and local problems, not military combat. Also, current stop-gap policies prevent many soldiers from getting out of their committment so literally they are stuck regardless of their view. Also, many veterans have clauses that state that they can be called back up to duty, so they inevitably get sent to Iraq regardless of their view. The only other option is to go AWOL which is a criminal offense. You can't make a general statement and blame the troops when in many cases you don't know their situation and reasoning.
HayesStreet, I just can't accept it that this is an illegal war. And I'll maintain that those that "claim" the war is illegal, are just regergitating left-wing propoganda for the sake of argument. Maybe I'm wrong but that is my experience. Geeimsoboroed has summed up my possition very well. I think most people know this. Yes. And this war would only be illegal on a technicality. It isn't like America is making widespread humanitarian violations such as Kosovo. As such, an illegal war on technicality doesn't mean the soldiers are also guilty. They can't be held responsible for interpreting internal law provisions and thusly decline to serve their committment to the armed forced because America violated provision 834b section 14 line 3. So on a technicality, I'll concede the soldiers are participating in an illegal war. But ONLY illegal on a tiny technicality. In most people's minds, that wouldn't be enough to be called hypocrosy.
There is no illegal war domestically. But internationally, the invasion of Iraq broke every single piece of international law. The international committee and American publics were lied to. Even with the lie, the war didn't receive blessing from UN, didn't get support from allies. A mere "coalition of willing" is not going to cut it. The "preemptive strike" doctrine is not something accepted in history or current international society. No matter how one spins it, it's a simple invasion. But legality of war is always irrelevant, because international laws are not enforcable. As the only super power in the world, no one out there is really in the position to restrain US. No one is going to stop a super power to pursue its interest, but the real question is whether the war is in the real interest of America. I don't see it that way personally. Although legal or not is not going to stop US, attacking a sovereign country without UN approval is violating international law. Therefore, it is illegal. Every country out there is pursuing its own interest, legally or not. Powerful countries will stop weak ones to do so. But to claim a super power doing so, is to "liberate" others, is legal, is a big Hypocrosy, liberal or conservative.
We have a world court, right? Is America going to stand trial at the world court? If it doesn't and/or isn't found guilty, then technically speaking America is not guilty of breaking a law. So HayesStreet's assertion that soldiers are just as guilty as the president, if you beleive the war is illegal, is hogwash on many levels. The UN gave Iraq something like 17 "warnings" of broken sactions (or something like that, I forgot the details now) and therefore America had grounds to wage war. It was simply a difference in opinion as to whether those broken sanctions justified a premtive strike. Most countries said no and America said yet. I wouldn't say that makes the war illegal, personally. If it is, please prove me wrong. Clearly the way the president justified war to Americans was misleading and I don't beleive we should have initiated the war in this mannor.
These are good delineations. No doubt the top decision makers might be in for MORE criticism. Not denying that. But that still leaves criticism for the troops, right? Also, again let's not compare a hamburger flipper to blowing someone's head off. Yes, we hold Hitler et al to a highler level of responsibility but the individual soldier was not given a free pass. As far as the military training piece - the Israeli soldiers refusing the fight in the West Bank crushes this argument. And in fact one of the first articles also mentions an American doing the same thing. While I understand you are taught, almost brainwashed, to follow orders - you are not brainwashed. You are not a robot killing machine - you are a human with a choice. Great post! No, its not irrelevant. The only thing that is important is if a person believes its illegal or immoral. IF they do then they should also criticize those enacting (not just dictating) that policy. That is the sum of the argument. All of this is just a red herring. No soldier has to take up arms in Iraq. Its as simple as that. No contract, no punishment, no plea can make them do it if they chose not to. Look, again the sum of the argument is that IF you believe the war is immoral/illegal then you should be saying 'down with Bush' (which those people are saying) AND they should be saying 'hey troops, this is illegal/immoral - you are doing wrong. stop doing wrong.'
Yes, they not only CAN be responsible for interpreting legal and moral provisions, but they are REQUIRED to. And I'm not sure what the point is about whether the violations are widespread or not. Would they have to be committing genocide for it to be important? I just think you're looking at what I am saying from the wrong angle - the focus of this point is not the troops, its the people who say the war is illegal/immoral. Either you think the war is illegal/immoral or you don't. If you DO then there is no reason to be silent about the troops committing illegal/immoral acts while protesting the administration for the policy. That is where the hypocrisy comes into play. I agree. This doesn't affect my point. The focus is on those in the anti- the war crowd who BELIEVE the war is illegal or immoral. The rest of this is irrelevant. No need to go hog wild. The soldiers would be guilty of participating in an illegal activity. The President would be guilty of ordering it. You can create some fantasyland scenario where the intervention is declared legitimate in the World Court but that will happen when monkeys fly out of your butt . AND AGAIN, even if you were right it would not do anything to my argument. Let's play a game: Pretend for a minute that YOU believe the war is both illegal and immoral. Now explain why you don't say 'hey troops, you are doing something immoral and illegal.' If you do this then I think you may understand what I'm saying. We can certainly have a thread where we discuss this point: was the intervention illegal. I would be arguing what you are arguing - as I have many times since the intervention first became plausible. That is a different and unrelated topic.
I'm absolutely serious. You cannot possibly hope to make a rational argument otherwise. It simply is NOT true that they do not have a choice. The soldiers refusing to do so indisputably prove you wrong.
Sure they can, but they would end up being court martialed, wouldn't they? I don't call that free choice.
Then you are defining 'free choice' poorly. That there is an unpleasant consequence doesn't mean there is no choice. The FACT, yes FACT, that soldier DO refuse orders PROVES there is a choice. You don't have a good argument here.
Imagine the state of the military if each solder acted as Hayes suggests they took it upon themselves to choose which instructions to follow. No command at all. Yikes. The whole legal, illegal war discussion is just silly if you're suggesting that if the war was is illegal, the soldiers should refuse to go. A mutiny? THat's their duty? They're battling the war just as soldiers have always done. The Nuremburg trials set the standard for individual behavior. The Gitmo torture -- that falls under the can't just do it because you're following orders. But a conventional war? Nope -- not unless they're doing something even more inhumane than is 'acceptable' in a war. But... I'll concede a small point, Hayes, that a soldier may be somewhat offended by us tree-hugging pacifists saying we're on their side. Sort of suggests they're on our side too -- when many of them may, in fact support the war. So maybe it can be seen as condescending for us to say we're supporting them, when we're not supporting what they've been sent to do. And when we project that they've been duped into going, or that they're too poor / dumb / brainwashed to know better -- well...someone could rightly take offense. But the days of sanctimoniously bashing the soldiers -- calling them baby killers or worse -- are thankfully gone. Even the most rabid peacenik genuinely wishes the soldiers and their families well. I may disagree with Giddy on foreign policy -- but I still have tremendous respect for his nephew who's going to Iraq. I wish him well. I'll be devastated if he's hurt. I don't support the war. ANd, though I believe Giddy's nephew signed up knowing about Iraq, I still fully support him. In fact...I respect him more -- as he's accepted huge personal risk for what he believes is best for his country. Make sense? IF he is later stationed in Iran or elsewhere -- I would expect him to go. And I'll protest that war -- and continue to wish him well. We can be ticked at George for sending them in...but we're not hoping they'll lose.
Two things to point out... 1. Was the Iraq war illegal? It really comes down to a technicality. The Security Council didn't authorize this war but they havent authorize other wars as well. (Kosovo, Somalia, etc..) The UN is an organization that I believe we should respect (and I do believe personally we needed their approval for the Iraq war but strictly because it wouldve brought in more troops not because of some question about legality) but to hold ourselves hostage to an organization is different from a treaty. We ratify treaties and are forced to hold ourselves to them. Point to one treaty we ratified that declares this war to be illegal. That's why I think some of our detention practices are probably illegal because they violate the Geneva Conventions. That being said, we don't ratify UN resolutions. They are statements from the world community but they're not binding. Even Security Council resolutions at best are just statements from a group which we feel has more legitimacy. They aren't actual law. 2. Now the soldiers debate. Look the world in which you envision isn't one I want to be apart of. Soldiers NEED to follow orders. 1) Its illegal for them not to, they'd be considered AWOL so you cant blame a soldier for going to Iraq because they'd be in jail otherwise 2) It forms the very basis of a military. You cant have a functioning military if anyone in it is allowed to pick what they do and when. You make your obligation the moment you join. So if you are planning on not participating in a war then dont join. But to blame those that don't have a choice because of committments made is senseless. During WWI, NO ONE supported the idea because the country was firmly isolationist. Imagine soldiers protesting that one and just leaving. Same with WWII. Your advocating military paralysis which is something no one wants.
Every human being does have the choice to do or not to do what they are ordered to do - in the absence of some chemical or psychological condition. Yes. The military recognizes the right of a soldier to ignore an illegal order. But if they didn't would you say a soldier should do something illegal or immoral because they were ordered to? Where is the lesson from Nuremberg in THAT? So why is there no criticism of the TROOPS that are at Gitmo? There is plenty of criticism of the administration about it? So as long as they aren't dropping nukes or raping civilians, its anything goes? Look, I've given a good example (IMO) of the Israeli soldiers who refuse to fight in the West Bank because they feel it is both illegal and immoral. Is your position that they should go bulldoze Palestinian settlements anyway, despite their recognition that its wrong, because they were ordered to do so? Is the Israeli army incapable of defending Israel because of these troops? You're getting there. Not really what I'm saying but you make a good point. Isn't there a middle ground? We don't want to return to the 'baby killer' days, agreed. But if they are doing wrong why is there no criticism for them. I hypothesize its because we've swung so far back on the pendulum from the Vietnam Syndrome that we don't want criticize them at all. We have absolved them of ANY responsibility in their actions. That is both hypocritical (if you feel the war is illegal/immoral) AND dangerous (re: Nuremberg). Well, I understand that being a peacenik doesn't mean you want him to die. But when you 'wish him well,' when you 'still fully support him' what does that mean? For him to do well he's got to kill Iraqis. He's got to achieve the objective of occupying and pacifying Iraq. You don't agree with occupying and pacifying Iraq. See the contradiction? Think of it this way: If its LAPD's policy to beat any black motorist they pull over, you would certainly have criticism for the department leaders that made that policy, right? Would you NOT criticize the officers who beat black motorists they pulled over? Somalia was authorized, fyi. But this is really not relevant to my point and it seems like some of you are getting distracted by it. My point is summed up in the game I propose above - which depends on what the anti-war protester THINKS, not what is fact. IF you think its illegal or immoral then your criticism should necessarily extend to the troops carrying out the policy. It illegal for them to follow an illegal order. Being considered AWOL is an excuse for neither committing an illegal nor an immoral act. Israel has a functioning military, no? My example stands unrefuted. Saying 'well you joined so just do it' is exactly the kind of thinking that led to concentration camps in Europe and to Abu Grab in Iraq. They have a choice. I'm not advocating military paralysis. I'm advocating that protesters against the intervention in Iraq because they feel its illegal or immoral should also have criticism for the troops affecting that policy. Unless the soldiers don't have a choice. They do so then they necessarily CHOOSE to follow this policy. If the policy is wrong then their actions are necessarily wrong. You assert, as others here have that they do not have a choice. The may not have a palatable choice, but it is a choice just the same. The choice may be to participate or to get courtmarshalled, but I hope you're not saying they should kill illegally or unjustly to stay of out prison? That may be thier choice but I would hope that is not their motivation. THAT is the crux of my argument. NOT that the war IS illegal or that it IS immoral.
I think there was a huge outcry against the individuals who did the torture. I think one of them was recently sentenced too. You're putting a burdon on the troops to determine which battles are just. I don't think you can do that.
I'm putting the burden on the anti-war crowd that feels the intervention is illegal/immoral. If they think that then they should be conveying their principled criticism at the troops as well. Whether that would change troops minds or not we don't know. But I give a historical example where troops got orders they should have rejected (nuremberg) and a recent example where troops have rejected orders they felt were immoral, illegal or both (Israel/West Bank) - so its not as if it hasn't or isn't happening. The only reason this is different is because we have a sociological block against extending criticism to our own troops. Me, personally? I don't think the intervention is either illegal or immoral. And its interesting that the most vehement opposition in this thread are people who don't think so either, rather than the target audience - those who think it IS illegal and immoral. Strange.
Two problems I have with your statment... 1. Nuremberg is a terrible example. At the trials they convicted officers and leaders of war crimes not the average soldier. 1) because of logistical reasons and 2) because you can't put the onus on those that have other practical reasons for being in the military (i.e. a draft or because they need the money) Same with the Israel example. A friend of mine refused to participate in the Gaza withdrawal because he believed that Gaza was a part of Israel and that he couldnt bring himself to evict Jews. Well now he's in jail and is an example of why you cant blame the troops. No one wants to go to jail. 2. That brings me to point number 2. Going AWOL. Look, people in the military are there for several reasons. One person from my high school joined because that was the ONLY way he could get the money needed for college. Well he's in Iraq now and doesnt have a choice. Either abandon the military and go to jail and ruin his life because no one will hire someone who goes AWOL and he has no money for college if he left the Army or stay and fight. How the heck can you blame him for staying. His life is ruined if he leaves the military (although he does support the war but this is hypothetical). Plus going AWOL is a mark of death in this country especially today. NO employer wants someone who has that on his record and in society you're stigmatized for life.
Stephen Funk, Marine Corps reservist March 15, 2004--First conscientious objector imprisoned for refusing to fight Iraq War, anti-war hero Stephen Funk returned home from six months in North Carolina military prison to a community celebration in Oakland, California March 14, 2004. The event was announced on the front page of the local news section of the San Francisco Chronicle and was covered by most Bay Area television stations, Democracy Now!, and many others. A dozen progressive organizations presented Stephen with an “Anti-War Hero” plaque in recognition for his courageous stand against an unjust war. In a significant victory, a military jury acquitted Marine Stephen Funk, Iraq War resister, of "desertion" on September 6, 2003. However, they then convicted him of the lesser charge of "unauthorized absence" (aka AWOL). The jury later sentenced him to six months imprisonment. During his court martial supporters rallied to his defense nationwide. Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia, U.S. Army On Friday, 21 May 2004, US Army National Guard staff sergeant Camilo Mejia was sentenced to one year in prison, reduction in rank to E-1, forfeiture of 2/3 pay for one year, and a bad conduct discharge, by a special court martial at Fort Steward. Camilo Mejia had been charged with desertion, although he applied for conscientious objector status. Camilo Mejia went into hiding after returning from duty in Iraq for rest and recreation (see this), to prepare his conscientious objection application. This application has since been denied. Ironically, just days after the sentencing of Camilo Mejia to one year for refusing to return to Iraq to kill and torture other humans, Jeremy Sivits received a similar sentence for his part in the mistreatment of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison. Camilo was held at Fort Sill military prison, in Oklahoma, imprisoned for his conscientious objection to participating in war. He appealed his sentence, (see story here). He was released from prison on February 15th, 2005. I am only a regular person that got tired of being afraid to follow his own conscience. For far too long I allowed others to direct my actions even when I knew that they were wrong....To those who have called me a coward I say that they are wrong, and that without knowing it, they are also right. They are wrong when they think that I left the war for fear of being killed. I admit that fear was there, but there was also the fear of killing innocent people, the fear of putting myself in a position where to survive means to kill, there was the fear of losing my soul in the process of saving my body, the fear of losing myself to my daughter, to the people who love me, to the man I used to be, the man I wanted to be. I was afraid of waking up one morning to realize my humanity had abandoned me. Camilo Mejia, from his statement upon receiving the "Courageous Resister Award", August 2004 Camilo was released on February 15th, 2005. Camilo is currently touring the nation talking of his experiences. Jimmy Massey, Staff Sergeant, U.S. Marines A self-described "good old boy" born in Texas, Massey was honorably discharged from the Corps in December 2003 after 12 years of active duty. Diagnosed with depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, he came home to live in Waynesville, North Carolina. He describes the U.S. invading force invading Iraq like "a bunch of pit bulls loose on a cage full of rabbits" right from the very beginning, and that is what turned the Iraqi people against the U.S. occupiers, the killing of innocent civilians. For example he tells of receiving orders from higher command to open fire on a non-violent demonstration of Iraqis with M-16s and 50-cal. machine guns. When he went to his superiors about his changing feelings regarding the war, he was offered a desk job away from combat, he responded to this offer by saying “Thank you sergeant major, I don’t want your money anymore. I don’t want your benefits. You killed some civilians, and you’re gonna have to live with it partner, and I’m gonna tell the truth.” Massey hired a good lawyer which meant that he was discharged rather than court-martialed. Since his discharge, he has been telling the truth. His conviction is this: "I’m not going to kill innocent civilians for no government. ... I was taught and raised by parents and relatives that there are certain things you don’t do, and killing innocent civilians is one of them." See his story in the Sacramento Bee. And the Smokey Mountain News. Update: Jimmy Massey testifies at a Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board hearing to defend Jeremy Hinzman's (see next entry below) decision to go to Canada. Jeremy Hinzman, U.S. Army Specialist Jeremy Hinzman was a United States soldier in the elite infantry division, the 82nd Airborne. He served in Afghanistan and, after returning to America, heard they were being sent to Iraq. Hinzman thought the war would only benefit the likes of the Vice President’s old company Halliburton, which gained the lions share of post-war rebuilding contracts. He also didn’t believe the stated reasons for the Iraq war. So, one night he drove north to Canada to seek asylum. He is currently living in Vancouver with his wife Nga Nguyen and daughter Liam. His case is in Canadian courts to achieve refugee status. Jeremy Hinzman's homepage Update: Jeremy's case for refugee status in Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board and that hearing has now been completed. Jimmy Massey (see above) testified at that hearing in regards to the deliberate killing of civilians in Iraq. Call or write Canadian authorities. See here (the War Resisters Support Campaign in Canada) for more details. A decision has been announced, and the struggle continues, as Hinzman appeals to Canadian courts. "Let them stay!" Brandon Hughey, US Army 1st Cavalry Division Brandon Hughey has also fled the United States and is in Canada seeking refugee status. Hughey, a San Angelo, Texas native and 2003 Central High School graduate, fled his Army unit before it shipped out to Iraq in March. It was, he says, his obligation to leave. "I feel that if a soldier is given an order that he knows to not only be illegal, but immoral as well, then it his responsibility to refuse that order," he wrote in response to e-mailed questions from the San Angelo Standard-Times. "It is also my belief that if a soldier is refusing an order he knows to be wrong, it is not right for him to face persecution for it." "If you were given an order to participate in an unlawful occupation that is resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people with no justifiable cause, would you be able to live with yourself if you carried out that order?" he wrote in his e-mail to the Standard-Times. David Sanders, U.S. Navy David Sanders, age 20, is from Arizona. He is now in Canada seeking asylum. Dan Felushko, U.S. Marines Dan Felushko is a 23 year old resister who is also seeking asylum in Canada. Felushko has duel citizenship in the U.S. and Canada, so will be able to stay in Canada without problem, but faces arrest if he ever returns to the United States. List of Public Resisters from within the U.S. Military: Stephen Funk Jeremy Hinzman* Dan Felushko* Carl Webb* Wilfredo Torres Diedra Cobb Perry O'Brien Joel Klimkewicz* Chas Davis Blake LeMoine* Joshua Despain Michael Blake Jessica Faustner* Neil Quentin* Camilo Mejia Brandon Hughey* Abdul Henderson* Charmaine Means Ghanim Khalil Pablo Paredes* Kevin Benderman* Trent Helmkamp Cliff Cornell* Eric Riley Hart Viges Ryan Johnson* Dale Bartell* Jimmy Massey David Sanders* Abdulla Webster Michael Sudbury David Bunt Aidan Delgado Darrell Anderson* Adam Mowery* Joshua Key* Preston Betts Chris Harrison Ivan Brobeck* Jonathan Barriga* Names with * indicate they are presently in legal jeopardy, or currently incarcerated. http://www.tomjoad.org/WarHeroes.htm#listresisters
I haven't had time to read through this thread and maybe this position has already been posted and addressed, but... When I say I support the troops I mean that I appreciate and honor their willingness to risk life and limb in the defense of this country (which is what they signed up for) and hope for their safety. That is not the same as wishing for their success in an unjust cause. I fear for their failure not because I believe their mission is just but because their failure might result in their death or injury, either physical or psychological. The fact that I oppose their mission does not mean that I wish for them to fail because that would mean harm would come to them. I do not wish for them to fail. I wish for their superiors to put an end to the mission. Would I prefer Iraqis were able to determine their form of government? Sure. Of course. Do I think that cause justifies our country presiding over the destruction of innocents or even of their property? No. Not even close. When our troops carry out what I regard to be heinous, immoral or illegal acts, even under orders, I do not support them in those acts. But neither does that mean that I hope for their failure which might result in death or disfigurement. Again, I don't hope they fail -- I hope the president calls off the damn mission. If all that means I don't "support" the troops according to someone's terms, fine. But there is a great chasm between my feelings toward our troops and the feelings of anti-Vietnam protestors feelings toward American troops then. The contemporary anti-war movement reserves its vitriol for the people making the decisions, not those who carry them out. Boiling this issue down to either 'for' or 'against' the troops is disingenuous. It makes villains of those of us who would prefer our troops were safe at home rather than fighting and risking life and limb in a cause we feel to be unjust. It implies that, because we oppose a foreign policy, we want American troops to fail and to die. That's a crock. We just want this thing to end, for innocent people of all nationalities to stop dying and for our troops to come home safe. If that means, according to someone's logic, that I don't support the troops, I don't care.
