No. It is not a false choice. It simply isn't. I don't know what else to say about it. Those of you who claim it isn't a choice, is 'essentially a false choice' etc are just flat out wrong and you can't logically show otherwise. To even assert otherwise is silly. It is not now so this is bull**** and you know it. There is a large list of such people above who have refused to fight. None of them have been or are scheduled to be executed. 'Further' its not unheard of to die for your principles. Relevance? None? Thank you. It isn't comparable to jobs where you anwer phones either. The existence of a consequence does not justify the action. That is circular reasoning at its finest. You must do the action because if you don't there is a consequence. Since there is a consequence you must do the action. C'mon, I think you can do better than that. Really what I'm most shocked about in this thread is that people don't want to attach any responsibility to the troops. Really my argument is that those who believe the war is immoral/illegal should be saying 'hey troops you are doing wrong.' But pretty much across the board even people that don't think that are throwing the kitchen sink at the argument - they are poor and need the money (financial), they are dumb and couldn't possibly decide between an illegal or immoral act and not, they have no choice they are brainwashed. I frankly am just startled at these answers. I don't find any of them compelling but many of you consider these answers satisfactory. Hmmmm...
I don't downplay it at all. I never claim its easy or anything close to that. All I say is that there IS a choice, and that is factually supportable. Whereas the claims otherwise are not. Yes, yes, yes. Exactly. To do that we don't say 'hey soldiers don't worry about anything you're doing illegally or immorally over there in Iraq.' We say 'hey soldiers - you are doing wrong and need to stop participating in this illegal/immoral war.' The civil rights movement didn't just criticize George Wallace - but each action large and small that was illegal and immoral/unjust. Whether or not the soldiers actually do that - really - is outside the scope of my argument. My argument is that the subset of the anti - the war crowd that feels the war is immoral/illegal should have some criticism for the troops. They don't. I think that's just hypocritical. Hmmm, are you talking about stealing a piece of candy or blowing up someone's head? The ease with which you substitute one for another is interesting. The court analogy is a poor one. We're talking about criticism based on principles. What the DA/jury may or may not do - and I could argue the opposite of your conclusion but its not necessary - is irrelevant to what SHOULD be done.
The only thing that Nuremberg clearly declares is that you cannot use it as a defense if you are commiting crimes against humanity. American soldiers are following lawful orders. Are all employees of Enron guilty of something? That's a poor application of logic on your behalf. As you pointed out, if a general gives a soldier an order, a lawful order, then the nature of the war itself doesn't make the soldiers activity unlawful.
What exactly did you highlight? My stipulation is that "democracy" in Iraq may last as long as American soldiers are there to back it up. Soon after we leave, my worry is that the country will slip right back into one of the two scenarios I alluded to earlier, a theocracy or dictatorship.
Hayes; I don't have the time to go through your all of your replies so pardon me if I miss something. The main thing that I find troubling about your replies to my latest posts is that you are shifting your arguments and are no longer consistent. The first comment was directed at the pro-war crowd as a whole and not you specifically. It was a generalization and as such is general I stand by the view that the pro-war side isn't monolithic in its views. As for the second comment you keep on saying that you are examining a subset yet you seem to be applying this to the majority of the anti-war side. Yes they do and they go to jail and under military law dereliction of duty in a war zone during time of war is potentially an executable offense since the consequences of that could be disasterous to the unit or the mission. For instance if I'm serving watch and I leave my posts and the enemy sneaks up and kills my unit I'm liable for the loss of the lives of my unit. But the antiwar side is saying that we believe the mission of the troops is wrong and that it should be stopped. The difference is that the criticism is directed at the political leaders. How is that a contradiction? Our troops are ultimately under the command of civillian political leaders. Troops can't decide on their own to deploy to a theater of operations. But you continue to treat the matter of coercion as the same. Yes we understand that there is a difference and one of the most important distinctions are the level of coercion. Your analogy fails that you don't take into account that for a soldier to go AWOL is also far far greater consequence than for someone working for a private company to quit or refuse to take a job. You should consider logical consistency on your own part. How is it not factually supportable? Do you deny that soldiers going AWOL don't go to jail? Do you deny that people haven't been executed for desertion? Now you're not just downplaying but IMO being willfully ignorant of the consequences. Let me ask a question if you sat on a jury and someone was being tried for killing someone and their defense was that someone else had threatened to kill them if they didn't and further their is someone on record saying if the defendend didn't carry out that action they would be killed or at the minimum locked away for years would you vote to convict? It doesn't matter what the crime is culpability is removed if it was shown that the perpetrator was under a strong coercion. But you're argument is largely a legal argument or else why would you keep on bringing up the Nuremburg standards which is a legal standard? If a legal argument is irrelevent then your argument is largely irrelevant since the Nuremburg standard is irrelevant. I will agree though that yes there is an argument to be made regarding that the troops should be criticized as much of the leaders but that is an argument must be highly circumscribed when considering other factors. Its hypocritical when taken in a vacuum but as we know we don't live in a vacuum and any culpability of the troops is heavily mitigated by the command structure and coercive nature of military service. Finally you continue to ignore the key to understanding the argument that out of human feeling and even outright love for our troops who are in mnay cases our friends and family that we don't wish to see them put in harms way. This isn't an abstract argument but one with the understanding that the troops who we care about are in harm and we want them safe. They can't decide with great consequence to refuse to go or just leave Iraq on their own so the most sound strategy is to criticise the political leaders who sent them their rather than the troops themselves who are far more limited in their choices.
No, not true. The 'Nuremberg defense' is to use 'i was under orders' as a defense for doing something illegal. 'Crimes against humanity' is not the threshold for its use - both the soldiers at My Lai (murder) and Abu Grab (torture) tried to use the defense to no avail and neither of those were genocide/crimes against humanity. Look this Enron example just doesn't work. Working at Enron is neither illegal nor immoral. If the war itself is illegal/immoral, then no order coming later in pursuit of that war can be legal. I believe a formal logic statement would go something like this but maybe we can get some help from someone who's had a lot of it. The war is illegal. Soldiers are ordered to pursue the war. The orders are illegal.
No problem, I'll try to explain anything you think is inconsistent. Considering how many times I've written the qualifier (subset/antiwar/immoral/illegal) I'm not sure how I can be more specific more consistently - although its possible that that subset IS the majority of the anti-war crowd (I never put a percentage estimation on it). C'mon SC, this is a red herring. No one advocates that you leave your unit defenseless at night when no one else is looking. Refusing to participate is a proactive action - I am not going to participate in 'x.' There is a long list of those who've done so and a death sentence hasn't even come close to being MENTIONED much less enacted. Well that's the fundamental disagreement. If troops are automatons - with no free choice - then there isn't a contradiction. I think that's absurd and denied by the very factual and confirmable existence of troops who DO refuse these orders. I'm not sure what else there is to say except the existence of those troops makes such a belief (they don't have a choice) untenable. The only analogies I've given were an attempt to reshape other's examples to move closer to the situation. I have repeatedly written caveats that this would not be an easy choice - but in perspective going to jail is not worse than blowing someone's head off illegally/immorally. Advocating the reverse - that you continue to kill when you recognize the orders are illegal or the intervention is immoral - is by far the worse of the two options. It is not factuably supportable to claim they have no choice. How? Because the existence of soldiers doing exactly this makes it impossible to claim it can't be done. Logic dictates it: Man cannot set foot on the moon. Men have set foot on the moon. Both cannoth be true. I deny that these soldiers are under threat of execution, yes. And EVEN IF they were I'm not sure what that gets you other than its a hard choice. That still does equate to no choice. So while its shocking and distracting to think about (and hence a red herring) - it doesn't equate to not having a choice. These are arguments about mitigation that would be considered at sentencing - you would still have committed murder. Further, the analogy you use is defective in that in actually you would be talking to the person WHILE they were in process of committing the crime/immoral act. You would be whispering in their ear like their conscience - 'don't do this - this is murder - this is wrong.' Considering the propensity for death by execution is about as close to nil as you can get what you're really looking at is jail time. I think a moral person would want to advocate you stop the immoral/illegal act even if it means jail time. You assume too much. Saying YOUR court analogy is poor is not the same as saying not to use legal standards. Just because I use a legal standard does not mean any legal analogy is appropriate. That's silly. The standard I use was created specifically to govern the actions I am writing about - that's a little more applicable that 'any court analogy SC can think of.' I am not even sure I suggested criticism 'as much' as the leaders, or even the 'same' criticism. I don't deny the coercive nature of the military. I don't have to do so to make my point. Yes it is coercive but not to the point at which the troops have no choice. To remove all responsibility from the troops they would have to reach the threshold of no choice. I don't ignore it, lol. Its the conflict that is central to my point. You don't give any indication what 'sound' policy means so you can clarify if you want. Consistency of principle is that central conflict. It is NOT consistent to argue the war is illegal and immoral yet only criticise the highest echelon of the body that persecutes that war. All of your arguments about abstract vs 'real' (if there is such a thing) don't deny that central contradiction. Applying your principles to one part of that apparatus and not another is hypocritical.
Yes, crimes outlined by the Geneva convention (and similar doctrines), which include crimes against humanity and the treatment of prisoners, is the threshold. My Lai was the massacre of 300 unarmed civilians. Abu Grab was for the treatment of prisoners. Nazi Prison camps was for both the treatment of prisoners and massacre of unarmed civilians. American soldiers in Iraq are not committing crimes against humanity or mistreating prisoners (except those that have been found guilty of such). Aha! But the "game" you asked me to play was role play like I beleive the war was illegal. So in reverse, YOU take the position that what Enron did was illegal or immoral. Now, I ask you: are the Enron employees implicity guilty simply for working at Enron? btw, signing up for the armed services is also not illegal or immoral. This statement is simply a philosophical point that has no real world application. I understand your position but I disagree with you and most anti-war people also disagree with you. So if you are going to condem the anti- crowd based on this premise, just be honest with yourself and recognize this is purely an accademic argument. That wouldn't hold up in court. And that's why it isn't hypocritical to take the position. Again, by your logic, you must convict any Enron employee. Enron was scamming Californians illegally. Ken Lay ordered the receptionist to answer the phones calls from Californians. Therefore the receptionist participated in illegal activity by answer the phones.
I think you need to do some more research. 300 people does not equate to a 'crime against humanity,' generally a phrase that refers to impacts on a massive scale. 300 civilians does not equate to genocide, for example. Further: U.S. Army Lt. William Calley was convicted in 1971 of premeditated murder in ordering the shootings and initially sentenced to life in prison. Murder being the operative word, not 'crimes against humanity.' Taking pictures of guy naked with a female on top, as repugnant as it may be to the muslim world, does not equate to a 'crime against humanity.' Hmmm, again I think this gets away from the point - but to play along - how do you know? What proof can you offer to support your conclusion that 'American soldiers in Iraq are not committing crimes against humanity or mistreating prisoners (except those that have been found guilty of such).' Really I think this is one of those branch arguments that has spun off of the main point, but I don't think you're in a position to make such a complete declaration. Whoa! Glad you're excited at least! That's great to see people fired up! Which I haven't seen you do, but... Ok, I'll answer you - but don't be a poor man's perry mason and stop and the first phrase without taking in my total answer. Fair enough? No, someone is not guilty of Enron's sins merely for working at Enron. Just as a soldier in the US military stationed in South Korea is not implicated in an illegal war in Iraq. If a particular employee of Enron participated in the schemes that eventually led to Enron's downfall, then yes - they DO have responsibility for its eventual outcome. The whistleblower woman at Enron, do we blame her? No. She stood up, despite risking consequences, and said 'hey - you are doing wrong. this is not good. you need to fix this.' Maybe I missed something, but where did I ever say that? . Well I imagine most of the anti-war crowd WOULD disagree with me, lol. My claim is that they (that subset - let's not strech my claim ) are hypocrites, and I am not so foolhardy as to assume they will come out and agree with me right away... As for your next point, what is a 'purely academic argument?' How does what I say have no 'real world application.' Consider: is it not possible for this subset of the anti-war crowd both criticize the administration for starting and pursuing an illegal and immoral war AND to criticize the troops? To say 'hey troops, you are participating in an illegal and immoral action. Stop! Resist! We know you must suffer consequences but you should do what is RIGHT! This is wrong!' Is that something that CANNOT happen in the real world? I disagree. Please explain how this is not 'real world.' How an anti- the war dissenter in this subset could not possibly do this? You cannot. So save your attempts to label this argument in a negative light - it does not help your cause. Whether it would or not you are not qualified to say. Let me extend that to myself as well before you get angry . But whether or not it would 'hold up in court' is not relevant. Please stay with my cental thesis - what is outside that scope I an neither inclined to, nor obligated to, defend. Don't take that to mean that I cannot defend it, because that is a large assumption. My thesis is that IF you were an anti-war protester that considered the war immoral and illegal - that stresses what you believe not necessarily what the courts determine - you should extend you criticism to the troops as well. Whether or not a court would apply the standard appropriately does not prove or disprove the point. IF you believe it - then you are obligated to act on it. That action is outside the courts. I am not contending they should sue the soldiers, rather that they follow the principles they claim to uphold. No. I explain this above. I would not hold a soldier in South Korea responsible for what happens in Iraq. Just as I would not hold a secretary responsible for what happens at Enron. If s/he was complicit in the act, then yes. Soldiers in Iraq are complicit in the act of pursuing an illegal/immoral war (if that's what you believe) so they have a share of responsibility for that act. By answering the phone and taking a message was she complicit in fraud? I don't think that is true. By participating in an invasion and killing/subjegating Iraqis is the soldier doing the same thing as answering the phone and taking a message? I do not think so. Again your analogy fails at every turn: there is no comparison on principle - an active vs a passive participant - no comparison on scope - blowing someone's head off vs answering the phone. You analogy is wholly and in its totality unsuited for comparison. BUT if in the end the secretary at Enron DID hold responsibility (albeit a small share) for the action - then yes - s/he should have gotten criticism as well. See, no matter what inane analogy you come up with you end up in the same place. Sorry.
Y'know what I think is more hypocritical? being religious (Christian/Muslim/Jewish etc) and supporting the war.
genocide and crimes against humanity are two different things. You seem to be getting them confused. Answers.com: An inhumane act (as enslavement) committed against civilians before or during a war for which criminal liability is imposed by a domestic or international tribunal see also war crime. The fact that ONLY 300 civilians is involved is irrelevant. Yes, but the proper treatment of prisoners was expressly outlined by the Geneva convention. Sgt English mistreated prisoners and that means it is a war crime. Basically, Innocent until proven guilty. That's how I know. I have not seen any reports (in purpotedly the most covered war in history) of crimes committed by soldiers except for Abu Grab. I've been doing that all along. You asked me to take the position that I beleived the war was illegal and that has been the point I've been arguing from. Personally, I DON'T think the war is illegal. Ok, but that already sounds like an admission. and I beleive that Sgt English should have been punished for her role at Abu Grab. But just like you beleive rank-and-file Enron employees are not guilty, I also beleive that rank-and-file soldiers are not guilty. It is simple as that. You said in your 3:33pm response: "Look this Enron example just doesn't work. Working at Enron is neither illegal nor immoral. " By saying that working at Enron is NOT illegal, you thusly implied the analogy doesn't work because signing up as a soldier MUST BE illegal. If that isn't it, why doesn't the Enron example work? Because in the real world, an initial illegal activity by the president doesn't automatically mean all subsequent acts are also illegal. Therefore, there is no 'real world application' to your logic. There is a big difference in an illegal "action" and an illegal war. Soldiers need to be held accountable for their actions. But they don't need to be held accountable for repairing Hum-V's in the Iraq war. Again, there is a difference between illegal orders and illegal wars. As such, a soldier can not be held liable for doing routine soldier activities in an otherwise illegal war. It is for that reason why the "anti-war" crowd can still support the troops and not the war. You see how that works? It's a quandry for you, huh? Nope, because I'm differentiating between illegal orders/activities and illegal wars. If the troops were murdering unarmed civilians or torturing prisoners, then thats a different story. Again, beleiving the war is illegal does not mean the specific activities/orders carried out by the soldiers are thusly illegal by definition of the Geneva convention. Unless the soldiers are commiting WAR CRIMES, then the American public can continue to support them. I do. I guess that is where we differ. Relatively few soldiers actually kill people. Most of them are cooking, cleaning, repairing equipment, intelligence, recon, prisons (ahem), etc etc etc. You compared your most extreme person (killing machine) to my most extreme example (receptionist). How about we meet somewhere in the middle? Lets compare the front line soldier responsible for deploying unmaned drone airplanes for recon purposes to the mid-level energy trader. Does that suit you? Is the mid-level energy trader a criminal? Is the survaliance guy operating the drone a criminal? In both cases, no. Sorry? No, thank you. You ended up in the same place as me. The Enron employee is no more responsible than the rank-n-file soldier.
On the contrary, I think you are confused. A war crime is not necessarily a 'crime against humanity.' In the case of My Lai, there was never an assertion of a 'crime against humanity' rather, as I pointed out earlier - Lt Calley was charged with MURDER, not 'crimes against humanity.' You should find it peculiar then that he used the 'Nurmberg defense' although he was not charged with a 'crime against humanity. Hardly. Scope is the primary determinant between a 'crime' and a 'crime against humanity.' Here again you confuse war crime with 'crime against humanity.' CAH are incidents like the Rape of Nanking, the cultural revolution, the holocaust, pol pot in cambodia, rwanda. War crimes are any behavior outside the codefied norms of war - a pretty wide variety of offenses. Neither is particularly relevant unless participating in an illegal war is defined as a war crime. I'm not sure if it is or not, but I don't think I've taken a position either way. Right, which is to say you don't know. But again this doesn't have any relevance to the main point. IF they are participating in an illegal war, then that itself is a crime. Whether they've done something ELSE since they started the prosecution of an illegal war we don't necessarily know. Although if you read the thread from the West Pointer talking about this issue you'd hesitate to make such declarations. Sigh. No, its not the same thing. Rank and file members of Enron were not necessarily involved in the illegality of what brought Enron down. Participating in an illegal war is an entirely different animal. The Enron example doesn't work exactly because of the part of my last post you ignored: I wouldn't place any responsibility on the US soldier in South Korea for what is happening in Iraq. I wouldn't place any responsibility on the secretary at Enron for the actions of those who illegally hid losses. I would place responsibility on those who participated in the illegal action at Enron - I would place responsibility on those who participated in the illegal action in Iraq. There is a clear difference there. First, if the war is illegal then how can any pursuit of that war be legal? How can a piece of an illegal war be legal? It can't. Second, I gave you the real world application and you not only ignored it but then claimed I never said anything about it. If you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and claim you can't hear me - this isn't going anywhere. Which is necessary to continue persecution of the illegal war, right? But for the sake of brevity, I could grant this argument and you'd still be left with nothing. If you excluded all but the combat troops - no mechanics or support staff (not agreeing with that but just to make it even clearer than it should be now) - THOSE troops that directly pursue the war - the ILLEGAL war - are responsible for pursuing an illegal war. Lol, no quandry for me. I support the war. But our basic disagreement is over the question of whether an action that stems from an illegal/immoral base can somehow magically transform into a legal action. I don't think it can. You believe that the means can be made right by the end. I don't think that's defensible - at least not if you are trying to be consistent and not hypocritical. If you were right, then lower ranking soldiers would NEVER have responsibility - the Nuremberg defense would work. It doesn't and neither does your argument. All the rest is just a regurgitation of earlier points.
Hayes; Again I'm not going to have time to respond to all of your points or read through later posts on this thread so pardon me if I miss something or am repeating something someone else is addressing. Yes you've cited examples of soldiers being conscientious objectors, which oddly you said was irrelevant when I pointed out how hard it is to gain that status, but what you're asking for is for soldiers to deliberately disobey orders which is a court martialable offense and in the most extreme situations an executable offense. Just because you have examples where soldiers haven't been executed doesn't change the fact that that is within the realm of possibility. Anyway you don't deny that one very likely consequence is going to jail for a long time. I've never said that troops don't have a choice and from what I've skimmed of this thread don't believe others have said they don't what I've said is that they have a very limited choice. Everyone has a choice. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to do something or I'll shoot you can refuse but the consequence is death. Yes you have a choice but few would consider that a very free and open choice. Well I for one have never said that the war is illegal and in a legal combat situation I believe that it is moral to obey orders in accordance with the accepted standards of military practice or in self-defense. In fact last year when a US soldier shot a wounded Iraqi in Fallujah who was acting strangely I defended that soldier's actions. I think the war was a bad a idea to begin with, a drain on resources and needlessly putting soldiers lives at risk but not that it was illegal under US or international law. Again though this is my view and as both of us recognize the anti-war side isn't monolithic. I'm not sure where you're getting that someone would be whispering in someone's ear not to do something. My analogy is simple that if someone commits an act that is shown to be done under coercion and extreme duress that is legally recognized as a factor regarding culpability. For instance while I was at Berkely in 1990 there was a case where a deranged gunman took several people hostage at a bar. He forced a few of the men in the bar to sexually abuse some of the women in the bar. Although those men committed heinous crimes they were never brought to trial because it was understood that they were under coercion at the time. So yes they had a choice not to sexually abuse those woman and get shot but no reasonable DA would consider them culpable when under such duress. http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/durant-murder.html Again one would hope that people would be more resistant to pressure and yes there are people who do but those people stand out for the reason that they are unusual. You seem to be expecting that everyone be MLK or Ghandi which I agree would be great but is unrealistic. Now you're just being childish and I would've expected more from you Hayes. Of course you're going to think the other person's argument is weak but that's plain childish to disqualify someone else's particular line of reasoning when you use the same just because you think your's is so much better. Address the substance through a reasoned evidence based argument rather than using your own opinion as justification. At least with me you've been doing that up until now which is why I usually give you more credit than this. Again I don't beleive the war is illegal or totally immoral. Unlike many I don't believe the Admin. lied but believe they made a mistake based upon bad reasoning, sloppy intel and various political motivations. Sound policy is recognizing that our military is under political control and war is largely a political decision therefore the proscribed response to affect change in war policy is political and rightfully directed to the people who make those decisions. Again if you were a shareholder in Enron you wouldn't direct your criticism or demand that the receptionists get fired even though as an employee they are carrying out and enabling the malfeasence of the executive officers. You would direct it at the officers who are overly responsible. There is no contradiciton because it is a recognition of the command structure.
Please re-read my previous post. As part of the definition of 'crimes against humanity' is 'war crime.' Prove it. You can't. Why? Cause where is the breakoff? 3 people, 30 people, 300 people, 3000 people. Its a war crime and murdering unarmed prisoners of war is a crime against humanity. Sigh back. I gave you the example of an energy trader in the same dept as those responsible for the California energy crisis. How is that trader NOT involved. That is an apples to oranges comparison. I'm comparing a California energy trader to a HumV mechanic. Why not? The secretary is taking phone calls that will transpire illegal conversations with Ken Lay. She is therefore a participant in the illegal activity. By your definition, he/she MUST be guilty. As would I. And the illegal activity was with the politicians. The soldiers have NOT performed any illegal activity. If Enron had illegal projects, then how can any pursuit of that project be legal? The secretary must hang!!! The manor in which the president entered the war was illegal. Once the war began, the soldiers merely performed their duties and since they did NOT commit any war crimes, the soldiers aren't guilty of anything. You gave Nuremberg as the real world example? We've discussed that at length. Nuremberg discusses "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" or what have you. These are things that can be brought to trial in world court. The activities of the soldiers CANNOT be brought to world court. Wow, your arguemt is getting pretty thin. Let me summarize. So IF you are anti-war person, but not just any anti-war person but I person that thinks the war is illegal (btw, which isn't very many people) then it is okay to support soldiers that are deployed in places other than Iraq and it is also ok to support soldiers that are in Iraq as long as they don't blow people's heads off. Okay, got it. You are the one making the magical leap. You are leaping that any illegal war AUTOMATICALLY means any subsequent activity is also illegal. And there is no precedent for that. The best precedent you offered was Numenberg but that only applies to "war crimes" and American soldiers are not commiting "war crimes." That is your opinion and opinion ONLY. You are making a purely philosophical arguement. I understand your line of reasoning but it isn't based in reality. Lower ranking soldiers DON'T have responsibility if they aren't commiting 'war crimes.' PERDIOD. Until you show me another example of when a low ranking soldier was found guilty of something other than a war crime, ONLY then can I begin to see your point of view. Fact is, you can't. All the rest is just a regurgitation of earlier points.[/QUOTE]
