Should military personnel be allowed to object to war?

Currently the government only recognises the right to not take part in war if you're a draftee and you claim to be a conscientious objector, ie someone who objects to all war in any form. If you're in the military, your options are to claim you have now become a conscientious objector, which usually results you being dishonorably discharged, or to be honest and say you aren't against war but just THIS war ie Iraq/Afghanistan or whatever it may be.

If you refuse to fight because you do not agree with the current war being fought, you face a court marshall and jail. 'Once you're in, you're in' in other words.

The problem with this, is that if it were applied to Nazi Germany the soldiers operating the death camps, they would not be allowed to object to their orders.

Veterans of multiple tours in Iraq have also refused to serve in opposition to what they had concluded over their years in service to be an immoral war effort, and have frequently been given prison sentences because of this.

And finally, the contract you must sign when you join the military is binding only on YOU, not the military, which doesn't seem fair.

So there's all the points on the table, what do you guys think?

Wouldn't this fall under Freedom of Speech? I picked Cheese by the way.

No. It's their job.

Wouldn't this fall under Freedom of Speech? I picked Cheese by the way.

Snipes_2

You can object to it, as in voicing your disapproval of it, but once you're in you must follow orders.

Wouldn't this fall under Freedom of Speech? I picked Cheese by the way.

Snipes_2

I wouldn't imagine anyone joining the military thinking they could some day leave because they didn't agree with the war. It's their actions during the war which they must consider, the needless slaughter of innocents etc.

If you dont like the idea of following the orders of your commanding officer and trusting thier decisions, dont join the military. Thats part of being a solider...its a different kind of life. If you cant handle that part of being a soldier, then you shouldnt be one.

A person in the military must obey ALL orders. Your example with what happened in Nazi Germany is somewhat flawed, as well. The average soldier was never held accountable for his actions. Only the ones in power were. These are the people who should be making objectionswolverine4262

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Wouldn't this fall under Freedom of Speech? I picked Cheese by the way.

chaddk

I wouldn't imagine anyone joining the military thinking they could some day leave because they didn't agree with the war. It's their actions during the war which they must consider, the needless slaughter of innocents etc.

mutual-assassin

No.

If you're a GI, the military owns you 24/7. You want to object? Wait until your enlistment is up and get discharged. Then you can object all you want.

Edit: There's still Rules of Engagement and a Code of Conduct to follow. Some think they're just propaganda and that's where the problem starts.

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"]A person in the military must obey ALL orders. Your example with what happened in Nazi Germany is somewhat flawed, as well. The average soldier was never held accountable for his actions. Only the ones in power were. These are the people who should be making objectionsNinja-Bear

[QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"][QUOTE="wolverine4262"]A person in the military must obey ALL orders. Your example with what happened in Nazi Germany is somewhat flawed, as well. The average soldier was never held accountable for his actions. Only the ones in power were. These are the people who should be making objectionswolverine4262

They can object by resigning. I wouldn't disagree with their opposition to a war, but if they're a member of the armed forces, its their job to follow orders. If that doesn't sit comfortably with someone in particular, they should leave.Bourbons3

I dont say why they shouldnt, like the poll said its their right to object war.

Yes, and they often do. Many military personal have objected to the war in Iraq, with even more objectiving to how it is being conducted

Furthermore, iirc, there is a statute (or whatever you cal it) in military law saying that if a soldier is given orders that violate certain things, they do not have to follow them.

The military is only a dictatorship on the surface...if someone tells you to scrub the crap off a toilet, you have to do it. But if someone tells you to bomb an area with civilians and enemy presence is questionable, you can say "screw you"

Well, if they object to war, they probably shouldn't sign up for the job.

Yes it's there life they are putting on the line for there country and I don't thank they should be forced to get themselves injured or kill for something they don't agree with.

I dont say why they shouldnt, like the poll said its their right to object war.

bigboss1203

The only order you can withstand is an illegal order.

Other than that, you should not enlist if you can't handle war.:)

If you have a problem with this, then don't join the military. They are choosing to sign their life away. This is one of the primary reasons why I'm against joining the military.

BTW i find it very hard to trust someone else to do his/her job correctly. So especially when it comes to life/death, i don't put myself in such position.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"] You're accountable for your actions in any other job. You should not be able to break the law because you were following orders. If it's illegal, the order should be void.wolverine4262

Military member have to follow LAWFULL orders. Officers can't give a person an order to commit or take part in genocide or torture or any other thing that is illegal IAW the Hauge or Geneva conventions.

[QUOTE="bigboss1203"]

I dont say why they shouldnt, like the poll said its their right to object war.

ElZilcho90

[QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"] Your job is to follow orders, but if the orders are ILLEGAL they should be void, and as such you should be able to refuse to carry them out. An effective military does not need soldiers who carry out order without question, an immoral military does. Provided your orders and not illegal you have no problem do you?Vandalvideo

They learn the ROEs and follow them. Its not that hard.

The Iraq war for example, by practically every definition, was an illegal one. People might be more than willing to fight and die for their country, and have happily fought for it in the past, but when asked to fight in a war which they feel should not have been started decide that they cannot do so morally. For that you would be jailed. Ninja-Bear

Your argument hinges on this supposed fact. In reality, there is no consensus that the Iraq War was an illegal one. It may be your personal opinion, but by no means has it been declared illegial "by practically every defintion". Show me any sort of international, binding court ruling that declared the Iraq War to be illegal.

Regardless, it is not the individual soldier's right to define the legality of a war because they do not make the decisions on when war is declared. Their responsibility is to execute the orders of their superiors, ranging all the way to the Commander in Chief. If they refuse these orders, they should expect to face the consequences.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"] Your job is to follow orders, but if the orders are ILLEGAL they should be void, and as such you should be able to refuse to carry them out. An effective military does not need soldiers who carry out order without question, an immoral military does. Provided your orders and not illegal you have no problem do you?Frattracide

They learn the ROEs and follow them. Its not that hard.

A person in the military must obey ALL orders. Your example with what happened in Nazi Germany is somewhat flawed, as well. The average soldier was never held accountable for his actions. Only the ones in power were. These are the people who should be making objectionswolverine4262

Follow orders or be shot!

[QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"] The Iraq war for example, by practically every definition, was an illegal one. People might be more than willing to fight and die for their country, and have happily fought for it in the past, but when asked to fight in a war which they feel should not have been started decide that they cannot do so morally. For that you would be jailed. ElZilcho90

Your argument hinges on this supposed fact. In reality, there is no consensus that the Iraq War was an illegal one. It may be your personal opinion, but by no means has it been declared illegial "by practically every defintion". Show me any sort of international, binding court ruling that declared the Iraq War to be illegal.

Regardless, it is not the individual soldier's right to define the legality of a war because they do not make the decisions on when war is declared. Their responsibility is to execute the orders of their superiors, ranging all the way to the Commander in Chief. If they refuse these orders, they should expect to face the consequences.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"] The Iraq war for example, by practically every definition, was an illegal one. People might be more than willing to fight and die for their country, and have happily fought for it in the past, but when asked to fight in a war which they feel should not have been started decide that they cannot do so morally. For that you would be jailed. ElZilcho90

Your argument hinges on this supposed fact. In reality, there is no consensus that the Iraq War was an illegal one. It may be your personal opinion, but by no means has it been declared illegial "by practically every defintion". Show me any sort of international, binding court ruling that declared the Iraq War to be illegal.

Regardless, it is not the individual soldier's right to define the legality of a war because they do not make the decisions on when war is declared. Their responsibility is to execute the orders of their superiors, ranging all the way to the Commander in Chief. If they refuse these orders, they should expect to face the consequences.

If there is one thing the law teaches you, its that tight nit rules are not so easy to apply in every single situation that may arise. Ultimately, the agent will have to apply those rules using an exercise in logic to determine if a given rule applies to a given scenario. Rules are always inherently suspect in law because they aren't terribly applicable to particular instances. This is why we are a common law country, not a civil law country. Even the most simply written laws can have the most profound argumentations behind them concerning interpretation. I could spend twenty pages discussing the different interpretations one could have behind "Thou shalt not commit adultery". Vandalvideo

We aren't talking about Laws of society. We are talking about Rules of engagement. Those rules are based off accords that the US follows in times of war. Sure sometimes things are hazy and when that happens you just have to make a judgement call but are you seriously trying to suggest that if you are being shot at you would have a hard time determining if you had the legal right to shoot back?

2) By literally ANY international legal definition the Iraq War is illegal. If it weren't for the fact that it was America and the UK embarking on it, the UN would have imposed sanctions against it. Ninja-Bear

What makes the war illegal?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"]

Frattracide

What makes the war illegal?

Apparently baselessly attacking another sovereign nation, without the sanction of the UN, is against International Law...

We aren't talking about Laws of society. We are talking about Rules of engagement. Those rules are based off accords that the US follows in times of war. Sure sometimes things are hazy and when that happens you just have to make a judgement call but are you seriously trying to suggest that if you are being shot at you would have a hard time determining if you had the legal right to shoot back? Frattracide

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]We aren't talking about Laws of society. We are talking about Rules of engagement. Those rules are based off accords that the US follows in times of war. Sure sometimes things are hazy and when that happens you just have to make a judgement call but are you seriously trying to suggest that if you are being shot at you would have a hard time determining if you had the legal right to shoot back? Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"] 2) By literally ANY international legal definition the Iraq War is illegal. If it weren't for the fact that it was America and the UK embarking on it, the UN would have imposed sanctions against it. 67gt500

What makes the war illegal?

Apparently baselessly attacking another sovereign nation, without the sanction of the UN, is against International Law...

If by baseless you mean to enforce UN sanctions against Iraq. . .

[QUOTE="67gt500"]

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

What makes the war illegal?

Apparently baselessly attacking another sovereign nation, without the sanction of the UN, is against International Law...

If by baseless you mean to enforce UN sanctions against Iraq. . .

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]We aren't talking about Laws of society. We are talking about Rules of engagement. Those rules are based off accords that the US follows in times of war. Sure sometimes things are hazy and when that happens you just have to make a judgement call but are you seriously trying to suggest that if you are being shot at you would have a hard time determining if you had the legal right to shoot back? Vandalvideo

Here is the ROE (We'll call it ROE 1): You have the inherent right to self defense.

Here is the scenario: Someone is trying to kill you. Assume you have the capability to fight back.

Given the scenario, do you have the right, per ROE 1, to fight back.

There is no perception here. If you can fight back, then you haveacquired and identified your target. This is not a rigorous logical process. It is an almost instant determination.