Desertion in a Volunteer Army

S.A.M.

S.A.M.

uniquely dreadful
Valued Senior Member
If a soldier who volunteers in good faith is faced with unspeakable acts that go against his conscience, why is he not allowed to desert?

I was just reading this article on Joshua Key:
As explained in a new book, Mission Rejected, the sight of U.S. troops kicking the heads of decapitated Iraqis around 'like a soccer ball' made Army soldier Joshua Key desert to Canada.
Click to expand...


And this review of his personal story, The Deserter's Tale:
In 2002, Key, a good ol' Oklahoma boy with a wife and two children (but no money), enlisted in the U.S. Army so he could learn a trade and provide for his family. He was assured that he would be sent to a "non-deployable" military base: he would never see combat. Instead, he was sent to Iraq to hunt for terrorists, a mission that involved beating civilians, kidnapping innocents, and destroying homes and families (all of which he relates in precise, damning detail). Stateside, on a two-week furlough, Key decided he couldn't go back to Iraq, couldn't participate in what he decided were mindless atrocities being committed in the name of world peace. Thus, he did what so many Vietnam protestors did: he took his family to Canada, where he now lives, a wanted man in his own country.
Click to expand...

What does a soldier or troop embroiled in a war he does not want do?
 
Not sure what you are asking here.
I mean there are very practical reasons why they make it difficult to get out of the army once you sign that dotted line.
 
lightgigantic said:
Not sure what you are asking here.
I mean there are very practical reasons why they make it difficult to get out of the army once you sign that dotted line.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if you are promised a noncombat deployment and then expected to beat up civilians, shouldn't you have the option to say, that is not what I signed up for?
 
S.A.M. said:
Yeah, but if you are promised a noncombat deployment and then expected to beat up civilians, shouldn't you have the option to say, that is not what I signed up for?
Click to expand...
I've never personally seen the paperwork of what you have to sign to join the military but, from what my friend tells me, its legally extensive (in the words of gustav - keep shit flexible to cover your ass) - BTW the promises they give you about non-combat are verbal (sucker)

Its seems problematic to determine what constitutes a transgression of military standards, particularly when dealing with guerrilla forces taking shelter of urban communities. And the issue becomes even more difficult when you start to think about how such rules of conduct can be introduced to the training of soldiers. (16 weeks boot camp plus 16 weeks legal issues of combat 101?)

Actually now that I think of it, the more we progress with advancement of military technology, the less the battlefield becomes governed by heroism. To say the least, the soliders of yesteryear who would wait for an enemy to pick up his sword before they challenged him or even the soliders of WW1 who had a ceasefire at christmas certainly didn't have to go to a militia school to learn such values.
 
S.A.M. said:
Yeah, but if you are promised a noncombat deployment and then expected to beat up civilians, shouldn't you have the option to say, that is not what I signed up for?
Click to expand...

In the Al Quida organization you must sign up saying you will behead anyone that doesn't believe in your own views and become a suicide bomber to kill innocent women and children. Which is the worse?
 
Last edited:
cosmictraveler said:
In the Al Quida organization you must sign up saying you will behead anyone that doesn't believe in your own views and become a suicide bomber to kill innocent women and children. Which is the worse?
Click to expand...

You tell me. If you were Joshua Key what would you prefer?
 
S.A.M. said:
If a soldier who volunteers in good faith is faced with unspeakable acts that go against his conscience, why is he not allowed to desert?
Click to expand...

Might be offtopic, but the volunter army is a missnomer. Correctly it is professional army, mercenaries if you wish, when they are not deffending their own country. Just like people working for McDonalds or Ford are not volunteers, neither are PAID soldiers.
Volunteering is when you attend PTA meetings or pick up garbage on the highway or looking for missing persons.

"A volunteer is someone who works for free serves in a community or for the benefit of natural environment primarily because they choose to do so."

Now about the specific case, a paid employee (soldier) signs a contract. Depending on what is in the contract, he can breach it on MORAL grounds if he feels that the contract was breached first by the employer. BUT that doesn't mean he can not be held LEGALLY responsible. It boils down to the interpretation of the signed contract....

Case closed....
 
Syzygys said:
Might be offtopic, but the volunter army is a missnomer. Correctly it is professional army, mercenaries of you wish, when they are not deffending their own country. Just like people working for McDonalds or Ford are not volunteers, neither are PAID soldiers.
Volunteering is when you attend PTA meetings or pick up garbage on the highway or looking for missing persons.

"A volunteer is someone who works for free serves in a community or for the benefit of natural environment primarily because they choose to do so."
Click to expand...

Yeah but if MacDonals hired someone to flip burgers and he found himself sent to a farm to butcher cows, he could quit, right?
 
Yes. See the edited post. I have the bad habit of posting first and keep rereading and editing...
 
Syzygys said:
Yes. See the edited post. I have the bad habit of posting first and keep rereading and editing...
Click to expand...

No problem, so do I.


Syzygys said:
Now about the specific case, a paid employee (soldier) signs a contract. Depending on what is in the contract, he can breach it on MORAL grounds if he feels that the contract was breached first by the employer. BUT that doesn't mean he can not be held LEGALLY responsible. It boils down to the interpretation of the signed contract....
Click to expand...

So you're saying the army has legal clauses that cover beating up civilians, kidnapping innocents and destroying homes and families (including using heads as soccer practice), so he would be held legally responsible if he did not report for duty.

Is there no way out for anyone who does not wish to do the above?
 
Last edited:
Well, I like to say: Don't get mad, get even. So when you feel the system is cheating you, instead of getting mad and trying to fight the system (it is usually a losing battle) try to find the weakness in the system and cheat it.
Morally this might not be so kosher, but very effective. Example: people who were able to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam war. It was basicly a test of how smart you are. And I am not talking about going to Canada, but getting deferments, saying they are gay,etc.
So going back to the specific case, the soldier is better of lying about his condition then directly confronting the system...

When the system is immoral, so can you be....
 
You should report any crimes you witness. In realistic terms, you can get out of military service. This not only goes for U.S but all soldiers in foreign armies. Including Canada and Finland.
 
John99 said:
In realistic terms, you can get out of military service. This not only goes for U.S but all soldiers in foreign armies. Including Canada and Finland.
Click to expand...

If it was THAT easy, most military organizationns would lose half of their soldiers. Let's keep it real, shall we?
And neither Finnland nor Canada attacks other countries on a daily occurance....
 
Syzygys said:
Well, I like to say: Don't get mad, get even. So when you feel the system is cheating you, instead of getting mad and trying to fight the system (it is usually a losing battle) try to find the weakness in the system and cheat it.
Morally this might not be so kosher, but very effective. Example: people who were able to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam war. It was basicly a test of how smart you are. And I am not talking about going to Canada, but getting deferments, saying they are gay,etc.
So going back to the specific case, the soldier is better of lying about his condition then directly confronting the system...

When the system is immoral, so can you be....
Click to expand...

Ah, but he's already in the system. What can he do then?

Or are you saying proclaiming yourself as gay can get you sent home after you are commissioned?
 
And that's what I don't understand. How stupid can you be not to know that war is hell? has he never seen the news? Did he think he was playing GI Joe in a cool uniform with a kick-ass gun but never has to do harm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top