Desertion in a Volunteer Army

It is not the soliders responsibility to determine when, or how they go to war. The president makes that decision. He/she has the sole ability and authority to order them into action. That is legal. The job of the soldier is to carry out legal orders. In the case you referenced he received legal orders to move into action. When he entered the service, he swore an oath to protect the consitution and to obey all legal orders. In the instance you referenced, he broke his oath.
If soldiers get an illegal order (verbal or written), then they are required to refuse it. There are very strict rules about what is and is not a legal order. As I said earlier, murder is an illegal order and commiting atrocities are ilegal actions and orders. See the legal history.

Killing combatants is not an illegal order. That does not mean innocent civilians will not be killed. When the enemy hides behind civillians, civillians are bound to be killed. When our troops go to war there will also be accidents. When the United States invaded Iraq (both times) we killed more of our people by accident than Saddam's troops did in direct confrontation with our troops.

There are only two courts that have authority here. The United States military courts and the Supreme Court of the United States, not the United Nations or any other court.
 
Last edited:
Asguard said:
Joe ever herd of the Geniva Convention?
Click to expand...

Yep, Geneva convention rules apply and are honored by the United States Miilitary. The United States is a signatory to the convention. Our soliders are trainned in the Geneva Convention Treaty.
 
S.A.M. said:
The US does not recognise international jurisdiction.

Nicaragua vs United States

Helps to get away with war crimes.
Click to expand...

Wrong reference SAM.

This is the correct rerference. The United States does not want the international courts second guessing its decisions. And has never surrendered its soliders for procecution by other countries for conducting warfware. The United States will and has procecuted its own troops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13257-2004Nov25.html
 
yet if they travel to a country that DOES recognise the ICC and there is a warent for there arest then to bad, off to the ICC they go:)
 
I suppose them is the breaks! But the United States takes the position that it will take care of its own. If you look to the past you will see the United States has a long history of prosecuting its troops when they step out of line...just look at Iraq for some recent history.
 
Another little quirk with American troops is that we never release control of them to another country. They will always be commanded by Americans.
 
i dissagree. They have feed the lowest in the chain to the wolves but not seen one high ranking officer to take responcability for things like abu graib
 
Look at Abu Grabe in Iraq. Prisoners were ill treated. Not only were the individual soliders who commited the acts prosecuted, but so was their commanding general and command chain.

Now there are those who say it should have gone all the way to the Secretary of Defense. That might be to far up the chain for one incident. If there were repeated incidents, then I think it should go higher up the command chain.

So your suppostion did not occur in Abu Grabe...the higher ups were prosecuted as well as the perpetrators.
 
do you know if Australia has one of those?
Or countries who are outspoken against war crimes like some of the westen eroupian countries or is it only countrys that recive US aid?
 
SAM is correct, the Untied States has signed aggreement with other countries that prevent such actions...it a cost of doing business with the United States.
 
as i said it doesnt stop those countries that dont need or CARE about US aid like those in the EU. So US solder goes to the Nethlands for example, nice little copper arests him and sends him the the Hauge. Or better yet ex-president BUSH gets of the plane at the nethlands and is arested and sent to the Hauge:)
 
Asguard said:
as i said it doesnt stop those countries that dont need or CARE about US aid like those in the EU. So US solder goes to the Nethlands for example, nice little copper arests him and sends him the the Hauge. Or better yet ex-president BUSH gets of the plane at the nethlands and is arested and sent to the Hauge:)
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Who wants to take chances on getting liberated, US style?
 
i SERIOUSLY doubt the US would atack any country in westen Europe. Can you Imagin what would happen if the US invaded the Nethlands? You honestly think even England or Australia would surport them then?

It would be another world war with the US on one side and everyone else on the other
 
Asguard said:
i SERIOUSLY doubt the US would atack any country in westen Europe. Can you Imagin what would happen if the US invaded the Nethlands? You honestly think even England or Australia would surport them then?

It would be another world war with the US on one side and everyone else on the other
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it Asguard, I have had a hankering to invade the Netherlands for quite some time now....good idea!
 
Now all the countries in Northern Europe are a part of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). We are all pledged to come to each others aid if a member country is attacked. So why would we attack our Allies...I cannot think of any reason. Americans do not like war. George W II and his daddy like war...not the American people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top