Desertion in a Volunteer Army

that was kind of my point, if the nethlands handed your defence minister or some general over to the ICC you might complain alot and rename stuff but you wouldnt do anything else
 
Allies dont take hostages either, and if the Netherlands did take a citizen as you referenced it would be looked upon as hostage taking. And if you take hostages you can expect American military forces on your doorstep. Along with some global economic sanctions.
 
How can it be hostage taking, if there was a warrent issued for there arrest then the nethlands would be abliged to inforce it. Ie the US salor who was charged with sexual assult in perth (or it might have been sydney) was not a hostage he was a suspect. yes the US tried to get the courts to turn him over to them but the crime happened in an Australian juristiction
 
Americans abroad live under the rules of that country. So if a sailor committed a crime in Australia, he is subject to Australian law. If however, he were in a combat zone and was accused of a crime. He would be tried and punished by the Navy. If a foriegn government tried to do the same, it would be viewed as hostage taking regardless if a warrant was or was not issued.
 
joe my point is that ALL countries have jurstiction over war crimes unless they surender such to the ICC. I have herd of the US procicuting Nazis, Australia definitly has. If the ICC issues an international warrent for someones arest and they turn up in a signantry country then they would be arested and handed over inspite of what the US wants

Oh and as i said the US goverment REALLY objected to us charging that salor in an Australian court but it was one of the 2 issues that the fed goverment didnt bend over and take it, so the US just had to suck it up
 
umm, thats a hard one. He contacted her by computer from a ship in Australian waters and was charged with grooming a child for sex i belive

i will have to see if i can dig up the case, it was about 6 months ago so its not fresh in my memory
 
S.A.M. said:
Sounds good to me. If you enrol in good faith and are asked to commit unconscionable acts, there should be reparation.
Click to expand...
LOL I was kidding, of course. If you sign up for the military, you need to honor your agreement. The military makes no claim that you'll not have to do unpleasant things. The purpose of the military is to kill people and break stuff. If that sort of activity offends you, don't sign up.
 
Asguard said:
umm, thats a hard one. He contacted her by computer from a ship in Australian waters and was charged with grooming a child for sex i belive

i will have to see if i can dig up the case, it was about 6 months ago so its not fresh in my memory
Click to expand...

Traditionally jurisdiction lies with the location of the crime. It sounds like in this case the location occured in Australian and United States property at the same time. Jurisdiction is less clear in this case. Had the crime clearly been committed in Australia they would have jurisdiction. However, as with embassies, US War vessels are US property regarldesss of the waters in which they sail.
 
S.A.M. said:
Sounds good to me. If you enrol in good faith and are asked to commit unconscionable acts, there should be reparation.
Click to expand...

great idea for the Pakistani army to adopt first, lets see how it works in real life, as opposed to cyberspace simlife?
 
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...
One could simply point out that soldiers have an obligation to follow the civilian command's directives, and that this obligation supersedes their individual judgment of whether or not an order is moral except when it would lead to an illegal act of war (war crime).

The notion that the serving military should be deciding what is, and is not, when to engage (or disengage) in conflict based on their ethics and judgment calls is the fast-track to the collapse of any liberal state.
 
Echo3Romeo said:
One could simply point out that soldiers have an obligation to follow the civilian command's directives, and that this obligation supersedes their individual judgment of whether or not an order is moral except when it would lead to an illegal act of war (war crime).

The notion that the serving military should be deciding what is, and is not, when to engage (or disengage) in conflict based on their ethics and judgment calls is the fast-track to the collapse of any liberal state.
Click to expand...

So you think if called upon to commit murder or torture, soldiers should not think before they act?
 
A good tactic to get out of the military, might be to act crazy, and then actually do something crazy, like shoot a general or a captain in the ass, or something. Or maybe just break his nose, but go "troppo" first.

You would probably end up in a psych ward for a while, but I doubt they'd still want you on the front line (or holding a gun).
 
S.A.M. said:
Yeah, which is why I find it hilarious that some veterans here expect to see official orders for this stuff.
Click to expand...

You know the odd things is that sometimes people with power do write things down and then they don't even throw them away.

Remember the whole Irangate thing Reagan? You know the sneaking around of money and weapons and breaking the law and so on. Well King Bush 1 - not yet officially Pres - kept saying over and over that he had no idea this had happened. He kept claiming hundreds of times that he was out of the loop as Vice P. I mean repeatedly. Then later, in his own notes, he is clearly present at the meetings where these decisions were made.

I mean it is almost wonderful relaxed. he lies. he lies more. he never throws out the damning bits of paper. Later when no one cares it comes out that he was lying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top