Should an American Soldier, 2008, be allowed to refuse to report for duty without consequence?

[bryant69]

I am playing off another discussion, but I am curious. Basically if a Soldier doesn't want to go fight in Iraq or Afghanistan, should he or she be allowed to refuse without consequence?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Bucky]

1. I oppose the war, but ending the conflict is our job, not the military's

I'd support anyone who felt like they couldn't in good conscience go and serve there, but civil disobedience also means being willing to accept the consequences of one's protest. Still, the military has broken its promises to the troops in so many ways, from "money for college" that never seems to materialize to post WIA care that is practically a second assault on them.

It's disgusting the way Republicans choose to "support" the troops they frivolously toss into harm's way.

[bryant69]

3. I certainly agree with that last bit

Fighting for the chance for soldiers to go to war and fighting against benefits for soldiers after they get back is disgusting.

Bryant

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

9. spot on post...

Soldiers obey orders, if they decide they don't want to obey there should be consequences (not overly draconian ones). But if you go AWOL you should be punished for that..

[midnight]

2. Yes......When the consitution has been violated it is a

soldiers obligation to protect us against foreign and domestic enemies. Did a lie to start this war violate the constitution?

[Buzz Clik]

5. Your concept of "protect us from domestic enemies" is that any GI should interpret the Constitution?

Good luck with that.

[Dogtown]

24. Former "grunt"

When I swore to uphold the constitution I was very aware of my constitutional duty.

Had I felt the CinC had violated the constitution and started an illegal war of conquest, I would have refused orders.

The soldier whose bravery started this discussion will be punished for doing his patriotic duty. I hope he will be pardoned by Obama.


BC, i'll give you the benefit of doubt as to the meaning of your post and ask you to edit for clarity. It seems to suggest that "grunts" are too stupid and uncaring to reflect on their duty. Your post as it stands is extremely insulting, though I don't think you really intended it that way.

[Buzz Clik]

27. What if this soldier decided the time to have this Constitutional crisis was in battle?

You'd be okay with him laying down arms and deserting his comrades?

Sorry, but I cannot buy this at all. The time to determine that military is not for you is at the time of enlistment.

[Dogtown]

37. Yes

It's downthread, but I have noted that we hanged people in Nuremburg for following orders. I suppose you feel they were guiltless.





It isn't as black and white as you would like to color it. You and the sock puppet are trying to oversimplify the issue.

[bryant69]

8. What part of the Constitution did it violate?

Should both Lyndon Johnson and William McKinley be posthumously tried for their involvement in Vietnam and the Spanish American War?

If the Pentagon decided that President Bush was a lawbreaker and they removed him forcibly from power, would that please you?

Bryant

[Buzz Clik]

4. I'd be real interested in hearing what form of twisted logic would lead one to think it's okay.

"I signed a contract, took an oath, got trained, got paid. But I changed my mind."

[RedCappedBandit]

6. What was in that oath?

[Buzz Clik]

7. Google is your friend:

http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

11. Well part of it is

"that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me"

[Buzz Clik]

15. Yeah. I don't see anything in there that allows for cold feet, change of heart, or moral epiphanies.

[RedCappedBandit]

19. From your link:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.."

Up for interpretation, I guess :shrug:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

23. Lets put them together

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me"

So its prety clear their should be a consequence for violation of oath..

[atreides1]

36. Let's Put them together completely

You did notice that the first part about true faith and allegiance? In my opinion faith and allegiance is much more important then just blindly obeying an individual, or his/her proxies.

And if there should be a consequences for violation of an oath, then that should be applied to the entire US military as a whole, shouldn't it?

I mean with the passing of the USA Patriot Act, several Constitutional Amendments were pissed away, and the US military failed to uphold their oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies", and therefore failed in their allegiance.

So here's the entire oath:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

50. The key part of that post was this

"In my opinion"

Well they are like a certain orifice are they not?

[Dogtown]

29. I should have read further

Before I answered your post upthread. Obviously you have no respect for our soldiers.

"cold feet"? That soldier deployed and redeployed. Apparently concern over the actions of his leaders and the injustice on the ground made him question the legality of the war.

I'm sure that many Wermacht soldiers had that same epiphany. If you're ordered to illegal activities, your orders are invalid and must be resisted.

How warm are your feet, Buzz Clik? Got lots of medals for your bravery?


I detest chairborne rangers that malign heroes. The kind that lied about Kerry and Max Cleland.

The kind that post inflammatory and disruptive commentary designed only to apologize for an illegal president and his illegal war of empire.

[bryant69]

34. Presumably you also detest people who dare to disagree with you. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

49. "Obviously you have no respect for our soldiers." Thank you, Karl Rove.

You are going on ignnore immediately. Bye!

[tomg]

95. Dogtown, great posts. You nailed

it. Back in 70, I was a Conscientious Objector ( well, I still am, but you know what I mean.). Under UCMJ regulations. Anyone who goes the route that particular individual who inspired this thread is fully aware that the heart of the choice is facing the consequences ( funny how a number of posters failed to note that the individual had been released and was then back-door drafted and had served a tour in Afghanistan). In fact, as you clearly recognize, it is facing the consequences of one's act that gives value to it.

On the poll, I said I believed he should face the consequences. The first consequence is a trial. What happens next is what happens next.

Again, good posts.

[Dogtown]

96. Thanks, tomg

All the freepers had was name-calling, innuendo and obfuscation.

All they displayed was ignorance and their own lack of service.


Commendations on your CO status! Wish *I'd* seen reality earlier.

:hi:

[jody]

10. Uniformed employees of DoD are the only people in the U.S. who cannot quit their job and any attempt

to quit can be punished including prison and execution.

All that plus SCOTUS says DoD can disavow a contract for a specific term of service by keeping those people in service for life.

If that's not slavery, then I don't know what is. :shrug:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

12. Ummm civi's can quit any time they wish

If by employees you mean soldiers and military personnel then your statement is correct but I used to work in a civilian capacity for the army and yes, one day I walked in and quit because I had a better job offer.

[Bucky]

13. I think the key word there was "uniformed"

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

20. Ack... For some reason I read UnInformed..

lol my bad

[Bucky]

25. Heh. Given the amount of disinfo the Republicans feed them, you're not far off.

I've met a couple of vets socially lately. It's incredible how betrayed many of them feel.

[jody]

18. I carefully said "Uniformed employees". Have a nice day. n/t

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

21. You did and my lying eyes saw UnInformed

regards..

[jody]

51. UnInformed was a Freudian slip but in many cases it may be an apt descriptor. See a LTTE below

published 1 June 2005.

If the U.S. Army’s offer of 15-month contracts to enlistees sounds too good to be true, consider what the courts say. A federal appeals court ruled the Army could use its stop-loss authority to keep all soldiers, including 15-month recruits, in service beyond their original military obligation.

The Army’s 15-month contract is really a lifetime contract and could be a life-ending contract. If President Bush’s pre-emptive war with Iraq is so popular, why must the U.S. Army use "Words of Mass Deception" to mislead recruits?

[Thothmes]

74. In which case did the SCOTUS make the ruling you refer to?

[jody]

82. Mea culpa, I should have said the Ninth court of appeals said “stop-loss” was legal and the case was

not appealed to SCOTUS. See April 2005, "SANTIAGO v. RUMSFELD", case # 05-35005

Emiliano Santiago, a sergeant in the Army National Guard facing immediate deployment to Afghanistan, appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Santiago’s eight-year enlistment in the Guard was due to expire on June 27, 2004, but shortly before that date his enlistment was extended by a “stop-loss” order when his unit was alerted prior to being ordered to active service. Santiago challenges this application of the government’s “stop-loss” policy on the ground that it violates his enlistment contract and is unauthorized by statute. He also asserts a due process claim. We affirm the district court’s denial of the petition because we conclude that the stop-loss order was authorized by 10 U.S.C. § 12305(a), and that it neither violated Santiago’s enlistment agreement nor his right to due process of law.

[Solly Mack]

14. Yes

No Bundeswehr soldier (Germany) is obligated to take an order that goes against his or her conscience ("conflict of conscience")...and with good reason.

America tortures. America invades countries for absolutely no justifiable reasons. America practices extraordinary rendition. America indefinitely detains people without charge...and so on and so forth.

American soldiers should be allowed the exact same right to exercise a "conflict of conscience"

NO service to anyone or anything should ever trump the individual right of a freedom of conscience.

[bryant69]

17. The key words might be "Without Consequence"

A soldier swears an oath to show up and obey his or her superiors. Aren't they expected to live up to what they swore?

Bryant

[Solly Mack]

22. Soldiers don't have to follow illegal orders now...and it is supposed to be without consequences

the fact that there are consequences is proof of corruption and a warped mentality

that nothing is ever done to correct the corruption and blow-back to what amounts to whistleblowing....well, that's just proof of how widespread the corruption is...

That said...American soldiers still should be able to claim a conflict of conscience on any order they do have a conflict with...especially since current circumstances aren't exactly isolated and that it can happen again and again...and because it can, soldiers need a way out of bad/criminal leadership...both civilian and otherwise.


German soldiers are moved to other jobs - WITHOUT consequences.

[bryant69]

26. An order to show up for duty isn't an illegal order.

Not as defined by the codes you are talking about. And this isn't Germany.

Bryant

[Solly Mack]

30. Didn't say it was did I? I'll answer..Nope, sure didn't....on both counts, actually

But illegal orders have been given and have been followed. And as such, both the giver and the follower should be jailed for war crimes/crimes. (to include the command on high should the orders originate there)

However, a conflict of conscience, of which I do think soldiers in America ought to have, comes in at the time of the order...any order...and the right is claimed then.

You asked should they..and I said Yes, they should.

[bryant69]

31. I don't konw whether they should or not - i admire those who do

But the question is what consequence should follow a soldier choosing not to obey an order not to obey. And your vote is, presumably, no consequence at all.

What if a guy joins the military and after a few weeks decides it's too much work for him. Despite taking an oath and agreeing to serve should he be allowed to just walk away without consequence, merely by saying the magic words "It troubles my conscience."

Bryant

[Solly Mack]

40. For one, why would you want a piss poor soldier working with your soldier?

Supposing you had some blood in this clusterfuck, that is...and I do.

I wouldn't want them in and don't..so some soldier a few weeks in decides it's too much work for him? Get'em out. That kind get others killed. And the military has a charge to discharge them with - malingering. Get'em out.

As do the Rambo's and those who follow illegal orders (get others killed).

While the conflict of conscience can be abused, I'd rather have that kind of abuse than war crimes.

I'd much rather err on good conscience. And it offers a kind of checks and balance on the decisions of the military leadersip...a criminal leadership can be quickly exposed by soldiers being allowed an out due to conflict of conscience...provided , of course, the system works honorably....which is a lot to ask....shouldn't be a lot to ask...but it seems it is.

Still, nothing says a soldier claiming a conflict of conscience should get out...only that that particular order conflicts with the soldier's conscience, and other jobs within the military are sought.

But no, there shouldn't be any consequences for any soldier refusing to participate in any of Bush's "wars"...or any other president's wars should the soldier deem the effort in conflict with his/her conscience.

The soldier on the ground is the best indicator of just how bad or good the leadership is...and that's who should be listened to..and they need protection from criminal leadership.

[bryant69]

43. You may have something there

Certainly leaders have issued horrific commands to soldiers - Hamburger Hill in Vietnam or Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Soldiers on the ground could probably see that such acts were awful.

There are two problems though - the first being that the idea that Soldiers should be able to veto their commanding officers orders goes against most Military tradition, if not all.

The second is that Commanders do often have a higher vantage point than their soldiers (take it is read that I think that Iraq has proven a terrible mistake, and that both invading at all and how we invaded were thoroughly botched by Bush, Rumsfeld, and their allies). In theory if a General says take this area, the actual reasons might not be apparent to the officers and men on the ground.

Bryant

[Solly Mack]

47. But they aren't vetoing the order...just not being a part of it

and the reasons for this, I feel, outweigh any negatives.

and the General usually isn't on the ground...so he really doesn't know the conditions...and company grade officers lie to field grade officers, who then lie to general officers.

[bryant69]

56. Well it would depend on your reasons

What if a Soldier said "Look, this mission is to benefit a lot of damn blankety blanks, and those kinds of people don't deserve our help. I refused to participate!" Should such a soldier be accorded the same privileges as one who refuses to participate in a military venture like Iraq?

Bryant

[Solly Mack]

59. In Germany it has to be a good valid conflict...and I imagine

the same would and could apply to the US military. It isn't just automatic...they have to present their argument and it does have to be based on something.

But, still..that doesn't mean abuses don't exist...and it is a concern but I still feel the good outweighs the bad.

I wouldn't think racism would constitute a valid reason...and, supposedly, in the US military, racism can get you thrown out. (Alas)

Or if you mean , say...corporations..well, the military should never be used to defend corporations. Period. (Alas)

If a corporation loses out to an unfriendly regime taking over in any foreign country that's just the price of doing business and not a matter of national security.

I fully realize the reality is miles away from my druthers.

[Dogtown]

33. Not if it violates the law

Stop trying to oversimplify things. We hanged people in Nuremburg despite the fact that they were following orders.

[bryant69]

35. Being ordered to show up for duty is not an illegal order and it violates no law

Being ordered to torture someone or execute a civilian are illegal commands.

Bryant

[Dogtown]

38. Refusing ordered to muster

for duty that you know will force you to violate the law is honorable and prudent.

[bryant69]

41. It might well be - but should it be an act without consequence?

Should the military be prevented from punishing people going AWOL for ethical reasons? What about people who just don't feel like showing up?

Bryant

[Dogtown]

44. Since you want to nitpick,

I'll answer your triviality one last time.

There should be a trial, as there certainly will be. A trial is *NOT* sanction or punishment. I'm afraid that he will probably not receive a fair trial and will be punished. Just like the Viet Nam era veterans that protested the war.

If there is any justice he will be found innocent.

I sincerely hope that Obama will be elected, that he will end this hideous adventuring and that he will pardon those brave souls that refuse to participate further in it.

I'm not addressing the issue of people like Bush, who did fail to serve through cowardice.

[bryant69]

46. It's not a nitpick - it's the fundemental question. It's what I asked in the first place. n/t

[Richard Steele]

16. Well, that would depend upon the "duty" in question, wouldn't it? nm

[datasuspect]

28. series? you're question doenst make sense

in lite of current laws on the books. i would of framed the question differntly.

[bryant69]

32. How would you have framed it? n/t

[mmonk]

39. If the orders they receive are of an illegal nature, yes.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Any human being should have the absolute right to refuse to kill.

Even if the bosses (aka the government) say it's legal. And, they should have the right to quit such a dishonorable profession at any time.

"The pioneers of a warless world are the young men (and women) who refuse military service." Albert Einstein

[bryant69]

45. We don't have a draft currently. People who join the military thinking

they won't ever have to kill are kind of naive aren't they?

Bryant

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Nevertheless, they should have the right to refuse or leave.

My neighbor's kid joined the Army Reserves about 6 months ago with the delusion that it was going to be exciting, pay well, and teach him a trade. Being 18, he thought he wouldn't have to go to war. But, if he did, it would be a sort of exciting frolic.

Hopefully, he'll come to his senses and realize that killing people because a government tells you to is not such a hot idea.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

54. Im sorry I disagree with you

The purpose of the military being the defense of our liberty (no matter how badly * has screwed them). To up and allow for that commitment to be abandoned because of cold feet, or because they suddenly (when faced with danger) got a flush of conscious about killing undercuts a rather necessary part of our national defense.

Im all for no penalties for those who are reliably and provably disregard an illegal order (BTW Being called to muster is *not* illegal)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. What about the soldier's liberty to live by his conscience?

"Freedom is the absolute right of all adult men and women to seek permission for their actions only from their own conscience and reason, and to be determined in their actions only by their own will, and consequently to be responsible only to themselves, and then to the society to which they belong, but only insofar as they have made a free decision to belong to it." Mikhail Bakunin

[bryant69]

58. OK - I'm not going to pay my mortgage on my house

I mean it was my decision to take out a mortgage. But now I don't think it's such a smart idea. Frankly it's stupid. And maybe immoral. And since I'm responsible only to myself, well, screw the bank.

Bryant

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. Tell me how it works out.

But, I doubt that they'll hold a courts-martial and shoot you for it.

[bryant69]

63. No they had the Court-Martial Execution rate, but fortunately I didn't check that box. n/t

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

52. If you really dont want to kill

why would you join the military? And BTW serving in the military is *not* dishonorable!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. The obvious answer to you comments on dishonarable is in your question.

I find nothing honorable in killing other human beings.

Do you?

[bryant69]

57. without reference to this particular war of aggression

do you find anything honorable in defending your family and ccountrymen from people would kill them?

Bryant

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. Which would probably be the reason the guys trying to kill them are using.

Even the German soldiers/police that carried out the genocide of the Jews thought that they were "protecting" their families and countrymen from people who would kill them.

The same goes for almost any soldier on any side of the madness.

Just as the guys who drop bombs or lob artillery shells into civilian areas are convinced their doing it to "protect" their families and country.

There are always excuses for murder.

[bryant69]

62. Is it fair to say that you oppose the existence of an American Military?

Or am I extrapolating too far?

Bryant

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. I oppose the existence of any military.

One of the (few - if not only) benefits of spending 4 years in the military was my gradual realization that killing people at the behest of the bosses was, and is, immoral.

Of course, that is my morality I'm talking about.

All of us, no matter how we rationalize it, do what our conscience tells us to do.

[Raskolnik]

67. Just because its not always true does not mean it is never true.

Many soldiers in immoral/illegal/unjustified wars probably do believe they are fighting to protect their friends and family, and are mistaken in their belief.

Many other soldiers, however, actually are fighting to protect their friends and family. Do you think the French and Polish soldiers were not morally justified in fighting in 1939 & 1940? For sure, there are many close calls and not everyone will agree on every instance, but that doesn't mean that there aren't some instances in which soldiers are morally justified in fighting (and killing).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Morality is always decided by the individual.

If the French/Polish or the German soldiers thought that killing was justified does that make it so?

I cling to the belief that, in my morality, killing other people is wrong.

That I may feel somehow justified in doing so, doesn't make it right.

[Raskolnik]

71. Yet it is possible (and necessary) to make moral judgments notwithstanding that subjectivity

I have absolutely no problem making the moral judgment that a Pole in the Warsaw uprising was morally justified in fighting and killing German soldiers, while a Waffen SS soldier killing an unarmed Russian peasant for sport outside Moscow was not morally justified in doing so. Those are extreme examples, but you are the one taking the extreme position that everything is subjective and one can never truly be morally justified in killing.

Of course many soldiers are mislead into thinking their cause is just when it is not--only a fool would think otherwise. It is equally foolish, however, to hide underneath endless subjectivity and argue that *nothing* can morally justify fighting and killing for one's nation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

76. Again, morality is determined by each individual.

The German soldier who shot civilians in Warsaw or Russia made his own "moral" decision and justified it. i.e. "This Jew, this Russian, by his/her very existence is a threat to me, my manhood, my country, my mother, and is not really human."

The same could be said for the pilots who dropped the bombs on civilians in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Hanoi, or Baghdad.

What I'm saying is that we, as individuals, should have the right to decide whether we participate in the madness.

I'm certainly not denying that it's subjective. I'm saying it should be subjective in every instance.

The Germans in Warsaw and Russia, justified their actions by saying that they were only "following (legal) orders". Just as the pilots justified their killing with the same reasons and the rationale of "defending their country".

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[Raskolnik]

77. With all due respect, the position you're taking is sophistry

Just because individuals may think they are justified in doing something does not make it so.

As the example I used illustrated, the Pole and the Waffen SS soldier may in fact both think what they are doing is justified. If you are unable to make a moral determination that one of them actually was justified, while the other could not have been more wrong, then you are taking a ludicrous position.

What I'm saying is that we, as individuals, should have the right to decide whether we participate in the madness.

And I am agreeing with that. Why do you keep repeating a position that we agree upon as if there is disagreement?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. The position you're relying on is indulging in is subjective morality.

Which is exactly what the Germans and the Poles were doing.

It has always been the practice of governments, whether tyrannical, democratic, monarchical, religious, to justify the slaughter by claiming the moral high ground.

What I'm saying is that, in my eyes, killing other people, even for high-minded reasons, is wrong.

That the state uses laws and threats to the individual to force him/her to kill is, in my eyes, wrong.

I see little difference between a German monster killing a Jewish child with a rifle and an American monster incinerating an Iraqi child with a bomb.

[Raskolnik]

81. So I'll ask you directly--do you think there is any difference

between a Pole fighting and killing in the Warsaw upsrising and a Waffen SS soldier shooting an unarmed Russian peasant outside Moscow in 1941?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. Of course.

But, I'll as you the same question, do you see any difference between a Waffen SS soldier shooting an unarmed peasant and an American pilot incinerating a child in Baghdad?

[Raskolnik]

88. The nice thing about my position is that I don't have address the close calls.

You are the one taking the position that everything is subjective and a soldier can never truly be morally justified in killing. All I have to do is show that there are examples in which a reasonable person can, and must, make a moral judgment that while killing is often morally unjustified, it can, in some examples, be both morally justified and possibly even morally necessary.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

87. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

My wife is demanding that I join her for dinner. And, being a pacifist, and no fool, I am making the purely subjective decision to indulge her tyranny.

But, it has been pleasant to actually discuss something sans the usual flames.

[Raskolnik]

89. Thank you as well.

Enjoy your dinner & take care.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

94. Umm do we have a draft I dont know about?

"What I'm saying is that we, as individuals, should have the right to decide whether we participate in the madness."

Last time I checked... No draft..

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

93. Are you kidding?

Morality is always decided by the individual?

Slave owners felt moral, Murderers and Rapist defined a morality in which their crimes were ok...

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

92. I defense of another? I absolutely can..

[Raskolnik]

65. I agree. That's why they do.

If the U.S. is not under attack, human being should be able to refuse military service. If the U.S. is under attack, a military draft may be necessray, but human beings should still be afforded the opportunity to serve in non-violent capacities.

Once they voluntarily sign up, however, I do not think human beings have the absolute right to refuse to obey legal orders without consequences.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. Who decides when killing is "legal" if not the individual?

Simply because the state says that it's "legal" doesn't make it justifiable. And, as an individual human being I reserve the right to choose if I will take an action that will end another's life.

For most of history, states decided that it was "legal" to keep people in slavery. It is still "legal" in some countries for men to beat their wives.

Fortunately, there were always, even in ancient times, individuals who chose not to do either.

[Raskolnik]

72. You're arguing with straw men

Simply because the state says that it's "legal" doesn't make it justifiable.

I could not agree more. A government declaring something legal has little if anything to do with the activity's morality.

And, as an individual human being I reserve the right to choose if I will take an action that will end another's life.

Who is saying you shouldn't have that right to choose?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. The state deprived me of that right when I was in the military.

When I was asked, near the end of my enlistment, to extend that enlistment to go to Vietnam and kill people that I didn't know, had nothing against, and mostly agreed with, I refused. Soon after I was discharged, extended enlistments were no longer voluntary.

The poor sods who were forced to go to Vietnam, against their will, were then faced with the dilemma of killing, as ordered, or going to prison.

[Raskolnik]

79. Um, okay. Sorry that you got a raw deal.

Since no one is taking the position that no soldier in the history of the world has ever been screwed, I don't really see how that changes our discussion, or makes your core position any more tenable.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. I didn't get 'screwed". I was able to refuse because of the circumstances.

All I got was 30 days mess-duty for shooting my mouth off to the gunny sergeant who offered me the deal.

Perhaps, I'm misreading your position, but when I was in, soldiers (or marines like me) weren't presented with choices. You followed orders or you went to prison, or could be shot.

We were, in fact, presented with a Hobson's choice. As soldiers usually are.

The OP asked if soldiers should have the right to refuse to obey orders without consequences.

My stand is that they, as free individuals, should have that right.

[Raskolnik]

86. The OP asked "Should an American Soldier, 2008, be allowed to refuse to report for duty...

without consequence?"

Not to nitpick, but that isn't quite the same thing as your rephrasing.

[theboss]

91. At that point, they cease being soldiers

I have to admit, I find your vision of an army that does not follow orders intriguing. I'm not quite sure what good it would be though.

[theboss]

90. Why would a solider join the military if they refuse to kill?

I'm lost.

[Brigid]

66. I'm kind of torn about this one.

I hate this war, and yet those who join up know what they're getting into. So I just don't know.

[cabbage08]

68. Bottom line soldiers obey orders

:rant:

[galledgoblin]

73. no, but the circumstances should be taken into account

when a soldier receives their sentence for refusal to report for duty.

[Buzz Clik]

75. This was a fascinating poll question and discussion.

Normally the polls around here suck. This was an exception.

Tip o' the hat to bryant69.

[SoCalDem]

84. Nope.. there is no draft.

People who joined after 2001, HAVE to know that war was a definite part of their service.