Lance
Sam James
Josh Adams
fooser
jslef
Terry Woods
Ryan
davenate
Mike O
Brian McConnell
bleport
halldg
Reading on Walden Bookstore
Tyler D.
Hugo
Jon
goesdownbitter
jack3566Oath of Enlistment
When it comes to the oath of service upon enlistment or commissioning into military service, let there be no doubt our military service is a voluntary one. Whether a young enlisted man feels the war is Iraq is justified or not is one thing, but the breach of his word I find appalling. Now, Matthis Chiroux stands before the media stating he will “no longer support an illegal and unconstitutional occupation” (”US Solider Refuses to Serve in ‘Illegal Iraq War’”). For those that have never taken the oath, the simple words lay the foundation of a commitment to honorably serve your country.
The oath Chiroux swore was,
I, [Matthis Chiroux], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; 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 (Oath of Enlistment).
It should be distressing to see some of our military “decide” to desert their service and solemn word because of a perceived notion of wrong doing, legality issues, or a lack of justification. Chiroux volunteered for military service and it is doubtful his officers ever asked him to do something truly illegal. No matter how wrong the war is Iraq is, Chiroux will rightly find himself answering to his peers in a military court for his justification to desert.
Sources:
“Oath of Office.” About.com: US Military. 2008. About.com. 16 May 08 <http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm>.
“US Solider Refuses to Serve in “Illegal Iraq War’”. Breitbart.com. 16 May 08. Breitbart.com. 16 May 08 <http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080516144757.0ds7otes&show_article=1>.
Filed under: Politics
The war does not become ‘unconstitutional’ until it is ruled unconstitutional. By a U.S. court of law and that has to be upheld on appeal. That was not the case here and even if even if a court were to rule that way now, it wouldn’t help him for then. The guy’s going to serve time; if he’s a ‘true believer’, he’ll serve it without complaint.
Individual members of the military deciding what is and is not Constitutional is how military juntas arise.
I understand his opposition to the war. BUT, in doing what he is doing,he is letting down his brothers to his left and right on the battlefield. And that comes close to an unforgivable sin.
What if they had a war, and nobody came?
The war does not become ‘unconstitutional’ until it is ruled unconstitutional. By a U.S. court of law and that has to be upheld on appeal. That was not the case here and even if even if a court were to rule that way now, it wouldn’t help him for then. The guy’s going to serve time; if he’s a ‘true believer’, he’ll serve it without complaint.
Individual members of the military deciding what is and is not Constitutional is how military juntas arise.
No, Mike, that is wrong. If something violates the Constitution then it is invalid at that exact point in time. No court has to be waited on to “rule” it unconstitutional. See:
Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions
Doctrine of Nullification</a
Have you all forgotten Nuremberg?
A soldier MUST refuse to obey an illegal order or an order whose purpose is illegal. Otherwise he is also guilty of the war crime.
We hanged a bunch of those who were “just following orders.”
Terry; they’re volunteering to ‘come to war’- and in droves. The Marines alone (where the action is hottest) are at 140+% of recruitment goals and may reach their expansion goal a year early. However, the other side is having serious recruitment issues of late; they used a 12-year-old girl recently, after using a pair of mentally handicapped. When ‘nobody comes to war’ from one side, that means the other side is winning.
Lance: sorry, but the use of two individual state-level provisions that were also referenced by the Confederacy and pretty well rendered irrelevant during the Civil War, is pretty weak tea. Especially since foreign policy and war are specified powers of the federal government.
Jack: Nuremberg was about lining up civilians by the millions and executing them as a matter of policy. Iraq is about as far from that as one can imgine (since civilian casualties are the most one-sided in history with the enemy there targeting them specifically).
Context matters, guys; keep that in mind.
Jack - To add to Mike O’s comment, you are correct that it is a soldier’s duty to disobey an unlawful order. Basing a decision for desertion because you feel the war is unjust or unlawful is not within the same relm and is just cowardly.
What does constitute a legitimate reason for desertion? Please avoid any reference to Hitler or Stalin here.
Planning and committing a war of aggression is a violation of the Nuremberg Principles. According to the US Constitution these international treaties are part of the “supreme Law of the Land”. Unless that treaty is nullified, I believe a deserter might have a good shot at a legal defense. To me, that should also depend on when they enlisted. If you enlisted late enough, it would beg the question didn’t you already have enough information to make an informed decision?
If you witness someone about to commit a murder, do you wait until a court convicts the aggressor of murder before doing something about it?