Interesting Hawk. First, you misunderstood my comment about democracy.
My apologies, if I did.. But the following statement seemed to make it pretty clear that you favored permitting people to actively undermine the nation's war effort when it's in the midst of its very survival (such as WWII).
I think my father should have been shooting at the judge, not the Germans on the other side of the world. Might as well fight for freedom at home. Of if not shooting at the judge, refusing to help until the vaunted freedom of his cousin was allowed by the scummy hypocritical rulers of state serfs.
I'm sorry for your father's cousin, but he made his decision to actively undermine the the collective will of his nation, while it was fighting for its, and almost every other citizen, was fighting to preserve their freedoms from a totalitarian enemy..
So the question is.. was his right to provide aid and comfort to the enemy as a collaborator (in fact, or in spirit) greater than the rights of the collective citizenry to defend themselves and wage war upon that enemy?
Nothing prevented him from traveling out of the country and emigrating to the homeland of the enemy. Many British did the very same, such as Lord Ha-Ha coming to my immediate recollection.
Outside of pure pacifistic rationales against all war, I can't see how someone could protest fighting Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. But even then, a pacifist has the right to express his opinions amongst his friends and family. But when he/she actively attempts to assert that pacifism to the detriment of the collective society's mobilization of national will to defend the country, one would think that he/she is then infringing upon THEIR rights.
There is nothing unconstitutional in most democracies with regard to waging war to defend their democratic values against those who would destroy them, or undermine their effort to defend themselves.
Pacifism is a worthy goal.. But it's a Utopian one.. inconsistent with the reality of totalitarian brutality evident in total war. However detestable, suspension of certain rights of free speech, such as those that are directed to deliberately undermine the national will of the society to defend itself against aggression, can readily been seen as a threat to the state.
Your father's cousin would have been better off holding his tongue and not attempting to incite the furor of those who were sacrificing their lives and labor in an effort to win the war, rather than trying to become an activist protestor against such a national defense.
As for the pilot.. this is a political issue. Legally speaking, he signed a contract and it obligated to fulfill the terms of that contract. And since its a contract with the government, any breach of said contract lends the soldier to face punitive discipline, including court martial and dishonorable discharge.
To say that the war in Iraq is illegal is ridiculous except from a pacifist perspective (which is against ALL war).. It is a war that was authorized under UNSC binding resolutions that his nation signed onto. As a soldier, he has an obligation to uphold the laws and treaties that his nation enters into. If he does not care to do so, he has no obligation to renew his contract. That is his right.
But so long as he's a soldier, he has a duty to fulfill his contractual obligations in the interest of preserving good discipline and military order.
And the war against Al Qai'da ALSO IS NOT an illegal war. London was bombed by Al Qai'da. It is his obligation to defend his country and attempt to destroy those who were behind that attack, as well as those who would provide moral or physical support for that, or future attacks.
As for legal orders, in the US military there are any number of regulations and policies that set out what is, and what isn't legal conduct during a state of war. That's why the soldiers at Abu G were investigated, indictied, and convicted as a result of their actions. They had an obligation to ignore any orders to torture prisoners as an illegal order. And they should have immediately contacted CID or their IG to protest that order.
Hawk |
