Tax Day
The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war.
posted by Swill to Power at 4:27 PM
Saturday, April 15, 2006
The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war.
7 Comments:
You need a history lesson I reckon in wars and the like
UNITED STATES: Convicted for refusing to fight Bush’s war
Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia, the first US soldier to go public with his refusal to fight Bush’s war in Iraq, was convicted of desertion on May 21 and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge and one year of hard labor. Tod Ensign, the director of GI support organisation Citizen Soldier, was part of Camilo’s legal team. He spoke with the US Socialist Worker’s Eric Ruder the day after the verdict.
Mejia participated in the invasion of Iraq. After a two-week furlough last October, he refused to return to his unit because he believed the war was unjust. “I have no regrets — not one”, said Mejia, before the jury handed down his sentence.
Several weeks before his trial, Mejia said, “No soldier should go to Iraq and give his life for oil. I have witnessed the suffering of a people whose country is in ruins and who are further humiliated by the raids, patrols and curfews of an occupying army. My experience of this war has changed me forever.”
Can you describe Camilo’s trial?
Given that Camilo was tried in a special rather than general court, he received the maximum punishment. But in my view, an important struggle was won when the decision was made not to take Camilo to general court, because that would have meant the possibility of a five-year sentence and a dishonourable discharge, which is virtually impossible to upgrade.
Yesterday, I picked up a copy of the base newspaper. And this week, at Fort Stewart, which is a pretty big base ... they list 17 desertions or absents without leave (AWOL) in one week.
Does the military want this conviction to intimidate other soldiers who may share Camilo’s criticisms?
Certainly. He was tried by a jury composed of career infantry commanders. These are colonels and majors, and these people run infantry units. And they’re sitting there looking at a guy who’s very credible, very intelligent, very sincere, very conscientious. And they’re thinking that this is their worst fear — that in their unit, they have this problem.
Are they going to allow this guy to walk free, or just give him a bad conduct discharge and no jail time, or just three months? Are they going to do that? Given their institutional interests — that is, to field an infantry — the answer is no.
The military court didn’t allow your defence team to present its case. Why not?
We offered former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who in the last 30 years has also had extensive experience in international human rights practice, as a witness.
Your comment on my Blog was not strictly true I read here.
The R.A.F Doctor is a coward in my opinion
Again, radio op, I would encourage you to google "Nuremberg Principles" as soon as possible.
The fact that a U.S. military tribunal didn't exonerate a conscientious objector says nothing about the legality of the Iraq invasion according to well-established principles of international lawL: what it says is that the military tribunal decided to proceed as the Bush administration has, which is to say in defiance of international law.
Your RAF officer may well be a coward, but he is a coward acting legally, and should be commended as such. If following orders is prima facie evidence of heroism and courage, then start pumping out the tributes to Goebeels, Goering, and all the other Nazis who did just that.
Well MS I did as you suggested but this kind of thing still happens.
The thing is as much as I know it was morally wrong to invade Iraq both in 1991 as well (I had a son in that one)if one is in our Military one obeys or is court martialed; (we are a volunteer force not drafted) Nuremburg not withstanding,I do have one more item to show you and I think then that we must disagree to agree.
of course I still would welcome comments from you that goes without saying otherwise why post a blog.
Thank you for all your comments
SOLDIER REFUSES 2ND TOUR OF DUTY
14.1.2005. 10:23:36
A US soldier and veteran of the 2003 invasion of Iraq is refusing to return to the country for his second tour of duty.
Claiming "you just don't know how bad it is", 40-year-old Sergeant Kevin Benderman faces a court martial after teller his commanders he was seeking conscientious objector status.
http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=103105®ion=4
Thanks, radio op: the Swill wholeheartedly agrees with disagreements. As for Kevin Benderman, we sent him money last year to help with his legal defense, an admittedly poor travesty of the principled sacrifice he's making, but one that we encourage our readers to imitate.
I reckon I'll say "fuck you." Oh, wait: somebody already said part of that.
Bones, baby, it speaks for itself, res ipsa loquitur as my people say. And by "it" I'm talking about the neck-beard, not the quotation about how only hypocrites pay taxes and object to the war....
Post a Comment
<< Home