Well, you may have a chance to act on that belief, if you are ever called to sit in judgement on a jury. Lots of things will prevent you from acting unilaterally (no total, sentencing authority; other members of the jury), but you'll be able to say your 2 cents. That's the beauty of the way our criminal justice system works . . .
. . . or works in an ideal, happy-path case, at least. Exceptions like this one are far from uncommon. The military justice system in general is pretty far from that in a lot of cases. So are things like FISA courts etc. Whether we should be trying to move closer to that ideal (which, even when practiced perfectly, has its flaws) or not is anyone's guess.
If you consider the US Constitution some sort of whimsical fancy in the domain of fairies, I am glad you're discharged. And saddened that anyone considered you honorable.
Not thinking the constitution applies in a foreign war zone isn't something someone should be discharged for, and that opinion should not be used to judge someone's entire life.
Held: "Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in United States courts. 476 F.3d 981, reversed and remanded."
Note that this relates to foreign citizen. The Constitution applying to US citizen in otherwise identical circumstances is even more obvious:
"U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants by the Executive Branch have a right to challenge their detainment under the Due Process Clause. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded."
And US soldiers should, even if there were any ambiguity, err on the side of caution. They are, after all, constantly reminding us how they're fighting for US citizens' freedoms.
They are, after all, constantly reminding us how they're fighting for US citizens' freedoms.
They say that often enough to forget, even if only momentarily, that they're really fighting for the enrichment of the military-industrial complex.
Probably the kids who are just in for a few years haven't realized it, but anyone who sticks around longer has seen enough to know. The "your freedoms" people are lying to themselves more than they are to us.
Forget the constitution, ex/soldiers should know better than to dismiss the Geneva convention offhandedly like this, it isn’t a good look for a military without a stellar reputation as is.
> The Geneva Conventions are treaties between states that define how they will treat each other's soldiers if captured in war.
They also cover treatment of civilians, medical units, and infrastructure. Amongst other things.
> The Geneva Conventions do not apply to wars with non-state actors or states who are not participants to the treaty
Yes, they do.
The protections are not as extensive, but the conventions also cover any armed conflict within the territory of a contracting party, such as the Syrian Arab Republic. They also cover occupation of a contracting party's territory, whether armed or not.
> The Geneva Conventions would never apply to traitors on your own side, which is the case here.
The conventions don't make any exception for traitors. They certainly don't allow Syria to take an ISIS fighter prisoner and avoid their convention responsibilities by handing him over to the US.
The point of the conventions is sort of a mutual aid that encourages nations to abide by rules of war. It is not a right in any real sense, nor does it mean one side must always act ethically to the other side which ignores and flouts it. Essentially its a gentleman's agreement, and is as binding as one of those.
Once one side breaks it, I don't think treating them like they haven't is proper.
right. the only enforcement mechanism for international law is war (economic or military). So to enforce the laws of war requires more war, which limits their practical effect.
> The conventions don't make any exception for traitors
Yes, but the basis of the conventions is treaties between states. Only a state that was party to that treaty would have standing to claim that the treaty had been violated.
Since a traitor would be a citizen of the state who would theoretically be violating the treaty then no other state would have standing to assert a violation.
Isn't he an "unlawful enemy combatant" (does not wear an uniform and carry arms openly, so Geneva does not apply) and not a "traitor"?
OT. There's a famous Vietnam photo of a South Vietnamese executing a man in civilian clothes who is actually a North Vietnamese spy. IIRC that was completely legal.
>The Geneva Conventions are treaties between states that define how they will treat each other's soldiers if captured in war.
The Geneva Conventions are a set of ethical standards that should apply to all persons, regardless of the legal application
>The Geneva Conventions do not apply to wars with non-state actors or states who are not participants to the treaty.
Any person that is of good moral and ethical character would apply them to all persons.
>The Geneva Conventions would never apply to traitors on your own side, which is the case here.
Has there been a trial convicting the person of Treason under US Law?
I guess no only to you not believe in basic human rights, you also subscribe to the moronic ideology of "guilty until proven innocent" where the government only has to assert treason, not actually prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of your peers
>Perhaps military people know more about the Geneva Conventions than you give them credit for.
I am not really interested in the legal application of the Geneva Accords, I am interested in the moral and ethical foundation they are based on.
Ethical and moral people believe that the Geneva Accords should apply to all persons at all times regardless of declarations of war or any other factors.
This moronic idea that you should abuse, torture, or treat inhumanly a person simply because they are a "non-state" actor has no place in the modern world, it is an excuse to defend barbarism, barbarism we should be looking to expunge from the world not justify
> I am not really interested in the legal application of the Geneva Accords, I am interested in the moral and ethical foundation they are based on
That is a completely fine and reasonable position as an individual, but that cannot be the position of someone in the military.
If everyone in the military decided how to exercise lethal force on the basis of their own personal morality as opposed to what their civilian government has decided the law is that would be complete chaos.
Any blame here falls entirely on the civilian government which has decided, in accordance with all its laws, that the things you object to are legal and right.
The military is doing its duty under the law to obey the directives of civilian authority.
If you disagree with the law, then by all means object, but object to those who are responsible for making the law.
The alternative is that the military decides the law for itself, which would be a military dictatorship, and I don't think you would advocate for that.
>That is a completely fine and reasonable position as an individual, but that cannot be the position of someone in the military.
Well I have to go Godwin on that... So you hold the soldiers that put then Jews in the oven blameless for their unethical and immoral actions because "they were just following orders"
That defense never worked in Nuremberg.
The idea that unethical actions should simply be dismissed because you were ordered by someone that claims higher authority to commit an unethical action is absurd to me.
>That is a completely fine and reasonable position as an individual, but that cannot be the position of someone in the military.
The comment we are all replying to is not "someone in the military" but someone that has been discharged from the military and is continuing to support this unethical position.
>the civilian government which has decided, in accordance with all its laws, that the things you object to are legal and right.
They may have decided they are legal, that is all.
Legal and ethical are very very different
>Any blame here falls entirely on the civilian government
Nope, I can blame everyone involved. "Just following orders" is not a valid defense IMO
>>In that case, also blame the tax payers, who are the ones who fund all of this.
So you are under the mythical belief that Taxation is voluntarily, when in reality taxation is involuntary theft if you refuse they will come and take it from you, if you resist their taking your property they will put you in a cage and if you resist them putting you in a cage they will kill you.
Taxation is in no way a voluntary act
>>The individual soldiers who actually carried out atrocities on their orders were never charged.
ISIS says what he says about civilians. GP advocated it for soldiers.
I have no problem with summary executions of soldiers caught by the enemy - that is something that happens in war and trying to make rules about it after is just silly.
However given that he has been taken prisoners, we have to play by the book and give him a lawyer. It is not a big issue anyway it shouldn't be hard to prove him guilty.
Summary execution of captured soldiers (i.e. without adherence to the rule of law etc.) is a war crime. Fact. That you have no problem with it is not surprising, and pisses all over what America would like to believe it stands for. What some Americans wish it did stand for.
Like if you send a platoon to get into some taliban fighter’s home and execute him in front of his kids it’s a war crime, but if instead you just flatten the house with a bomb it’s not. Well in option 1 the kids get to live, I’d argue it’s preferable to option 2.
What if, when you captured this soldier, that apparently this platoon of yours can do, you just didn't summarily execute him? That's really my suggestion. Try to not murder people, when you have that option. As opposed to the OP option of summary execution of captured soldiers.
I don't see that this is theoretical. We watched this play out in practice for many years. Turns out that running around executing people really doesn't help. Or maybe we just didn't do it enough? We do seem to be well beyond the point of listening to reality nowadays; maybe we just need to shout ideology louder. Like ISIS.
I am not convinced ISIS will be defeated by inviting their fighters to a polite debate where we will attempt to convince them of the error of their ways.
You're not trying to convince current ISIS soldiers, but instead the potential future members of their ranks that are being inundated with propaganda about how hypocritical American policy is.
Winning ultimately will be more about drying up their sources for new recruits so that a war of attrition has some effect.
Well with option 1, you create a whole family of terrorists who will (with some justification) hate and try to destroy the United States for the rest of their lives which will later become the justification for endless war, so if you're someone who profits from or enjoys war and death and misery it sounds pretty good I suppose.
The US is not a signatory to Additional Protocol II. There’s no legal reason they can’t execute partisans for being partisans. If you’re not part of the uniformed armed forces of a signatory of the Geneva Conventions your participation in hostilities is illegal and once those facts have been determined partisans can be legally executed. The USA seems very unlikely to do so but that’s policy, not law.
