Text 12864, 99 rader
Skriven 2007-03-03 23:26:08 av Matthew Vincent (16307.babylon5)
  Kommentar till text 11888 av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (15329.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Interesting story to follow for B5 fans
===================================================
On Feb 10, 4:58 am, "Lance Corporal \"Hammer\" Schultz"
<starf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2007 22:08:02 -0800, Bill wrote:
>
>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17032609/?GT1=9033
>
>Others have already commented on the absurdity of
>calling it an "illegal war,"

"Absurdity" is too strong a claim.

>but what interests me is that this story doesn't give
>me enough information.
>
>For example, how long has he been in the
>military?  When did he join? Etc, etc.

These issues are not relevant material facts, and in fact would be the
sort of thing that could prejudice a jury. However, I do agree that
there's some more information that it'd be nice to have. The main
thing I'd like to know is what the consequence is if he's found guilty
of this supposed crime. Is it being demoted or fired from the army, or
would it involve military prison or other consequences that in
civilian terms would be criminal rather than civil? In other words, is
this the equivalent of a criminal or civil court case?

If a civilian employer wants you to do something, and you don't want
to do it for whatever reason, then the only consequences they are able
to administer involve discontinuing your employment and remuneration,
refusing to write you a good reference, and the like (in other words,
removing reinforcement, rather than administering punishment, to put
it in behavioural terms). Only in the most extreme of circumstances,
such as a lighthouse operator refusing to work before a suitable
replacement could be sent out, or someone with an essential medical
function or other job that's critical to infrastructure refusing to do
it at short notice, could the employee have any further liability that
goes beyond no longer being paid. And even in these circumstances, the
employee need only announce their intentions and continue doing the
job for long enough that a suitable replacement could be arranged.

Now, if the military wants to fire someone -- they can call it a
"dishonourable discharge" or whatever other name takes their fancy,
but at the end of the day, what we're talking about is an employer
firing you -- then that's all well and good. The employee may have a
civil claim to their financial benefit if they're fired unjustly, but
it's essentially the right of either party to terminate the contract.
A civilian court case would generally be around issues like settling
the financial aspects of whether the employee was owed compensation
for wrongful dismissal, or whether there were just grounds for
dismissal.

Now, there are several material facts in this case that I think should
be noted. Firstly, it reads as though the soldier was at home in the
US when he refused deployment, rather than already engaged in a
current mission or project, so this situation doesn't sound comparable
to a lighthouse operator suddenly quitting. Secondly, the Bush
Administration have told numerous lies to the US public and the world
in order to fraudulently present a case for the Iraq war. Thirdly, the
Iraq war was a substantial change in direction from the Bush
administration's claimed policy on the War on Terrrorism in the
several months after the 9/11 tragedy. When he was still raising
support for military action in Afghanistan, Bush in fact emphatically
denied that Iraq would be a target in the War on Terrorism. So, on a
number of accounts, including also the respective degree of
involvement of the two countries in 9/11 and terrorism, plus the
likely consequences of invasion, there are understandable reasons why
many people would support military action in Afghanistan but not in
Iraq subsequently, thus strengthening the case for soldiers to have
the right to make a decision of conscience about whether to stay
onboard for the Iraq war.

So at the end of the day, it comes down to a question of "if the
government told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?" Do we want
soldiers to be stupefied robots who'll follow any order whether
ethical or not, or do we want people who are charged with the huge
responsibility of having to take the sometimes regrettably necessary
action of terminating the lives of other human beings to exercise some
reasoning and conscience before doing so? Many of the worst atrocities
in human history were committed by soldiers who were "just following
orders", and that's not how a civilised and democratic country should
want to train its military personnel. By way of comparison, look at
the degree of ethical decision making required of medical
professionals who make decisions that potentially have life and death
consequences.

For another thing, if a war is truly necessary in self-defence or
otherwise for a good cause, then why would a government need to
*force* anyone to fight in it?

>Typical mainstream fluff reporting.  Useless.  People who
>rely on this kind of reporting end up voting for Democrats.

Right, I see..... whereas Fox News provide completely fair and
balanced reporting on all the topics they cover, including Monsanto's
corporate milk scam.

Matthew
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)