I would like to hear your assessment of how this would apply to "war criminals" ie. those that "murder" while following illegal orders and who, far from being vilified, are often lionized.
Along this train of thought, most wars fought by your country's military have been unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
If you don't agree with the premise that most wars have been unconstitutional, then I will submit that clearly at least "some" have been so.
There are, therefore, large numbers of murderers hiding behind(current or former) uniforms. Does your rationale apply to them?
Rules for engagement, killing combatants, and war crimes are of a different nature and jurisdiction. Any unlawful killing is an act of murder and will follow the perpetrator until answered for. This may be before or at war's end or at the final judgment of God. I remember the shame brought upon our military at the Mai Lai massacre during the Vietnam War.
I don't think that you have addressed my concern. It has to do with illegal wars, not declared by Congress, and my assumption that anyone who does not refuse to kill in such a war is a murderer when he does so. Did not the Nuremberg trials after World War II make this apparent? Illegal (uncosntitutional) orders MUST be disobeyed.
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." -Winston Churchill
Thank you for your faithful service, Deplorable.
And same to you :-)
We are of course talking about the "rough men who would do us harm". It is incumbent upon every ethical person not to obey their orders! There is absolutely nothing wrong with defending against aggression. What is wrong (under a Non Aggression Principle ethical standard) is to initiate aggression or follow the orders of those who do.
It is very difficult to respond to you as you have extreme and unreasonable views. Many have fought and died in war for your right to be wacky.. so enjoy it! Take Care :-)
I am sorry but you misunderstood Mr. Churchill.
I must wonder, did you disobey such orders when you were serving in our military? When serving, I called in airstrikes when requested...I felt I was doing the right thing...at least my conscience was not offended. I may have been responsible for the death of many enemy combatants. I do admit this that if I had been a "grunt" instead of a cryptologist/communication specialist and I was looking in the face of an enemy who was trying to kill me, I am sure that I would have done whatever I could have to preserve my life or the life of my fellow soldiers. I am not a student of government enough to make the calls that you apparently feel that you are qualified to make, and therein, I have not had the inclination, nor the knowledge, nor the temerity to declare certain wars or armed conflicts which America has been involved in that are in your assessment "illegal"..I was a soldier in the Viet Nam era....I was injured and am an amputee and rated 100% war service connected disabled. I know about Grenada, OIF, and the current war in Afghanistan since my son was injured in Iraq and is still in recovery. But I certainly cannot accept your assessment that a military person sent on a combat mission in an undeclared war and at the command of his superiors is a war criminal. The men and women that I served with and that my son served with and who are now serving were/are overwhelmingly men/women of integrity, honor, and good character who only wanted to be loyal and get back home. It does bother me much that you apparently can imply that my son who only did his duty as he saw it and will now suffer the physical and emotional wounds of that awful war for the rest of his life is in your estimate a "war criminal." I don't like feeling what I am feeling right now toward you or your theory . I guess it is best that we simply agree to disagree.
Well said!