That is absolutely true — far more so, I think, than people who aren’t very familiar with the institution realize. It is, in fact, a subculture.

IF you do not like that Scenario…….then DONT VOLUNTEER TO BE A PART OF IT!!!

Trully At 10.05am on January 31, 1945, Private Eddie D.Slovik, 36896415, of Company G, 109th.Infantry Regiment, US 28th.Infantry Division, was executed by a twelve man firing squad from his own regiment. The execution took place in the garden of a villa at No.86, Rue de General Dourgeois, in the town of St.Marie-Aux-Mines, near Colmar in eastern France. Slovik, the son of poor Polish immigrants, was the only American since the Civil War to be shot for desertion.

What I was referring to was not official actions. In Vietnam officers and NCO’s were fragged or murdered by their own men for various reasons. Many of which could be described along the lines we are discussing with this man. During WW2 their were no doubt many men who were shot for pulling the kind of stunt this man pulled on his buddies. This is what I was referring to…..not an actual court martial and sentence carried out.

Now obviously I dont advocate any of this. I was being philosophical when I suggested he be shot for this offense. However the seriousness of his offense would/could have gotten him fragged in Vietnam and no doubt the same thing in WW2.

The brotherhood in the military is a strong code. Especially in times of war.

Not only are they antiwar but they are Anti American as well.

If being American means unwavering support of all military action chosen by our leaders, then who really wants to be American?

He received lawful deployment orders and intentionally refused to follow them, announcing his non-compliance with said orders in advance. He otherwise committed “conduct unbecoming an officer” by, as an officer, urging other soldiers to disobey their orders.

He seems sincere enough about his beliefs, but sincerity isn’t a defense.

He should hang. He volunteered. He was not forced. He choose this course of action. He failed in his duties and he may not like it but he is the focus of a much larger battle then his own personal dislike for this war.

They shot people in WW2 for this offense. I would not be opposed to him being shot for this offense. I’m not much of a capital punishment advocate but that is how strongly I believe that this case is crucial and critical to the nations military psyche and welfare for years to come.

The anti war by taking up his cause goes beyond being antiwar and reinforces in the minds of many of us the accusation that has been leveled at them for 2 or more years……..Not only are they antiwar but they are Anti American as well.

True or not? I don’t know but this is just another example of why many of us believe it is true.

You did? But that’s (kinda) the enlisted oath, not the officer’s oath of appointment. Officers swear to “well and faithfully discharge” their appointed duties and take their oath of appointment “freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.”

Neither enlisted nor officers swear to “uphold” the Constitution–it’s “support and defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to same.”

Enlisted personnel swear to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

Note: NOT their personal interpretation of domestic or international law, but the regulations of the service and the UCMJ.

There is no way in the world that military personnel should be able to Determine which war they WILL fight in. Which deployment they will choose to partake in.

The antiwar is attempting to take on his case because they are against this war while truly failing to understand the repercussions of such action if this man were to be Exonerated.

His exoneration would quite simply mean that in the future Military personnel would be able to pick and choose their wars……..and this is flat out absurd. It was so dilute the military that they would be afraid to deploy for fear no one would show up.

Its laughable. The man should hang.

It makes no sense to tell a soldier “don’t obey specific commands if they are illegal� but “you must obey commands even if the entire war is illegal� other than the fact that the latter is inherently politicized and/or there are constitutional issues that would prevent the determination. From a moral standpoint however, I don’t see how someone could applaud the first but dislike his rationale.

Actually, I don’t dislike his rationale nor do I condemn him morally (assuming his beliefs are sincere). I simply cite the functionalist principle that it is not possible for a military to function if individual soldiers can refuse to participate in a war that they believe to be “illegal”, especially when that determination comes from a non-expert position and is, as you say, rife with murky politicized overtones in a way that refusing a specific order to, say, massacre a village, is not.

And having met Mr. New, I’d not shed a tear over his incarceration. It’s one thing to live vicariously through your kid, it’s another to puch him into legal liability.

A perfectly good analogy is if he was in combat and his superior gave an order he believed to be illegal. Under military code it’s his duty to refuse the order and even forcibly relieve the superior of command if he has to. Of course by definition this is mutiny up until a later date when he has to explain his actions. If the appeals court finds that the superior issued an illegal order then the soldier is off the hook, but otherwise he could be under severe repercussions.

Since even the prosecuting attorney seemed to accept that he was sincere about his reasons, then the question is whether one can refuse to serve if the war is illegal as opposed to a particular command. I can very well see why both the military justice system and (seemingly) the civilian courts have sidestepped the issue and that’s because there is no clear way of labeling a whole war illegal but there are very clear ways of labeling specific actions illegal.

It makes no sense to tell a soldier “don’t obey specific commands if they are illegal” but “you must obey commands even if the entire war is illegal” other than the fact that the latter is inherently politicized and/or there are constitutional issues that would prevent the determination. From a moral standpoint however, I don’t see how someone could applaud the first but dislike his rationale.

Here is a site that is in favor of New’s appeal: http://www.mikenew.com/

Here is a summary of how he believes his disobedience was justified by alleged illegality of the order (it is a different type of illegality that he is claiming, but relevant in that it shares the underlying justification):
http://www.mikenew.com/pr121305.html

Overall, the legal principle is well-established that says soldiers cannot refuse to deploy simply because they disagree with a particular operation. Think about how impossible it would be to have a military under such a system.