Seeking Asylum in Germany, the US Soldier edition

[Craig B]

What's all this about German courts? Pah! Pfui! In my day, the Herrenvolk would have done themselves the honor to stand this deserter from an ally's forces against a well-pocked barracks wall and shoot him. And then throw his carcass in the Neckar or any other convenient river and let it float down to the sea accompanied by pecking crows, to warn skulkers of what they deserve.

What happened to the Germany I knew?

You defeated it and strung up its leaders. Well done!

 

[sarge]

A Soldier has a duty to refuse an unlawful order. A Soldier has neither a duty nor the authority to refuse to deploy to a war that he believes may not be lawful - and to do so should properly expose him to risk of prosecution and punishment. If his convictions guide him to this form of protest, he must be willing to accept the possible consequences.

He is a deserter and if presented to US authorities should be tried and punished IAW the UCMJ. If the Germans, according to their Constitution or policy, elect to offer him protection and harbor him, I have no issue at all with that.

 

[WildCat]

Stop trying to lecture me on social behavior (and following me around), carlitos. It's a bit creepy and you really aren't in a position to do so. The cutesy thing here is about "integration". We don't have a slave minority here, understand?

Germany is in no position to lecture anyone about slavery 150 years ago, when there are people alive today who survived their attempts at genocide as well as the wars of conquest they launched that killed tens of millions of people.

Understand?

 

[Craig B]

Germany is in no position to lecture anyone about slavery 150 years ago, when there are people alive today who survived their attempts at genocide as well as the wars of conquest they launched that killed tens of millions of people.

Understand?

Yes I do. If the people who committed these crimes were still in control of Germany, I would agree with the point you are making. But very fortunately they're not.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Yes I do. If the people who committed these crimes were still in control of Germany, I would agree with the point you are making. But very fortunately they're not.

And people who are defending those who commit these kind of crimes in modern days (instead of paying reparations) aren't in a position to lecture anybody. That's blatantly evident.

 

[theprestige]

Deserter - charge him, try him, and if found guilty, punish.

I believe that most NATO nations, including Germany will allow you to refuse an order, but only if it is manifestly unlawful (ie. unlawful on its face).

And even then, the presumption is that the order is lawful. It's up to the refusing soldier to make an affirmative defense of his presumptively illegal decision to disobey the order.

 

[WildCat]

Yes I do. If the people who committed these crimes were still in control of Germany, I would agree with the point you are making. But very fortunately they're not.

And you think those who supported slavery are still in charge of the USA?

And people who are defending those who commit these kind of crimes in modern days (instead of paying reparations) aren't in a position to lecture anybody. That's blatantly evident.

Are you talking about Nazis in Germany today (of which there appear to be plenty) or governments where slavery is still practiced, like ISIS?

 

[Craig B]

And you think those who supported slavery are still in charge of the USA?

Is this a joke? Such people were in charge of the former slave-owning States - though not of the whole USA - until well within my memory.

 

[carlitos]

"Such people" are what, 180 years old?

 

[WildCat]

Is this a joke? Such people were in charge of the former slave-owning States - though not of the whole USA - until well within my memory.

Does Guinness know you are the oldest human who has ever lived?

 

[Craig B]

Does Guinness know you are the oldest human who has ever lived?

No.

Definitely not!

 

[Aepervius]

And you think those who supported slavery are still in charge of the USA?

No but some of those who supported anti miscegenation law are probably still alive.

 

[BStrong]

No, it's not. He has a duty to do so. At least, that is what we were taught while I was in the service. It's drilled into us from day 1 that there is no duty to obey an unlawful order, while there is a duty to disobey an unlawful order and report it up through the chain of command. The problem comes in when there is significant room for interpretation of an order when determining its lawfulness. Our training said that the first step should be up through the chain of command to verify legality; but in some cases, this is clearly not possible.

Personally, this should have been dealt with in the US, by US officials; but none of the recent administrations have had a particularly good track record regarding objectors and whistle blowers.

An unlawful order is more in the realm of "fire on those unarmed civilians" than an order to deploy to the combat zone.

 

[ddt]

And you think those who supported slavery are still in charge of the USA?

Considering the ubiquity of the Confederate Battle Flag...

Are you talking about Nazis in Germany today (of which there appear to be plenty)

[ citation required ]
Plenty of Nazis where you're around, you mean?

 

[luchog]

An unlawful order is more in the realm of "fire on those unarmed civilians" than an order to deploy to the combat zone.

Unless the war itself is considered unlawful and immoral. There's a reason that the US offers and protects Conscientious Objector status. Admittedly not quite the same thing, but still establishes a solid precedent. I used to be in the military, and the hugely increased likelihood of being deployed under illegitimate circumstances is the primary reason I decided not to re-enlist when my term completed. Well before Bush's Iraq war, but it was clear at the time things were heading in that general direction.

 

[BStrong]

Unless the war itself is considered unlawful and immoral. There's a reason that the US offers and protects Conscientious Objector status. Admittedly not quite the same thing, but still establishes a solid precedent. I used to be in the military, and the hugely increased likelihood of being deployed under illegitimate circumstances is the primary reason I decided not to re-enlist when my term completed. Well before Bush's Iraq war, but it was clear at the time things were heading in that general direction.

Which is something that would be usually determined after the fact in an international court of law.

Individual service members may assert that (whatever) is an unlawful order etc. but they'll be facing the consequences if they refuse to follow the order in question.

I always find it interesting when service members in the US all of a sudden find out that being a member of the military, infantry or otherwise, means that when the order comes down from on high they march in the specified direction, like it or not.

My favorite recent example was a troop from the 82nd Abn (SAW gunner) that stated he didn't know he might have to go to war...and ran to Canada iirc.

If you're Airborne and a gunner to boot, your job description is pretty simple. I have no idea how someone in that slot wouldn't know what their job was downrange.

ETA: Here's the guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hinzman

ETA correction, armorer, not saw gunner, but maybe I have the wrong guy or the wrong story.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Unless the war itself is considered unlawful and immoral. There's a reason that the US offers and protects Conscientious Objector status. Admittedly not quite the same thing, but still establishes a solid precedent. I used to be in the military, and the hugely increased likelihood of being deployed under illegitimate circumstances is the primary reason I decided not to re-enlist when my term completed. Well before Bush's Iraq war, but it was clear at the time things were heading in that general direction.

 

[Border Reiver]

You just got the trade wrong. The idiot joined up right after 9/11 volunteered for infantry, then volunteered again for airborne training. The was ordered deported, appealed, lost the appeal, tried to get the Supreme Court of Canada to hear his malarkey, but they declined to hear him.. Somehow he now feels entitled to claim conscientious objector status. I think he got scared when he got orders that would have taken him from the parade ground to the battlefield.

 

[luchog]

You just got the trade wrong. The idiot joined up right after 9/11 volunteered for infantry, then volunteered again for airborne training. The was ordered deported, appealed, lost the appeal, tried to get the Supreme Court of Canada to hear his malarkey, but they declined to hear him.. Somehow he now feels entitled to claim conscientious objector status. I think he got scared when he got orders that would have taken him from the parade ground to the battlefield.

There are certainly those who take that tack as well. When I joined up there were a lot of those "only joined up for the GI bill" in training; including one ARNG guy who talked about how he was going to seriously injure himself to avoid deployment when he found out his home unit was being mobilized for Desert Storm. I have absolutely no sympathy for that type at all. They're just jackass cowards.

However, I do have a great deal of sympathy for someone who objects to the illegitimate foreign adventuring that the military has been used for in the last couple decades, and decides he can no longer, in good conscience, be part of that military.

Whether this guy is one of the former or one of the latter, I simply don't know, and am not speculating on.