>Socialism will be the triumph of LAW. I am a socialist and I LOVE the
>law. I have violated the law in the cause of democracy and it makes me
>love the law even more. I love politics and economics - democracy -
>and I believe that if we make the right arguments and take the
>smartest actions WE WILL WIN. So I engage. If I'm walking through an
>airport I don't hesitate to go up to a group of jarheads lining up to
>get on a plane for their base, shake their hands and tell them "Hey,
That's a bit creepy. Its one thing to be grateful for services rendered, its quite another to ostentatiously foist your gratitude on people. Its all a bit of an act isn't it? It would come across that way to me anyhow and I think I would get a bit annoyed if people kept coming up and pawing me in public and going on about how they are so grateful I'm doing something they oppose.
>I'm on the Left and I thank you for your service. It's the wrong war
>to fight. I wouldn't have you fight it. I will do everything I can to
>defeat the people who sent you, but thank you sincerely for doing your
>duty." Good citizenship matters, dammit. Civil disobedience is a great
>and honorable choice but so is the choice to do the lawful thing.
It all depends on the circumstances. If the lawful thing is an unjust thing, then doing the lawful thing is the cowardly choice, not honourable in the slightest. As it happens, the invasion of Iraq was an illegal war under international law, so there's no conflict between what's right and what's lawful.
But soldiers are usually quite young and inexperienced, so while only following orders might not be a valid excuse in law, its entirely understandable. If the highest government officials don't understand the principles of international law, then young soldiers might easily be forgiven their ignorance.
What I find oddest of all is that you maintain a love of law, while maintaining that international law does not exist, or somehow does not apply to the US government except where and when it chooses. Of course that may be the case in practice, top US government officials obviously feel secure from prosecution and punishment for international war crimes. But that is only because, for the moment, they have the protection and safe haven of a powerful military. But this isn't a state of affairs to be tolerated gladly. At least not for someone who professes a love of the law.
The US can do anything it likes, according to this philosophy, because it has might on its side. Precisely the morality of the gangster. You say that violating the law is a thing to be taken very seriously and needs to be justified. I would add that people should also be prepared to face the consequences. Justifications, no matter how powerful, are only mitigating circumstances.
The must apply to soldiers as well though. It is simply not good enough to demand that soldiers must always follow legal orders, to insist that anything else is tantamount to civil war. In most cases that may be appropriate, but soldiers must also be prepared act according to their conscience, not according to the law, if the circumstances deem it necessary. An order to shoot peaceful demonstrators, torture or execute prisoners might very well be lawful, but that doesn't mean the soldier is justified in, never mind morally obligated to, mindlessly obey. The soldier is also a human being and has the obligations of a human being.
The consequences of obeying the order, not just the legality of such, must be taken into account. The way you talk, it is enough to mindlessly obey, as if the soldier is merely a robot. I agree its a very serious thing for a soldier to disobey a lawful command, it can't be justified for trivial reasons. But the idea that members of the armed forces are exempt from all obligations as a human being are quite unacceptable.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas