I was really struck by the similarities to the past. It was particularly interesting to listen to the guy who was still in the service. He hasn't figured out how to form his objection to service yet. That's a real reminder. The problem was that my absolutely intuitative resistance to the military and war amounts to no concrete and legally recognized objection. The law surrounding objection is purposefully crafted so that you can't win a case using a completely secular and political objection. The whole process of formulating a reason, requires a certain level of philosophy or theology. There is something very strange in this process, where you have to come up with a reason not to kill. It gets even more weird to contemplate laws which embody lawlessness and tyranny as their basic principle
The other guy's method of resistance is much cleaner. He refused an order, was convicted of disobying an order and got one year, served nine months. I think what was going on in his mind was something like this. He was killing civilians. That's a crime. How does refusing to commit a crime, become a crime? Ultimately it comes down to power. The state decides what is a crime, period.
You really get an insight into the nature of state power when you go up against the US government and its military. Anyway, another thing I was thinking about was the breakdown of the military itself. These wars are doing very similar damage to the internal sociology of the military, eroding it from within. It has just taken longer to show up. In these terms Iraq and Afghanistan are far worse wars than Vietnam, They are a form of social corruption.
CG