Should US soldiers who believe themselves to be committing war crimes refuse to deploy?

Question

Those who deploy and who believe they are committing war crimes would, at the deepest level, be war criminals.

Answer 1

Your question would be much more applicable in a draft situation.
Simple put, I would not volunteer for kitchen duty if I couldn't stand the heat.
In other words, people who feel they would be committing war crimes should simply refuse to join the military - it's a little late after they already volunteered and are then ordered to deploy.

Answer 2

Ok, let's examine your question.

The way the US conducts wars simply going to a war you might disagree with can never be associated with "War Crimes".

War crimes are specific, just fighting an unpopular war is not a war crime, however for example burning a civilian village not housing hostile combatants would be a war crime, but it would also be a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. Any officer who issued such an order would be eligible for courts martial, soldiers in good conscience should not and would not generally follow such an order.

Simply put there is absolutely no situation that a member of the military can claim they are not deploying because they don't want to commit a war crime.

In order to commit a war crime you have to do something during the deployment that violates the laws of war.

The US is currently prosecuting every soldier with even a hint of a possibility of thinking about violating the laws of war.

It simply doesn't logically stand as even a possible excuse for refusing deployment.

As a war veteran i am of the opinion that if someone is in the military and doesn't want to do their duty and serve in a war zone that they should simply refuse and make no excuses. The military will courts martial, dishonorably discharge them and possibly give them jail time but that is the choice they are making and those are the consequences of that choice. At least those few soldiers who do not have it within them to do their duty should find the moral courage to be honest and simply say what they mean and pay the price as we all do in life with our decisions.

for a definition:

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source
war crimes

Acts committed by soldiers or government officials, either in the course of a war or in bringing on a war, that violate the customs of warfare. Examples of war crimes include atrocities committed against civilians (see My Lai massacre) and the mistreatment of prisoners of war. After World War II, twenty-two Nazi leaders were tried at Nuremberg by the victorious Allies, and twelve were sentenced to death for war crimes. (See Nuremberg trials.)

Answer 3

Enlisted personnel take an OATH to obey the orders of the President and those officers appointed over them. Officers take an OATH that they freely and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, well and faithfully discharge the DUTIES of their office.
If an individual joins the military, he or she needs to understand a few things: 1) The military is a war fighting organization. It is what they do; 2) You don't get to choose who or when to fight. That is what politicians decide for you; 3) The President is the Commander in Chief, and has the power to deploy troops; 4) You obey orders. If you fail to do so, people will die.
In the case of the Captain that is currently pending court-martial, I feel that he has a duty as an officer in the Army to lead his troops into battle. That is what he is trained to do. His troops are trained to follow him into battle. He has stated that he has serious reservations about the war and has used strong (not necessarily profane) language to indicate the President had no right to deploy troops there. That sounds much like mental reservation, and his refusal to deploy sounds like purposeful evasion.
Also, UCMJ Article 88 disallows officers to use contemptuous language against the President. The Captain failed to follow a lawful order to deploy (engagement is another issue). He failed to conduct himself as an officer and a gentleman. But most importantly, if he felt that deployment was wrong, he allowed his troops to adhere to orders he himself believed to be unlawful (hypocritical?)
If this officer goes free, what would then prevent other Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen from routinely questioning the validity of the orders of those officers appointed over them? It would destroy the fabric of leadership that makes the military what it is. ("Gee, Lieutenant, I know you want us to fire on that hill because there is small arms fire coming from it, but what if it's just a hunting party that thinks we are deer? Shouldn't we send someone up to ask just to be sure...?")
If the Captain (and others like him) don't want to serve when and where ordered, then request separation, pay back all bonuses, pay for any training or schooling provided by the military, and pay the cost of processing you out. The government will already eat cost of the lost billet, the pay given for no apparent reason, and the time and cost of rapidly training a qualified relief.

Answer 4

Sure go ahead a soldier can't win. If you obey a order you might go to jail or be shot for committing a War Crime but then again if refuse you can face the exact same punishment(s). Ask Ehren Watada if you do not believe me.

God Bless You and Our Southern People.

Answer 5

Absolutely not. Remember, this is an ALL-VOLUNTEER military. You don't like it, don't sign up. Anyone who has joined since Sept. 11, 2001 knows exactly what they are getting in to. 1st Lt. Watada should be shot as a deserter. He has deserted his men, and our country. That he finished college, then enlisted well AFTER 9/11 makes his actions all the more suspicious. This is a set-up. He's willing to go to Afghanistan, but not Iraq? Get real! This is the military - you don't get to pick and choose your orders! He knew that when he signed up - and if he didnt', he sure learned it at OCS. He deserves NOTHING LESS that life imprisonment at Ft. Leavenworth for desertion. Although, i really do like the idea of a firing squad. That would be much more appropriate.

By the way, my son has served TWO tours in Iraq. What he and his fellow soldiers tell us is NOTHING like what the media portrays what is going on over there!!!

Answer 6

DEFINITELY. No country, worth defending by killing innocent people, not to mention, invading a country for false reasons or sad yet, for oil and Imperialism. If you say, yes to that, America is in worse trouble than it seems. I know lot of people not gonna like this, but this is how i think and iv seen it among some solders.
Lot of this kids are influenced by Video game, although they call it patriotism, it's all Video's in their head. to join, get some guns, explosions, killing, shooting, tattoos,.... who ever is disagreeing with me, is being in denial. JUST SEARCH and DISCOVER.

Answer 7

Military personnel have a duty to disobey an obvious illegal order. Firing upon innocent civilians would be such an order that is illegal. However, refusing to deploy is disobeying a LAWFUL order and you should swing.

Answer 8

If they totally believe in what they think but are patriotic to their
country ,they should be asked to prove their patriotism by court
marshalling self with the "maximum" penalty & die honorably by
self execution .

Answer 9

If they didnt want to deploy they had a choice to join or not.

Answer 10

Soldiers who are unprepared to fight for their country should never volunteer to join the military.