U.S. Army Deserter Deported From Canada

Damocles said:
There is a difference between "good" and "legal".

Those circumstances where a traitor can be shot are under circumstances where their betrayal can kill other soldiers. Would it be "good" to kill one soldier to save the lives of the rest?
Click to expand...

If that's it then why the fuck did you even bring it up? You are piece of no good fucking slime Damo.

As for deciding to subject yourself to the UCMJ, that is neither "good" nor "bad" it is simply a decision every person in the military makes.
Click to expand...

Contract makers do not have the RIGHT to use FORCE to get the contract through. The government should require him to repay his signing bonus, that's it.
Your simplistic attempt at Reductio ad Absurdam has been exposed as ignorance.
Click to expand...

Your simplistic attempt at reduction ad absurdum has been exposed as ignorance.

It's bad form to try to defeat an argument specifically by naming a fallacy. Precisely because such form can be a fallacy in itself... like here, whenever the ignorant little twat making the argument doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
 
Watermark, don't mind all these baby boomers casually sending people to die for their portfolios. They have abandoned us.
 
Watermark said:
If that's it then why the fuck did you even bring it up? You are piece of no good fucking slime Damo.
Click to expand...

Right. :rolleyes: emo. I brought it up because it is true, and it was something the soldier agreed to, understanding the military takes it seriously and that the law recognizes their authority over him.

Contract makers do not have the RIGHT to use FORCE to get the contract through. The government should require him to repay his signing bonus, that's it.
Click to expand...
Because they subject themselves to the UCMJ. This is one of the reasons I called it "Indentured Service" when I was in the military. They have far more power over you than anybody will ever have over you again, unless you go to prison.

Your simplistic attempt at reduction ad absurdum has been exposed as ignorance.

It's bad form to try to defeat an argument specifically by naming a fallacy. Precisely because such form can be a fallacy in itself... like here, whenever the ignorant little twat making the argument doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
Click to expand...

Whether it is "bad form" to point out your fallacy at the end, it doesn't change that it was a fallacy.
 
Damocles said:
Right. :rolleyes: emo. I brought it up because it is true, and it was something the soldier agreed to, understanding the military takes it seriously and that the law recognizes their authority over him.


Because they subject themselves to the UCMJ. This is one of the reasons I called it "Indentured Service" when I was in the military. They have far more power over you than anybody will ever have over you again, unless you go to prison.



Whether it is "bad form" to point out your fallacy at the end, it doesn't change that it was a fallacy.
Click to expand...

There is no way that freedom can be improved by allowing people to sell themselves into slavery. If Wal-Mart had contracts like this we'd all be asking for their heads. The logic behind it, that we may have more soldiers at any time if we force the more timid to gamble on whether or not they will ever be in a war, is at best exploitative, and at worst evil. The right to quit is a human right. What is Wal-Mart had people sign three year contracts and shot people who changed their mind? The CEO's would be executed.

You have no right to enforce your contracts with prison time. Zilch. That is fascism, and that is the fascism that Damocles supports.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
There is no way that freedom can be improved by allowing people to sell themselves into slavery. If Wal-Mart had contracts like this we'd all be asking for their heads. The logic behind it, that we may have more soldiers at any time if we force the more timid to gamble on whether or not they will ever be in a war, is at best exploitative, and at worst evil. The right to quit is a human right. What is Wal-Mart had people sign three year contracts and shot people who changed their mind? The CEO's would be executed.

You have no right to enforce your contracts with prison time. Zilch. That is fascism, and that is the fascism that Damocles supports.
Click to expand...
Again, total incomprehension of military service and the laws that apply to somebody who chooses such service. Your ignorance is astounding, and your lack of knowledge makes it so your argument is totally baseless and without any merit.

When you choose to serve, you choose to allow the UCMJ to apply. Period. Those are the laws that govern you during your service.
 
Watermark should move to a country that is about to get pummelled (or at least are in constant danger such as the Phillippines or Israel). Might he then learn the value of military law? I doubt it, but at least we wouldn't have to see his gay carebear anymore...
 
Damocles said:
Again, total incomprehension of military service and the laws that apply to somebody who chooses such service. Your ignorance is astounding, and your lack of knowledge makes it so your argument is totally baseless and without any merit.

When you choose to serve, you choose to allow the UCMJ to apply. Period. Those are the laws that govern you during your service.
Click to expand...

Taking away a persons right to quit is a violation of human rights. Even if they did technically "agree" to it. Like any other contract it shouldn't be enforceable by anything greater than the terms.
 
Last edited:
Threedee said:
Watermark should move to a country that is about to get pummelled (or at least are in constant danger such as the Phillippines or Israel). Might he then learn the value of military law? I doubt it, but at least we wouldn't have to see his gay carebear anymore...
Click to expand...

In a purely defensive war I could see the benefit of punishing desertion, as well as a draft. Not for a war of pure aggression like Iraq, or a war of retribution like Afghanistan. For that, I am unable to accept such a Machiavellian abridgment of basic human rights and dignity.
 
Truth of the matter is they don't take away your right to quit. This guy didn't quit, he walked away. People quit the military all the time. Usually it entails a dishonorable or other than honorable discharge. I knew people that quit my whole time in service. If you REALLY want to get out you can. But dersertion is not the way to do it.
 
Socrtease said:
Truth of the matter is they don't take away your right to quit. This guy didn't quit, he walked away. People quit the military all the time. Usually it entails a dishonorable or other than honorable discharge. I knew people that quit my whole time in service. If you REALLY want to get out you can. But dersertion is not the way to do it.
Click to expand...

But desertion is so much fun.

I didn't know you served in the military Soc?
 
Watermark said:
Taking away a persons right to quit is a violation of human rights. Even if they did technically "agree" to it. Like any other contract it shouldn't be enforceable by anything greater than the terms.
Click to expand...
He has the right to quit, just not to desert. There is a difference. He can simply de-volunteer and receive a General Discharge. Others have taken that path.

Instead, he decided to break the law that he consented to be held to. This is far more than "contract law" as you attempt to define it as.
 
Damocles said:
He has the right to quit, just not to desert. There is a difference. He can simply de-volunteer and receive a General Discharge. Others have taken that path.

Instead, he decided to break the law that he consented to be held to. This is far more than "contract law" as you attempt to define it as.
Click to expand...

Alright.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top