Army "Deserter" Deported from Canada, Imprisoned in U.S. [Archive]

Zuras

02-06-2009, 11:04 AM

Perhaps you should consider why Ron requested this song at the Rally...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgNe9QZpjzI

Ron Paul wouldn't force someone else to accept his ideologies. The soldier was neither drafted nor conscripted. He signed a contract and then violated the terms.

Crash Martinez

02-06-2009, 11:05 AM

Ron Paul wouldn't force someone else to accept his ideologies. The soldier was neither drafted nor conscripted. He signed a contract and then violated the terms.

He quit his freaking job. Violating a contract with your employer is grounds for termination and loss of benefits. It is not a CRIME!!!

Zuras

02-06-2009, 11:15 AM

He quit his freaking job. Violating a contract with your employer is grounds for termination and loss of benefits. It is not a CRIME!!!

Huh? Yes, he's violated his contract and bound by the rammifications of that very same contract, which specifically details he must follow specific laws while he is under his contract and violating them will lead you to a military court in most cases. He doesn't get to void his contract and walk off into the sunset.

Doctors and other professionals must do similar things. Imagine a surgeon slicing someone's heart open and then deciding he's going to quit his job at the hospital, walking out on a soon-to-be dead man? He'd be arrested, convict and jailed.

ronpaulhawaii

02-06-2009, 11:19 AM

Ron Paul wouldn't force someone else to accept his ideologies. The soldier was neither drafted nor conscripted. He signed a contract and then violated the terms.

Unconstitutional war. Doesn't that mean it was the government who violated the contract?

Crash Martinez

02-06-2009, 11:21 AM

Huh? Yes, he's violated his contract and bound by the rammifications of that very same contract, which specifically details he must follow specific laws while he is under his contract and violating them will lead you to a military court in most cases. He doesn't get to void his contract and walk off into the sunset.

Doctors and other professionals must do similar things. Imagine a surgeon slicing someone's heart open and then deciding he's going to quit his job at the hospital, walking out on a soon-to-be dead man? He'd be arrested, convict and jailed.

That's because he'd be in the process of endangering someone else's life by leaving surgery half-done. Whereas the soldier refused to endanger others' lives.

Crash Martinez

02-06-2009, 11:22 AM

Unconstitutional war. Doesn't that mean it was the government who violated the contract?

+Many!

wizardwatson

02-06-2009, 11:23 AM

Huh? Yes, he's violated his contract and bound by the rammifications of that very same contract, which specifically details he must follow specific laws while he is under his contract and violating them will lead you to a military court in most cases. He doesn't get to void his contract and walk off into the sunset.

Doctors and other professionals must do similar things. Imagine a surgeon slicing someone's heart open and then deciding he's going to quit his job at the hospital, walking out on a soon-to-be dead man? He'd be arrested, convict and jailed.

Inalienable 'rights' means you can't surrender them. Not by contract or any other means. Indentured servitude/slavery contracts are invalid.

There are ways to punish for not fulfilling a contract, like penal/performance bonds.

Zuras

02-06-2009, 11:24 AM

Unconstitutional war. Doesn't that mean it was the government who violated the contract?

Somehow I doubt the military included such a clause.

Crash Martinez

02-06-2009, 11:27 AM

Somehow I doubt the military included such a clause.
Right. The military says you might violate this contract, but it's impossible for them to. Brilliant!

Zuras

02-06-2009, 11:30 AM

Right. The military says you might violate this contract, but it's impossible for them to. Brilliant!

Don't sign it. Duh?

ronpaulhawaii

02-06-2009, 11:57 AM

Somehow I doubt the military included such a clause.

Actually, I think it does...

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

First allegiance of all military personnel is the constitution. I believe it is already established that soldiers are not bound to obey illegal orders. I'll acknowledge that, in this day and age, overwhelming federal power is steamrolling the rule of law, but that still does not change the principle of the matter.

Further, at what point, when a government no longer resembles its lawful self, do you think morals allow the disregard of its edicts?

Crash Martinez

02-06-2009, 12:28 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/025174.html

My man Lew agrees with me! :p

/gloat

Zuras

02-06-2009, 12:33 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/025174.html

My man Lew agrees with me! :p

/gloat

LR is part of the reason this libertarianism will never go anywhere. As long as they associate raving morons like him with libertarianism, the further they will run. He is not a libertarian, he is anarchist trash. No better than a marxist in my eyes.

ronpaulhawaii

02-06-2009, 12:38 PM

LR is part of the reason this libertarianism will never go anywhere. As long as they associate raving morons like him with libertarianism, the further they will run. He is not a libertarian, he is anarchist trash. No better than a marxist in my eyes.

ad-hom fail :p

Crash Martinez

02-06-2009, 12:38 PM

He is not a libertarian, he is anarchist trash. No better than a marxist in my eyes.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! OK, I'm done talking to you!! Thanks for the laugh though!!

Zuras

02-06-2009, 12:42 PM

ad-hom fail :p

It's true. As soon as he has a chance to take an anti-american jab, out comes the bomb throwing anarchist he is. He's a fair weather libertarian, at best, and more likely a complete fraud who tried to ride the wave of popular thought, oh-so-populist like.

ronpaulhawaii

02-06-2009, 01:13 PM

It's true. As soon as he has a chance to take an anti-american jab, out comes the bomb throwing anarchist he is. He's a fair weather libertarian, at best, and more likely a complete fraud who tried to ride the wave of popular thought, oh-so-populist like.

Whats wrong? You don't like the topic, so are trying to change it? cute...

Now, how about answering my question?

First allegiance of all military personnel is the constitution. I believe it is already established that soldiers are not bound to obey illegal orders. I'll acknowledge that, in this day and age, overwhelming federal power is steamrolling the rule of law, but that still does not change the principle of the matter.

At what point, when a government no longer resembles its lawful self, do you think morals allow the disregard of its edicts?

Thanks

Crash Martinez

02-06-2009, 01:15 PM

Nice. You have more patience with this dude than I! BTW, I noticed his description of Mr. Rockwell would suit Samuel Adams or Thomas Paine!

Zuras

02-06-2009, 01:40 PM

Whats wrong? You don't like the topic, so are trying to change it? cute...

Now, how about answering my question?

Thanks

You asked one question that I saw, and I assumed it was a rhetorical one, since it's completely non-sequitur that smacked of grandstanding. You have failed to establish any requirement that any orders need to be "legal", failed to establish that anything was in fact illegal that eh was ordered to do, failed to make a point even assuming he was given an illegal order, since he would not be compelled, again according to your unrpoven assertions, to even follow it. Yet he went AWOL. In such a case, he didn't just refuse an illlegal order. He refused and then went AWOL. Even if you are right, you are wrong.

ronpaulhawaii

02-06-2009, 01:54 PM

You asked one question that I saw, and I assumed it was a rhetorical one, since it's completely non-sequitur that smacked of grandstanding. You have failed to establish any requirement that any orders need to be "legal", failed to establish that anything was in fact illegal that eh was ordered to do, failed to make a point even assuming he was given an illegal order, since he would not be compelled, again according to your unrpoven assertions, to even follow it. Yet he went AWOL. In such a case, he didn't just refuse an illlegal order. He refused and then went AWOL. Even if you are right, you are wrong.

You assumed wrong. It is a valid question and actually does "follow". You see, I'm just a simple man, who prefers a chainsaw to beating around the bush. And sorry, the discussion has never been about the individual circumstances of the cited case... But then, I would hope you already knew that...

From my understanding, he bailed on an unconstitutional war, so regardless of the circumstances, that simple fact tells me he is not the criminal...

acptulsa

02-06-2009, 02:02 PM

It is interesting to note that the armed forces are among the very few entities in this nation that can enter into a legally binding contract with a seventeen year old and make it stick.

Crash Martinez

02-06-2009, 02:25 PM

From my understanding, he bailed on an unconstitutional war, so regardless of the circumstances, that simple fact tells me he is not the criminal...

Win!

Zuras

02-06-2009, 02:28 PM

You assumed wrong. It is a valid question and actually does "follow". You see, I'm just a simple man, who prefers a chainsaw to beating around the bush. And sorry, the discussion has never been about the individual circumstances of the cited case... But then, I would hope you already knew that... From my understanding, he bailed on an unconstitutional war, so regardless of the circumstances, that simple fact tells me he is not the criminal...

No, it doesn't follow, because there is nothing to follow. You said "you think this or that(about illegal orders" and you posted a quote regarding defending the constitution. You did nothing to connect or prove these things. I already presented these failings in your train of thought above. You jump from point A to point C, and then just presume it also went through point B when it did no such thing, not even considering when reaching the "point C" was a fallacious argument against going AWOL And, yes, that is exactly the "individual circumstances in the cited case." WTH are we supposed to be talking about? The Cowboys? Fondu recipes?

ronpaulhawaii

02-06-2009, 02:46 PM

No, it doesn't follow, because there is nothing to follow. You said "you think this or that(about illegal orders" and you posted a quote regarding defending the constitution. You did nothing to connect or prove these things. I already presented these failings in your train of thought above. You jump from point A to point C, and then just presume it also went through point B when it did no such thing, not even considering when reaching the "point C" was a fallacious argument against going AWOL And, yes, that is exactly the "individual circumstances in the cited case." WTH are we supposed to be talking about? The Cowboys? Fondu recipes?

As much as you enjoy dancing around the bush, the simple fact remains the same.

From my understanding, he bailed on an unconstitutional war, so regardless of the circumstances, that simple fact tells me he is not the criminal...

What is the sense of getting into details if we don't agree on the premise that a soldiers first allegiance is to the constitution; to the rule of Law, not the rule of men?

Crash Martinez

02-06-2009, 02:48 PM

No, it doesn't follow, because there is nothing to follow. You said "you think this or that(about illegal orders" and you posted a quote regarding defending the constitution. You did nothing to connect or prove these things. I already presented these failings in your train of thought above. You jump from point A to point C, and then just presume it also went through point B when it did no such thing, not even considering when reaching the "point C" was a fallacious argument against going AWOL And, yes, that is exactly the "individual circumstances in the cited case." WTH are we supposed to be talking about? The Cowboys? Fondu recipes?

[this from the guy who dismisses Rockwell as an anarchist, which he laughably compares with Marxism ...then says he, the founder of the Mises Institute, is destructive to the libertarian movement!! that's like going directly from point A to point Z12!! hahahaha!]

idiom

02-06-2009, 03:39 PM

Man he would need a seriously good lawyer to win that one.

sevin

02-06-2009, 03:40 PM

Crash Martinez

02-06-2009, 03:41 PM

Someone who says this isn't worth debating. Maybe we shouldn't encourage him anymore.

you gotta admit it was funny though!! ;)

Grimnir Wotansvolk

02-06-2009, 04:03 PM

Huh? Yes, he's violated his contract and bound by the rammifications of that very same contract, which specifically details he must follow specific laws while he is under his contract and violating them will lead you to a military court in most cases. He doesn't get to void his contract and walk off into the sunset.

Doctors and other professionals must do similar things. Imagine a surgeon slicing someone's heart open and then deciding he's going to quit his job at the hospital, walking out on a soon-to-be dead man? He'd be arrested, convict and jailed.Soldiers are protected under international law from disobeying illegal/unethical orders. And the Iraq war is both illegal and unethical, hence.

Sure, he violated his contract. But we need to learn to look beyond law and towards morality. Morally speaking, all deserters deserve protection.

Crash Martinez

02-06-2009, 04:13 PM

Soldiers are protected under international law from disobeying illegal/unethical orders. And the Iraq war is both illegal and unethical, hence.

Sure, he violated his contract. But we need to learn to look beyond law and towards morality. Morally speaking, all deserters deserve protection.

I'm afraid you're wasting your time with our Statist friend. After all, your avatar is an anarchist flag, so therefore, you must not be worth listening to.

canadian4ronpaul

02-06-2009, 04:58 PM

i agree with the above. soldiers are sworn to protect the constitution and they are waging an unconstitutional war. the politicians broke the contract first so the deal is void. we should be protecting those soldiers but harper is a puppet of bush

iddo

02-06-2009, 05:20 PM

Not really related to this case, but here's Ron Paul's view on conscription:

Ron Paul: [The draft] should be called slavery, involuntary servitude.
Howard Phillips: It violates the 13th amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude.
Ron Paul: Yeah, and the argument that I've always resented the most was, if you're 18 year old you owe it to your country. I've always wondered why the guy who's 58 and had a million bucks and hadn't served, why doesn't he owe more to this country, maybe he should be on the frontline. 18 year old didn't get anything yet, and he has to go and risk his life.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#On_wars_and_interventions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_suZvyB69YM

satchelmcqueen

02-06-2009, 07:13 PM

i have no problem with that.... he deserted

go take his place then.

hope7134

02-06-2009, 07:25 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21794024/

and what will happen when the draft is put into effect? Involuntary servitude, for all those men and women 18-25.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=178445

Andrew-Austin

02-06-2009, 08:15 PM

Can someone sign themselves in to slavery for the government?

Grimnir Wotansvolk

02-06-2009, 09:15 PM

Can someone sign themselves in to slavery for the government?This is precisely what military service is.

And you can hardly call it voluntary, considering the amount of propaganda and pressure surrounding it. Not to mention how our government goes out of its way to destroy the peaceful marketplace, then goes onto dangle military job benefits over the heads of students who are looking at an empty future otherwise.

As Kissinger aptly said, military men are "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy. Part of our job is to protect these propagandized individuals from their own brainwashing. We owe it to the entire world, especially the middle east.

qh4dotcom

02-06-2009, 10:51 PM

Adam Kokesh said "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"

The soldier is likely better off now because he avoided becoming one of the 4,000+ soldiers that died in Iraq

Zuras

02-07-2009, 12:02 AM

This is precisely what military service is.

No, it's not. You freely join the military and should understand all the possible consequences.

And you can hardly call it voluntary,

If freely signing up with no coercion is not "voluntary", nothing is voluntary.

considering the amount of propaganda and pressure surrounding it.
Not to mention how our government goes out of its way to destroy the peaceful marketplace, then goes onto dangle military job benefits over the heads of students who are looking at an empty future otherwise.

Oh, no! Incentives in a contract? Who'da thunk it?

As Kissinger aptly said, military men are "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy. Part of our job is to protect these propagandized individuals from their own brainwashing. We owe it to the entire world, especially the middle east.

So military men are so stupid they, in the words of Jesus "know not what they do"? Haha. How many different ways is this paragraph antithetical to libertarianism? I dare not count. You should. Start with "we" and "owing".

Grimnir Wotansvolk

02-07-2009, 12:16 AM

Oh, no! Incentives in a contract? Who'da thunk it?Good work sidestepping the issue.

I'll try again:

The government is responsible for destroying the marketplace, thus creating a climate where people are desperate for work and education, but generally have no where to turn to.

They then send their recruiters into high schools and colleges, preying off of people who see no other way to pay for college. Or people like me, who are looking for apprenticeships, which the civilian sector is flabbergastingly lacking in.

So sure, not 100% coercive, but it's a broken window scenario. They've broken the market to benefit themselves. Thus, the only jobs available to a lot of people are ones which they cannot leave without being severely punished.

Please explain to me how this is not fundamentally criminal.