He published this statement against the war and then was sent off to Craiglockhart (the sanitarium).
"I am making this statement as an act of willful defiance of military authority, because I believe that the War is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it. I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that this War, on which I entered as a war of defence and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest. I believe that the purpose for which I and my fellow soldiers entered upon this war should have been so clearly stated as to have made it impossible to change them, and that, had this been done, the objects which actuated us would now be attainable by negotiation. I have seen and endured the sufferings of the troops, and I can no longer be a party to prolong these sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust. I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed. On behalf of those who are suffering now I make this protest against the deception which is being practised on them; also I believe that I may help to destroy the callous complacency with which the majority of those at home regard the contrivance of agonies which they do not, and which they have not sufficient imagination to realize." 1
One thing to remember is that Sassoon went back on his own to go fight with his men, not necessarily b/c he regained his faith in what he was fighting for.
One recent example of how free speech for active duty soldiers was being tested was in 2006 when anti-war groups like MoveOn.org began recruiting soldiers to lobby their Congressman to push for a time table to withdraw from Iraq. http://www.nysun.com/national/active-duty-gis-being-recruited-to-lobby-congress/42334/ Part of the petition that the 213 active duty soldiers had signed (as of October 26, 2006) stated:
"As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq."
Something like this (a petition to Congress) had been done during Vietnam and news of this had inspired some of the active duty soldiers to create a group to join w/ MoveOn and solicit names. In the article, a spokesperson for the Pentagon stated that it has no problem with members of the military contacting their Congressman personally as long as they don't claim to speak on behalf of the entire military or their unit:
"The members of the Armed Forces are free to communicate with their members of Congress in a lawful manner that does not violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In regards to the media teleconference, our position is that members of the Armed Forces that choose to speak to the press in their private capacity may do so, but must not do so in uniform and must make clear that they do not speak on behalf of their military unit, military service, or the Department of Defense unless they are authorized to do so"
However, when a soldier's free speech interferes with his ability to do his duty like Lt. Ehren Watada, the first military officer to refuse to fight in Iraq, as he faced a court martial at Fort Lewis, Washington in 2007. 3 He spoke at a veterans' national convention group called Veterans for Peace in Seattle and publicly refused to serve in the Iraq war b/c he deemed it morally wrong and illegal.
Here's Fox News' Michelle Malkin's take on Watada's mistrial in 2007: http://michellemalkin.com/2007/02/07/the-lefts-definition-of-a-herobreaking-mistrial-in-watada-case/
This whole fiasco ended when the Dept. of Justice eventually dropped the case against Lt. Watada in May 2009, and the Army accepted his letter of resignation at the end of Sept. 2009. But his case brings up several difficult issues:
1. Do soldiers have the right and obligation to resist an order they believe is immoral? Why or why not?
2. We have established that soldiers have some form of free speech. When that speech crosses the line into refusal to obey orders or criticize the commander / President (remember General MacArthur in the Korean War example I gave last week), then that's another issue. Do you agree with this concept of free speech for soldiers? Why or why not?
Due Monday, May 24. 150 words minimum.
Sources:
1. http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ww1lit/education/tutorials/intro/sassoon/declaration.html Oxford's Siegfried Sassoon poetry collection.
2. PBS's The Great War website link page http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/web.html
3. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/01/05/18344326.php Lt. Watada's court martial
4. Ehren Watada's story at http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/blogcategory/22/39/
45 comments:
Asha Brown 5th hour
1. I believe both yes and no that soldiers should have the right and obligation to resist an order they believe is immoral because when entering the war soldiers give up their freedom and follow the person who is in charge commands. Sometimes they have to do things that they do not want to do such as killing people. I think that if a soldier feels that the war isn’t for him/her they should allow them to resign.
2. I think that the soldiers should have free speech because they have their own opinions and if they think that what their fighting for is immoral they should be able to say it. But when people step into the war they realize its not really what they want to do it is up to their commander, the commander is suppose to make the decisions, because there is only one goal and it is winning the war.
Donovan Hertz
I think that they do have the right to free speech they live in the United States. They are also human beings not just some robots programmed to kill other people. They desire the same thing as everybody else. But on the other hand if it crosses the line then they deserve to be punished just as everyone else should. Like a parent would punish a child or something like that. They can also say they do not want to fit anymore. But with that, I think it should be posted somewhere like in the media and have them sent home until they are ready to fight again. But they cannot leave their house until they are ready to fight again. Kind of like having them in a house arrest. That would make them not feel so bad and it will not make the army or whatever is doing it look bad either.
Philip Johnson
5th Hour
5-23-10
1. I believe that soldiers do have the obligation to resist an order that they believe is immoral because they clearly have enough pride for their country if they are fighting in a war for it so they shouldn’t have to do unreasonable things that could have fatal consequences if they don’t want to. Commanders should only have a certain amount of control over the soldiers or it is just unreasonable.
2. I agree with the concept of free speech for soldiers because they all may have different opinions on how the war should be won and what ideas are good and bad. If the commander is the only person who gets to speak his mind, it decreases the chances of winning the war because he may have bad judgment and the soldiers may begin to rebel if they know that he isn’t putting them in the best position to fight. Soldiers are already noble enough to fight in the war so they should have some say in what they are doing.
I do believe that soldiers have some right to resist an order they believe is immoral. They can’t resist every order that they don’t like or not do something just because it is dangerous, because then nothing would ever get done. If, however, their circumstances are similar to those experienced by the soldiers who mutinied during the Great War, then their opposition to those orders makes sense and should be allowed. Throwing yourself into a suicide mission like that one that doesn’t accomplish anything at all is pointless, and mutiny is justified then.
I feel like there should be some freedom of speech for soldiers, but it should be limited a bit. They should be allowed to write to Congress on a personal basis, and not claim to be representing an entire section of the army because there are always some in that section who do not agree with the person writing to Congress. I think petitions should be allowed as long as they aren’t asking for anything absurd. Getting us out of Iraq is reasonable. I mean honestly, that petition makes a lot of sense; we’ve been over there far too long. But I don’t think that people like Watada should be allowed to volunteer and then say “Oh, never mind, I don’t really want to go. Fighting in Iraq is unconstitutional!” I mean really, that’s just a terrible scheme. He so planned that and it isn’t right. If you volunteer, then you should go. Period. Don’t be an idiot trying to be a hero. Yes, we should get out of Iraq, but that isn’t the right way to go about trying to.
Lianna Schmidt
1. I believe that when you sign up for any military forces there are obligations that come with it. Going into the military you should have some idea of what is expected of you and it is your job to inform yourself as far as what may be expected of you. There are plenty of resources to find out the information. Immorality differs from person to person. Yes, there may be an overall immoral act but it is different for military forces. For example, if I were to go shoot someone, that would be immoral. But if I am in the military, at war, and having people coming after me I would defend myself and I would not call that immoral. Therefore, they do not have the right or obligation to resist an order that they believe is immoral. I believe this because your attending officer is giving you commands in the best interest of you and your fellow soldiers. If you think this is immoral bring it up later but you cannot stop and risk the fellow soldiers’ lives. I understand that you cannot know everything that will happen in the war. There is an overall understanding that things are going to happen in war and they will not be pleasant and you may not want to do them.
2. I absolutely think that they should have the right to free speech. It is important that their free speech not harm anyone else. It is also important that they be speaking for themselves, not represent others or the government. They may not avoid their military duties based on their opinion.
Soldiers do not have the right to resist an order they feel is immoral because they made a commitment to their country to follow through with any order given, no matter what cost. However, soldiers do have the an obligation to resist orders if the order will lead to the destruction of the country because as a soldier, your number one duty is to protect the country and the rights and liberties of its people and if an order goes against that, you do ont have the right to resist it legally, but you do have the obligation to stop or resist it. I agree with the concept of free speech with soldiers, as long as they continue to properly follow missions and orders. Basically, they can think whatever they want to, but no matter what your personal opinions are, you must follow orders first and foremost. The only flaw to this theory is if a large group of soldiers jump onto the rebellious bandwagon, then a conspiracy could begin to form.
I believe in both sides of the argument that soldiers have the right to resist orders they believe are immoral. They do have the right to resist because the order could be an order that could potentially kill them and their entire unit, although I don’t think the army would be so stupid. The other side to this argument is that they don’t have the right to resist because they are under rules that they knew about when they joined the army in the first place. The soldiers should know what they are getting into. As for the question about a soldier’s free speech, they should be able to speak out, but I don’t think they should be criticizing their superior officers and leaders. Those leaders helped the army get to where they were. Without a leader, a country is pretty much useless. Siegfried Sassoon, for example, wasn’t necessarily criticizing the government, he just wanted them to be fair.
Christina lieder
5th
I think that soldiers do have the right and obligation to resist an order they believe is immoral because they should have a freedom of speech. They are citizens just like you and me and they should have a right to say what they feel. Yet i don't think they should go overboard. They shouldn't have gone to war in the first place if they weren't fully committed to it. They should know that sometimes they wont always agree with things they have to do but suck it up because thats what they should expect. Freedom of speech is right to me but i don't think it is okay to cross the line.
Nick Valentine
1 I think that soldiers have the right and the obligation to disregard any order they are given that is immoral in their opinion. If a soldier is given the order to charge a machine gun turret with no cover or protection, like in the movie “The Mutiny” then they need to blatantly disobey that command, because it is a suicide mission that accomplishes nothing. Or if there is an order to kill unarmed civilians then soldiers should be able to resist their commanding officer. Soldiers should have to obey orders such as stand down or don’t shoot but they should never have to do something against their morals.
2 I think that soldiers should have the right to free speech. They should be able to voice their opinions to the commanding officer, but they should not be able to take control and make demands. The commanding officer should be able to overrule any one soldier’s opinion.
Ben Hafen, 5th Hour
You are definitely not giving us any wiggle room here, are you? Ugh. Every blog, it seems like we have less and less wiggle room...
Well, here goes nothing:
1. Regardless of whether they're actual soldiers or not, those involved with the U.S. armed forces are still United States citizens. Ergo, they have--or should have--the same rights that are given to every other U.S. citizen. So, yes, in a sense, those in the military do have a right to free speech (and, thusly, the right to defy orders that they deem to be against their morals).
However, some laws and regulations can change under certain circumstances. This will be expounded upon further in the next question...
2. In some cases, it's perfectly lawful and just for soldiers to have free speech. However, there are some cases in which this right can be revoked. For example, it would not necessarily be wise for soldiers to publicly denounce what is happening during wartime. After all (assuming that there isn't a draft), it was the soldier's choice to enter the war, for whatever purposes they chose, for better or for worse. If they don't agree with the war, then why join up? I suppose that all of these decisions really hinge on the circumstances. There are times when this speech is considered to be acceptable and times when it isn't. That's pretty much the gist of the argument.
KENNETH O'HANLON
1) I feel that a soldier should have the ability to resist an immoral and unjust order, but as Peter Parker’s uncle said, “with great power, comes great responsibility.” The soldier’s should have the ability, but should have to use good reasoning to decide whether or not they should resist the order. If the order was to kill a civilian of another country who hadn’t killed anyone, or had no intentions of killing people/ soldiers, then the soldier should resist the order, but if the person that the soldier was instructed to kill either had already killed someone, or had intentions of killing somebody, then the soldier should fulfill his order. Take the torture of the “terrorists” in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, the soldiers ordered to torture the alleged terrorists with illegal torture techniques should’ve resisted the order, but most didn’t, and the few that did had saved many people from being falsely accused of being a terrorist and having torture techniques set on them.
2) I do feel that soldiers should have free speech because if they didn’t then I feel it would be like the government was trying to keep secrets from the public, and I feel that the government should never keep secrets from the public because a better informed public is a smarter, more conscious group of people. If soldiers had the freedom of speech then they would have the ability to inform the public of all events occurring, preventing the government from keeping secrets from the public.
Blog 22
1. I don’t think that soldiers should abort orders given because the person in charge knows what’s best. I think the soldiers should learn to respect what they are told, take it to heart and do it, if every soldier got to bend the rules and do what they wanted there would be no order to the military systems. It would be total chaos. If soldiers decided to resist a direct order it could put the whole country in jeopardy. I think that soldiers should do everything they are told because if they bend the rules there is not positive outcome.
2. I agree with freedom of speech to soldiers but only to an extent. The soldiers should be able to send letters home to friends and family. Each and every soldier should have the right to share their thoughts as long as it doesn’t put the country at a disadvantage on the battlefield. But as far as a soldier talking back to their leaders I think it is totally un- acceptable because it could lead to a revolt between soldiers and the leaders of the army. Soldiers should have freedom of speech as long as it doesn’t come back as a penalty.
Jason Markowitz
Zach Boinais
I think that soldiers should have the right to say no or resist an order if they find it immoral. I think it just makes more sense to have the soldiers have alittle peace of mind, and not have something come back and haunt them if they feel that it isnt right in their morality. I think that the soldiers have just as much freedom of speech as any other american. People living in the U.S. talk trash about the president sometimes. But I also think that if a soldier is refusing to follow orders that it should depend on the situation.
Molly Sovran
1. I think soldiers have the right and obligation to resist an obligation that they think is immoral because they are putting their lives up for risk to fight for this country, and if they don’t want do something that they don’t want to do, and then they shouldn’t. I mean, they do put their lives up to risk, but if they truly and honestly can’t do it, then they shouldn’t. Or they think something the army is doing is wrong, and then they should be able to say something to the generals.
2. I agree with concept that soldiers have a freedom of speech because A, it is the first amendment, and B, because they are putting their lives on the line for the safety of our country and I feel that it would be wrong if they weren’t allowed to speak their mind. If it gets to the point where they won’t do anything, then it gets a problem.
Cassidy Cyr
4th hour
1. Soldiers are governed by military protocol meaning they must obey their chain of command. If the individual solider finds an order immoral but it is a singular opinion that person should request to be exempted from the order. If their request is refused he should obey the order or face any consequence.
2. Agreeably under the U.S constitution a soldier retains their right to free speech. But if their opinion jeopardizes another person or persons life or well being that person should silence themselves and respect the majority.
I think that soldiers should have the right to resist an officer’s command if it is ridiculous. If an officer tells you to go six miles in one day with full equipment in the middle of a battlefield in less than a day then I think you have the right to not almost kill yourself for a dumb reason. The only thing a commanding officer should have the right to tell you to do is something he has or can do. Also I think if you commander is immoral enough to go into a town and shoot up children and women or other men who are defenseless I think you have the right to refuse to do the same. I also think that soldiers are entitled to freedom of speech under the circumstances that they aren’t revealing anything that could be used against the army or their squad or something along those lines. A soldier who is forced to endure those circumstances and traumatic events without any outlet could break down or explode in a second. Also they are still citizens and are entitled to freedom of speech. These are the reasons soldiers should have the right to resist an order they believe is immoral and freedom of speech
1. Soldiers should sort of have the right and obligation to resist an order if they believe it is immoral. If it is what they signed up for, like being in the army and fighting in Iraq, then I think they have to go, but if it is an order to slaughter innocent civilians in Iraq, they did not sign up for that so I think they have every right to resist.
2. In most cases, yes, I agree with this concept of free speech for soldiers, unless it is important information that in the wrong hands could cause loss. For example, the time and strategy for an attack given to the enemy could make it deadly for our troops. Otherwise, if it is harmless, I think they should be able to have free speech. I think if they were to cause loss by releasing important information, they should be severely punished.
Jack Arvai 4th hour
Samuel Kepes
Wickersham
1) I believe that an “immoral order” is very hard to say yes or no to. First because a soldier must decide whether it is truly wrong, or not, and then they must act against or with the order.
2) I agree with free speech for soldiers. I think it is has many advantages. A few are for tactical reasons, for moral reasons, and to give the soldiers a chance to talk about the war with the world. A tactical reason would be if a soldier is issued a command he is not safe, than he can tell his commanding officer, and maybe save lives. For moral it is good because if troops know that they can talk about problems they have, they may have more respect for their senior commanders. They may never speak up, but to know they can will improve moral. Free speech can also make the general public see the war in a new way. If soldiers are allowed to tell what they think of the war, then maybe good sides, as opposed to negative will be shown.
Emily Hotaling
4th
I believe that soldiers should have to right to turn down orders that they think are immoral, but I think that if they want to be soldiers, they probably have much different morals than you and me. Things such as killing someone, I would find immoral, but if you’re going to be a soldier, then I think that you would expect that. The soldiers should be able to back out if need be, or at least change their position.
I agree with the idea of soldiers having their freedom of speech, but not to overthrow their commanders. I think if the commanders are clearly incompetent or wicked, then they should all do something, but not just from a strike, they should do it in an organized manor. The soldiers still must remember that they are soldiers, and it is rough, but they don’t really get too much of a say in the way things go. It may not be fair, but it’s the way things go.
1. Soldiers most definitely have a right to oppose orders they consider immoral, but not necessarily an obligation. The government and military of the United States are not permitted to control the thoughts and beliefs of citizens, which they would be doing if they forced soldiers to follow commands that the soldiers considered immoral. Morality can also be related to religious beliefs, and if the United States military forces a soldier to fight in a conflict that the citizen deems immoral due to their religious beliefs, the military is essentially prohibiting the free exercise of religion, a right guaranteed to all American citizens in the First Amendment to the Constitution. However, there is no obligation of a soldier to refuse to participate in activities they determine are immoral. It should be their right to decide. Even if the soldier thinks a mission is immoral, they still should be allowed to fight. If the soldier was obligated to resist orders to take part in what they consider immoral, they would not be permitted to fight, even if they wanted to. Also, soldiers should have no influence on them when judging morality, and should not feel intimidated by the military to participate in what they consider an immoral operation. The existence of a draft would greatly increase a soldier’s right to oppose fighting they deem immoral. During the Vietnam War, citizens who refused to fight because they decided the conflict was immoral were imprisoned. The government basically eliminated the soldiers’ right to have their own beliefs, which can be traced back to religious values. However, this raises the issue of how to determine if someone actually believes participation in a military activity is immoral, or if they are simply claiming that they do to avoid military service. If there is no draft, and a citizen thinks a conflict is immoral and they do not want to fight in it, there is a simple solution that could greatly reduce the chance of this scenario occurring: Do not join the military.
2. I support free speech for American soldiers, as they are citizens of the United States, which means they are guaranteed the right to free speech in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Soldiers should also be able to criticize their commanders, including the Commander-In-Chief, the President. This right is provided by the Freedom of Speech, as well as the Freedom to Petition in the First Amendment. If members of the military are denied these rights, the United States could technically be rescinding rights in times of war, which raises a frightening possibility. If soldier’s rights to free speech and petition are repealed during warfare, could American citizens’ rights also be denied during wartime? However, if a citizen voluntarily joins the military, they should be required to follow orders, unless it unnecessarily puts lives at risk or they deem the mission immoral.
Andrew Hausman
4th Hour
1. I think a soldier does have the right to refuse an order, as long as they do it peacefully. I think this because you can’t stop what you believe in, no matter how much someone else may want you to. I say as long as they do it peacefully because if they refuse and they start an uproar or a mob or something, they should be punished. There is also the case in that even though they do have the right of freedom of speech, they pledged their lives to be in the war in the first place. So if the thought it was immoral, why would they want to be fighting in the war in the first place?
2. Like I said everyone has the freedom of speech, but its how you use it I guess. If you use it because you strongly believe that something is wrong, or that you don’t agree with it. Then I think they are allowed to have the right of freedom of speech. But if you use it to hurt someone, then I think it crosses the line.
Brett Bernhardt
I think that soldiers should have the right and obligation to resist an order they believe is immoral because if a soldier enters a war and finds it to violent or to challenging for them that they should be able to leave. But when masses of serving men resist to fight because they think that leading men are leading them into a blood bath on both sides, it seems right to object.
Soldiers should have free speech because they know what's happing on the front not some guy hundreds of miles away. If they think that what their fighting for doesn't feel right or is immoral they should say it. When speech crosses the line into refusal to obey orders and/or criticize the commander or the President then the soldier should be punished. How should they be punished should be determined on what has happened to cause them to disobey orders.
Declan Gibbons
Does a soldier have the right to not do an order that they think is immoral? No i belive not. I don't think that they have the right because they know what they signed up for, killing people is immoral, but when its for the good of innocent people it has to be done. I feel if there is a draft, where the person doesn't even wan't to join the thats a diffrent story. Do I feel that soldiers should have some form of free speech? Yes I do. I think since we all have free speech, why shouldn't the poeple who risk thier lives to protect us? Also if thier are problems the way the army is set up then there should be free speech so that those things can be fixed. But I feel if the soldier is just simply not complying because they are being selfish, then they should be relived of thier duties and find another job.
Andrew Alder
Blog #22-Free Speech for Solders
No solders do not have the right ever to resist a order. A military machine has to be fast time is everything; there is no time to fight each other. Mr. Wickersham sorry but I’m going to compare sports to war. I any sports game if you are given an order or task you do it or you’re out. Solders cannot and should never dismiss or refuse to do a order they cannot. “Are we clear”? (A Few Good Men) I agree that solders should have free speech. Not on the battle field though. When are country is not at war it is not as important so free speech should be express. Also a lack of free speech should be practiced to ensure that they are battle ready, if they need be. NO solders should never disobey a order. Solders however they should be allowed to a limit free speech depending on their circumstances.
I think that soldiers have the right and obligation to resist an order that they believe is immoral. If the soldier doesn't believe in what is being asked of them they should be able to speak their mind. It is important to do that because a soldier should be able to use their morals when it comes to an order given to them.
I agree that soldiers should have some form of free speech because that is an important quality of being an American citizen. People should be able to speak whenever they need to especially if they are a solider.
Grace
Nicholas Morley
1. I think that there are times when a soldier needs to do something immoral because he could be ordered to start shooting the enemy for covering fire and it could be the difference between life and death of the solders around him. I do think that solders should be able to believe that it is immoral but if they put that in front of the rest of the solders around him is wrong. The only time I think that a solder should be allowed to withdraw from the war is when there is a breaking point in the fight and not in the middle and run away. If a person does run away in mid battle then he should be punished after or when he is over there.
2. It depends what the solder is talking about. If he is in battle and yelling and stuff then it is ok. When he yells and a commander of someone of higher rank then that is when he should be punished. Depending on what he was saying to the superior solder should determine his degree of punishment.
1. I think this depends on a number of circumstances. In one perspective, if the order is critical to the objective that is trying to be completed or to defend others,for example launching a nuclear missile on order, then the refuser in question would be obligated to fulfill their order. But, if the order is abuse of power by a CO or superior, then they have a right to refuse it. For example, if you cleared military targets and someone ordered you to kill civilians, it is basically a moral obligation to refuse.
2. Soldiers have free speech to a degree, but deciding not to go to iraq after you join the military is completely absurd. I think you can criticize all you want, but when you are ordered to fulfill what you signed up to do and are paid for, then you have to obllige.
also, why do you stay up so late writing these?
No, I do not believe Soldiers have the right to disobey an order if they deem it to be immoral. At an ordinary office job, you can say no and choose not to work. You would obviously get fired. When overseas in the military this is a little bit different because ignoring an order would put the rest of your unit in trouble. I think that writing letters and explaining hardship is fine, but refusing an order is worse. When you sign up for the military, you are signing an agreement to follow your commander and that is what you should do. If you do not feel comfortable doing exactly what he says, do not sign up.
I believe in half the free speech policy. I feel that soldiers should be able to write back to their family and describe the war and tell them everything: As long as it doesn’t conflict with them and obeying orders. That parts good; it’s the second part that bothers me. That they’re not allowed to criticize their commander. That is where it starts to sound like communism. If a soldier finds a problem with the commander’s strategy, he should be able to try and correct him or talk to him about it with getting in trouble. Maybe he found a flaw in the plan which could potentially save their lives.
Alan P.
I think that soldiers should have the right to resist an officer’s command if it is ridiculous. If an officer tells you to go six miles in one day with full equipment in the middle of a battlefield in less than a day then I think you have the right to not almost kill yourself for a dumb reason. The only thing a commanding officer should have the right to tell you to do is something he has or can do. Also I think if you commander is immoral enough to go into a town and shoot up children and women or other men who are defenseless I think you have the right to refuse to do the same. I also think that soldiers are entitled to freedom of speech under the circumstances that they aren’t revealing anything that could be used against the army or their squad or something along those lines. A soldier who is forced to endure those circumstances and traumatic events without any outlet could break down or explode in a second. Also they are still citizens and are entitled to freedom of speech. These are the reasons soldiers should have the right to resist an order they believe is immoral and freedom of speech
Mike Nona (for u)!
Erick Dagenais
5th
I think that soldiers should be allowed to resist orders if they think they are immoral. If you receive orders from a superior to torture someone or something against your ethics or religion, I think that you should be allowed to choose whether or not you should follow them. For example, let’s say you’re in the U.S. army. Your general tells you to execute anyone in the city of Detroit who doesn’t have U.S. citizenship. If I were that soldier to receive those kinds of orders, I would not follow them. In fact, I would try to get that general arrested. If none of this works, I would just resign from the army and tell everyone about the horrible things they do. This might spark a movement against immoral orders. However, if the orders aren’t immoral, such as protecting someone of high status or helping out citizens, I think that you shouldn’t be allowed to resist since you signed up for the army to be committed to your country and follow orders.
steve attard
1.) I don’t think they do because when you inlist into the army you are now apart of them and you have to change as a person to do the things that are needed from you to succeed as a soldure and to do what you need to do. Yes you will be upset about things that go against your morals but if you want to surve for your country you better do as they ask because they could put you in prison or they could very easly replace you.
2.) Yes I agree with free speech for soldures because they are also people and they need to voice there opinion and say what they want but they should never argue with anyone who is a higher rank then them because they could get in trouble or they could lose there rank. But yes they should be able to say what they want because they are people.
M. Allen
5th
5/24/10
1. Soldiers have no right or obligation to resist any form of order, no matter how “immoral” it is to them. Soldiers enlist in an army, technically signing over every ounce of loyalty that they have, and then some. A soldier is reprimanded or discharged when fleeing the battlefield or refusing an order, simply because they are violating their own promise that they will without question, respond accordingly to any order that they were to be given.
2. It makes sense that a soldier should be punished for disobeying an order, simply because of the commitment that a soldier makes to do everything that he/she is told; although, if an order is illogical and or unorthodox, even in the eyes of superior military personnel, someone should have some right to appeal. If someone was ordered to kill a civilian, just for the sake of intimidation, anyone in their right mind would refuse to carry out such an atrocity.
1. Soldiers do have the right and obligation to resist an order they believe is immoral. We live in the United states and have rights. Becoming a solider is voluntary, and optional. If there is an order given, and you believe its wrong, or should not happen, you have the right to say no. People believe in different things, which is why we have different religions. When you go into the Military or Army, your fighting for what YOU believe in, not what someone else is telling you to believe in. Not everyone will always agree with each other, everyone has an opinion and has the right to speak up when they believe something is wrong. Especially in the Military situation, this is a big deal. If you are ordered to kill someone who you believe is innocent, that could affect your whole life, and could make you live with regrets. Which could ruin your life, which is why its good to be able to speak up.
2. I believe that soldiers should be aloud to refuse orders and should be allowed all freedom of speech . Just because there is someone there who is in charge, doesn't mean that he has total control over you. I don't believe its an issue. If the Soldier refuses an order, they can stay back. Its not affecting anyone else's point of view on the situation.
Leah Cohen
2nd hour
1. I do not think soldiers should have the right to resist to something they think is immoral because they signed up for it. These soldiers may think something is unfair and should be able to voice that, however I think that once they have enlisted there is no going back and you have to serve your country. If soldiers want to chose what they can and cannot do than they should have thought about that before. Especially since if they are one of our soldiers I would want them to stay true to us and do whatever it takes to protect our country like they signed up for.
2. I believe in what we have right now because if all the soldiers were going to speak their minds and it was all poor thoughts or thoughts to go against the commander entirely then it is not okay because we need an organized situation to function and keep our country protected. If all the soldiers were being pessimistic then it's possible the outcome of our battles and such would not be as good as they are. Of course, everyone should be able to speak their mind but I think there is a very fine line as to when you can and cannot as a soldier.
Just to add:
Soldiers also get really good benefits for serving and deserve every bit of it, however if soldiers started to get to decide what they want to do based on their moral in the military than people could sign up and say "Oh, sorry, that's against my morals - can't do that." and still get the benefits which is unfair.
Brad Sloan
1. I think that a soldier should have the right to resist an immoral or unjust order, They should have the ability, but they cannot use this ability for things unreasonable. If they were ordered to do something wrong for no reason, then they had the right to resist. But, if it was something completely reasonable like to solute a higher ranked officer, they would have to obey. This is why I think soldiers should have the right to resist an order.
2. I think that soldiers should have freedom of speech because it is fair and they should have nothing to hide from the people. Soldiers having the freedom of speech would keep others informed and it would not hurt the army as long as things being spoken about were not confidential. This is the reason why I think soldiers should have the freedom of speech.
1. I do believe that soldiers have the right and obligation to resist an order that they believe is immoral. This is because if a soldier is not completely and 100 percent in agreement with the reasons for the order they are given, they will not give everything they possibly can to their mission because emotionally it doesn't mean as much to them. In my opinion, soldiers that aren't giving it everything they got and just giving their bare minimum because they think what they are doing is immoral would actually HURT the mission, and in no way help it.
2. I don't agree with the concept of free speech for soldiers because if a soldier is saying bad things about their leader or their mission, they are showing signs of weakness in our country and making us look like an unorganized and disrespectful country, not a country to be feared. I think soldiers have the freedom to speak with their actions, but no necessarily their words.
Calvin Greer
1) I believe that it depends on the severity of the conditions they are put through. They can’t simply start a mutiny every time they do something that they don’t like. It will happen in life everyday. Sometimes you have to do something you don’t want to do and that’s the way it is. However, if it gets out of hand and the army abuses their soldiers and ships them out on downright suicide missions and living conditions turn nasty and unlivable like they did in the Great War then they have a right. Then officials are acting unreasonably and should change their ways.
2) I think soldiers have the right to speak their individual minds. They have a right to stand up for themselves and write petitions if they feel the way things are going aren’t working for them. I feel that they have a right to resign if they feel that war isn’t what they expected and they want an out. I don’t think it’s right to keep people in the army against their will if they don’t believe in it anymore. It just brings moral down and doesn’t help anything. It also doesn’t help anything to speak for anyone but their individual selves. That creates a mess and arguments because not everyone thinks the same as everyone else. There is always one person who is alright with the conditions or agrees with the superiors
Christina lieder 5th.. i posted it a couple days ago and it said I sent it but I guess it didn't and I saw a 0 on powerschool so i'll just send it again.
I think that soldiers do have the right and obligation to resist an order they believe is immoral because they should have a freedom of speech. They are citizens just like you and me and they should have a right to say what they feel. Yet i don't think they should go overboard. They shouldn't have gone to war in the first place if they weren't fully committed to it. I don't think that it is right for the soldiers to make the rest of the army and leaders of the army look bad when things or commands occur that they don't always agree with. They should know that sometimes they wont always agree with things they have to do but suck it up because thats what they should expect. Freedom of speech is right to me but i don't think it is okay to cross the line.
I believe yes Soldiers should be able resist orders they believe are immoral but only to a certain extent. If every solider had this right the military would just be ran based on everybody’s opinion. But at the same time some of the acts they are forced to do can literally scar them for life and lead to death. I personally think if you don’t believe in what you’re fighting for then there’s no point of fighting and you should have all right to say “no” but not to every little thing that u don’t like or don’t want to do. I also think that all soldiers should have the freedom of speech. If we have it, they should have it too. Were all human and it a right as a citizen of the U.S something like freedom of speech should be deprived from you especially when you’re fighting for our country. Karly Montgomery
Crystal Thompson
5th hour
1. I think that soldiers have the right and obligation to resist an order that they think is unfair or immoral. Some soldiers believe that the War is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it. So they should not have t follow the orders that make them stay in the war. No one should be forced to do something that isn’t right or moral so why shouldn’t soldiers get the same treatment.
2. No I do not agree with this concept I think that since the soldiers are the ones who are going out there and risking their lives they should be able to say whatever they want to their leader as long as I puts no one in danger but they should have the right speak out. I know that sometimes that might cause some trouble but I think that the rule should be as long as they agree to fight in the wars they should be able to have freedom of speech with no restrictions.
CHASE TURNER
In no way do soldiers have the right to disobey an order they find immoral. Because they are there to fight a war and kill people, mostly everything that goes on in war is immoral, but this people know what they signed up for. It is their job, what if a teacher thought it was immoral to teach about algebra? They wouldn’t allow them not to teach that, it’s the same with war. They need people to do many dirty things that can ruin your live, so to not comply with these orders should be a dishonorable discharge or court marshal. We may say that everybody has free speech, but unfortunately that is not true. I also do not agree with soldiers having a form of free speech. It would ruin everything about the war. Your commander gives you an order you must obey it. Because its your job and it’s the rule.
Aaron Lewis 5th
I feel that a soldier has some rights towards free speech but can’t refuse an order unless that order will result in the destruction of the country that the soldier is fighting for. Soldiers can say that they don’t like what they are doing but they still have to do what they are ordered to do. If a soldier is assigned a suicide mission that soldier still has to do that mission even if he doesn’t want to, because they signed up to die serving their country. It was their choice and they have to face the consequences for their own actions. If a soldier is assigned a mission where they will die the soldier can refuse that order if that mission will have no or very little affect towards the battle or war that the soldier is fighting in, but if that mission does affect the battle or war that the soldier is fighting in that soldier cannot refuse that order.
Tom Power
Blog 22
1.) I think that soldiers don’t have the right to resist an order they believe it is immoral because they all have different views and one persons view is different than others so a soldier can say that he thinks it is immoral when it is not and get out of something. The people who are abel to give order should no give an order that his soldiers wont do or think is immortal.
2.) I think that soldiers have a no free speech but not much because there will be no order in the army If solders are abel to say what they think. For military that people sign up for because they know what they are getting into so they should have no free speech. In other cases when people are drafted into the military they should have no free speech because than all the people who are drafted will be complaining the whole time.
1. Soldiers have the right and obligation to resist an order they believe is immoral because they have freedom and that means free speech even if it means they are soldiers. They should be able to speak their mind if they have something to say.
2. Yes, because soldiers have some sort of free speech just like other people in the world. Even know they are soldiers doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have free speech just because they fight for our country. They also shouldn’t have to be told what to stay because they have free speech. I think they should have more of a free speech then the people because they are out in the world risking their lives and either getting hurt, injured, or killed for us.
christina g
Post a Comment