<div>Unless I missed it, no one in this thread addressed legal conscientious objection regarding military service or orders.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong><em>In fact, soldiers serving in the US military do sometimes<br>get to legally exercise their independent judgment, regarding whether a conflict (a euphamism for war), or any act of killing in war, for that matter, is "legal" (legal might refer to international laws or treaties, which the US may be violating, even if domestic US congressional actions or courts are not upholding these laws) or moral or not, which can sometimes result in a legal refusal regarding some military duties or commands; and this is within the military system, not civilian courts or the press.</em></strong> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>For example, a soldier can on grounds of conscientious objection based on religious beliefs be placed where they will not be commanded to kill (thus legally making a decision not to shoot at anyone in war, contrary to the statement in the post I am responding to, below), such a serving as a medic. Of course, refusing military service or orders can also result in a court marshal and prison. Also, conscientious objection is based on an individual case, and is difficult to prove. A whole military unit cannot legally refuse deployment etc. when ordered, based on conscientious objection.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Unless the sources below are out of date, recently over-turned, conscientious objection is legally allowed in the US military, based on religious beliefs:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Army Regulation 600-43</div>
<div>Conscientious Objection</div>
<div>21 August 2006</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Both websites below offer the same document. I wanted two sources to be more certain this was an authentic document:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar600-43.pdf">http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar600-43.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.objector.org/files/35653175.pdf">http://www.objector.org/files/35653175.pdf</a></div>
<div>--------------</div>
<div>Note 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, Class 1-O and 1-A-O, definitions of "Conscientious Objector" as characterized by the US Department of Defense, May 5, 2007. The first refers to someone who objects to military service of any kind in war in any form, the second to someone who objects to being a combatant, but agrees to non-combatant military service, I assume in the conduct of war, such as a medic. Conscientious objector status can be applied for in the process of registering for the draft:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Again, both websites offer the same document:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/i1300_06.pdf">http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/i1300_06.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.objector.org/files/35627365.pdf">http://www.objector.org/files/35627365.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Andreas Schou wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Dave --<br><br>I'm suggesting that soldiers don't get to exercise their independent<br>legal judgment as to whether a conflict is legal, when every<br>applicable civilian authority has determined it to be legitimate (if<br>
unwise, or immoral). Our military isn't permitted to act autonomously,<br>because, historically, militaries that act autonomously turn their<br>guns on their citizens. If they want to challenge the legality of the<br>
war, the appropriate place to do so is the civilian courts. If they<br>want to challenge the morality or wisdom of the war, the appropriate<br>place to do so is the press.<br><br>They don't get to choose whether or not to go to war; they don't get<br>
to choose whom they shoot at, or why. There are very specific<br>conditions under which soldiers are permitted to defy an unlawful<br>order; usually, when waiting and going about it a different way is<br>going to kill a civilian. This isn't one of them.<br>
<br>-- ACS<br><br> </div><br>