Desertion and Treason

We’ve all heard the news of how there have been a few deserters from the military hiding out in Canada and the Middle East. A few years ago there were also some traitors caught at Los Alamos. My question is how ya’ll think these crimes should be punished? Personally I think since these are crimes against out entire nation they should be shot or hung but I was wondering if any objectivists out there have some moral scruples against that? I really don’t see how but is there any reason not to put people like that to death?

P.S. I’ve been lurking for a while but this is my first post here.

Post 1

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 9:40pm

Hello Clarence. Thank you for posing such a thought-provoking question.

There is a very good reason not to. Though I can understand why you might be so passionately charged to kill or hang such traitors, when a government has the legal authority to kill its citizens, and is the only party possessing such power, that opens quite a Pandora's box, doesn't it? (Particularly if it is declaring a death sentence upon a murderer--that irony is lost on some, but I digress.)

The question is, in this case, should they be treated with the same rights given to citizens? Is a deserter the same as a traitor? Or a terrorist? (Or, perhaps, do these soldiers simply refuse to give their lives for a war they do not support?)

That brings to mind another question that has been the forefront for years now: Does our government have the right to treat non-citizens/enemies of the state differently? (Thinking of Guantanamo Bay and due process issues.) Since we are in a time of war, do they then fall under the category of prisoners of war?

I know I've posed a number of questions here, but I am interested in exploring these topics, and would like to hear what other SOLOists have to say.

Post 2

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 9:41pm

I'm also thinking I should have studied for the LSAT instead of the GMAT. :)

Post 3

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 11:16pm

I'd be very wary of giving the government arbitrary, unchecked power to imprison, and especially torture, anyone without meeting a burden of proof. There is no telling when one of us might be declared an "illegal enemy combatant" in the "War on Drugs," or "War on Immorality" (read abortion,) or "War for Human Dignity" (read war against cloning) and so on.

Post 4

Friday, December 10, 2004 - 5:26am

Interesting question. In Britain there is a campaign to pardon the deserters of the 1914-18 war who were taken out at dawn and shot.There is now much evidence pointing to post-traumatic stress disorder etc (itself a highly controversial topic).Some of these were boys of 18 who had been in the trenches for months and had little hope of survival if they stayed.Some had been wounded and returned to the trenches.Others had shot and wounded themselves. I have sympathy for the position but the Ministry of Defence refuse to establish a legal precedent for obvious reasons.

Regarding Guantanomo Bay, it is a prime example of where the perceived interests of the U.S. and the rest of the world diverge. I imagine it is a popular move in the U.S. to keep these prisoners incarcerated without trial or charge and the more foreigners complain about it the more Bush is convinced he is right.(ie,he wants to be seen as against U.N.and "old Europe" which is seen as corrupt and decadent. Unfortunately, Bush also lectures the world about the rule of law. My point is not that he should necessarily release them, just that in keeping them in this way he compromises his credibility on the subject of upholding law.

Post 5

Friday, December 10, 2004 - 9:10pm

Hi Clarence.

You have posed your question in three distinct case types:
1) The person who goes to Canada to avoid serving.
2) The person who is serving but walks off somewhere into the Middle East, and
3) The person who is working at Los Alamos� Manhattan Project and betrays their duty to secrecy.

How should they be punished? That�s a good question.

I think #3 is easy. They have committed a crime against our entire nation, just as you suggest. They should be executed.

The person in #2 commits a very serious crime. They should do some prison time and permanently lose hunting and fishing privileges, at a minimum. Execution seems too much to me, unless they walked during action and the walking directly results in other soldiers dying. In that case I would consider execution, but I probably couldn�t be sold on it. A very, very long time in prison seems about right to me.

The person in #1 is a first-rate low-life. Execution would be too humane. I say we should permanently bar them from re-entry into the US. Give the bastards what they deserve: the rest of their lives stuck in Canada. (By the way, Clarence, I�m new, too. Have you noticed that SOLOists love smiley-faces? I don�t. But If I did, I would have ended that Canada slur with a smiley-face.)

Jon

Post 6

Friday, December 10, 2004 - 9:56pm

A few years ago there were also some traitors caught at Los Alamos.

I want to clarify that during the Manhattan Project in WWII, there was a German-born British physicist Klaus Fuchs who worked on A-bomb at Los Alamos and spied for the Soviet. He was convicted and was imprisoned for nine years in Britain.

A few years back, an American Chinese scientist (the name escaped me at the moment) in Los Alamos was falsely accused of security breach and was later cleared of all charges. It was a blunder committed by the US government.

Post 7

Friday, December 10, 2004 - 8:58pm

Nice answers, thanks. I've always seen as persons life as being in their own hands along with their responsibility for it. We have made a government for ourselves and have given it the sole responsibility for law enforcement and the legal authority to take life where necessary.

The government is out killing terrorist�s everyday and naturally we applaud them for it. There are many people in this country who as just as evil and deserve to die just the same. When a person violates the rights of another, he is subject to losing his rights in tern. When a person unjustly violates the right to life of another, he deserves to lose his life as well. I see it that the government has a moral obligation to bring criminals to justice and to treat them equally to or worse then they treated their victims. If they don�t then that would be the same as saying that the criminal�s life is more valuable then the victims.

As for rights, all people have basic human rights but Americans or the citizens of any country have more rights there then in a foreign nation. As for Gitmo, I would say that if they are American citizens, they deserve a speedy trial per the Constitution. If they are not American citizens, then as long as they are taken care of there is no problem. Those people there aren�t innocent and you don�t need a trial to see someone in the middle of the Afghani desert with an AK as guilty. And for the uncertain ones the ruling is: these people are a flight risk and too dangerous to be let out on bail and have to be kept detained until it is ABSOLUTLY determined they are no.

And finally for deserters and traitors; an essential part of any military unit is the complete trust soldiers place in one another to protect each others lives. A deserter in war time might as well be an enemy fighting against them and just like an enemy, needs to be shot. In a completely volunteer army like the US, it is even more paramount because they are all willingly signed a contract and ascribe to the penalties. Traitors are even worse, I literally cannot think of any crime more heinous then treason. There are 290 million people in this country and a traitor puts all of them, including me, in danger. Just killing someone like that still seems too good for them.

David Baker in a lot of ways you�re right. Just to clarify, when Bush is talking about �the rule of law� he ain�t talking about the UN or France�s interpretation. International law according to George Bush isn�t perfect but it�s 10 times better then what the UN has to offer. And Britain, Eastern Europe, and a few other areas understand this but for old Europe they are hopelessly lost.

Post 8

Friday, December 10, 2004 - 10:15pm

Adam, the issues you raise are exactly the ones I was thinking of when I posted my first reply. In addition, I have a very big problem with the government having the authority to execute its citizens.

That is why I wonder how these deserters will be treated in the eyes of the law. If they are viewed as wartime enemies, how does that apply? If they had been killed on a battlefield, their deaths could be attributed to casualties of war. But what happens now? Please note that my issue is not whether or not they have committed a crime -- it is whether or not the government of the United States has the right to put people to death for war crimes (or for any crime at all).

Lastly, if a person chooses to leave the country to avoid serving in a war he doesn't support, why should he be executed? Is he not exercising the right to his own life, on his own terms? Is he not saying: "Not in my name"?

Post 9

Friday, December 10, 2004 - 10:26pm

The problem with the death penalty is that it is so final. Is it not true that Illinois has stopped executing prisoners on death row after DNA testing freed many of them? Other states discovered the same results from new forms of evidence: innocent people were waiting to be executed.

Wen Ho Lee has a website (http://www.wenholee.org/) and perhaps he is just trying to get off the hook. Perhaps the government has the wrong guy. Perhaps there was no crime at all.

When you go to work for Los Alamos or any similar facility, you know the context: they are a weapons lab. The rules there are pretty strict. You sign all kinds of forms spelling out the rules. The same is true of joining the military. You make a contractual commitment. Breaking any contract always has consequences and a soldier's lot has not changed in 3000 years. I personally have no sympathy for a military volunteer who suddenly wakes up and decides that their conscience is incompatible with military service.

On the other hand, can the government unilaterally change the terms of an enlistment?
(See http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/05/extended.enlistments/index.html for instance.)

Post 10

Friday, December 10, 2004 - 11:32pm

Jennifer asks: If a person chooses to leave the country to avoid serving in a war he doesn't support�is he not exercising the right to his own life?

I suppose he is. That�s why the most I am willing to punish him with is making him stay in Canada forever.

However, as Clarence and Michael point out, and I agree with them, that�s not the same as having signed up and later walking away. This could get your fellow soldiers killed, so it�s a very serious crime that can�t be excused or go unpunished. Serious deterrent to this must be in place. I won�t even consider execution unless fellow soldiers did in fact die as a direct result of the walking.

Jon

Post 11

Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 12:04am

On the death penalty in general, I could take it or leave it.

I appreciate the arguments against it, as from Adam and Jennifer. I appreciate that whether the government is actually abusing it or not matters less than that it could, with horrible results.

I used to be all for it. Banning it seemed to me like wimpy coddling of those who are truly evil and who should be snuffed. In short, I bought the argument that mass-murderers MUST be executed because justice demands that the punishment fit the crime. Now I think we have to make peace with the fact that punishment cannot always match the crime. For example, if captured alive, Hitler would have been tried and executed. But that�s not enough! For the punishment to match the crime he would have to have been at least tortured every day for the rest of his natural life. But even that would be insufficient punishment, and we would lose our humanity trying. Sometimes the crime is so heinous that we can�t match it with any amount of punishment. We have to get over that. Or I have, anyway.

Also, we�re all going to die. Shorting a guy a little doesn�t seem so great a punishment to me, especially for someone like Hitler who seems to have been dying of Parkinson�s and not long for this world, anyway. Locking him up in a small dark box with lots of other psychopaths seems more awful and therefore fitting, to me.

Jon

Post 12

Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 8:16am

Lastly, if a person chooses to leave the country to avoid serving in a war he doesn't support, why should he be executed? Is he not exercising the right to his own life, on his own terms? Is he not saying: "Not in my name"?

You could leave for any number of reasons. Charlie Chaplain and Ezra Pound made similar choices. In the "Libertarian Country" poll discussion, I mentioned being surrounded by banks in Switzerland. If that means a lot to you, there it is: go for it. Many reasons could motivate someone to move from one place to another. We moved to Albuquerque because I believe that people out west are more honest, open, honorable, and reasonable. We moved back to Michigan to care for my wife's parents and settle their estate. Does that mean that we forever lose our right to return to New Mexico on the theory that we are dodging their laws of property inheritance? Last month, I was in Calgary speaking at a museum conference. I assume that the warhawks and flag-wavers would not stop me from coming home on the grounds that I lost my right to enjoy American museums when I dodged American museumhood for Canada.

The basic questions come down to definitions of "nation" and "nationality."

In ancient times, if you were caught outside the walls of your city, you could be sold into slavery. The story of Diogenes the Cynic is a famous example. We still maintain the same theories as the slavers of old: you must have a nationality as evidenced by a passport. On the other hand, in ancient times, the emigres to Alexandria in Egypt called themselves "cosmopolitan" (citizen of the world) because they had no other citizenship. Fortunately for him, when Archimedes traveled from Syracuse to Alexandria to study geometry, he was allowed to return home -- probably because he did not issue a public declamation against Syracusan geometry.

Post 13

Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 8:35am

.... deserters from the military hiding out in Canada and the Middle East.

When a soldier turns a route into a charge, they give him a medal and call him a hero. Nothing similar happens to the man with the presence of mind to know when to retreat. The only difference between retreat and desertion is the number of people doing it. It might be said that a retreat is an ordered manoever, but orders start somewhere, even with one-stripe non-coms. Field decisions are always right.

As I said, the reality of life is that people in the USA go into the military voluntarily in order to participate in a tradition spanning centuries and continents. There is no mystery to soldiering.

Very few military people outside of Tom Clancy novels actually understand American constitutional theory -- or care. They would talk proudly of their nation no matter what nation that would be: they repeat the words that evoke the symbols that cause the emotions that make them soldiers.

To me, the questions are complicated and not easily resolved. We all make our own choices, and consequences result from those choices.

Post 14

Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 9:40am

I agree that it is worse to sign up and walk away than to avoid serving altogether. A person saying "I didn't sign up for this" is someone who did not consider all of the consequences before signing on the dotted line. I also agree that walking off the battlefield does endanger one's fellow soldiers, which is a heinous crime.

These are complicated questions, and ones I am hard-pressed to resolve cleanly. Thank you all for sharing your thoughts.

Post 15

Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 1:30pm

Michael,

Your analogies are a bit far from the topic, but I will adopt them anyway.

You said: �We moved back to Michigan to care for my wife's parents and settle their estate. Does that mean that we forever lose our right to return to New Mexico on the theory that we are dodging their laws of property inheritance?�

No, but you�ll have to pay the tax you dodged. If you don�t, then of course you will be imprisoned or at least banned.

You said: �Last month, I was in Calgary speaking at a museum conference. I assume that the warhawks and flag-wavers would not stop me from coming home on the grounds that I lost my right to enjoy American museums when I dodged American museumhood for Canada.�

I like this analogy even better, but I need to round it out a bit. If I owned a museum and you were on the board and I told you that the museum needed you, we really needed you to speak at our event, the museum�s future depends upon it�and you got up and went to join a museum in Canada where they make lesser demands on you�then I would say that your behavior informs me as to how much my museum really means to you. Never mind if I was wrong about how much you were really needed�Of course you would be banned for life

I�m against coercive taxation and the draft. That doesn�t mean we can dodge either with impunity.

Jon

Post 16

Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 2:33pm

"The only difference between retreat and desertion is the number of people doing it."

Are you sure that's the only difference? Getting your buddies killed as a result of a unilateral "retreat" makes no difference?

Perhaps I have misunderstood you.

Jon

Post 17

Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 9:29am

This is a pretty heavy discussion.

I think the first thing that must be addressed is the contract between the citizens and the government to provide protection from foreign invaders and internally protect its citizens from each other.

Anyone who is in this society is bound by its laws (wether they be moral or immoral). You have the moral right at any time to leave if you do not like them either by walking out, sneaking out or shooting your way out (if you are prevented from leaving freely).

The reason for a government in its essence is to determine and enforce Justice. I.e. if someone goes around killing people then they too will probably be killed by someone else in self-defense or revenge. We agree to allow the government to take on this responsibility.

The justice system is for determining who broke the contract and what the punishment should be. One of the things in the contract is that you can not kill another citizen. If someone does then that person has broken the contract and it is now null and void. The protection is revoked for the killer. At this point people could kill the killer but we have already given away our right to kill to the government in this contract. Therefore the government has the right to kill those that are no longer part of the society.

In the case of a citizen signing the contract to serve his country it depends on what part of the contract was broken and the severity. A couple of examples were given by Jon Letendre:

"1) The person who goes to Canada to avoid serving.
2) The person who is serving but walks off somewhere into the Middle East, and
3) The person who is working at Los Alamos� Manhattan Project and betrays their duty to secrecy."

In the first one I'm assuming this is in reference to the Vietnam war in which there was a draft. In this case it was actually the government that broke the contract by trying to take away an individuals right to choose his avenue to "the pursuit of happiness". Therefore the individual has no contractual obligation to the society and can not be punished.

If it was a soldier who volunteered to serve and then deserted in the first or second case then he is in the wrong. Depending on when this took place would determine the penalty. In battle where other may have been killed because of his action then he must be put on trial. If it can be proved that by direct consequence of his actions another was killed then he should be killed in return. He broke the contract. If he left and no death can be attributed to him or if he walked off during a non-combat moment then he should be discharged (dishonorably if that means anything) and never allowed to return.

As for selling military secrets. That should be obvious as well. The severity the penalty should be determined in a court of law. If he sold the lunch menu for the next month it isn't as serious as selling plans to a portable nuclear bomb.

Jennifer Iannolo had a good question "Does our government have the right to treat non-citizens/enemies of the state differently?"

The answer is an absolute yes. They are not members of our society and are not protected by our government. Given that however how should they be treated? I would say to have a default policy of treating them as rational men. The same inalienable rights defined by reality that apply to you should also be applied to them.

In other words whatever they are accused of then proof of their innocence or guilt should be determined and the consequences of their actions should be assigned and applied.

Regards,

Jeremy Nelson

Post 18

Monday, December 13, 2004 - 7:34am

I wanted to clarify this last bit. I realized that in my mind it was a clear thought but when I put it down it probably isn't clear to someone else.

I spake thusly: "The answer is an absolute yes. They are not members of our society and are not protected by our government. Given that however how should they be treated? I would say to have a default policy of treating them as rational men. The same inalienable rights defined by reality that apply to you should also be applied to them.

In other words whatever they are accused of then proof of their innocence or guilt should be determined and the consequences of their actions should be assigned and applied."

The outsider that is not part of our society is not protected by us in any way. So they receive no benefits from it. We are not obligated in any way to the outsider.

If the outsider is believed to have caused or plans to cause damage to us then we may detain them for as long as necessary to determine the truth.

While they are in custody and proof is being determined they should be treated as rational men. Treated as a guest to a certain degree.

Once guilt or innocence is determined then we can punish them or let them go.

Regards,

Jeremy Nelson

Post 19

Monday, December 13, 2004 - 6:29pm