Sounds like Putin is getting desperate to maintain his war effort. This seems unbelievably harsh, but I have nothing to actually compare it to. What does US law say about service members...
Sounds like Putin is getting desperate to maintain his war effort.
A copy of the proposal suggests that voluntary surrender will be a punishable crime by ten years in prison, according to Reuters.
This seems unbelievably harsh, but I have nothing to actually compare it to. What does US law say about service members surrendering to enemy forces, if anything?
Articles of Code of Conduct of the United States Fighting Force Which, AFAIK, is an oath still made by all US military personnel to this day. But how all that gets applied in practice when dealing...
I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
Article II:
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
Article III:
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
Article IV:
If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
Article V:
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
Article VI:
I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
Which, AFAIK, is an oath still made by all US military personnel to this day. But how all that gets applied in practice when dealing with soldiers who have surrendered, or ordered their subordinates to surrender, I don't know. You would probably have to ask a military service member, lawyer, or historian.
I am none of those, but from cultural osmosis I recall that if ordered to surrender, any legal ramifications are on the issuing officer, not the subordinates.
I am none of those, but from cultural osmosis I recall that if ordered to surrender, any legal ramifications are on the issuing officer, not the subordinates.
Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy—
(1) runs away;
(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;
(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;
[snipped rest of list] shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
The U.S. military executed 160 American servicemen between 1942 and 1961. There have been no military executions since 1961, although the death penalty is still a possible punishment for several crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of these executions, 157 were carried out by the United States Army, including members of the United States Army Air Forces prior to September 1947. After becoming independent of the U.S. Army on September 18, 1947, the United States Air Force conducted the three remaining executions, one in 1950 and two in 1954. The United States Navy has not executed any of its own sailors since 1849.
Of the total, 21 were executed for both rape and murder, 85 for murder, 53 for rape, and one (Private Eddie Slovik) for desertion.
Technically desertion is punishable by death, but Eddie Slovik was the last and only person to be executed for desertion since the Civil War. Also, since it's a little unclear from your comment,...
Technically desertion is punishable by death, but Eddie Slovik was the last and only person to be executed for desertion since the Civil War. Also, since it's a little unclear from your comment, he served during WW2, not the Vietnam War.
It's worth reading about Eddie Slovik, as his situation was rather tragic; Slovik was to be stationed in the front lines, so he told his commanding offices that he intended to desert, as he figured his chances were better in prison. Instead, staff officers decided to make an example out of him.
I don't like laws that are completly flexible in their application. Especially when the high end of that is 'death penalty.' It's half the reason why minorities get harsher punishments than white...
That sounds extreme, but also not something that is actually practiced
I don't like laws that are completly flexible in their application. Especially when the high end of that is 'death penalty.'
It's half the reason why minorities get harsher punishments than white people.
Saying "it's not done in practice" is a strange way of saying "we like to retain the option."
Consistency and predictability are important goals for a justice system, but making laws more rigid isn’t the only way to do that. An alternate way is with judicial respect for precedence....
Consistency and predictability are important goals for a justice system, but making laws more rigid isn’t the only way to do that. An alternate way is with judicial respect for precedence. Removing the ability for judges to make judgement calls can lead to injustice too, as notoriously happened with mandatory sentencing laws.
If we wanted to study how US rules around desertion and surrender really work then we would need to look at cases, not just the laws.
I feel it's important to differentiate whether you have leeway to be harsher or more lenient. Mandatory sentencing laws make it impossible to be lenient if circumstances demand it. "We'd like to...
I feel it's important to differentiate whether you have leeway to be harsher or more lenient. Mandatory sentencing laws make it impossible to be lenient if circumstances demand it. "We'd like to retain the option" make it possible to abuse those options to execute Private Slovik or discriminate against minorities.
IMO it's generally a good thing if the law allows leniency (though within bounds that make clear the general circumstances under which they can apply, so as not to allow corruption), while it is a bad idea if the law allows much harsher punishment than is generally awarded. If at some point you have a case where you really wish you had the option to go harsher, by all means let that be the jumping off point for a reform, such that future cases can be handled accordingly. But I don't see an advantage to have harsher-than-usual penalties on the books.
This is true, and is another thing I don't like overall. If law is an amorpheous blob of legal precedent and not the words on the page it makes compliance near impossible. This is of course a...
If we wanted to study how US rules around desertion and surrender really work then we would need to look at cases, not just the laws.
This is true, and is another thing I don't like overall. If law is an amorpheous blob of legal precedent and not the words on the page it makes compliance near impossible.
This is of course a feature of law to insure continued job security of lawyers. /s
That doesn't seem right. There are lots of ways to end up a prisoner that wouldn't count even under a strict interpretation of those rules. For example, someone shot down and picked up at sea...
That doesn't seem right. There are lots of ways to end up a prisoner that wouldn't count even under a strict interpretation of those rules. For example, someone shot down and picked up at sea doesn't have a "duty to defend," I don't think?
Partial mobilisation: Russians rush for airline tickets to leave the country https://www.brusselstimes.com/world/293516/partial-mobilisation-russians-rush-for-airline-tickets-to-leave-the-country
Partial mobilisation: Russians rush for airline tickets to leave the country
Protesters across Russia took to the streets to show their disapproval of the “partial mobilization” policy announced by President Vladimir V. Putin on Wednesday morning that would press 300,000 into military service. At least 1,252 people from 38 cities were detained, according to OVD-Info, a human rights watchdog that monitors police activity.
n Moscow, hundreds of protesters gathered on the Old Arbat, a well-known pedestrian street in central Moscow. They screamed “Send Putin to the trenches!” and “Let our children live!” Footage showed riot police dragging people away.
In Tomsk, a woman holding a sign that said “Hug me if you are also scared” smiled serenely as she was dragged away from a small protest by three police officers. In Novosibirsk, a man with a ponytail was taken away after he told police officers, “I don’t want to die for Putin and for you.”
Protest is effectively criminalized in Russia, where before this week almost 16,500 people had been detained for antiwar activity, according to OVD-Info — including the simple act of an individual standing in a public place holding a blank piece of paper. Since March, it has been illegal to “disseminate false information” about the war and to “discredit the Russian Army.”
A petition against “full and partial mobilization” had gathered almost 300,000 signatures by Wednesday evening.
“I think people couldn’t pull themselves out of shock — they simply couldn’t believe that there would be a mobilization announced,” said Anastasia, 36, one of the petition’s organizers, who lives in St. Petersburg and whose last name is being withheld for security reasons. “Even yesterday we thought that it couldn’t happen,” she said, referring to the anticipation of Mr. Putin’s announcement speech, which was initially expected on Tuesday evening. “But it seems to me that today people are still in shock that it is happening. And they finally realized: ‘This concerns me, too.’”
On Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Navalny published the results of a poll his organization commissioned asking respondents how they would react to mandatory mobilization. Almost half said they disagreed.
Sounds like Putin is getting desperate to maintain his war effort.
This seems unbelievably harsh, but I have nothing to actually compare it to. What does US law say about service members surrendering to enemy forces, if anything?
Articles of Code of Conduct of the United States Fighting Force
Which, AFAIK, is an oath still made by all US military personnel to this day. But how all that gets applied in practice when dealing with soldiers who have surrendered, or ordered their subordinates to surrender, I don't know. You would probably have to ask a military service member, lawyer, or historian.
I am none of those, but from cultural osmosis I recall that if ordered to surrender, any legal ramifications are on the issuing officer, not the subordinates.
Not 100% sure it's current, but on the books....
Emphasis mine. I can't say I'm surprised.
The last time a US service member was executed by court-martial was in 1961 during the Vietnam War.
Technically desertion is punishable by death, but Eddie Slovik was the last and only person to be executed for desertion since the Civil War. Also, since it's a little unclear from your comment, he served during WW2, not the Vietnam War.
It's worth reading about Eddie Slovik, as his situation was rather tragic; Slovik was to be stationed in the front lines, so he told his commanding offices that he intended to desert, as he figured his chances were better in prison. Instead, staff officers decided to make an example out of him.
There is also a pretty decent movie called The Execution of Private Slovik starring Martin Sheen.
That sounds extreme, but also not something that is actually practiced. Otherwise we would have executed all of the PoWs returned to us after WWII.
I don't like laws that are completly flexible in their application. Especially when the high end of that is 'death penalty.'
It's half the reason why minorities get harsher punishments than white people.
Saying "it's not done in practice" is a strange way of saying "we like to retain the option."
Consistency and predictability are important goals for a justice system, but making laws more rigid isn’t the only way to do that. An alternate way is with judicial respect for precedence. Removing the ability for judges to make judgement calls can lead to injustice too, as notoriously happened with mandatory sentencing laws.
If we wanted to study how US rules around desertion and surrender really work then we would need to look at cases, not just the laws.
I feel it's important to differentiate whether you have leeway to be harsher or more lenient. Mandatory sentencing laws make it impossible to be lenient if circumstances demand it. "We'd like to retain the option" make it possible to abuse those options to execute Private Slovik or discriminate against minorities.
IMO it's generally a good thing if the law allows leniency (though within bounds that make clear the general circumstances under which they can apply, so as not to allow corruption), while it is a bad idea if the law allows much harsher punishment than is generally awarded. If at some point you have a case where you really wish you had the option to go harsher, by all means let that be the jumping off point for a reform, such that future cases can be handled accordingly. But I don't see an advantage to have harsher-than-usual penalties on the books.
This is true, and is another thing I don't like overall. If law is an amorpheous blob of legal precedent and not the words on the page it makes compliance near impossible.
This is of course a feature of law to insure continued job security of lawyers. /s
I heard you want even more edgy snark:
It's a feature of the law to make jailing the innocent easy, when it is desired.
That doesn't seem right. There are lots of ways to end up a prisoner that wouldn't count even under a strict interpretation of those rules. For example, someone shot down and picked up at sea doesn't have a "duty to defend," I don't think?
Partial mobilisation: Russians rush for airline tickets to leave the country
https://www.brusselstimes.com/world/293516/partial-mobilisation-russians-rush-for-airline-tickets-to-leave-the-country
At least 1,252 people are detained in protests across Russia. (NYT)
Sorry for the lack of more thorough source than TBT, there’s loads out there but I’m on a phone and out of the country.
Ah yes, the old make it legal once it’s done tactic.