IS THIS TREASON?

Hi y'all!

I have been pondering this all day, and I'm pretty sure now what I think about it. It seems that this young man, Matthis Chiroux (bound to have some coonass in him due to his last name) from Auburn, Alabama has made a big splash in the news due to his public refusal to be deployed to Iraq.

You can see the whole article about his statement here, but here is the (let me get my word book...) salient quote. Explaining his refusal to be deployed to Iraq he said:

"This occupation is unconstitutional and illegal, and I hereby lawfully refuse to participate as I will surely be a party to war crimes. Furthermore, deployment and support of illegal war violates all of my core values as a human being. But in keeping with those values, I choose to remain in the United States to defend myself from charges brought by the Army, if they so wish to pursue them.

I refuse to participate in the Iraq occupation."

Now, a few things confuse my thinking on this. First off, I know that alot of soldiers have deserted in every war. From the Revolution, to Iraq, there have been fellows that "hit the bricks." Heck, I don't know if I might not have run for the hills when the bullets started flying myself. So, I've got no particular dislike for deserters.

But, it's one thing when you just run off to Canada, and quite another thing when you walk into the House of Representatives as part of a world-wide televised press conference, and trash the military of the US...without offering solid proof (as I read this article). This is what disturbs me, and makes me think that it surely borders on "treason."

It is one thing for a member of Congress, or some Judge to come out and trash the efforts of the military...call any war "illegal" and on and on. They've got every right to do it. Our amazingly crafted Constitution, and "separation of powers" provides for that. I mean, any 2nd day Congressman from Podunk, KY can go out there and spout anything they want to on the floor of The House of Representatives, and I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with them for their right to do it.

But when a member of the US military...under the direct control of the Executive Branch...under the direct control of the Commander in Chief chooses to go out and make an international show of defiance, I think that does really close in on "treason." Don't think for one minute that Al Jazeera, and every radical Islamic web-site doesn't have this story plastered all over it. Don't think for one second that this won't be used to recruit new terrorists in the Arab world. That's pretty danged close to providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

I wonder how many of this guy's fellow soldiers will get killed over in Iraq (that do believe in their mission) by some young Muslim that signs up because "the Americans are cracking...we've got them on the run...even their own soldiers are calling this war 'illegal'...they will quit soon, and I will be a part of the defeat of the great satan."

The second thing that bothers me about this is his statement that "this occupation is unconstitutional, and illegal..."

So, what laws govern wars? How can any war be branded "illegal." If this boy is talking about some worldwide law that governs war...well, I've no grace on that one. I think the war that the Islamic radicals started against the US (and Europe) is "illegal." Just because some nut-job Muslim believes that the decadent West should submit to Islam because of the Koran doesn't make their war against us "legal." I think the war that Hitler started against Jews was "illegal." I think the war that the Japs waged on us was "illegal." The point I'm trying to make here is that this boy has drunk the Kool-Aid of the anti-war rhetoric.

And how is this war in Iraq "unconstitutional?" I remember well the Congress of the US (our elected representatives) begging the Executive Branch for a debate, and a vote on sending troops into Iraq. An overwhelming vote by Congress authorized the action in Iraq. Should there have been a formal declaration of war? Probably so...but our representatives authorized it. The "unconstitutional" argument is pretty lame in my book.

The third thing that bothers me about this is that this boy had already been discharged from the US Army. Evidently, he had served honorably. He was a "photojournalist" in the Army, and is currently enrolled in college. He has been called back to service during his reserve period to go take pictures over there in Iraq, I guess.

Another report that I read described this boy as a "recruiter's dream." He was from a poor family in the South. He didn't do well in school (how hard is it to do well in public school?). So, the US Army gave this boy a chance for a future. They paid him (and trust me, it ain't that bad now), housed him, fed him, trained him in photojournalism, gave him medical care...basically gave him a "leg up" on life that he probably never would have had outside the Army.

I don't know this for sure, but I suspect that the GI Bill is paying for at least some of his college education now.

Something deep down inside me (and I've got no way to know his heart) tells me that this fellow thought he was free and clear. He had done his time in the military...had stacked up a bunch of bucks...had planned his future...had begun his higher education...

And then, dangit!!!!...they called him back!!!! His plans are now derailed. He might even get killed over there taking pictures for the US Army. My suspicion is that he figures that the large "anti-war sentiment" in the US, and the sympathetic news media will somehow cause The Pentagon to relieve him of his contract with the people of the United States.

Actions like his could be viewed as "treason." There were 8 other fellows there testifying also...men that had served in Iraq. If they are finished with their service, then I'd encourage them to speak out in any way they feel proper...but a current member of any team that does what this boy has done...

Well, you sure don't want him on your team!