Comment by monomania
20 hours ago
It'd be a shame if people started checking potential hires, tenants, dates, and business transactions against this info, cutting off ICE from large segments of the economy and society. I bet they'd feel really dehumanized.
As individual as dating is, I agree with checking for this, I'd rather not spend my time with someone whom had such past
[dead]
Interesting to note that this would be illegal if said person decided to serve in a war you oppose. I think this law is unjust and you should be able to discriminate when hiring for occupational history.
I think you only come out with this type of thinking if you've never really spent much time with people who served in the armed forces. Wars are declared by politicans not soldiers. Soldiers are enlisted to serve (at least in the US and most western nations) at the behest of the democratic body that employs them.
I.e they shouldn't be blamed if politicans force them to fight battles they think are unjust. If they are ordered to they don't have a choice its fight or go to miltary prison per UCMJ. Other jobs (law enforcement) are not like that. Generally speaking its quite unfair to double blame soldiers forcing them to fight unjust wars and than punish them for being forced into stupid wars. They can choose to not be soldiers but not everyone will be in a position economically to ignore the possible benefits. Miltary service is a strong path to escape poverty especially in the US.
Law enforcement is entirely different they are immune to judgement errors they make even if they kill someone. They have little accountablity, and often abuse of the law is just overlooked or covered up because they are the ones who enforce it. They don't even have to know how to do their job or law, if they mess up its someone elses problem due to qualifed immunity. Hence the craziness with the ICE they can violate rights with impunity and much of that has to due with the fact their oversight body is apparently just the president who says don't care about any law breaking.
> They can choose to not be soldiers but not everyone will be in a position economically to ignore the possible benefits. Miltary service is a strong path to escape poverty especially in the US.
Adding to this, if you're in the peacetime military and have a long contract, and congress or the executive orders the military to deploy somewhere, those soldiers won't even have much of a choice. As long as you're under contract, if the military says jump, most often all you can respond with is "how high?"
7 replies →
If you take their cookie for dropping their bombs - it seems like you’ve earned whatever blame comes your way for the people you kill. It never seems like much blame makes it back anyways
You are saying that killing people is justified if you want to make money. What kind of disgusting argument is this?
The military is for killing. I am fundamentally opposed to that. Anyone who signs up to be a soldier I have a moral qualm with.
19 replies →
> decided to serve in a war you oppose
In the United States, citizens may decide to join the armed forces. Politicians decide whether and when they serve in a war.
The exception would be if a person volunteered directly in a foreign war, eg a US civilian volunteering to fight in Ukraine.
Of all the things our troops have to be to go on deployment, persuaded is not.
Luckily we haven't been in war for decades.