Conscientious Objector or Borg Member?

Camillo "Mac" Bica, Ph.D. pens some striking thoughts regarding warfare and inalienable human rights in his article "A Crisis of Conscience: Conscientious Objection, Law and Morality"

Excerpted:
Hence, some wars, wars against aggression for example, may be morally justifiable and provoke no objection of conscience even should the use of deadly force be required. What soldiers with either perspective have in common is the conviction that should they be required to participate in an illegal and immoral war and to kill innocents, given the sanctity and inviolability of human life, they have a moral obligation to refuse to fight, an obligation to become a CO.

And from one commenter:

Oh yeah? Well, who gets to decide what is a "just" war and what isn't? The particular wars of interest currently have been ordered by the President of the United States, enabled and funded by the Congress of the United States, and you want some local magistrate to be able to say it's an unjust war to keep his daughter's friend's husband's buddy from having to go fight it? We should have 10 years of appeals so that the Supreme Court can eventually decide whether it's a moral war or not? The time for a soldier to make his moral choices is before he takes the signing bonus. Joining the military is becoming a member of the Borg--always has been, always should be.

Excerpt:
Whenever a soldier refuses to obey an order to fight in what he deems an immoral war by virtue of a decision of conscience, it is not only appropriate, but morally and legally required to "put the war on trial" as well. While it may be the case, that individual determinations regarding the morality and legality of a war may be mistaken, since national leaders make mistakes as well, the soldier's decision of conscience must be taken seriously and given credence through a fair and legitimate hearing or trial that does not accept the war's justness as given. Consequently, such proceedings must go well beyond the two questions that have typified courts marshals to date: "Were you given a command to fight in Iraq?" "Did you obey this command?" and must include a third and most important and relevant question, "Is the Iraq War just?"

I have argued that the act of fighting in an unjust war is illegal and immoral. I caution the reader, however, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past (a mistake, I fear, that is again gaining acceptance among a frustrated activist community) of moving from the illegality of the war to the criminality of the warriors. There is a profound moral and legal difference between condemning the act and blaming the actor. Determining moral and legal culpability is a complex process that goes well beyond a determination that the war is unjust. It must involve as well an evaluation of individual motivation, intention, whether the soldier has the information necessary to make such profound moral judgments, and, as stated in the Nuremberg Principles, whether "... a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

Full article:
http://www.truthout.org/120908R#comment-29384