It would seem to me that the essence of civil disobedience is not just to break the law, but to break the law and accept the consequences. It is not civil disobedience in the classic Thoreau/Gandhi form to run away to Canada. It is civil disobedience to refuse to be inducted a la Muhammad Ali and then fight your battle in court and go to jail if necessary.

However, once you are IN THE MILITARY, the price of playing civil disobedience goes up dramatically. In a time of war, refusing to obey a direct order is punishable by death. And c'mon, this president is willing to execute retarded kids, do you think he's going to not execute a deserter in wartime if it was becoming a pattern?

If thousands or more likely tens of thousands of soldiers refused to fight -- not mutinied, but simply turned themselves in as "born again CO" (despite the oxymoronic nature of the term) -- and asked to be court martialed then eventually the government would be faced with problem of what to do with thousands of extra prisoners, with having to redirect military resources to addressing this issue etc. However, before this became a problem, the government would likely start executing people.

For this to work as a way to end the war, a soldier would have to be motivated to personally risk his or her life/futures/reputation in hopes that a significantly large group of their brothers/sisters-in-arms will also do so in order to affect change before they get their turn at the lethal injection table. (Although, I suspect pour l'encouragement de les autres perhaps they would go to something more cinematic like firing squad.) Perhaps this could be acheived with organization, but then I suspect one would be committing conspiracy to mutiny, which is also punishable by death.

either way, it is a sucker's bet. It is not going to happen and people in the military know that it is not going to happen. I find it irresponsiible for civilians sitting in the safety of their living rooms to suggest to active duty military to consider desertion. And to the person who suggested the old dead weight protest tactic, that probably works better with the Washington DC police than it does with MPs in a war zone.

It is up to the people at home to end this war, not the soldiers in the field. They have enough trouble to worry about simply keeping body and soul united.

I am one of the good senator's constituents & I was concerned with her position on the flag burning amendment. Her solution was a classic piece of amoral triangulation: we don't need an amendment because it should/can be banned under existing law.

Honestly, what the fuck? After the 8 years of abuse of our civil liberties, I need a candidate who can at least stand up for my transparently obvious first amendment right to burn the flag. If they can't get on board, saying unequivocably that burning the flag is a right, screw them. I can't trust them with anything.

People seem to forget that the military has its own laws, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which are fundamentally different from the general law of the land. Under the UCMJ, rights (such as the freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, etc.) are drastically curtailed. Under this code, people can be and are, court martialed (or at least administratively punished) for inter alia adultery, disloyal statements, "conduct unbecoming an officer", etc.

In 2005, according to CNN.com: "four-star Army General Kevin Byrnes, a 36-year veteran on the brink of retirement, was relieved of his command of Fort Monroe. According to press accounts, Byrnes lost his command as punishment for committing adultery. Yet Byrnes contends that the adultery occurred after he was formally separated from his wife, was committed with a civilian, and did not affect his official duties."

General Pace is entitled to his views and hopefully someday we'll elect a commander in chief who will make it impossible for those views to coincide with official military policy.