Talk:Stephen Funk

Unauthorized Absence and the Neurenburg Principal

The Neurenburg Principal does not apply in this case because Funk went on Unauthorized Absence more than one month before the actual invasion of Iraq began. There is no way that reporting to a mobilized unit can be considered an illegal order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.222.248 (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings 74.243.222.248

Thank you for your comments. Two heads are always better than one. Below I am providing background info for all who read this discussion:

About the NPOV issue

I noticed that in this location in Wikipedia you made an allegation that I was "pushing [my] POV in this article."

[This article] published by Reuters, (and already referenced in the Stephen Funk Wikipedia article), states that Stephen Funk was sentenced to six months in jail for refusing to report to his unit “during” the Iraq war. The word “during” is a direct quote from Reuters, a reputable news source. It is not my word. Therefore it is not my NPOV issue.

If you have a reference which proves Reuters false, then please add it to the discussion. Thank you.

Until you provide such a source, then the NPOV issue is yours, not mine. In other words, the onus is on you to prove Reuters wrong.

Other facts about the sequence of events

In February 2002, Stephen Funk enlisted.

On October 2, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law Congress' joint resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq,

That was several months prior to the beginning of Stephen Funk’s “unauthorized absence.”

Other issues

Also prior to Stephen Funk's "unauthorized absence" were these activities:

In July 2002, the US was already in Iraq: The Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division (SAD) teams were the first US forces to enter Iraq. Once on the ground, they prepared for the subsequent arrival of US Army Special Forces to organize the Kurdish Peshmerga. This joint team (called the Northern Iraq Liaison Element (NILE)) combined to defeat Ansar al-Islam, a group with ties to al Qaeda, in Iraqi Kurdistan. This battle was for control of the territory that was occupied by Ansar al-Islam and took place prior to the invasion. It was carried out by Paramilitary Operations Officers from SAD and the Army's 10th Special Forces Group. This battle resulted in the defeat of Ansar and the capture of a chemical weapons facility at Sargat. Sargat was the only facility of its type discovered in the Iraq war.

For more info on this 2002 military activity, and/or other more publicly known events, see this Wikipedia article section, and this one, and this one.

By the way, please check your spelling of "Nuremberg" and make any necessary corrections. Thank you.

===References===

Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Boyd Reimer, when exactly are you suggesting that the invasion of Iraq became a war crime and how does that directly relate to Funk's Unauthorized Absence? The Fourth Nuremberg Principle states that a soldier is still responsible for his or her actions, regardless of superior orders, but I cannot see how Funk's order to mobilize could be considered an unlawful order. Benjamin B. Ferencz states that he believes President Bush should be charged with War Crimes, but it does not follow from that statement that Funk's order to mobilize with his unit was an unlawful order. The quote from Justice Anne L. Mactavish on the Superior Orders page best describes the proper use of the Fourth Nuremburg Principle.

“An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace ... the ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her personal war-time conduct is otherwise proper.”

Response from Boyd Reimer

Greetings Special:Contributions/74.243.205.179

Two reasons for this discussion: neutrality and noteworthiness

Neutrality

According to the POV tag that 74.243.222.248 left in the "Controversy" section of the Stephen Funk article, this discussion is about whether or not the "Controversy" section of Stephen Funk is "neutral."

That "Controversy" section now contains 3 different references, thus supporting the position that it is "neutral." See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Noteworthiness

The content of this "Controversy" section is noteworthy because of the authority of the United Nations. See Wikipedia:Controversial articles

The US punished Stephen Funk for refusing to "report to his unit during [a] war" not sanctioned by the United Nations. This fact has major implications in international law: In an interview given on August 25, 2006, about the “2003 invasion of Iraq,...[ Benjamin B. Ferencz, an American lawyer ],...said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council.”

Other issues

I am not sure if you read the the paragraph just before the one you quoted in the article entitled Superior Orders.

In case you haven’t read them, below are excerpts.

Remember what happened in the aftermath of World War I compared to the aftermath of World War II

First World War One: (See the paragraph just before the one you quoted )

The German Military Trials that took place after World War I. One of the most famous of these trials was the matter of Lieutenant Karl Neumann, who was a U-Boat Captain responsible for the sinking of the Hospital ship, the Dover Castle. Even though he frankly admitted to having sunk the ship, he stated that he had done so on the basis of orders supplied to him by the German Admiralty; and as such, he could not be held liable for his actions. The Leipsic Supreme Court acquitted him, accepting the defense of superior orders as a grounds to escape criminal liability. Further, that very Court had this to say in the matter of Superior Orders:

“… that all civilized nations recognize the principle that a subordinate is covered by the orders of his superiors.

After such a blanket acquittal, is it any wonder that the world was forced to again endure a “re-run” in the form of World War 2? ..again by Germany?

Then after ANOTHER 60 million people died in World War II, the officials at the Nuremberg Trials realized that if they didn’t want a World War 3, they had to do something different from the previous World War I trials.

So they established Nuremberg Principle IV: It states

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

In the common parlance, this principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say "I was just following my Superior's orders"

This hard won principle was the response to the massive human suffering of World War II.

Please read about the political context and the legal context of the judgement by Anne Mactavish.

You will find a link to the judgement, and several authoritative criticisms of it, in the Anne Mactavish Wikipedia entry. If you do read her ruling, then you will discover that in the paragraph you quoted (paragraph 157 and 158), she is not “describ[ing] the proper use of the Fourth Nuremburg Principle.” In fact, she doesn't mention Nuremberg Principle IV at all. Instead she refers the earlier decision by the Immigration and Refugee Board. Reporting on that decision, the BBC stated that the ruling "did not come as a surprise...[Canadian] officials are aware that accusing Washington of persecuting its own citizens would cause an international diplomatic incident". For further information, see Brian P. Goodman.

When Mactavish ruled against Jeremy Hinzman's application for refugee status on March 31, 2006, there was the following press coverage: Coverage included the following criticism from Alex Neve, who taught international human rights and refugee law at Osgoode Hall Law School, and who was appointed an Officer of the Order of Canada, in honour of his human rights work.:

"Mactavish argued,... "An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace. The ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her personal war-time conduct is otherwise proper."

Amnesty International's Canadian...secretary general Alex Neve, expresses concern that Mactavish's decision sets a precedent... [and] runs contrary to other international law rulings [such as Nuremberg Principle IV].""

In conclusion, if you are going to discuss "the proper use of the Fourth Nuremburg Principle" (quote from your reply) then please check the "proper" spelling of "Nuremberg." Thank you.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This section, in my humble opinion, falls under WP:UNDUE with one view point of the controversial issue being given more weight than the other view points of the issue, and should be reviewed and rewritten until all opinions regarding the issues as it falls within the scope of this biography are given equal weight. This article is not the place to debate policy opinions, but rather should focus on the subject of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings RightCowLeftCoast

Thank you for your comments and helpful suggestions. I have addressed your concerns and have added to the section to meet the requirements of WP:UNDUE.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain the specific reason for the notability tag

At this edit a tag was left asking for notability. Please be more specific in your reason for including such a tag in this article. Thank you. - Boyd Reimer (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't believe that Funk is notable. Long was completely before his crime. Everything he has been covered about is due to his crime and the legal battle. All he did was desert. You can't really count the trial etc as seperate events, they're simply a continuation. The case itself may be notable enough for an article, but as a bio, this looks more like a case of BLP1E than anything else to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to have a notability tag, here, however. Whether we want to title the article "Stephen Funk" or "Unauthorized Absence of Stephen Funk", some form of article will exist. I'm removing the tag for now. Khazar2 (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)