Seem to be starting a lot of topics recently, but hey-ho.

I started thinking about this when a song poped up on my random MP3 playlist about the st. patrick's battalion. The battalion were a group of Irish immigrants fighting in the US army during the US-Mexico war, and in the words of song's chorus:

From Dublin city to San Diego
We witnessed freedom denied
So we formed the St. Patrick's Battalion
And we fought on the Mexican side

I imagine there are few people here who would have a bad word to say about those Germans who aided the Allies in the Second World War due to their hatred of the Nazi regime. Many of you may well praise them as heroes.

But what about someone who turned against your government. What if you heard about an American helping the NLF in the Vietnam war because they thought it was the right thing to do? Would this theoretical Americans actions differ in any way from someone who helped the Allies against Hitler?

Do we have a duty to, if not support our side, at least not actively fight for the other side in wartime? Should our nationality determine our 'side'; after all, British people fought for the phalangists, the republicans and the anarchists in 1930s Spain? And who counts as deciding our nation's side - Vichy or the 'Free French'?

The worst position is "my country, right or wrong"

If your country is wrong, you may have a moral obligation to oppose it. If you join the other side, be prepared for the consequences.

I think there's a difference between treason on principle and treason on self interest.

And there's also a difference between a war of aggression and a war of defense. Commit treason to help a country take over yours: This is wrong. Commit treason to stop your country from taking over another: This is not necessarily wrong.

Bob - what if your country is invaded by a regime you find far preferable, consider more moral and noble, and would rather be ruled by. Should you still refuse to commit treason when you believe losign the war would be better for the people of your country? Isn't that basically what Germans who aided the liberating troops were doing?

Or for that matter, the Iraqis who aren't trying to kill Americans....

I am all for putting ideology over nationality.

So the allies citizen that fights for Nazi germany is IMO bad becasue he is a fascist but not bad becasue he fights against his country.

The difference between a war of agression and defense is often tricky in specific cases.

Take Major Carl Szokoll for example. He was a German officer during WWII. Germany was clearly the agressor in that war.

But his (and his coconspirators) "treason" was that when the soviet army were standing infront of Vienna he gave them informations on German positions, so they could take over Vienna quickly without much fighting within the city and thus less hardship for the civilian population.

Treason is a label placed on the individual by their associated nation. My favorite example is Bennedict Arnold.

In America, that name has been used as the most vile label for anyone who would turn on another "friend". In English history, however, he is treated as a hero. Treason is an odd crime.

Another example: Lets say that America was invaded, and we lost. Those who helped the invasion would now be labled as "liberators and heroes". However, if the US won, these same individuals would be labled as "foes and traitors". It all depends on who wins the battle/war.

I agree that opposition is necessary if your government is taking part or acting in ways you deem morally wrong. The question is...what are you willing to do about it. I am a very strong, patriotic American. However, if you do not like America (even if american citizen) I understand how you would carry out an attack (social or millitary) on the country. However, don't expect me to say "good show old chap". I will raise weapons against you, and will probably call you a traitor to the country. All because we are on different sides.

However, if the US does change for what I consider the worse. AND, if there is a soical upheaval that is leading to arms. I may then choose to rise up against the ideology of the US that you support. In this situation, I would see myself as a liberator, and you as a tyrant. The only thing that changed was our role.

How odd.

I think that as a citizen of a country, you have a certain moral obligation to uphold that country. I’m talking about more than just patriotism, which is a bit suspect in and of itself as a motive. If you have been content to live in a country and accept the advantages that accrue to a citizen, you have a reciprocal duty, as a citizen, to support your country. It is the other side of the “social contract”. (Note that this really only applies to a representative, relatively free nation.) On the other hand, as citizens we also have a right and a responsibility to try to steer our country in the right direction. I would have a problem with taking up arms against my countrymen in a war, even if I thought the war was wrong. Killing you neighbor because he was drafted into an unjust war is hard to defend on moral grounds. I think political dissent and nonviolent protest is the correct path when you disagree with what you country is doing. Violence would only be justified in the most egregious cases (Nazi Germany, for example)

oh yeah, i posted this last night, but the forum seemed to go down as i was typing... so, i saved it:

i would always put my sense of morality over my country. my country shows up way on the bottom of the list of things that influence my desisions.

as for attacking/defending, well, that is a rather nice generalization, but that should fall into 'my sense of morality'
i like to make things up as i go along, so ill do what i think is right, even if i am on the invading team, opposing my country.

i cant imagine any case where that would happen, though.

Treason is a crime against the state. If the state collapses due to your effort and therefore no longer exists, there is no-one you have committed a crime against. If the country survives, they have every right to put you to death or otherwise punish you, as you have made yourself their enemy, and it's as simple as that.

Would the Nazis be justified in executing people who switched sides and helped the Allies? Yes, they would, and why wouldn't they? To them, they're right, and therefore they should under no circumstances allow insurgents against themselves.

As far as personal morality goes, I'm of the mind-set that I'd prefer to live where the people already share my ideology. So... if Canada somehow want far right wing, I'd jump ship and go to Norway or Sweden or somewhere else where I wouldn't need to commit treason. In case of war, basically the same would apply... I'd leave my country, and fight for the other side. Or just call myself a conscientious objector, or whatever else.

Well no, the state wouldn't have the right to execute me, because we abolishe the death penalty for treason 6 years ago, but I'm just being picky now.

The problem with the whole 'leave the country thing' is that not everyone can just up and go. There are major economic constraints on a lot of people which prevent them from leaving, and there's always a good possibility they won't be accepted by wherever their adoptive state is. Asylum wouldn't work unless they were actually being persecuted 9and often not in tht case either). And this is before we even start on the fact they've had to leave all their friends and family.

The social contract theory only works if we have fully open borders and automatic citizenship for whoever wants it. otherwise, it's a coercive contract.

The only reason that treason is a crime is to enforce loyalty to the group. You may be deriving some benefit from living in your group, you may not be. It doesn't matter. The only reason the rule exists is to prevent you from harming your group and helping a hostile one. When you get down to it, right or wrong is irrelevant.

Being on the right side is mostly a matter of luck. Most people would like to believe their country is on the right side. Others, who do not live in democracies, aren't allowed to say if they don't.

And as CaptPlatypus said, who is ultimately right depends on which side wins. If Japan hadn't been defeated in World War II, we'd all be singing the praises of the Asian Economic Co-Prosperity Sphere. Makes for very catchy slogans, doesn't it?

I don't value my neighbor or my fellow country-man any more than I value the life of someone I've never seen or the life of a person my country happens to be at war with. How is it any easier to morally justify killing a soilder drafted by another country that is to justify a soilder drafted by your country?

*tsk* The problem with national identity is that one is expected to be proud of their nation as if it were something God-like rather than a place one lives and a set of rules one follows. Treason is a case in point. Treason is the equvalent of committing "blasphomy" on a national scale. And so those who blaspheme are considered heretics and on "their" side i.e. the side of evil. Wave the flag, flag, flag!

I love the U.S., but I am tired of people forcing the belief that one nation is better than another. Am I living in a country, or am I part of a football team?

Football team. Definately.