Guest #51 March 19, 2004 QuoteFurthermore, a soldier is just that - a soldier. A soldier is a part of a larger whole - a unit, and he does what he's told, when he's told. Any political opinions he may have about the current state of world affairs are of little consequence. QuoteReally? How'd that position fair at Nuremberg? I didn't see any Unterfeldwebelen on trial at Nuremburg. I did however, see some Generals, and at least one Feldmarschall. Besides, unlawful orders (like gunning down unarmed civilians) can be refused. He was never ordered to commit war crimes, anyway, so you might as well leave "Godwin's Law" out of this. Quote This guy is within his rights to refuse to go back. The military is also within its' rights to punish him appropriately for such a refusal. I agree. However, it's the grandstanding and the political posturing I object to. It appears to me that he's a puppet spouting the pablum his liberal masters have put in his mouth. It's obviously a strategy to make political hay and get himself some slack at the same time, which is what makes it all the more shameful. It is my opinion that rather than just taking his lumps, he's thrown his lot in with the libs in hopes that by grandstanding this way, he'll more likely be believed about his so-called "objector" status. Funny, I doubt he objected on payday... Like I said, GIs don't get to pick their fights. It isn't like he was a conscript, who was compelled at gunpoint to put on a uniform (of a country that isn't even his own!). mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crzjp20 0 #52 March 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteFurthermore, a soldier is just that - a soldier. A soldier is a part of a larger whole - a unit, and he does what he's told, when he's told. Any political opinions he may have about the current state of world affairs are of little consequence. Really? How'd that position fair at Nuremberg? This guy is within his rights to refuse to go back. The military is also within its' rights to punish him appropriately for such a refusal. Blues, Dave The reason it didnt work at nuremberg was caseue those crimes were war crimes. Crimes against humaity.... anyone of those officers tried there knew what they were doing. And they knew it was wrong. furthermore. He is not in his right to not go back. I dont know if you are in the servece or not, but when you enlist you haev to sign serveral things. One of them is a CO statment. By singing this he saited he was not a concious objector to war. So by signing that and taking his oath be waived thsoe rights. Those rights are gone, and he can not gain CO status. This is not civilian law, this is military law and there are distenct differences that most cilivians do not understand. SO he is in violation by saying he will not go back... it called AWOL. And yeah the army will slam him on that and he will spend a few years in a hard labor military prision. Blue SKys-------------------------------------------------- Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #53 March 19, 2004 I agree. If the guy can't hack it, he should bring it up to his chain of command. That's not what he did, though. His chain of command should then make the decision on what to do with him. They might put him in a support role or they might tell him to suck it up and get back to the front. Or, he could commit suicide. That's just the way it is while you're under obligation to duty. It's not his choice to take it upon himself and say "he's not going back." Otherwise, there is no discipline in the ranks. The machine breaks down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #54 March 19, 2004 QuoteI agree. If the guy can't hack it, he should bring it up to his chain of command. That's not what he did, though. His chain of command should then make the decision on what to do with him. They might put him in a support role or they might tell him to suck it up and get back to the front. Or, he could commit suicide. That's just the way it is while you're under obligation to duty. It's not his choice to take it upon himself and say "he's not going back." Otherwise, there is no discipline in the ranks. The machine breaks down. There is a horrific example of military discipline recorded by Livy in "The Oxford Book of Military Anecdotes", in which the Consul Manlius, during the War Against the Latins in 340 BC, ordered his own son to be executed in front of the troops for disobeying a standing order not to engage the enemy unless commanded. I grant you this is a the XXIst Century, and we don't whack objectors, but the idea is the same. This punk has quit his post and betrayed his mates, and his adopted country. He therefore deserves the fullest punishment that the UCMJ can hand out. As was mentioned elsewhere in this thread, desertion can, under the right circumstances, be punishable by death. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #55 March 19, 2004 Kick his ass out of the country, strip him of his citizenship. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #56 March 19, 2004 Chuck (SkyMonkeyOne) is retired SF, whereas I was just an Army Brat and a USAF one-termer. I'll respect his opinion about what should be done with this punk. But that punk is really lucky I won't be sitting on his Court-Martial board......this had better not be an Article 15 pee-pee slap, either. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #57 March 19, 2004 QuoteChuck (SkyMonkeyOne) is retired SF, whereas I was just an Army Brat and a USAF one-termer. I'll respect his opinion about what should be done with this punk. But that punk is really lucky I won't be sitting on his Court-Martial board......this had better not be an Article 15 pee-pee slap, either. mh . I just have no stomach for this kind of coward, as most of my Squadron just deployed, and I may be on the hook to go later (I'm in the USAF). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #58 March 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteFurthermore, a soldier is just that - a soldier. A soldier is a part of a larger whole - a unit, and he does what he's told, when he's told. Any political opinions he may have about the current state of world affairs are of little consequence. Really? How'd that position fair at Nuremberg? This guy is within his rights to refuse to go back. The military is also within its' rights to punish him appropriately for such a refusal. Blues, Dave The reason it didnt work at nuremberg was caseue those crimes were war crimes. Crimes against humaity.... anyone of those officers tried there knew what they were doing. And they knew it was wrong. And this guy believes these orders to be wrong. I don't know if he's thrown the "war crimes" bomb out there, but I don't see the relevance. Quote furthermore. He is not in his right to not go back. I dont know if you are in the servece or not, but when you enlist you haev to sign serveral things. One of them is a CO statment. By singing this he saited he was not a concious objector to war. So by signing that and taking his oath be waived thsoe rights. Those rights are gone, and he can not gain CO status. This is not civilian law, this is military law and there are distenct differences that most cilivians do not understand. SO he is in violation by saying he will not go back... it called AWOL. And yeah the army will slam him on that and he will spend a few years in a hard labor military prision. I have been in the military and understand the difference between civilian law and the UCMJ. Perhaps "right" was a poor choice of words on my part. My point was that if he believes his orders to be morally wrong, he may refuse them. Similarly the military may punish him for that refusal. In any case, AWOL doesn't typically garner any hard labor time, much less years of it. That's irrelevant though, as he's currently being considered for desertion, a totally different crime and one which carries a much stiffer penalty. Anyhow, I imagine his punishment will include reduction in rate to E-1 and an other-than-honorable discharge. He might have to spend 30 days in the brig first, but I doubt he'll get much more than that. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlindBrick 0 #59 March 19, 2004 QuoteI say anybody in the US who gets caught doing something bad should get deported to the land of their ancestors But, But, I'm only 1/2 Cherokee! The other half is a mix of Commanche, English, Scottish, Dutch, German, and Irish. Sending me back to the land(s) of my ancestors could get really messy. -Blind"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pdj6p 0 #60 March 20, 2004 awol and desertion arent that different. If a soldier is awol for more than 20 days then it becomes desertion. (I think its 20, might be 30. I never want to be awol long enough to find out myself.) Death is so permanant, and I'm just not ready for that kind of committment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
