Anti-War U.S. Marine Sentenced to Six Months in Jail - Page 5

Ramo · September 8, 2003, 16:47

Quote:

It's an oath,

Same difference. An oath is an oral contract.

Quote:

and the situation is incomparable. He volunteered, he knew what was expected, he knew what was required, and he refused.

So debtors' prisons and indentured servitude are morally fine as long as these institutions are in the legal code?

Quote:

Personal "ethical" considerations are alien to any contract.

And I was making the case that if the USMC contract should be a special case as Imran asserted, then it should demand less of a punishment than reneging on a standard contract.

Quote:

I'm not quite sure I understand your train of thought. If we are going to continue with the contract analogy, the penalties the soldier suffered these actions were spelled out before he even joined the Marines in the UCMJ.

My train of thought is simply this:
Breaking a contract on military service should be held to the same standards as breaking any other contract, namely payment of civil damages equivalent to the military benefits acrued - financial aid for college, etc., particularly as a military service contract entails the possibility of getting killed or killing others. If putting a person in prison for breaking a contract of military service is moral, then institutions such as indentured servitude, which I hope most regard as immoral, should be also considered moral as the same dynamics are involved.

SlowwHand · September 8, 2003, 16:49

One of the requirements. I like that.

The main requirement, you mean.

Sprayber · September 8, 2003, 16:52

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
One of the requirements. I like that.

The main requirement, you mean.

Well you have to maintain physical fitness and not go apeshit and beat up your 22 yo Lieutenant who couldn't find his ass with a GPS.

SlowwHand · September 8, 2003, 16:56

That's true. Whooping up on 2nd Lieuy's is mandatory.

Imran Siddiqui · September 8, 2003, 21:08

Quote:

Why does that matter, if they pay back the military benefits?

Because we decided that ain't enough. Pay attention

. It's moral because the majority and the government decided it was.

Quote:

So debtors' prisons and indentured servitude are morally fine as long as these institutions are in the legal code?

I'd say yes.

Mordoch · September 9, 2003, 01:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
My train of thought is simply this:
Breaking a contract on military service should be held to the same standards as breaking any other contract, namely payment of civil damages equivalent to the military benefits acrued - financial aid for college, etc., particularly as a military service contract entails the possibility of getting killed or killing others. If putting a person in prison for breaking a contract of military service is moral, then institutions such as indentured servitude, which I hope most regard as immoral, should be also considered moral as the same dynamics are involved.

There is a huge problem with implementing the policy you suggest. Unless you actually look forward to going to war and the possibility you may be killed, when you sign up for the military you are gambling that you may serve out your tenure without personally getting involved in a military conflict. This is in many respects a calculated risk in which you hope you get the financial benefits of potentially having to put your life at risk without having to do so.

If you just are able to get out of it by paying back any extra money you made for being in the military, (this is especially true of the reserves) you don't have that much to lose since the worst case scenario has you back in the financial situation in which you started and otherwise you get the extra money without any risk of having to fufill your end of the bargain. Even financial penalties beyond what you made would not be sufficient since if an individual has no money he can simply declare bankrupcy and at that point go on his way.

Furthermore, if this was done on a sufficiently mass scale, it could actually jeperdize national security. If 20,000 reservists suddenly announce they don't intend to serve, this means that the government suddenly doesn't have 20,000 trained military personnel they thought they had. Such a situation could even occur when the US is suddenly fighting a defensive war in which it was directly attacked if the reservists base their decisions on the logic I mentioned above. Therefore, the government does not merely need to discourage such conduct based on the financial costs such behavoir could incur, but also due to the potential risks to national security.

(On the rest of your point, we could debate the draft and what our duties as citizens are, but that would seem to be a topic for an entirely new thread.)

DinoDoc · September 9, 2003, 01:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Breaking a contract on military service should be held to the same standards as breaking any other contract, namely payment of civil damages equivalent to the military benefits acrued - financial aid for college, etc., particularly as a military service contract entails the possibility of getting killed or killing others.

If he found those consequences unacceptable, he either should have reported for duty or not joined at all.

MichaeltheGreat · September 9, 2003, 01:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
My train of thought is simply this:
Breaking a contract on military service should be held to the same standards as breaking any other contract, namely payment of civil damages equivalent to the military benefits acrued - financial aid for college, etc., particularly as a military service contract entails the possibility of getting killed or killing others. If putting a person in prison for breaking a contract of military service is moral, then institutions such as indentured servitude, which I hope most regard as immoral, should be also considered moral as the same dynamics are involved.

Your train of thought is still at the station.

Desertion in time of war is not an offense just against the branch of service, or against the government. In time of war, it is an offense against every man (and woman) in the deserter's unit who do their duty shorthanded, and at greater risk due to the deserter's absence. It is an offense against every man (and woman) in every unit which is dependent upon the function and support of the deserter's unit.

It effects the efficiency of the engaged army as a whole, and in time of war, that puts other's lives at risk. Frankly, I wouldn't be bent out of shape if the CM had decided to grow some balls for once and gave this SOB a rope.

If you're familiar with the Eddie Slovik case at all, his desertion, and the ratcheting up of the penalty, were a result of an epidemic of desertions by replacement troops who figured "**** it, and everyone else - I'll just do a short stretch of time and save my ass."

If I die, or someone in my squad dies, because some yellow ********er somewhere down the line decides his life is more valuable than ours, don't expect me to be overly sympathetic to the poor dear who didn't want to be inconvenienced to live up to his oath and do his duty.

This ******* got off easy, and it's a disgrace that the USMC has gotten so soft that the other 27 aren't prosecuted and prosecuted hard.

Semper Fi my ass.

ravagon · September 9, 2003, 03:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo

Same difference. An oath is an oral contract.

An oath is not an oral contract. Not under the UCMJ and not in a court of law. If you break it you pay a large price, whether its for perjury or desertion.

OTOH though the death penalty is too harsh for failing to report. Desertion under fire, treason or espionage during wartime and you shoot the SoB without a second thought.
But not for failing to report.

At a guess he and the couple of dozen like him weren't of such great consequence - hence why an example, and only a light one at that, is being made out of only one of them.
They can probably all consider themselves extremely lucky ...

Tingkai · September 9, 2003, 04:03

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
This ******* got off easy, and it's a disgrace that the USMC has gotten so soft that the other 27 aren't prosecuted and prosecuted hard.

Semper Fi my ass.

Oh it gets worse...

"There were 27 other Marines who declared themselves conscientious objectors to the Iraq war. Like Funk, all were transferred to New Orleans for processing but none of the others was prosecuted because they reported for duty on time, the Marines said.

"Of the 27, 16 were granted conscientious objector status, said Capt. Jeffrey Pool, a Marine spokesman. Five were denied and the other cases are pending."
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...objector.story

Sava · September 9, 2003, 09:06

I wonder if a certain absent Texas Air National Guardsmen will ever face justice...

HershOstropoler · September 9, 2003, 09:15

You have conscientious objector status for volunteer soldiers? How hard is it to leave the US military before your "contract" expires?

SlowwHand · September 9, 2003, 09:45

Sava, find a new song to hum, will ya ?

Hersh, your contract is valid until separation.

MichaeltheGreat · September 9, 2003, 11:43

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
You have conscientious objector status for volunteer soldiers? How hard is it to leave the US military before your "contract" expires?

In the real military, it was damn nigh impossible. Nowadays? Who knows. Since they started this touchy-feely BS, it seems like things have gone to hell in a bucket.

DinoDoc · September 9, 2003, 11:47

Outside of a draft, I don't see how anyone in the military gets conscientious objector status at all because you have to willingly sign up for military service. Doing that kind of removes you from consideration as being a conscientious objector IMO.

Sava · September 9, 2003, 11:56

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Sava, find a new song to hum, will ya ?

Hersh, your contract is valid until separation.

Nah, because I know the field day you'd be having if we had a Dem prez who had been AWOL for over a year and never faced justice.

But I guess you only care about desertion if it is done by "anti-war" people, right?

SlowwHand · September 9, 2003, 11:59

WTF are you talking about now?

Have you considered a mental analysis?

Sava · September 9, 2003, 12:01

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
WTF are you talking about now?

Your hypocrisy...

Quote:

Have you considered a mental analysis?

huh huh huh huh, you said "anal"

HershOstropoler · September 9, 2003, 12:10

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Outside of a draft, I don't see how anyone in the military gets conscientious objector status at all because you have to willingly sign up for military service. Doing that kind of removes you from consideration as being a conscientious objector IMO.

I hate to say it, but I agree with that. And it's a bit odd, because I think that's the rule even for our opera army.

Arrian · September 9, 2003, 12:27

This is pretty cut and dried. They guy signed up voluntarily. He knew what he was expected to do. Then, when called upon to actually DO it, he refused. That's just piss poor, and deserving of punishment. The others, who got off completely... that's just insane.

-Arrian

MichaeltheGreat · September 9, 2003, 12:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Nah, because I know the field day you'd be having if we had a Dem prez who had been AWOL for over a year and never faced justice.

You mean like Clinton's letter to the guy thanking him for getting him out of the draft?

Or Gore's bullshit tour where he was protected from any harm and rotated out early?

Or LBJ's bullshit direct commission, and his bullsit Silver Star for going part way out on a single mission, on a plane that aborted it's mission for a mysterious mechanical problem that couldn't be reproduced, delivering the Congressman turned Lt. Commander safely back to base, whereupon he was returned to the US, and released from duty so he could go back to being a Congressman, but with his fake "hero" ticket punched?

Shall I go on, Savita?

Jack_www · September 9, 2003, 13:12

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Outside of a draft, I don't see how anyone in the military gets conscientious objector status at all because you have to willingly sign up for military service. Doing that kind of removes you from consideration as being a conscientious objector IMO.

I agree with this. You know that if you join the millitary you could be called up at any time, sent any were in the world and fight a war that started for a bunch of different reasons. To change your mind when the fighting comes does not make any sense to me anyways.

Sprayber · September 9, 2003, 13:45

There were two people that got out of my unit after we were alerted for duty. One went out and got his doctor to write up that he had Sleep apnea after a guy in another unit had gotten out with the same thing. (The other guy was willing to go and had actually kept it from the medical people until it was found out.) The other was a female that somehow got a transfer from our unit to STARC (State Area Command). STARC is known as the unit that never goes anywhere. The commander made a promise to us that she would never be in his company again for as long has he was commander.

My Wife Hates CIV · September 10, 2003, 13:11

gezz MtG... you are a mod. perhaps you should set a better example around here (i'm talking about some of your 'colorful' posts.

6 months. hmmm... i guess i would have to think about that. i mean how bad can 6 months be. i did 8 months on a carrier three times (pretty much the same thing). I would have guessed the sentence to be more.

Guynemer · September 10, 2003, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Outside of a draft, I don't see how anyone in the military gets conscientious objector status at all because you have to willingly sign up for military service. Doing that kind of removes you from consideration as being a conscientious objector IMO.

I'm with Dino on this one. It's an all-volunteer armed forces... this isn't "playing soldier", this is being an actual ****ing soldier.

MichaeltheGreat · September 10, 2003, 13:36

Quote:

Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV
gezz MtG... you are a mod. perhaps you should set a better example around here (i'm talking about some of your 'colorful' posts.

(a) We're talking about a deserter. I'm being gentle.

(b) Sometimes I forget some words aren't censored that probably should be, and some are that probably shouldn't be.

chequita guevara · September 10, 2003, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
You mean like Clinton's letter to the guy thanking him for getting him out of the draft?

Or Gore's bullshit tour where he was protected from any harm and rotated out early?

Did not the Republicans make much hay out of these? And yet, neither is the same as deserting from your unit for 18 months and then struting around on an aircraft carrier calling yuorself a hero.

MichaeltheGreat · September 10, 2003, 13:51

I'm not a fan of the carrier landing, especially as I know the bit about it not delaying arrival home is bullshit - I saw the carrier from the hills here, for about two full days longer than is normal for a CV offloading it's aircraft before going into port.

OTOH, it's silly to debate which form of chicken-choking "daddy, save me" fun and games is worse. They're all bogus, and they're all insults to men like John McCain, John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, Zell Miller, etc.

DinoDoc · September 10, 2003, 15:10

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
I hate to say it, but I agree with that.

Why do you hate to say it? It just means that one of us is getting more intelligent.

HershOstropoler · September 10, 2003, 15:21

I'm rather concerned it could mean one of us is getting dumber.