I just saw a piece on Hughley. Apparently he had joined the army to be a professional soldier, as a way to get to college, as his family was in debt and couldn't afford it. Army representatives had pitched the idea in his school, so he had gone for it.
But the day before his unit was to ship out to Iraq, he took his car and drove for 17 hours, reaching Canada.
His motive was that the reasons the US gave for invading Iraq didn't hold water for him, it wasn't enough for him to die or kill others over, nor was the money.
He said that if he can never return to the US without being arrested and court-martialed, he's prepared to make a new life in Canada.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
While I can understand while he went AWOL, I can not understand why he would join the army in the first place (as opposed to taking any other underpaid but safer job) knowing that his CIC might send him off for reasons he couldn't reconcile himself with.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You take a oath to serve, you have to abide by that oath and the legal consequences agreed to with that oath.
No one drafted him or ordered him to kill innocents or anything that would justify his going AWOL.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
The news report mentioned the army representatives at his school using the service as a sales argument, as a way of getting money to buy a car or go to college. Also, I believe he joined up before the US began attacking Iraq, so he wasn't counting on being put in this position, with just the motives the Bush Administration has been able to dig up so far.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Well, that's the one thing you SHOULD count on before you sign up for the service. It's a way of getting money, sure, but it's also a way of being ordered to do some damn distasteful things and possibly getting killed while carrying out those orders. He can't have been naive enough not to know that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Exactly, Cartman: every army commercial in the last ten years shows troops serving in the field with (suprise!) guns.
Guns arent used for anything except combat.
This guy got scared and ran (it happens) and now should return to face judgment: with the press involved, he wont get a maximum sentence. It's possible he'll get a suspended sentence and a dishonorable discharge...but not if he hides out in Canada.
They'll make an example of him for sure if he drags this out.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Guns arent used for anything except combat."
Don't let the NRA hear you say that.
Does anyone know if it's possible for someone who has voluntarily joined the military to register as a conscientious objector against a particular conflict?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That kind of defeats the purpose if your troops dont need to follow your orders to fight.
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Does anyone know if it's possible for someone who has voluntarily joined the military to register as a conscientious objector against a particular conflict?
I was explicitly told by a USMC recruiting sergeant that it wasn't.
Marian
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Nor should it be.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
On that, I'm torn. I don't think you can ever follow morally questionable orders without objecting to them. Your CO may have the authority to say you must and that they are fair and necessary, but that doesn't mean he's always & automatically right or that you should. Being a good soldier and being a patriot can sometimes be the same... and sometimes very different things, chain of command or not.
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
(as a very lay civilian)
I think that you (the grunt) still have an obligation to disobey illegal orders...don't quote me on that though.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
"I promise to obey all lawful orders made by officers superior to me".
There is a time to argue the legality of an order that, however, is not what he did. He deserted his appointed place of duty during time of war.
Contrary to popular belief it isn't that hard to get out of the military. It is hard to get out of the military without any consequences for your actions and choices however. He could have gotten out legally but there would have been a cost.
Much like Socrates and the poision this guy made a choice of free will if he is a decent man he'll abide by his oath.
This from a liberal even.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
There is a military code of conduct (in the US military, anyhow) that allows refusal to follow criminal orders like firing on civillians but for the most part, following orders (quickly and without hesitation) is imporntant to keeping others in a squad (and the soldier himself) alive.
Induvuality is sacrificed to some degree for efficentcy.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Simple really.
You joins the Army, you does what you're told.
As a subordinate, other than the egregious "shoot the baby in the head order," you don't have a say...nor should you.
And If you're not bright enough to realize by joining the Army, you know, those guys with the guns that go off to war, that you might have to kill people, even people you might not want to kill, well, too bad.
Either that...or when you join the Army, just mention off-hand that you know how to type.
This from a liberaler type person.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"As a subordinate, other than the egregious 'shoot the baby in the head order,' you don't have a say...nor should you."
Well, I suppose that's where the question lies, isn't it? Where is the line drawn? Shooting babies? Burning villages? Fighting a war based on lies?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The line is drawn at your sphere of responsibility.
Things that are directly decided by you are within your decision making ability (like the safety of those under your command or the guys in your squad) but "big picture" questions are NOT on your list of things you'd have any say in.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
This is not about how much say Joe Grunt should have in decisions concerning The Big Picture, it's about what he should do when he finds out said Big Picture is in breach of the military code of conduct and what kind of breach would warrant doing it.
And while independent thought may be anathema in the service, a soldier who abides by criminal decisions is still just as guilty as the people who make them, so, again, where is the line drawn?
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Jason Abbadon: "but 'big picture' questions are NOT on your list of things you'd have any say in."
Not in the decision-making, sure, but any soldier should have a right to act on his conscience or consider his motives.
Say an american soldier of Puerto Rican descent starts his military career, then suddenly a crisis develops in Puerto Rico and his squad is sent down to a village close to his relatives' and get ordered to stifle demonstrating crowds (that may or may not hold the moral higher ground) "by any means necessary", because some landowner or businessman with foreign diplomatic pull demands it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Firstly, NO soldier in the US military is going to be ordered- or would be required to follow any orders, according to military code- to fire on demonstrators.
I dont know where you get your ideas of the US military, but they arent killers and dont serve landowners or businessmen- or even politicians.
Cartman wrote:
quote:This is not about how much say Joe Grunt should have in decisions concerning The Big Picture, it's about what he should do when he finds out said Big Picture is in breach of the military code of conduct and what kind of breach would warrant doing it.
And while independent thought may be anathema in the service, a soldier who abides by criminal decisions is still just as guilty as the people who make them, so, again, where is the line drawn?
No, not really: the military code prohibits killing civillians that pose no direct threat to the safety of the soldiers and- as shown in Iraq- US soldiers have restraint enough to refrain from firing on civillians even when rocks and bottles are being thrown at them.
The same cant be said for many other military groups (Israel, anyone?).
A soldier is not responsible for the decisions of his country's leaders: he's sworn an oath to serve and defend his country and that's exactly what he's required to do.
Look at WWII: soldiers that had nothing to do with the killing of the Jews- Those men that were just serving their country, were not prosecuted after the war ended.
Brian Hughley is not refusing to serve because he thinks there's human rights violations being comitted (in fact, there's a huge amount of world scrutiny on our military right now). He's shirking his duty and deserves whatever sentence a military court chooses to impose: he agreed to those terms when he enlisted, and if he didint think things through....tough. He's an adult.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
4 dead in OHIO
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Little known fact:
I was a shortstop for the Atlanta Braves but I quit the team when it was announced we would play the New York Yankees. I didn't sign up to play AL teams.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Just because the recruiter said one thing doesn't mean that the Drill Seargents didn't correct that idea....
Hell, almost 20 years ago when I went to infantry basic they asked us if what we read on our orders was what the recruiters 'promised', if not, too bad, unless it was a schoolmof some sort, than go see corporal so-in-so to see if there was a problem....
Of course, having enlisted in the infantry I kind of figured that if a war happened I would have had to fight and maybe die in it.....
Fucking pansy assed bitch......
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
What do you mean "4 dead in Ohio", Grokca? 4 deserters?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
No, 4 nasty assed protesting college (Kent State) students stood in front of the Ohio National Guardsmen and were shot for it....
Actually, I think that they weren't even with the protesters, just kind of in the wrong place at the wrong time....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
One of the kids killed at Kent State was a protestor. The other three were not.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, hell, I was three-quarters right.....
It's better than Meatloaf did with 2 out 3...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Bad shit from 30 years ago does not equal bad shit going to happen today.
If the military in Iraq was going to kill protestors, they'd be knee deep in blood by now. These guys might be young but they're pros: well trained and disciplined.
If someone was throwing rocks or bricks at my jeep and I had a gun, I might at least fire a warning shot: these guys are cool enough under pressure not to even do that.
Dont let the press hype machine fool you into thinking Iraq is another Vietnam situation where platoons are unsupervised and capable of doing whatever the fuck they want: it's very structured over there from what my friends that are serving tell me.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"If the military in Iraq was going to kill protestors, they'd be knee deep in blood by now.
Well, I'm not going to say they're killing protestors. But "knee deep in blood" may not be far off from the truth. After all, in a year, we've already accumulated 700 deaths and 3800 woundings on the American side. Something tells me the Iraqi body count is quite a bit higher.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
hmmmm....serves them right for being in our new country!
Really, I'm sure there's large Iraq deathtoll but the violence continues and it's organized, so theres still "insurgents" to be found and given a stern talking to.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
I feel the need to explain myself. I wasn't implying that the US troops actually in Iraq committed war-crimes, nor do I think they are bitches to whims from senators or private market CEO:s, I tried to make a hypothesis that put a soldier in a position where he couldn't with good conscience continue serving, and that he had to have the option to get out.
I'm all for ousting Saddam, though I have no idea how the west will maintain control down there for years to come. The opposition has got it easy, they only have to work the mob up to extasy levels with some chanting and looking-at-pictures-of-western-dogs, then they're all set. And as many of their own getting killed, the better. More martyrs for the cause, then they'll fly in some more from the neighboring countries.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
The mid east is going to be a drain on the 'coalition' for a long time, as we have opened a can of maggots and we dare not just leave, and we can't stay.....
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Chipper Jones moved to third and hit a solitary home run.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Little known fact..."
You are prone to lying.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
NO
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Are you saying that NOT a little known fact?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Chipper Jones moved to third and hit a solitary home run."
Do you even actually know how baseball works?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
He meant Blurnsball. Everyone knows how that works.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
TED TURNER OWNS BASEBALL AND BASEBALL'S LEGENDS
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Ted Turner doesn't involve himself with Iraqi wars.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Correct, it isn't good business sense to get customers killed....
I wonder if big oil thinks about that....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Why would they? People can do without baseball but they need oil for their Sport Utility shopping carts.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Um... I think he meant, do they think about the fact that every soldier killed is one fewer customer.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Not to mention getting their employees killed by sending them on prospecting-missions in Iraq...
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
(I am Steve Barton.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I am Jason Abbadon: Superstar
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I always kind of figured you looked like Molly Shannon...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Keep that fantasy to yourself. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Isn't there some truth in every fantasy???
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Not in the one I'm having right now.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
errr, I ment legend.....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You're giving me Legendary status?
Cool.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
In your own mind......
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
In my own pants.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Your ego is writing out checks your pants can't sign.
I wonder if there will be an increase in deserters as the Iraq campaign progresses, or if the US were to turn to other places like Libya, hm? Is there even a number as to how many have deserted from US and UK troops since 2002? Maybe they don't want those figures published?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"In my own pants."
Which is where your "mind" seems to reside most of the time anyway, so Ritten's comment still stands. B)
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Re: military recruiting commercials being explicitly about gunplay: Most of the ones I've seen are about high-paying IT jobs, helicopters, and Balrogs, usually with few if any guns in sight. Though I'd love to see the interview with the person who thought the Marine vs. Fire Demon commercial was a literal depiction of events.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The Marines commercials are pretty far from reality. The Army commercials are all guns and being tough. The Navy's are pretty much IT commercials.
Odd, I'm the one that mentioned the whole "military commercials are showing guns" post but I'm seeing a whole lot more of those "IT" type commercials lately.
Still, they guy's an idiot if he thinks he wont get called to fight (somewhere) after 9/11.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
That, or those commercials contain subliminal messages.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
No, people just lack common sense......
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Well, the problem with common sense is that sense isn't common.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
"Hey you, join the Navy!"
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Okay!
Wait. I don't like boats. Or man-sex.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)