PDA

View Full Version : Anti-"War on Terrorists" Soldier Jailed



Ian McColgin
08-06-2009, 06:04 PM
This is an interesting approach. Note the attorney’s remarks in the last paragraph. Considering how steep the penalties could have been, I'd say this fellow was both honest and astute.

Published on Thursday, August 6, 2009 by The New York Times

SOLDIER WHO DIDN’T OBEY IS JAILED

by James C. McKinley Jr.

HOUSTON — A soldier at Fort Hood who fought his deployment to Afghanistan and stopped obeying orders was sentenced to a month in jail and demoted to private in a military court on Wednesday morning.

Victor Agosto was demoted to private and sentenced to 30 days in jail for disobeying orders. (Associated Press file)Victor Agosto, a 24-year-old signalman with the III Corps, ripped a patch showing his specialist rank off his uniform after an emotional hearing in front of an Army captain in which he had told the court he believed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan violated international law, his lawyer, James M. Branum, said. Later, about 20 antiwar protesters cheered Private Agosto as he was taken to jail, the lawyer said.

“He’s not opposed to all wars; he is opposed to this war, because it is not a war of self-defense,” Mr. Branum said.

Under a plea agreement, Private Agosto will be discharged after he serves his time in jail in Belton, Tex., Mr. Branum said.

Col. Benton Danner, a spokesman for Fort Hood, said Private Agosto technically never refused an order to go overseas. Rather, in May, he refused to report to an office that takes care of the paperwork for overseas deployment, a relatively minor offense. Refusing an order to deploy or deserting during a battle carry much stiffer penalties, he said.

Private Agosto said he lost faith in the war efforts abroad after returning in late 2007 from a 13-month stint in Iraq, in which he worked with computers and saw no combat.

“I realized that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with making Americans safer,” he told The Associated Press in an interview this week. “After I got back, I started feeling guilty about my part in the occupation.”

This year, the Army informed him he would not be discharged in June as he had expected but would be deployed to Afghanistan. He stopped obeying orders then and was assigned to pulling weeds and sweeping up. He also became active in local antiwar protests.

Mr. Branum said Private Agosto’s stand against the wars was unusual in that he informed his superiors of his objections. Other soldiers who disagree with the wars simply break Army regulations to be discharged.

© 2009 The New York Times

Captain Intrepid
08-06-2009, 06:23 PM
"We laud the courage of those who go to the front, yes, I have boys of my own and I hope they are not cowards, but if any of these boys, not from cowardice but really through belief, is willing to take a stand on this matter and, if necessary, to face a concentration camp or a firing squad, I shall be more proud of that boy than if he enlisted for the war."

- Tommy Douglas

JimD
08-06-2009, 06:47 PM
Private Agosto said he lost faith in the war efforts abroad after returning in late 2007 from a 13-month stint in Iraq, in which he worked with computers and saw no combat.

None of this would have happened if he'd be using a Mac.

skuthorp
08-07-2009, 02:50 AM
Surely some relevance to the Nurembeg Principle here.

I think they put an army officer in jail here for much the same reasons over Vietnam. Citing Nuremberg, I think the High Court quashed the coviction. Long time ago now.

Tom Hunter
08-07-2009, 09:05 AM
Looks like he found a carefully calculated way to avoid a trip to Afganistan, and the Army found a carefully calculated way to enforce discipline.

All in all this outcome looks level headed all round.

Iceboy
08-07-2009, 09:22 AM
Why do these people even join the military? Sounds like a case of sour grapes to me. Too bad the taxpayers had to foot the bill for training this crybaby.

Captain Intrepid
08-07-2009, 09:24 AM
Why do these people even join the military? Sounds like a case of sour grapes to me. Too bad the taxpayers had to foot the bill for training this crybaby.
To defend his country? If so, going to a war that isn't about defending your country in the slightest is pretty demoralizing.

TomF
08-07-2009, 10:09 AM
Why do these people even join the military? Sounds like a case of sour grapes to me. Too bad the taxpayers had to foot the bill for training this crybaby.Strangely, not everyone wants to go to war simply because the POTUS sees a chance to help Gog and Magog get on with Armageddon, by launching an otherwise meaningless war.

Larch_Keelson
08-07-2009, 11:48 AM
The collusion between the military and select private industry insures the troops will be used as publicly funded private security for these financial cartels. When you look at the US model of disaster capitalism, you see the troops are an important first step in destroying countries that will be rebuilt at an additional cost to the people of the US and the country that is being destroyed.

htom
08-07-2009, 12:07 PM
Other-than-honorable discharge, loss of all benefits, too, but not a felony conviction. Welcome to Obama's military, folks.

Captain Intrepid
08-07-2009, 12:28 PM
Other-than-honorable discharge, loss of all benefits, too, but not a felony conviction. Welcome to Obama's military, folks.

It is a bit harsh, but what can you do? The US does worship their military.

John of Phoenix
08-07-2009, 12:53 PM
At least he didn't use the "birther excuse" like that captain did.


...will be discharged after he serves his time in jail in Belton, Tex.
That's a new one. Since when did the Army privatize the stockade?

Iceboy
08-07-2009, 01:00 PM
"To defend his country? If so, going to a war that isn't about defending your country in the slightest is pretty demoralizing."
Sorry, I'm not buying this lame ass excuse. This "man" is 24 years old. The war was on prior to his enlisting. He knew what was happening and signed on the dotted line. Same goes for TomF's statement. I think the spoiled little sh#t is getting off too easily. That is the problem these days. Not accepting responsibility for your own actions. F'ing crybaby loser imho.

TomF
08-07-2009, 01:11 PM
"To defend his country? If so, going to a war that isn't about defending your country in the slightest is pretty demoralizing."
Sorry, I'm not buying this lame ass excuse. This "man" is 24 years old. The war was on prior to his enlisting. He knew what was happening and signed on the dotted line. Same goes for TomF's statement. I think the spoiled little sh#t is getting off too easily. That is the problem these days. Not accepting responsibility for your own actions. F'ing crybaby loser imho.On the contrary. He served an 18 month tour of Iraq, and the experience convinced him that the war was unethical. Killing for a just cause is one thing, killing for a sham is another.

Having come to that conclusion, he's serving time, getting a less-than-honourable discharge, and forfeiting benefits he's earned. That looks to me like accepting responsibility for his actions.

Captain Intrepid
08-07-2009, 01:17 PM
Cause you know, he didn't put in 13 months of duty. That's not the mark of a little ****. To me it gives his opinion a hell of a lot more credence than yours, bold, caustic and safely anonymous behind your keyboard.

I can't condemn a man for his conscience, and won't call a man a coward for standing up for his beliefs, with the threat of jail and ridicule facing him.

It's easy to go along with something you're not comfortable with and it's hard as hell to stand up for your beliefs.

Iceboy
08-07-2009, 01:44 PM
Well then folks, because we aren't going to change each others minds/positions, this is just one area where I agree to disagree and let life go on. Things will play out as they will. This will come to bite him in the ass down the road. I have seen it before and am sure I will again.
Oh and Captain Intrepid. I called no one a coward here. I am also no more anonymous than you are. Of course as always on the forum, your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's no matter what odor I ascribe to it.

Captain Intrepid
08-07-2009, 01:58 PM
Well then folks, because we aren't going to change each others minds/positions, this is just one area where I agree to disagree and let life go on. Things will play out as they will.

Sounds good to me. I just don't like to see someone denigrated for standing up for their beliefs.

Tom Galyen
08-07-2009, 04:33 PM
I don't believe there are any "Beliefs" here, I think he is a wiseguy who is playing the system for his own selfish purposes. He joins the Army to get free training in computers, he does a tour in Iraq, comes home and finds out that his particular skill is needed even in a recession/depression. He suddenly gets a convenient case of conscience and gets a sharp mouth piece to get him an early out.

If I was on the court martial board I'd give him at least a year, maybe two to ensure his skills are not worth much when he finally gets out.

He's not the first to play the game, and it is risky, because you don't really know what the board is going to hand down as punishment, but he did very good. Quite capitalistic also.

I can understand not wanting to go to Afghanistan after 13 months in Iraq, but others are doing it just as people had to do it in Vietnam. But A) He volunteered AFTER knowing what it was all about, He's 24 years old he was exposed to the media before enlistment right.
B) Enlisted men do not get to choose whether or not they are going to support a given war. There are nasty names given to those who try.
C) He signed a legal contract, and by doing so gave up all constitutional rights. For those who don't know that little fact, its true. While on active duty a service person has NO constitutional rights, period. You are under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). It is short, and final.

John of Phoenix
08-07-2009, 04:44 PM
So what about the captain who refused to go to Afghanistan because he thinks Obama isn't the president?

Courts Martial? Leavenworth? Early out? Send him anyway?

Tom Galyen
08-07-2009, 05:22 PM
Especially for a Captain, Court Martial, Leavenworth, and a long sentence. I have not heard of him, but based on just what you wrote I'd say that he would not want me on his court martial board.

by the way I've always noticed your "Avatar", is that a photo of you? And are you now serving, or did serve?

PeterSibley
08-07-2009, 05:47 PM
I don't believe there are any "Beliefs" here, I think he is a wiseguy who is playing the system for his own selfish purposes. He joins the Army to get free training in computers, he does a tour in Iraq, comes home and finds out that his particular skill is needed even in a recession/depression. He suddenly gets a convenient case of conscience and gets a sharp mouth piece to get him an early out.
.

You have any proof of that , more so than the judge in the case :rolleyes: ? Or just intuition ?

Tom Galyen
08-07-2009, 05:59 PM
23 years in the regular Navy and Navy Reserve. Both during and after Vietnam, I knew on person who actually seriously thought about it. But wasn't a sufficient risk taker.

PeterSibley
08-07-2009, 06:08 PM
Tom ,that 23 years makes you an expert on yourself ...not this bloke and his motivations .

John of Phoenix
08-07-2009, 06:43 PM
My mistake, a Major.

Soldier balks at deploying; says Obama isn’t president

Says he shouldn’t have to go to Afghanistan because Obama is not a U.S. citizen
By Lily Gordon

U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, set to deploy to Afghanistan, says he shouldn’t have to go.
His reason?
Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States.

Cook’s lawyer, Orly Taitz, who has also challenged the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency in other courts, filed a request last week in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector for her client.

In the 20-page document — filed July 8 with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia — the California-based Taitz asks the court to consider granting his client’s request based upon Cook’s belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Cook further states he “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. ... simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties.”

Cook, a reservist, received the orders mobilizing him to active duty on June 9.

According to this document, which accompanies Cook’s July 8 application for a temporary restraining order, he has been ordered to report to MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., on Wednesday. From there, the Florida resident would go to Fort Benning before deploying overseas.

Documents show Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, two years after it became a state.That avatar is a picture of me in a Cobra early in my trip to Vietnam. Nineteen years old.
Wouldn't trade the experience for anything but wouldn't do it over again either.

htom
08-07-2009, 07:47 PM
Major Cook requested the deployment after Obama became (elected or sworn in, I don't remember which, in either case) the President. Publicity seeker for the cause, I hope they fall on him hard.

Paul Pless
08-07-2009, 08:19 PM
To defend his country? If so, going to a war that isn't about defending your country in the slightest is pretty demoralizing.

Yeah well he's trying to avoid Afghanistan, last I heard most agreed that the war there is a just war...

Captain Intrepid
08-07-2009, 08:50 PM
Yeah well he's trying to avoid Afghanistan, last I heard most agreed that the war there is a just war...

I think it's a just war, but I don't think it's about defending the United States, or Canada (my own country, which is also engaged in the fight there). If defending the US is his criteria of a just war, then I can see how he could find it morally wrong.

Tom Galyen
08-07-2009, 09:02 PM
John,

As a major they should really as HTOM says come down on him hard.

As far as Obama not being born in the U.S. is concerned its a moot point as long as Congress or the Supreme Court does nothing about the charges. I've written that I did not vote for him so you know that I'm a fan of his, however I believe that he was born in Hawaii as he claims. Not because of the "Birth Registration, which is not a birth certificate, but because of the newspaper article that says he was. As far as the Major Cook goes if Congress says Obama is legally the president and the Supreme Court says he's the president then as a military officer you are obligated to obey his orders. Period.

htom
08-07-2009, 11:17 PM
I didn't vote for Obama, and wish he hadn't won. However, I think it's exceedingly unlikely that he was not born in Hawaii (the newspaper listing of births provided by the State pretty much convince me that someone was born then and there and it seems to be him.) I think it's curious that he has not released the "full length" birth certificate and have wondered at times what odd factoid he conceals by this; I can't think of one that would negate his citizenship.

Glen Longino
08-07-2009, 11:28 PM
At least he didn't use the "birther excuse" like that captain did.


That's a new one. Since when did the Army privatize the stockade?

John, are you familiar with Securitas and Allied Barton?
Securitas is the world's largest security guard company, based in Sweden, but doing lots of business in the US, having bought Pinkerton and Burns and many other companies the last few years. Allied Barton is the largest doing business solely in the US.
Both companies do DOD contract work of all kinds.
Last time I drove by Fort Hood there were private security guards at the front gate shacks, not soldiers.

Tom Galyen
08-08-2009, 06:46 AM
htom,

I've wondered the same, almost every piece of paper about him has been classified, school records etc. It seems that except for the newspaper article announcing his birth and his birth "registration" there is nothing to show who or what he is. This makes it very easy for him and his spin-miesters to cook up whatever story they need at a given moment. It also feeds the appetites of anyone like Major Cook or the "birthers," who may look foolish, but have a legitimate claim.

PeterSibley
08-08-2009, 06:57 AM
I know what he is ...he's the President of the USA .You don't think your Federal Court , State Department etc might have thought of all this .................................................. ..........long ,long ago ???

Captain Blight
08-08-2009, 09:09 AM
I don't believe there are any "Beliefs" here, I think he is a wiseguy who is playing the system for his own selfish purposes. He joins the Army to get free training in computers, he does a tour in Iraq, comes home and finds out that his particular skill is needed even in a recession/depression. He suddenly gets a convenient case of conscience and gets a sharp mouth piece to get him an early out.

If I was on the court martial board I'd give him at least a year, maybe two to ensure his skills are not worth much when he finally gets out.

He's not the first to play the game, and it is risky, because you don't really know what the board is going to hand down as punishment, but he did very good. Quite capitalistic also.

I can understand not wanting to go to Afghanistan after 13 months in Iraq, but others are doing it just as people had to do it in Vietnam. But A) He volunteered AFTER knowing what it was all about, He's 24 years old he was exposed to the media before enlistment right.
B) Enlisted men do not get to choose whether or not they are going to support a given war. There are nasty names given to those who try.
C) He signed a legal contract, and by doing so gave up all constitutional rights. For those who don't know that little fact, its true. While on active duty a service person has NO constitutional rights, period. You are under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). It is short, and final.
(b) is flat-out Wrong--obviously, at least one person has chosen to not support this war and is now beholden to the consequences. So is (c). No matter what your drill sergeant told you, enlisted servicemen have the same Consitutional rights as any other citizen. It would be odd indeed if the oath taken to uphold and defend the Constitution also was tantamount to a revocation of those selfsame rights for the enlistee.


And now going back, I see Mr Galyan is a 20+ year Navy veteran. Mr Galyen, is this what you told the EMs in your charge? Because if you did, you lied to them. At some point, you really need to stop telling lies.

jbelow
08-08-2009, 10:15 AM
Damn BO ! He should pardon Agosto.

Captain Blight
08-08-2009, 10:52 AM
Damn BO ! He should pardon Agosto.
Why?

jbelow
08-08-2009, 11:34 AM
Why?

The word HYPOCRISY comes to mind if Agosto is not pardon.

Captain Blight
08-08-2009, 11:36 AM
Again, why?

Why would POTUS have any need to deal with something that far below his pay grade of Commander-in-Chief? How does Mr Obama's publicly stated policy of prosecuting the GWOT on Afghanistan smack of hypocrisy here?

I think you're confusing the world as you think it is with the way it actually is.

jbelow
08-08-2009, 01:11 PM
Again, why?

Why would POTUS have any need to deal with something that far below his pay grade of Commander-in-Chief? How does Mr Obama's publicly stated policy of prosecuting the GWOT on Afghanistan smack of hypocrisy here?

I think you're confusing the world as you think it is with the way it actually is.

Ask the policman and the prof. in Masachusetts why he jumps below his pay grade. Look at he voting record as senator.

Glen Longino
08-08-2009, 11:15 PM
Ask the policman and the prof. in Masachusetts why he jumps below his pay grade. Look at he voting record as senator.

Seriously, Jay, aren't you pleased with the way Obama has so far played the hand he was dealt? If not, what would you do differenty?
What would McCain be doing differently if he had become president?

Paul Girouard
08-09-2009, 12:07 AM
(b) is flat-out Wrong--obviously, at least one person has chosen to not support this war and is now beholden to the consequences.

What was "flat-out wrong" about Tom's statement? Enlist nor Officiers can chose not to deploy , but both types would get into a mess. Are you saying people can just "get away with it"? And face no repercussion's.


So is (c). No matter what your drill sergeant told you, enlisted servicemen have the same Consitutional rights as any other citizen. It would be odd indeed if the oath taken to uphold and defend the Constitution also was tantamount to a revocation of those selfsame rights for the enlistee.

Service members do lose there rights,,,,,,,, except in some extreme conditions.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1141441

Heres another you should like ,

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/solomon/background.html

You being a "sea lawyer" you may have some other intel you'd like to add. But in most cases a service member has given up most , if not all Constitutional rights. Thats what I remember and this article seems to support that.




At some point, you really need to stop telling lies.



Why don't you provide your "proof"?

jbelow
08-09-2009, 08:27 AM
Seriously, Jay, aren't you pleased with the way Obama has so far played the hand he was dealt? If not, what would you do differenty?
What would McCain be doing differently if he had become president?

BO was played a bad hand by Bush, but the same thing has happen to many presidents before. That is what I understood what the "CHANGE" was all about. To be better than Bush. BO sucks ! He is not as good as Bush. Things are slowing down in the oil fields and petro chemical industries in my area. People are loosing jobs and small businesses are feeling the pinch. BOs economy cost me a raise this year. It has become personal with me and BO.

Captain Blight
08-09-2009, 11:23 AM
Why don't you provide your "proof"?Well. I never said anything about protesting the war in a consequence-free environment. That was your assumption, not my statement.

Now: Your first link is about judicial review of military tribunals WRT writs of habeas corpus.

The second--don't ask, don't tell-- is not a Constitutional issue because freedom from discrimination due to sexual orientation is not a Constitutionally-guaranteed right.


You asked for proof? 57 pages of Congressional findings from 1963 (www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/const-rights-mil-pers.pdf - Similar)

Too, think of this: There is a fairly large body of case law WRT soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines (yes, Coasties too I suppose though I like to think of them as being a little more civilized) suing in civil court for violations of their Constitutional rights. Regardless of the outcome of these cases, that they appeared at all should be sufficient evidence that active-duty military does indeed enjoy equal protection under the Constitution. Well, maybe a little bit less of the Free Speech but otherwise unchanged.

Paul Girouard
08-09-2009, 11:37 AM
Well. I never said anything about protesting the war in a consequence-free environment. That was your assumption, not my statement.

Yes that was my assumption. Hell you can kill somebody , but more than likely there will be repercussions. So to assume your statement meant they could do it and get away with it scot free would be normal.

So sure you can do a lot of things that are illegal , BUT there will , again more than likely be a consequence to the action.





Now: Your first link is about judicial review of military tribunals WRT writs of habeas corpus.

The second--don't ask, don't tell-- is not a Constitutional issue because freedom from discrimination due to sexual orientation is not a Constitutionally-guaranteed right.


You asked for proof? 57 pages of Congressional findings from 1963 (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/const-rights-mil-pers.pdf - Similar)

Too, think of this: There is a fairly large body of case law WRT soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines (yes, Coasties too I suppose though I like to think of them as being a little more civilized) suing in civil court for violations of their Constitutional rights. Regardless of the outcome of these cases, that they appeared at all should be sufficient evidence that active-duty military does indeed enjoy equal protection under the Constitution. Well, maybe a little bit less of the Free Speech but otherwise unchanged.



So IF you sue and lose your contention is the court proceeding was your constitutional right? Thats a BIGGGGGGGGGGGGG stretch. :rolleyes:


I'll give your link a look, my assumption / guess is you've flooded the link with piles of info , that may or may not apply.

Paul Girouard
08-09-2009, 11:40 AM
Here's what you linked me ,

Library of Congress

Page Not Found

So much for proof:rolleyes:

Captain Blight
08-09-2009, 11:57 AM
Hmmm... Okay, try this one. (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/hearings-1962.html) Same thing as I linked above.


Sue and lose, proceeding... what??


No, not at all. I said that if, as you claim, the soldiery has no rights under the Constitution, then these cases would never have seen light of day. They would never have been allowed to be filed.

Paul Girouard
08-09-2009, 12:03 PM
Hmmm... Okay, try this one. (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/hearings-1962.html) Same thing as I linked above.




Does not tell me much , some body got a hearing , theres a picture / image of a book titled Cons. Rights of Mil. Pers.

Does not say they had them. But IF you point is / was that a mil. member could get a hearing about their rights , I guess your right. Now whether they have any is NOT answered.

They all could still be in Leavenworth breaking big rocks into little rocks.

Captain Blight
08-09-2009, 12:08 PM
Okay, found something:


Q: Are there any key constitutional issues where military law differs significantly from civilian law? For example, are search and seizure standards less stringent?

An oft-repeated myth is that citizens lose their constitutional rights when they put on our Nation’s uniform. In fact, members of the military retain most of their constitutional rights when tried by court-martial, including the right to counsel, the right to exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the 4th and 5th amendment, the freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishments, and so forth.

There are, however, subtle differences given the necessity to perform immediate military duties. Soldiers are, for example, subject to inspection which typically has no civilian equivalent, and they are limited in certain political activities while in uniform. Other differences include conviction by 2/3 majority of a jury and juries not selected at random. Most observers consider courts-martial to be very fair proceedings.

This, from the Harvard School of Law (http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/spotlight/criminal-law/related/maggs.html), and a Q&A with LTC Gregory Maggs. I think we can agree they mostly know what they're talking about over there.

Captain Blight
08-09-2009, 12:10 PM
Does not tell me much , some body got a hearing , theres a picture / image of a book titled Cons. Rights of Mil. Pers.
Click the image of the book to view the PDF.

Paul Girouard
08-09-2009, 12:23 PM
Click the image of the book to view the PDF.



My laptop doesn't do PDF's. Sorry I'll miss out on that one. Can you C&P the snip-it's that apply?

I shouldn't trust you and anyone else for that matter , but in this case I will have to, or I'll just not get to read it.

Captain Blight
08-09-2009, 12:24 PM
It's a 966-page document! Holy cats, the 59 pages wer just a summary. No C&P possible, I'm afraid.

In the meantime, Here (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Warren1.html) is a tidy little essay by Earl Warren.

Captain Blight
08-09-2009, 01:38 PM
Jeepers, Paul!

Here I go making your life easier and providing you with correct information and not simple barrack-room rumor mill, and I don't even get a thank-you? Or at least an admission that you were laboring under a misconception?

I see the leopard does not change his shorts.

Pfft.

Tom Galyen
08-09-2009, 02:23 PM
Captain Blight on the Bilge,

I would like for you to tell us what your experience in the military is or was. You of course know mine and have decided that I am a liar. You must have great experience as a "Meat Wrangler" in things military that we are not aware of so enlighten us with your military experience. In the mean time nothing that you have posted has changed what I said. IF there is something in Chief Justice Earl Warren essay that shows that I am wrong why not high light it and post it. Also you should know that this is an essay and therefore an opinion and not law.
I said in my post and I would have told my "Enlisteds" that they do not have any constitutional right. I would not have told them that they did not have any rights, that would have been wrong. HOWEVER, the rights they do have are spelled out in the UCMJ and this only. Do they have the right to a civilian attorney? Yes, but he had better be one experienced in military law. Just to elucidate you on the UCMJ I here post a few articles which may show you the difference between military law and civilian law.

91. ART. 91. INSUBORDINATE CONDUCT TOWARD WARRANT OFFICER, NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER, OR PETTY OFFICER
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who--
(1) strikes or assaults a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office;
(2) willfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; or
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer while that officer is in the execution of his office;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

16. ART. 116. RIOT OR BREACH OF PEACE
Any person subject to this chapter who causes or participates in any riot or breach of the peace shall be punished as a court- martial may direct.

17. ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Art. 124. MAIMING
Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to injure, disfigure, or disable, inflicts upon the person of another an injury which--
(1) seriously disfigures his person by a mutilation thereof;
(2) destroys or disables any member or organ of his body; or
(3) seriously diminishes his physical vigor by the injury of any member or organ;
is guilty of maiming and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 134. General article:
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special , or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

Note Article 117 and tell me how that squares with the right a civilian has to "Free Speach."

Note Article 124, again how does this square with "Free Speach" and yes there have been people who have been charged under this article with what the military considers "obscene tattoos."

Especially note Article #134 Called the "Catch all" article. If your a "Trouble maker" and they can't figure anything else to charge you with they can and have and will use this beauty.

Note in each article listed the final phrase, that you will be punished as a court martial may direct. Two people may be found guilty of the same sin at a court martial and get severely different sentences. This is why I said that the enlisted man in the case that started this thread was taking a very risky chance IF he was only trying to get out of the military to get a good paying civilian job with the skills he learned in the Army. Technically the Court since it found him guilty could have even sentenced him to death because we are at war. I know, as he does, that that will not happen in our world, but it could.

Now you called me a liar and said I should stop telling lies. The worst I could be accused of according to your own Post #47 is perpetuating a myth in the words of LTC Maggs. However I think I never gave out a wrong piece of info to any group of "enlisteds." Therefore, I believe you owe me an apology, but do not believe I'll ever see it as your type is not into such behavior as to admit that you may have gone overboard.

Now because I do not believe that you have ever served in the military I'll give you a short lesson in military life. Because of your post #33, if we were in the military, you could be charged with Articles 91, 117, and 134. And if found guilty punished as a court martial might decide. How do I know this? From personal experience as I was the person charged. I accused a 2nd class petty officer of not being able to "con and outboard motor boat across a mud puddle." He charged me with those three articles. The charges went through my division chief who gave me the choice of "Captains Mast" or "extra military instruction" (Polishing the boilers for an hour) after normal working hours. He told me that although what I said was absolutely true, he could not go around having his third class petty officer be insubordinate to his second class petty officers. I wisely chose to polish the boiler, when I got down there I found that my chief had called ahead and told them to just keep me there for an hour I didn't have to actually climb on the hot boiler and polish it, in other words he mediated the punishment in light of his knowledge. Now this is actual life in the military. Everyone who heard of the incident learned a lesson from it.

Paul Girouard
08-09-2009, 02:45 PM
Jeepers, Paul!

Here I go making your life easier and providing you with correct information and not simple barrack-room rumor mill, and I don't even get a thank-you? Or at least an admission that you were laboring under a misconception?

I see the leopard does not change his shorts.

Pfft.



Did you notice my light was off? So thanks but your essay does not wash with a sailor at sea , or even a airdale on shore being tried at Captains Mast by his Skipper , where hear say , and any other mis-mash of "evidence" can and is used in enlisted sailor's trial at Capt. Mast.

You could tell it to the Marines down in the brig who you where railroaded , they had a lot of compassion for that sort of thing. Maybe thats why they no longer has the Brig as thier assignment.

But live in your reality , it seems to be a general theme, that yours does not match my personal experience.

BTW my closest experience at Capt. Mast was as a character witness for the accused, he was found guilty , and in retrospect , he was guilty as charged.

The other was a open Capt. Mast where at quarters the Skipper read his findings and had the entire squadron do a about face to the now E-1 BCD discharged sailor, as he , the Skipper put it , "These good sailors do not have to look at a scumbag like you Airmen Recruit ( name with held for PC purposes) , now get off my air station!"

Ye he had rights, sure :rolleyes:


He was dope smoker. You won't know anyone like that would you:D

I'm sure he's gone on to be a productive member of the civilian society.

pefjr
08-09-2009, 03:26 PM
Afghanistan has a familiar V/Nam ring to it. Congress is still shirking their responsibility to declare war. Except this time its a volunteer Army. You don't want to volunteer? Fine, pay the Army back for your training and get out. There are plenty of volunteers that want to fight a war and plenty of money to do the dirty work.

I am still asking for a reason that the US should be there anymore. I am pleased to see a couple of guys that refuse to do it.

QUOTE "I think it's a just war, but I don't think it's about defending the United States, or Canada (my own country, which is also engaged in the fight there)." Captain Intrepid

How could you think it is a "just" war?? but not about defending our country.
What do you think it's about?

Tom Galyen
08-09-2009, 04:00 PM
The actual definition of a "Just War" is a very tough one. Even WWII which almost everyone would accept as a "Just War" has a hard time with the total definition. Forgive my poor wording of it, but it comes from memory of a lecture in our church by a retired pastor who is lecturing on ethics at the U of I and has studied intensely the idea of a just war. WWII's problem is with the clause or whatever you want to call it that the response to an aggressors attach should be commensurate to that of the aggressor. The leveling of German cities and the use of nuclear weapons in Japan give many cause as to whether or not the response of the allies were greater than was called for.

If even WWII has problems meeting the criteria of a "Just War" then I would say that the criteria may need to be changed. I myself have a hard time "Justifying" our continued presence in Afghanistan other than to say that as long as Al Qaeda elements are present we need to be near their holes so we take them out when needed. They do present a "Clear and Present Danger" to the safety and security of the U. S. and every other nation on earth.

As to Iraq, I've never agreed that we should have gone in there in the second place. The first Gulf War was needed, because of the actions of Iraq in Kuwait, and what was obvious expansionist policies of Saddam Hussein. But as I told my fellow workers "We will regret involvement in Iraq as much as we have regretted our involvement in Vietnam.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that some wars may be necessary whether or not they are "Just." However neither enlisted men or officers can decide on what wars they are going to serve in. Especially if you enlisted in the military voluntarily while the fighting is going on and then decide that you don't like it anymore.

Paul Girouard
08-09-2009, 04:23 PM
However neither enlisted men or officers can decide on what wars they are going to serve in. Especially if you enlisted in the military voluntarily while the fighting is going on and then decide that you don't like it anymore.



That was worth repeating IMO.

PeterSibley
08-09-2009, 05:16 PM
The actual definition of a "Just War" is a very tough one. Even WWII which almost everyone would accept as a "Just War" has a hard time with the total definition. Forgive my poor wording of it, but it comes from memory of a lecture in our church by a retired pastor who is lecturing on ethics at the U of I and has studied intensely the idea of a just war. WWII's problem is with the clause or whatever you want to call it that the response to an aggressors attach should be commensurate to that of the aggressor. The leveling of German cities and the use of nuclear weapons in Japan give many cause as to whether or not the response of the allies were greater than was called for.

If even WWII has problems meeting the criteria of a "Just War" then I would say that the criteria may need to be changed. I myself have a hard time "Justifying" our continued presence in Afghanistan other than to say that as long as Al Qaeda elements are present we need to be near their holes so we take them out when needed. They do present a "Clear and Present Danger" to the safety and security of the U. S. and every other nation on earth.

As to Iraq, I've never agreed that we should have gone in there in the second place. The first Gulf War was needed, because of the actions of Iraq in Kuwait, and what was obvious expansionist policies of Saddam Hussein. But as I told my fellow workers "We will regret involvement in Iraq as much as we have regretted our involvement in Vietnam.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that some wars may be necessary whether or not they are "Just." However neither enlisted men or officers can decide on what wars they are going to serve in. Especially if you enlisted in the military voluntarily while the fighting is going on and then decide that you don't like it anymore.

Thanks Tom ,a good post .The whole thing is up for serious debate but I don't substantially disagree with you .

pefjr
08-09-2009, 05:46 PM
QUOTE "I guess what I'm trying to say is that some wars may be necessary whether or not they are "Just." However neither enlisted men or officers can decide on what wars they are going to serve in. Especially if you enlisted in the military voluntarily while the fighting is going on and then decide that you don't like it anymore." Tom Galen

It was necessary to go after 9/11. I asking why is it necessary now? What's the goal? When do we know we have won? Its too expensive in lives and $ to "just stay near their holes".

As long as Congress will not take the full responsibility of the consequences, a volunteer can quit volunteering any time they choose. Giving 30 days is costing more tax dollars, just take their benefits and pay and boot'em. A doubtful soldier is like a drunk driver, he/she is gonna get someone killed. And the Army has volunteers waiting in line.

Paul Girouard
08-09-2009, 06:44 PM
QUOTE

It was necessary to go after 9/11.

I asking why is it necessary now?

To lessen the risk of another attack on CONUS



What's the goal?

Osama Bin Laden.

When do we know we have won?

We may never know, 50 years, or so, from now will be the deciding factor. I'm sure I will not be around then. You may be , but I'll be returned to dirt by then , pretty surely.

Its too expensive in lives and $ to "just stay near their holes".


Your statement needs work, you mean to keep "them" terrorist near thier holes? Exactly who is the "thier" ?

As long as Congress will not take the full responsibility of the consequences, a volunteer can quit volunteering any time they choose.

There is no verbage in a military contract to support that statement.

Your pulling that out of yer arse.


Giving 30 days is costing more tax dollars, just take their benefits and pay and boot'em. A doubtful soldier is like a drunk driver, he/she is gonna get someone killed. And the Army has volunteers waiting in line.



That would not be in support of a military way of thinking, it would not produce unit cohesiveness. There fore it is not a option.

All soldiers / seamen / airmen , marines can and will be " doubtful" thats due to human nature. The "fear" of failing your shipmates / foxhole mates ,etc,( and / or of the resulting punishment Capt. Mast for a sailor is but one of the tools used to promote unit cohesiveness,) may at some point be all your running / working on.

Being a "Army of one" at one time was a recruiting slogan , it was a dumb slogan as any unit is only was weak as it's weakest link , that would be anyone, a unit divided is a defeated unit.

WHO RARR eh!!!!!!!!

But thats, in part, how the military works

Tom Galyen
08-09-2009, 07:23 PM
Golly Gee Bud, I don't know when the war will be over. Do you think it would be a wise idea to pull all our troops home and say "You won have fun, see you after your next attack in the U.S.?" I recently watched an Al Jazeera clip on u-tube which had a well dressed very calm speaking Arab in some Middle eastern country telling how the next attack would not really need all the complex infrastructure of the last, as all it would need is one "martyr" to carry as little as small suitcase of Anthrax across the Mexican border to release in a major American city. They could then kill not a couple of thousand people but ten to a hundred thousand. Maybe when people like this no more, then maybe the war will be over. Maybe when the insane hate mongers who teach young boys to hate to the point that when they are old enough they will strap on bombs to blow up people who don't see eye to eye with them close their school or begin to teach what the Koran really says, maybe the war will be over.

Recent world statistics say that there are between 1.3 to 1.8 Billion Muslims in the world as of 2007. An acquaintance in the local Mosque told me that only 1% of the worlds Muslims can be considered terrorists or supporters of terrorism. Golly, Bud, that means that statistically there are 13 million to 18 million people of the Muslim faith who are either willing to strap on a bomb, or to carry that suitcase with the Anthrax, or at least are willing to support those who do.

And this doesn't even take into account the people of other faiths and political beliefs who are willing to do it as well. Just recently in Maine a woman was charged with shooting her husband in what she says was self defense, and police found evidence that she was telling the truth about him collecting ingredients to make a bomb to kill Obama and members of Congress. Timothy McVeigh is alive and well, and you ask when will the war be over? Why don't you give us your wise assessment? Bring the troops home and concede the country of Afghanistan back to the Taliban and their brothers Al Qaeda? Pull out of Iraq after we broke what little semblance of a country and let the extremists take over there before a democracy has a chance to take hold.

The story was in a magazine article I read about the lead up to the Iraq war and one of the Pentagon senior officers told President Bush that invading a country is like breaking something in a China Shop that now you become responsible for it. Like it or not we are now responsible for both those countries, we can stand up to our responsibilities or we can cut and run. What is your recommendation? You can't say, "We shouldn't have gone there in the first place," thats done, the question is what now? To what lengths are we now willing to do the right thing?

You also suggest that the oath taken and contracts signed by people who enlist in the military be treated as the same as those signed to get a car or a house loan. Well, I got the training I want for free (at taxpayer expense that is) now I want out I don't like what the military is asking me to do. I don't know what you did for a living before you retired, but I'm glad I never had to enter in a business contract with you, that is what you think a persons word should be.

Lastly please learn to spell my name correctly, it is a small sign of respect.

Tom Galyen
08-09-2009, 08:44 PM
Ozzie,

Do you mean the U.S. Army plagiarized the slogan? Heaven forbid. As a tax payer I think we should get our money back from whatever high priced ad agency they used for that one. "Be all that you can be," made a little sense, but the Army of one was just dumb with a capital Duh. :)

Maybe the enlisted man and/or Major Cook took the slogan to heart and decided that since they each were an Army of One they can decide themselves what that army can do or not do?

pefjr
08-09-2009, 08:48 PM
Well golly gee( isn't golly gee a little disrespectful) Tom(sorry about the name, no disrespect intended) but I don't buy any of your "fear" of Afghanistan. By staying, we definitely (not maybe) lose lives.

QUOTE "You won have fun, see you after your next attack in the U.S.?" Good Idea, bring the troops home.

If we assume full responsibility for those countries they will never take responsible for themselves.

Your last paragraph is just twisting what I posted. I will not respond to any more of that common bilge practice. Can't you make your point without twisting my words? No?, then you have no point.

I am afraid Afghan is becoming a bog.

pefjr
08-09-2009, 08:52 PM
[quote=Paul Girouard;2282747]Where is OBL? Your whole post is garbage. Throw it out.

Tom Galyen
08-09-2009, 09:02 PM
I am not trying to "twist your words." What you wrote was:

"As long as Congress will not take the full responsibility of the consequences, a volunteer can quit volunteering any time they choose."

Now I read that as simply because he took an oath and signed a contract he can quit any time he wants because in his eyes or your eyes Congress has not "taken the full responsibility for the consequences." Now how did I twist your words. Either a soldier is responsible for the full meaning of his words, to the bitter end, or he isn't, what is it? Either his oath is more than given to a bank for a loan or it isn't. I try to live by the old saw, "My word is my bond" I'm not totally successful at it but I keep trying. In spite of anything I may or may not have thought of the Vietnam war I served my full time, and then some. John Teetsel did also, I expect the same from everyone who puts on the uniform. Nothing less.

Tom Galyen
08-09-2009, 09:04 PM
Ozzie,

I did pay for it I'm a taxpayer, and worse a Navy taxpayer! What a kick in the pants! :)

pefjr
08-09-2009, 09:19 PM
I am not trying to "twist your words." What you wrote was:

"As long as Congress will not take the full responsibility of the consequences, a volunteer can quit volunteering any time they choose."

Now I read that as simply because he took an oath and signed a contract he can quit any time he wants because in his eyes or your eyes Congress has not "taken the full responsibility for the consequences." Now how did I twist your words. Either a soldier is responsible for the full meaning of his words, to the bitter end, or he isn't, what is it? Either his oath is more than given to a bank for a loan or it isn't. I try to live by the old saw, "My word is my bond" I'm not totally successful at it but I keep trying. In spite of anything I may or may not have thought of the Vietnam war I served my full time, and then some. John Teetsel did also, I expect the same from everyone who puts on the uniform. Nothing less. And I did too. Then I got home and was treated like the enemy. Then Carter gives amnesty for draft dodgers. Then a draft dodging crook was elected to the office of President. Twice. And I had to look at the SOB wearing a AF Bomber Jacket and puked all over myself. And Congress still has not been held responsible. Leadership Tom. How can you ask a kid to be responsible?

I will tell you how. The only way is to demand Congress take the responsibility of declaring war and the consequences that go with that declaration. And stop using the Office of the President as the scapegoat.

Paul Girouard
08-09-2009, 09:22 PM
[quote=Paul Girouard;2282747]Where is OBL? Your whole post is garbage. Throw is out.





In light of your prior post #63 do you want to re-think / re -word your post 64? If not, I'd say you are a hypocrite.

pefjr
08-09-2009, 09:24 PM
[quote=pefjr;2282808]




In light of your prior post #63 do you want to re-think / re -word your post 64? If not, I'd say you are a hypocrite. Say it, another common bilge practice.

Tom Galyen
08-09-2009, 10:11 PM
pefjr

I'm sorry for your experiences. I served in Vietnam also and even to this day there are people who don't like me for it. Too bad for them. I had no love for Carter and his amnesty either, as far as the records of Clinton and Bush I'd rather not talk of my opinions of those it would upset you. However all of it has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. As a soldier you knew that once you took the oath that you were answerable to those above you or faced the wrath of the USMJ and military justice. What in your opinion Congress did or did not do, had nothing to do with it. No soldier or sailor can use as a defense at a court martial "Well I feel that congress has not taken its full responsibility for this mess so I refuse to participate any longer in it," or "I do not feel that Barrack Obama is not the President because he has not shown me his birth certificate." For either a stretch in Leavenworth is calling. Would you want to serve in the foxhole with someone you couldn't trust?

Down through history soldiers have had to contend with non-coms, officers, and national commanders that were not worthy of them and yet did their duty, you are now saying that each soldier should be able to choose what he wants to do and quit whenever he wants. A recruit doesn't want to clean the latrine in the barracks? Fine he should be let out. Sorry it doesn't wash and won't, especially in this day of an all volunteer service. With the media available every recruit knows what he is going to be called to do. And once you raise your hand and sign those papers you are no longer a volunteer who can un-volunteer himself, you are a soldier or sailor and under the UCMJ with all its penalties.

Writing this post reminded me of a dream I had on my first night in the Navy trying to get to sleep in a huge drill hall at Great Lakes. I dreamed that I walked across a room away from my parents and sisters and walked through a door that closed behind me. I realized in my dream that the door could never be opened again, and I was right. My life was different and although I returned home many times on leave I always knew that I couldn't go home again to what it was before I entered the Navy, it was different.

Tom Galyen
08-09-2009, 10:25 PM
pefjr,

Another thought. I don't know if you've ever read Isaac Asimov's book "Starship Trooper" I think I have the title right. One of the themes he has running through the book is that the only way a person can be franchised to vote is to serve in the military for 2 year. A citizen has all the same rights as a veteran except if they have not served they cannot vote. In the book it is very difficult to enlist, but up through boot camp it is very easy to leave, in fact it was encouraged. Something to think about as all public offices from the lowest to the top would be held by veterans. The idea is that if you not wiling to serve then you had no right to make decisions in the running of the planet.

Maybe your idea would work if it was made very difficult to enlist, easy to get out from boot camp, but then you received an extreme bonus, perhaps a totally free college education? But you had to serve your whole time. Two years in the military gets you two years at a community college, 4 years gets you 4 years of college.

Just a random thought from an old sailor in the middle of the road.

Tom Galyen
08-09-2009, 10:26 PM
Ozzie,

I agree with you it is the "Edsel" of advertising ideas.

pefjr
08-09-2009, 10:39 PM
QUOTE: "Would you want to serve in the foxhole with someone you couldn't trust?"

Did you read my post? My post "A doubtful soldier is like a drunk driver, he/she is gonna get someone killed." Hell no, and I would not want to have to deal with that around me in a tight situation. Boot him/her out, as I have said. No benefits , no pay, plus pay the Army back for all their training. This can be done the same way a student loan is paid back.

Paul Girouard
08-09-2009, 10:42 PM
QUOTE:

Did you read my post? My post "A doubtful soldier is like a drunk driver, he/she is gonna get someone killed." Hell no, and I would not want to have to deal with that around me in a tight situation. Boot him/her out, as I have said. No benefits , no pay, plus pay the Army back for all their training. This can be done the same way a student loan is paid back.




Dream on :rolleyes:

Tom Galyen
08-09-2009, 10:43 PM
Now your clear and I totally understand you. Did you get a chance to see my Post #73, maybe something to reward those who stay better then the so called GI bill that they have now. Think of all the leaders we got after WWII and those guys used the GI Bill they had.

pefjr
08-09-2009, 10:47 PM
Never read the book. I think the GI Bill today is very good. That one of the reasons the line to get in is long.

pefjr
08-09-2009, 10:51 PM
Dream on :rolleyes:
That's exactly where I am going, good night.

Captain Intrepid
08-09-2009, 10:51 PM
pefjr,

Another thought. I don't know if you've ever read Isaac Asimov's book "Starship Trooper" I think I have the title right. One of the themes he has running through the book is that the only way a person can be franchised to vote is to serve in the military for 2 year. A citizen has all the same rights as a veteran except if they have not served they cannot vote. In the book it is very difficult to enlist, but up through boot camp it is very easy to leave, in fact it was encouraged. Something to think about as all public offices from the lowest to the top would be held by veterans. The idea is that if you not wiling to serve then you had no right to make decisions in the running of the planet.

Actually, it was Heinlein who wrote it and the Federation was obligated to find a way for anyone to serve who wanted to, and that service wasn't just military service, though that was the primary one. :P I should reread it, good book.

If you like future war books, you should read The Forever War and Forever Peace.

PeterSibley
08-09-2009, 11:15 PM
pefjr,

Another thought. I don't know if you've ever read Isaac Asimov's book "Starship Trooper" I think I have the title right. One of the themes he has running through the book is that the only way a person can be franchised to vote is to serve in the military for 2 year. A citizen has all the same rights as a veteran except if they have not served they cannot vote. In the book it is very difficult to enlist, but up through boot camp it is very easy to leave, in fact it was encouraged. Something to think about as all public offices from the lowest to the top would be held by veterans. The idea is that if you not wiling to serve then you had no right to make decisions in the running of the planet.

Maybe your idea would work if it was made very difficult to enlist, easy to get out from boot camp, but then you received an extreme bonus, perhaps a totally free college education? But you had to serve your whole time. Two years in the military gets you two years at a community college, 4 years gets you 4 years of college.

Just a random thought from an old sailor in the middle of the road.

Sounds like you dream of Sparta , we dream of Athens .

Paul Girouard
08-09-2009, 11:32 PM
Say it, another common bilge practice.



Yes,that true! But most folks try to spread the posts out, you know, allow say 5 or 10 post between flip-flops in stance. :D

Paul Girouard
08-09-2009, 11:36 PM
That's exactly where I am going, good night.



Excellence seg-way(sp) How do you spell that? It's a French word I think? means a smooth transition from one to another subject, or some such.

Flying Orca
08-10-2009, 07:07 AM
"Segue" - you have the meaning pretty much correct; came into English through musical notation.

Paul Girouard
08-10-2009, 08:11 AM
"Segue" - you have the meaning pretty much correct; came into English through musical notation.


Thanks.

htom
08-10-2009, 08:47 AM
Special Court, not General Court, so the death penalty wasn't possible.

If I was innocent (did not do the deed) I would rather be court-martialed than have a civilian trial. If I had done the deed, I would rather have a civilian trial. It is my impression that court-martials are more about who-did-what, and trials are more about who-can-be-blamed. Neither system is perfect.

If you are going to read Starship Troopers (RAH, not IA) and the Forever trilogy, you should also read Armour (John Steakly) and the trilogy that starts with Old Man's War (John Scalzi).

Captain Blight
08-10-2009, 06:15 PM
Captain Blight on the Bilge,

Blah blah blah Oh my god I am so full of testosterone-laden BS
(or other words to that effect).Okay: First things first: I enlisted in the Army Reserve in January of 1986, Armored Corps; transferred to active duty May of '87; ETSed in May of '90; was recalled to active duty with IRR January of '91, and got out for good in March of '91. During that 5-year span I never received any disciplinary actions harsher than pushups and a little extra duty, and was honorably discharged, with a couple ribbons for my time and trouble. So I'm an honorably discharged, decorated combat-era veteran, which is nothing to be sneezed at.

Too, my father was a career officer, U.S. Army Security Agency. I've been around the military for like 24 years myowndamnself.


You please will note that in you original post, the post that prompted me to call you a liar, you said nothing about rights during UCMJ hearings, company-grade, field-grade or courts-martial. You claimed, and I quote,

He signed a legal contract, and by doing so gave up all constitutional rights. For those who don't know that little fact, its true. While on active duty a service person has NO constitutional rights, period.. As I have pointed out in my links and particularly in my post #47, where I link to a Q&A with a currently-serving JAG officer says in no uncertain terms that the idea a person gives up all Constitutional rights when they take the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution is a myth. What you claimed is demonstrably and provably untrue.

You told your EMs otherwise. You could have found out the whole truth by picking up the phone and calling the JAG office.


And, what you said about how I could be charged with blah article blah blah blah? REALLY REALLY REALLY telling how you just ASSUME you would outrank me. I bet your EMS just LOOOOOOOVed you, threw you big going-away parties and never ever hoped their hazing bullying arrogant fearless leader wouldn't darken their doors ever again.

Some men are born leaders. Some I wouldn't trust to lead a 2-year-old to the bathroom. Guess which category you're in.

Paul Girouard
08-10-2009, 07:43 PM
And, what you said about how I could be charged with blah article blah blah blah? REALLY REALLY REALLY telling how you just ASSUME you would outrank me. I bet your EMS just LOOOOOOOVed you, threw you big going-away parties and never ever hoped their hazing bullying arrogant fearless leader wouldn't darken their doors ever again.

Some men are born leaders. Some I wouldn't trust to lead a 2-year-old to the bathroom. Guess which category you're in.



Well I'll say I'm glad I never had you for a CO Captain, wow, what a harsh Captains Mast you would have presided over:eek: :eek:

Nothing as powerful as the Captain or Commander of a war ship at sea!

90 days restriction , 90 days fine of half pay , reduction in rate to the next lowest pay grade.

A guy would leave mast a E-1, I owe you one:eek: :D

Tom Galyen
08-12-2009, 01:14 AM
Captain Blight,

Are you angry that that in spite of your bullying and false accusations some one won’t knuckle under? Tough, grow up and get used to it.

A few points, that you may want to ponder.

1. You could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment and problems if you would have said in your post #33 that A) I was wrong, or B) I was incorrect or C) that I was disseminating wrong information, etc. But no like a typical bullying barracks lawyer (sea lawyer we called the type in the Navy) you begin with accusations of “Lying.” If you think that I was going to let you get away with such behavior you don’t know me. Apparently your idea of a discussion is to call anyone a liar who does not agree with your ideas.

2.You may want to know that toward the end of my Naval Reserve career I taught classes to incoming ‘Blue Jackets” one of the topics would have been the UCMJ. I told them what I posted here and was never corrected by anyone concerned about what I had said, and I had Officers and chiefs sitting in at various times.

3. I have no idea how you came up with the ridiculous idea that I think I out rank you. I have no idea what your rank was in the Army and couldn’t care less. When I put my examples in my post #52 it was just to prove my point that you were wrong and that even by what you had written you could be punished in the military. Nothing more than that. Anything you read into it beyond that is the raving of your own mind. As far as I know I got along well with all enlisted men above, equal, and below me, but I never worried about whether or not they LOVED me. The Navy of my day took a dim view of sailors LOVING each other, I don’t, however, know about the Army. In a small Navy community as is found in east central Illinois I run into people I served with and we still get along fine.

4. Lastly, I tried to take your advice and talk to a JAG officer, but with the closing of Chanute Air Force Base there is no such office here and I don’t know the phone number of one. However after work to day I went to the local recruiting center to put our discussion to the recruiter. I showed him a copy of my Post #33, and asked if I had written anything wrong. He said he could not see anything incorrect with what I had posted. While we were talking the Army recruiter came in (his office is next door) I showed it to him and he agreed with the Navy recruiter.

5. Now all that said, I never at any time said or even meant to say that a person in the Military HAVE NO RIGHTS. I said only that he has NO CONSTITUTIONAL rights. The rights he has, THE ONLY RIGHTS they has are those given him in the UCMJ. Do those reflect the rights of U.S. Civilians? Yes they do reflect them, this is what LTC Maggs said in your posting, and what is reflected in essay by Chief Justice Earl Warren that you posted. (In both those postings by the way they were talking only about the rights an accused has at a military court martial not what we are talking about here.) HOWEVER, the UCMJ, which was authorized by congress and signed by the president, does not give a military person the same rights as a citizen. Example, as a citizen you have the right to bear arms (Second Amendment) does a soldier have the same? No, you must obtain the permission of your commanding officer and then keep any weapons you may have in the armory. (I’m excluding base housing for married persons to keep the discussion simple). Example #2 does your commanding officer need a search warrent to check the contents of your locker? No, this is called a inspection and he can do it any time he wants. Can your boss put you in jail for being AWOL and put you on bread and water? No, but as late as the 1980’s it was being done on the U.S.S. Yosemite while I was there for training. One of ships company was three days late and the CO put him in the brig for three days on bread and water because it was not his first offense. Unusual punishment? No one thought so. If you decide at work that your boss is unfair can you organize a group against him? Yes, its called a union. Can you do the same in the military? No its called mutiny. In my post #52 which you may have taken offense at, I told the story of how I was sent to polish the boilers because of what I said to another petty officer. If you noted in the story, the chief who punished me agreed that what I said was true, he just didn’t like one petty officer talking about another like that. When, I in the same post, said that you could have found youself being charged because of what you had written in your Post #33, it was only an object lesson. We are civilians and that doesn’t happen in civilian life.

In closing, I would recommend that you carefully read your posts on this subject and ask yourself how you would feel if someone had written about you in that manner on a public forum, how you would feel. See if in the future you can’t rein in your ranting in a little and then you can spend more time on things that really matter.

pefjr
08-12-2009, 08:44 AM
Tom,http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif