Posted on 03/07/2006 6:20:50 PM PST by Former Military Chick
A judge in San Antonio has denied the request of a former Fort Sam Houston soldier to force the Army to release her as a conscientious objector.
U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled Friday that Pfc. Katherine Jashinski, 23, did not prove she has a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participating in war.
The judge previously refused to block orders that shipped her to Fort Benning, Ga.
There, Jashinski has refused to participate in weapons training in preparation for deployment to Afghanistan. She has been charged with "missing movement" and faces a court-martial, said J.E. McNeil, executive director of the Center on Conscience & War, a Washington-based group that has supported the rights of conscientious objectors for decades.
Jashinski, of Wisconsin, enlisted in 2002 in the Texas Army National Guard for six years. She says her beliefs evolved and that she later took the position that she did not support killing or war.
The Army denied her request for conscientious objector status, saying she wasn't sincere and that she declared only after learning her unit was activated.
Frankly, anyone who does not want to serve heart and sole, well, do not put them along side my beloved. I just wouldn't feel as though they would have his six.
imho
bttt
Part of being a grown-up is accepting consequences. She should serve her time in the lock-up with her head up.
Its a volunteer service. If they volunteer, they can't later claim they didn't mean it, just when their unit is about to deploy. But if their change of heart is sincere, they should plead guilty to whatever is the charge and do their time.
PING!!!
Exactly.
They need to stop wasting time on this puke.
6 + 6 and a kick.
I sure don't see her functioning in any capacity anywhere in the military.
Joining any military service with the idea of not being required to fight is a very stupid idea.
Yes, it is ... she volunteered I just do not get it.
She should spend some time in Leavenworth. This is essentially desertion in time of war. I think five years would be about right. That's how much time I spent in the ROK.
So this CO deserves what she get's eh?
I don't consider the folks on the lamb in Canada to be bonified COs. True COs still find a way to serve. They can serve as corp medics or apply for other services that will accomodate their wish not to be involved in the taking of a life. Those services are honorable.
Countless COs served in Vietnam. I have a family member that served at Fort Detrick, Maryland by submitting to medical testing under a program approved for COs.
Some people have the mistaken idea that all COs are simply trying to avoid serving in a combat zone. Many COs have served there. As I understand it, some of them did so without a weapon. That's not a shirker in my book.
As for this woman, I'm not impressed.
This is the accounting of one such individual. When it comes to COs and those who seek to tranish their service, I have to step in and explain that COs are NOT what some people try to make them out to be, by using that status for cover.
COs have served with incredible distinction. Most are never recognized for that special service.
http://www.historynet.com/vn/bltombennett/
Totally rocking point that had escaped me. If she took the money for education than for darn sure she needs to either pay it back or pay it back and go to jail.
imho
The problem that I see is that she might just get separated with a bad discharge. Once upon a time that would keep you from getting a job. Now a lot of places would hire a dishonorably discharged CO over a decorated Vet.
Ping
At least 70% of Army jobs do not involve pointing a gun at anyone. She could cross train to become a cook or a medic.. or a recruiter!
There were earlier threads about her. She joined because of financial reasons because she was in college. It didn't sound like she did it for her country or any kind of training. She became a CO when things looked like she'd be activated. That's the way I understood it.
I have no sympathy for her.
Simple solution to the CO problem - let them serve out the remainder of their enlistment, including ready reserve following release from active duty in solitary confinement in Leavenworth!
she wasn't drafted. She signed up - she made a contract...
I'd have absolutely no problem with her getting CO status if she had asked to be transferred to non-combat support duty, but she didn't. She asked for a discharge. It's clear that she just wants out, period.
She made a commitment and signed a contract. The Army has held up it's end of the deal and she should have at least tried to honor her side by finding a way to continue her service without compromising all her new found moral views.
Shoot her.
That is the key.
My Dad was a concientious objector in WWII and volunteered for the Navy. He never left the states, was a radio operator. Why? Because he knew he had to serve his country, but didn't think he could ever kill anyone himself.
Except me a few times...
ping
When my Aunt Died, she who collected everything Little Bill, found a Citation from President Grant that cast a different light on the subject.
Suppose we are talking about a pharmacist refusing to sell a morning after pill because it violates his/her religious beliefs?
Should you be fired because you won't do what you were hired to do? Should you quit?
If you get fired for not doing your job, do you sue?
This is just me, obviously... if I can't in good conscience do what I was hired to do, I should be looking for another position, whether within the same company, or with another company.
If I was fired, for refusing to do something I was expected to do, I probably would not sue. It would depend, obviously, and I can't say under what conditions I would sue. My tendency would be to walk away, and find another company more in line with my ethics.
Its legitimate to try to remain inside the company, and try to effect changes, and where you have to draw the line will be different for different people. It isn't only pharmacies, although that was your example. Many jobs, almost any job, you could find yourself expected to do something that violates your conscience. You should know where your line is, and let people know where the line is when you get too close. And then refuse to cross it.
Whether you have a cause for legal action will depend on the situation. For me, since I dislike the idea of suing just on general principles, I would do so only if doing so would help to change what I viewed as an immoral situation. Not for money; its not me. But, obviously, money is what gets people's attention. But in your example of the pharmacist, I doubt he has cause for a lawsuit.
Obviously, he has the right to act in the political realm, and he has the right to publicize his situation, and to try to get public opinion on his side. Any citizen has that right. Thats how things change.
To carry this thread one more step, I am as pro-military and pro-cop as they come. But when my son went into the military, I told him that he must always be prepared to put his conscience first. Never do anything you can't live with when you take the uniform off. You may have to resign your post, you may even have to do time in jail, so be it. But know where the line is, and don't cross it.
I repeated the advice when he got out, and went into law enforcement. Always know where the line is, and never cross it. Resign if you have to. Testify if you have to. Honor and conscience come first.
Absolutely right.
http://www.thehistorynet.com/vn/bltombennett/
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/03.10.04/objector-0411.html
Two conscientious objectors that earned Medals of Honor.
Thank you. I appreciate it.
Wow, great post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.