Posted on 09/02/2004 2:41:10 PM PDT by Radix
There is an article on another Internet site concerning a Soldier who is being charged with desertion.
The defense is claiming that this soldier who voluntarily enlisted in the United States armed forces is now a conscientious objector.
Ok, so one can sign up and swear an oath, but if ever conflict arises then our troops should just be able to bail.
I am sorry but in my humble opinion this sort of rationalization could lead to chaos in our Military.
It is so sad that Free Republic cannot have articles linked from certain sites who are supposedly representative of our Armed Forces. That is truly sad.
I would advise all FReepers to not got to the ArmyTimes website.
Please avoid MilitaryCity dot com.
We would not want to get in trouble by invoking our constitutionaly protected rights to comment negatively concerning the Rights that so-called journalistic enterprises regularly invoke.
Indeed, please do not mention anything on FR.com concerning an article which is found at
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-334182.php
Please avoid this web site which I will reluctantly post a link to in my next post!
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-334182.php
I really would advise FReepers to not read this article if they know or care about ahat is good for Freedom of the Press.
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-334182.php
Ok. I totally ignored your links.
Soldiers who don't want to follow the policy should not expect lenient treatment from military justice.
Thanks for the warning, I've blocked those sites from my computer.
>>Army Capt. Michael W. Johnson conducted a conscientious objector hearing for Pvt. Camilo Mejia in June at the Fort Sill correctional facility where Mejia is being held.<<
The Army appears to be following standard procedure for processing conscientious objector claims.
Just saying "I saw terrible, terrible things and I hate war" doesn't cut it - especially if you have already performed duties as a soldier under combat conditions. This deserter was a SSgt, so he can't claim to be ignorant of what the Army does. It also doesn't help that he has been convicted of an offense and is now claiming C.O. status in an apparent attempt to escape the punishment for his crime.
IIRC, the claim has to be founded on well-established, recognized moral or religious grounds that are deeply held for some duration prior to the decision to claim C.O. status. The C.O. has to document this with evidence. After speaking to the C.O. and reviewing the evidence, the hearing officer has to make a recommendation to approve or not approve. The captain recommended nonapproval (i.e., his C.O. claim is not properly founded according to the criteria in the regulation). Round One to the good guys.
Not surprisingly, the deserter's lawyers are going to appeal.
The Army does have a mechanism to deal with this kind of unfortunate occurrence. Unfortunately, part of the solution involves several years of residence at one of the Army's facilities in Leavenworth...
Alvin York was a pacifist yet he fought in a war for the greater good. I wonder if there is more fear than pacifism ruling the deserter's choice.
The view is not bad if you have a poolside room. :~)
Cowardice is covered in the UCMJ rather than in leadership manuals precisely because it is rare, and making it easier (or harder) for the coward to bail out probably wouldn't have any effect at all on the everyday military. There are just too few cowards to matter.
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.