Posted on 12/06/2007 7:48:10 AM PST by reaganaut1
True. Jimmah's amnesty for Kerry and other traitors erased a lot of BCDs and DDs. She, whose name shall not be mentioned, will do the same if elected.
From what I saw, the Navy for the most part automatically declared UA (unauthorized absentee) personnel deserters at 30 days. I think this was mostly for the purpose of freezing pay especially now that everyone gets paid by direct deposit. Also in conjunction with your point the declaration of desertion could made immediately if there was evidence the sailor never intended to return, i.e. a note that says "I'm never coming back".
A guy from my division on my first ship deserted. He cleaned out his locker of everything except for a cigar and an ace of spades. WTF? Nobody knew what to make of that one.
The fact remains, Canada is a nicer place to live than mexico and more like the US than mexico and that is most likely the reason that most deserters(the few that really desert)go to Canada. All of your arguments are just that: Arguments just because you feel you should defend the statement you made in your first comment about deserters fleeing to Canada and why. The answer is simple and I will repeat it since you have a hard time grasping basics: Canada is most like the place they live in now, therefore it is their first choice. There are really only two countries that deserters can flee to, Canada and Mexico. Canada wins hands down for most of them.
Just sitting there some things came to mind.
I first went in enlisted and then went OCS. Just random memories reference this topic.
• When I originally enlisted I had to go through a process and it was impossible for me to enlist on the spot. I had to come back later and finalize it. Part of the process was to ensure that I was not under the influence of alcohol or any other substance.
• During the process I had to sign a bunch of papers which asked questions about any moral objections I might have that would impede me from performing my job: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/eforms/dd1966.pdf (Please reference question 25)
• I had to take an oath of enlistment: “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.“
• This process involved sworn statements, witnesses, signatures in quadruplicate of forms that were written in plain simple English. Officers administering an oath, several days and I still had the option of backing out for a long time even after all the paperwork was completed.
These people were not tricked into service. They are all of legal age. They can’t be mentally ill or even under the influence of prescription drugs if they alter ones ability to make decisions. The recruiter in all truth paints a favorable picture, but does not lie. He wants to make his numbers, but if you fail out before a specified time he does not get full credit for the enlistment. Just a bunch of bodies that fail entry requirements or bomb out of basic does nothing for him.
A question that seldom gets presented by the media is how many of these deserters took their enlistment bonuses and paycheck and for how long, before suddenly having an epiphany during a war that they are actually morally conflicted about this whole concept.
Their entire argument revolves around two points:
• I was tricked into enlistment or the conditions of my enlistment were not made clear and this war is in direct conflict with my morals.
• The war is illegitimate and I don’t have to follow the orders given to me by the Commander in Chief, officers appointed above me, or Congress which approved military action.
I focused on the first point they present. However, as I jokingly already rhetorically added in their second argument, even that point has no merit. They are soldiers in the US military. What the UN, EU, or any other political body decides is completely irrelevant. When Sean Penn thinks a war is illegitimate because the UN didn’t approve it (Although they actually already did in 1990/1991) he must think that US soldiers are sworn in to defend some UN charter or mandate. Their defense really revolves around gaining some sort of public support with vapid arguments which will get some resonance in an unpopular war. People don’t look at the details nor logically reason in most decision making; it’s often emotional and a sort of group think. The war right now does not “feel” good to the mass consensus and hence non-valid, irrelevant arguments actually hold some weight. Any court-martial as with Watada will ultimately be made into a clown show where the true issue is avoided and long dissertations of war-crimes, the illegitimacy of this war, the decay of morale, made up stories of abuse from superiors etc. will be pushed to the forefront. The government inherently wishes to avoid long and large-scale mud fights which these issues turn into. With this inertia in public support, that’s why they have the huge rallies, the masterfully constructed web-blogs, give speeches, hump the leg of any reporter, etc. etc. etc., they hope to have the government back down.
Example: http://www.thankyoult.org
It is very sad, since it appears they they are at least in part successful. The boys taking the money; breaking a contract; breaking an oath; fleeing their country; often making false and inflammatory remarks about their own country, military, and leadership; hiding behind skirts that feel sorry for them, might get off easy after all. -IMHO
“So in your opinion would it be better to contact the MPs with any information about deserters, and then let the MPs contact the local police, or even the Canadian police? Or would it be better for individuals to contact the local police on their own.
I would think that in some areas the local police would be very helpful, but in others they might need a call from the military police before they are willing to take any action.”
Well, if it were me, and being that we now have a volunteer military, I would probably go about my business and not do anything. Reason being, there may be circumstances concerning individuals that I perceive to be AWOL that I may not be aware of.
Also, about the military police contacting local officials; you are causing me to reach “way back in my memory banks”, and maybe someone out there who is more current with today’s policy’s can answer this better, but as I recall, once someone is declared as AWOL he is reported to the FBI as such and the FBI takes the ball from there, contacts the local police of the subject AWOL, etc. I am sure that communication is electronic now but back in the day, communication was by U.S. mail, thus the process could take weeks, even months for closure.
Kerry's 1972 BCD and Letter of Reprimand remain hidden in his service record.
I always ask that question too. Mexico's warmer and has nicer beaches........Maybe its the Labatts.
My question always has been how Kerry has been able to sit on the Intelligence Committee of the Senate not to mention closed door briefings.
Of the 2 it wouldd be my choice also. It has its problems but it wins on the better beaches, better food, better adventure category.
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.