Posted on 10/21/2004 6:55:35 AM PDT by pabianice
Patricia McCook and Jackie Butler have accepted a mission created when their husbands refused a fuel convoy order in Iraq last week. “He can’t speak because he has to live that life in the military right now,” Patricia McCook said of her husband. “I’m his voice on the outside, and there is nothing the military can do about it.”
“It’s our job now,” Jackie Butler said. “It’s our duty.”
Their husbands — Sgts. Larry McCook and Michael Butler, both of Jackson — and 16 other members of the Rock Hill, S.C.-based 343rd Army Reserve Quartermaster Company refused an order to deliver fuel citing “deadlined” vehicles that were not armored, poor leadership and contaminated fuel, their relatives said.
Brought together by their husbands’ decision, the women have become soldiers on the homefront. They’ve been bombarded with interview requests from news agencies around the world since the story of the platoon’s refusal of orders first appeared in The Clarion-Ledger.
They want the world to know their husbands would not have refused an order unless it was a “suicide mission,” they said.
Ask Jackie Butler and Patricia McCook about what kind of strain the past week has brought them. They’ll pause — look at one another and communicate without saying a word. Then Butler speaks.
“Look at these bags,” Butler said, removing her glasses and pointing to the circles beneath her eyes. “I just accumulated them this week. It has been a nightmare.”
Stress has come with the realization their husbands are caught in two battles in Iraq.
The women expected their husbands to face the threat of attacks from Iraqi insurgents when the Army reservists were deployed in February. But they never imagined a scenario that would have their own military holding their husbands under armed guard, or, according to the soldiers, sending them on missions with ill-equipped vehicles.
“He’s fighting a double battle,” Butler said of her husband. “That’s what hurts the most.”
The Army has denied the soldiers were ever held under armed guard.
Five members of the Army Reserve platoon were reassigned to different units, including Butler, 44, and McCook, 41, as the military investigates the refusal and the safety of the soldiers’ equipment.
The military has conceded the vehicles were not equipped with armor, something officials say is being addressed.
Patricia McCook had never met Jackie Butler before Saturday. In an interview with The Clarion-Ledger on Tuesday, the two women said they have forged a bond by swapping stories about their husbands, offering words of encouragement and a shoulder to lean on.
“Jackie is the only person in my world right now who knows exactly what I am going through,” Patricia McCook said.
“I’m sick-feeling, constantly,” Jackie Butler said. “Twenty-four hours (a day).” Sgt. McCook has been in the Army Reserves “off and on” for about 10 years, his wife said. Sgt. Butler is a 24-year reservist. Both men knew the severity of refusing orders and were not afraid to travel down dangerous routes, their wives said.
Outside of having a crew from The New York Times follow Jackie Butler to church or Patricia McCook talking with a reporter from NBC’s Dateline while taking her children to the dentist, the women are trying to carry on routinely with their lives.
“I didn’t think it would make the national news,” Patricia McCook said. “I knew it was going to be in The Clarion-Ledger because we went to you first. I sure didn’t think it was going to take on a life of its own like it has.”
The women said they think the upcoming presidential election may have played a role in why the national media took to the story.
Relatives of troops, even the troops themselves, have every right to speak their minds, said Lt. Col. Steven Boylan, director of the Combined Press Information Center in Iraq.
“But from what we are hearing in the media, there has been a lot of speculation and people speaking factually when they don’t know the facts,” Boylan said.
Patricia McCook and Jackie Butler said their husbands are fearful of speaking with reporters while the investigation is ongoing because their phone calls or e-mails might be monitored.
“I know how the military can cover things up,” said Patricia McCook, a former Army reservist. “They are trying to say our husbands and the others were never arrested or detained. That’s a lie. But this is something we are not going to let them sweep under the rug.”
Patricia McCook said she has received just one “hateful” phone call from a person in Texas who wished ill luck for her husband. Jackie Butler has received no flack, she said. People they see in Jackson, mostly strangers, offer them support, they said.
Both women had a talk with their children and stepchildren about why reporters keep calling their home and why their fathers are on television. The McCooks have two children, 16 and 14. Jackie Butler is a stepmother to two children, ages 14 and 10.
“I just told them to be careful of what they say around people,” Patricia McCook said. “I have to do that, too. But my husband and Jackie’s husband had the guts to stand up and do what they felt was right. We have to have the guts to stand up and tell the world that how they are being treated is wrong.”
Their husband's carreers are over. They have sealed their fate.
Until the investigation is complete, I'm going to reserve judgment on this. However, my husband - an Army 1SG - says that "IF" all these problems were going on, the Chain of Command should have been notified. What they did was refuse a "lawful" order. (Evidenced by the fact an off duty platoon ran the mission and nothing happened).
Also, I head on the news this morning that the Captian (company commander probably) has been releaved of commander and 5 soldiers reassigned.
"Hello. I would like to be a soldier. I just want the government to promise that it will never send me on a dangerous mission. That's not asking too much, is it? My wife agrees with me, by the way. She says you're being mean to me."
Wow, I guess the Soldiers that took their mission and successfully completed it are what?........courageous, stupid, or doing their duty for their fellow soldiers.<p. Enjoy your 15 minutes idiots.
This will become the race card event to be used against the president (only black and poor people are at risk of dying in Iraq).
Kerry's Vietnam redux continues.
They put their fellow soldiers lives in danger because of their decision. A real soldier wouldn't do that.
Great. Two more ignorant mouths the media can use to spout any sort of drivel they want.
Look for the involvement of military families against the war. I saw an article this morning about their "support" of these families. That organization is full of leftist radicals. This was a set up or was generated by anti war activists working on the families. They found fertile ground with these two.
I don’t think he was given the benefit of the doubt, I think he was out in about a week. I could be mistaken, but a refused order is a refused order.
The plot line is becoming clear.
Not to rehash everything but hat tip to Cvengr for the link
To Obey or Not to Obey?
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm
When one enlists in the United States Military, active duty or reserve, they take the following oath:
I 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.
National Guard enlisted members take a similar oath, except they also swear to obey the orders of the Governor of their state.
Officers, upon commission, swear to the following:
I do solemnly swear 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
Military discipline and effectiveness is built on the foundation of obedience to orders.
Recruits are taught to obey, immediately and without question, orders from their superiors, right from day-one of boot camp.
Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences.
Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).
In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.
Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.
"I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.
The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.
The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the "I was only following orders" defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." (Interestingly, the soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity). (cont'd at web site)
Probably the most famous case of the "I was only following orders" defense was the court-martial (and conviction for premeditated murder) of First Lieutenant William Calley for his part in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968. The military court rejected Calley's argument of obeying the order of his superiors. On March 29, 1971, Calley was sentenced to life in prison. However, the public outcry in the United States following this very publicized and controversial trial was such that President Nixon granted him clemency. Calley wound up spending 3 1/2 years under house arrest at Fort Benning Georgia, where a federal judge ultimately ordered his release.
In 2004, the military began court-martials of several military members deployed to Iraq for mistreating prisoners and detainees. Several members claimed that they were only following the orders of military intelligence officials. Unfortunately (for them), that defense won't fly. The mistreatment of prisoners is a crime under both international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (see Article 93 — Cruelty and Maltreatment).
It's clear, under military law, that military members can be held accountable for crimes committed under the guise of "obeying orders," and there is no requirement to obey orders which are unlawful. However, here's the rub: A military member disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it's not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful.
Take the case of Michael New. In 1995, Spec-4 Michael New was serving with the 1/15 Battalion of the 3rd infantry Division of the U.S. Army at Schweinfurt, Germany. When assigned as part of a multi-national peacekeeping mission about to be deployed to Macedonia, Spec-4 New and the other soldiers in his unit were ordered to wear United Nations (U.N.) Helmets and arm bands. New refused the order, contending that it was an illegal order. New's superiors disagreed. Ultimately, so did the court-martial panel. New was found guilty of disobeying a lawful order and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the conviction, as did the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces.
What about an order to participate in a dangerous mission? Can the military legally order one to go on a "suicide mission?" You bet they can.
In October 2004, the Army announced that they it were investigating up to 19 members of a platoon from the 343rd Quartermaster Company based in Rock Hill, South Carolina, for refusing to transport supplies in a dangerous area of Iraq.
According to family members, some of the troops thought the mission was "too dangerous" because their vehicles were unarmored (or had little armor), and the route they were scheduled to take is one of the most dangerous in Iraq.
According to reports, these members simply failed to show up for the pre-departure briefing for the mission.
Can they be punished for this? They certainly can. An order to perform a dangerous mission is lawful, because it's not an order to commit a crime. Under current law, and the Manual for Courts-Martial, "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime."
In fact, if it can be shown that one or more of the soldiers influenced others to disobey, they may find the crime of Mutiny, under Article 94 added to the list of charges. Mutiny carries the death penalty, even in "peace time."
So, to obey, or not to obey? It depends on the order. Military members disobey orders at their own risk. They also obey orders at their own risk. An order to commit a crime is unlawful. An order to perform a military duty, no matter how dangerous is lawful, as long as it doesn't involve commission of a crime.
Bottom line: These folks are in trouble, and their wives are not helping them out at all. The more I read this kind of stuff, the more angry I get.
By refusing to transport the fuel they were putting our soldiers, who were to be the recipients of the fuel, in danger. The whole thing smells of Democrat dirty tricks that will probably backfire on them.
Why did I know, even without initial evidence, that their commanding officer was a woman?
Would you want one of these guys in your unit? The next commander will have to tread lighly around these husbands and that's not a way to run a unit.
Of course they would have.
What do they think the military is? A grade school?
Soldiers do what they're told to do, and can only hope that their CO looks out for them. There's no democracy in the military, and these "soldiers", and their wives, should face that fact.
What's not being said is that other soldiers had to do the job their husbands wouldn't do. These other soldier's lives were put in harm's way, but they completed their "suicide" mission without incident.
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.