Shake

From the article in the op:Several things:[list=1][*]What did he really think the Marines do? They're the first ones in during a fight.[*]Reservist, Guardsman, active duty ... your job is the same and you have the same responsibilities: to defend your nation.[*]It's much easier to get out of basic training than once you've completed it, both for you and for the service.[/list=1] He probably will still face UCMJ action, perhaps a courts-martial for missing movement and being AWOL, and could find himself serving a sentence of military confinement. If they're not sympathetic, he may end up with either a Bad Conduct Discharge or an Other Than Honorable Discharge (this is a real type of discharge as other military members and veterans can attest to), either of which will make it difficult for him to find employment later on. I'm no expert on military justice, but it is covered during basic training. I'm not going to beat a dead horse about the volunteer issue, either.

christ-on-a-stick

Fisheye and Ovazor pretty much already said exactly what I was going to.

People's views can change. Sometimes dramatically.

When I was 18, if I had joined the military I would have been (almost) as fundy as fundy could be. By the time I was 22, my views on EVERYTHING from religion to politics to the ethics of war had changed so dramatically that anyone I hadn't seen or talked to during that time would not believe I was the same person.

Keitht, You're putting up a big strawman here by insinuating that all CO's just decide at the last second that they don't want to go to war for some spurious reason ("fair-weather"). As far as the stockade remark..... yeah, great, let's punish people for having strength of conviction (which is also a right that the courts have upheld). Why the stockade? Why not give them a dishonorable discharge or whatever? How would that "hurt" the army, especially if you don't want those "fair-weather types" in your armed forces? Get rid of 'em then. Instead it seems that you are eager to see them "suffer" for having the gall to express their moral conviction, again, a right which has been upheld by the courts. Besides, Do you really want soldiers fighting for you anyway who are against being there?

keitht

I apologise for not stating my basic premise more clearly. My personal opinion is that latent conscientious objection has more to do with getting caught trying to get over on the system and less to do with conviction. I've heard it many times: "I only joined for the benefits". Well, you takes your chances and you gets what you gets. Granted, somebody could genuinely have a significant change in opinion on their ability to serve as a soldier after going through the indoctrination process, but that doesn't change the facts. They agreed to a certain amount of service in exchange for certain benefits. If they change their minds and want to back out of the deal after they've received a significant amount of their benefits, then they're committing fraud and should be prosecuted. They can plead their case to the court, and I vote for the stockade. They can serve out their obligation there while the other soldiers fulfill their obligations and risk their lives doing their jobs. It may seem harsh, but so is dying.

Keith

Dark Jedi

I agree, and well said.

Having been in, and serving with these people, I can see that aspect of it.
Had he made the decision that he cannot or will not kill prior to this moment, he failed to act on it in an expedient manner. Why? Perhaps he was enjoying the benefits of military service (sparse as they are) whith no intent of doing his part of the deal.

Had he not made this decision prior to this moment, what changed? The likelihood that he would go to war? That is called cowardice in the face of the enemy. The maximum punishment is execution.

That said, I think he should be dishonorably discharged after the proper court martial. If he has mitigating circumstances, they can be brought up there.
The intervention of civillian courts can only weaken the chain of dicipline and consequence that is essential in a fighting force.

Had he been drafted, this would be an entirely different issue. He volunteered, of his own free will, and swore before an official to that effect.

Are we to treat him as an adult, capable of making and bearing responsibility for his actions?
Or do we exuse his inexperience, and take away that responsibility? How old is responsibility to be taken? 20? 40? never?

Bane

Python should sue.

themistocles

Personally, I think if someone joins and then decides that they don't really want to do the work when they're ask to do so should also surrender the benefits they were to recieve by serving. Perhaps they already do that, but this guy is being paid indirectly by tax-payers and it's not really fair that anyone would leech off a system for its benefits but shirk its responsibilities.

christ-on-a-stick

I'm pretty certain (I'll have to check) that a dishonorable discharge DOES entail loss of future benefits (i.e. GI Bill, etc.) which I think is fair under the circumstances. That being said, this doesn't make sense to me: My take: they agreed to certain amount of service in exchange for certain benefits. Upon terminating their service, they are also terminated from any benefits. How have they "received a significant amount of benefits" but not also "rendered a significant amount of service" if their benefits stop when their service stops? If they've received benefits WHILE IN SERVICE but once they are *no longer in service*, they *no longer receive any benefits*, how is this fraud?

If you're referring to someone still trying to receive benefits AFTER terminating their service, I agree. However, as I said above I don't think that is the case. Dishonorable discharge strips the dischargee of any future benefits from their enlistment.

keitht

If they're no longer "in service", then why would anybody care about them being a conscientious objector? A person's status as a conscientious objector is only relavent if the person is in the military. A civilian conscientious objector is almost redundent. The opposite would be illegal (at least in most countries).

Keith

christ-on-a-stick

What I meant was, if they are dishonorably discharged as a conscientous objector, they are a) no longer in service and b) therefore, not receiving any further benefits. They only received benefits while they were in service, and rightfully so.

Psycho Economist

COAS, he agreed to be on-call to kill, kill, kill for the glory of the Party for a period of no less than three years, in exchange for not only wages and benefits which would cease, but also thousands of dollars of money spent training him how to be a marine on the front lines and how to provide combat support in the rear echelon. I doubt he can repay those expenses. Also someone else, who would have fulfilled his enlistment, who could have been trained to fill that position was not. A pricetag cannot be put on that.