Refer to this link then choose one of the options in the poll, also submitt your thoughts Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_...m/20060923035409990009?ncid=NWS00010000000001
I agree with the sentiment but I'm not fond of the emotionally charged word "owned." This is, after all, an all-volunteer army. He agreed to play by the rules of the organization. This is breach of contract and that's a serious offense in America. I see no problem with a dishonorable discharge. The man should have had the courage and sense of honor not to volunteer in the first place. Most of these guys do it for the money, as a way to escape from an uncomfortable home life, or simply because they're not quite mature enough to make such an important decision. All the D.D. means is that he's a "dishonorable" person who refused to "honor" a commitment he made. No matter how much I agree with his opinion of the war, I'd have to think twice about hiring a man--or encouraging a woman to marry one, etc.--who waffled on such an important commitment. What's he going to renege on next, as he continues to mature and reevaluate past commitments? Refuse to pay his credit card bill because the company has factories in Bangladesh? Walk off of his civilian job and leave his employer's customers in the lurch because they're encroaching on a wetland? Abandon his children because Jesus spoke to him in a dream and told him to renounce all sinners? But I'm not in favor of prison time. It serves no purpose except to demonstrate that the U.S. government has the power to bully its citizens, something we already know all too well.
I think the main point here is the government isn't really appreciating the fact he volunteered. In fact they should be grateful he actually tried it out instead of ignoring them. I would really like to see the government stop being a bunch of mindless drones and understand people will try different things in their lives. You can't claim freedom and then attack someone for not wanting to be apart of a thing they knew nothing about before joining, what a crock. I hate the military, if I were smarter I'd create an entirely new civilized culture that destroyed Americans once an for all.
He signed a contract ...how can you let him out of it without reprecussions? It was a perfectly legal contract ...if he breaks that contract then he should suffer the consequences, according to the law. None of this has anything to do with "owning" or "not owning" anyone! That's just sensationalism and, worse, stupid and ignorant. Baron Max
I think the Baron and I are basically in agreement. The man made a commitment and to preserve order the government must enforce agreements and stipulate punitive consequences for breaching them. Max doesn't say what he thinks those consequences should be in this case but reasonable men can disagree on the details. I support a D.D., perhaps Max thinks he should serve time. My problem with prison time is that it's something that should be meted out only during wartime, barring extenuating circumstances. It is desperately important to educate the populace into understanding that this is not only not a war, but a criminally unconstitutional use of military force. As I have stated before, since Bush is the commander in chief of the armed forces, it is not a stretch of the law--especially by his own perverse standards--to rule that he is subject to military jurisprudence. He should be court-martialed for treason and punished appropriately so the next hubris-inflamed asshole will think twice before taking a crap on the Constitution.
I think the idea someone can form a contract for their person to be in servitude to anyone is ridiculious. Contracts are between people, or for services that are related to manufacturing, not for service to a corporation. I would never agree to let the government take freedoms that are basically everyones. Look at it like this, if there were no government that told you what you were doing is wrong then you could simply leave what you were doing without any problem. That's because society makes the nonsense of contracts up then expects everyone to follow them, well if animals don't follow that shit I sure as hell don't think people should be made to.
So, you want the government to guarantee his freedom to enter into a contract, but then you want him to be free to break that contract any time he chooses? well, animals in the wild kill and eat each other, too. Would you have us do as the animals do in that regard, too? Or is it that you wish to pick and choose which "freedoms" you want, and which you don't want? And would you be willing to give that same freedom to everyone? ...like murderers, theives and rapists? Baron Max
well, animals in the wild kill and eat each other, too. Would you have us do as the animals do in that regard, too? Yeah... I mean why not? If they do it it's good enough for us humans too, remember that song "Let's do it like they do it on the discovery channel"
i disagree that a person should go AWOL over the war. if they have problems with war they should never have joined the military.
Plus, I do not even know how to answer the stupid ass poll. "Owned" by whom? I agree or disagree to what?
Just as a matter of interest, if someone goes to war and realises reality is very different from expectation, is there any way they can pay off the contract instead?
Well that would certainly galvanize the anti-war movement. It would probably be an excellent way to guarantee that no Illiterate Redneck Christian will ever again be allowed within a thousand miles of the White House. Still, if you take this extreme interpretation of military law, you must see the justice in my view that Bush should be--well not shot because I'm a pacifist but at least imprisoned for life--over his abuse of power in commanding the military into illegal adventures to profit his daddy's friends in the U.S. and Saudi energy industry. Fair is fair. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, they can! And that's what most people here don't realize. A soldier can go to his commanding officer and request reassignment to a NON-combat role ....of which there are many! If that fails, he can go to the Adjutant General with the same request. If that fails, he can go to the chaplian ...and that won't fail! See? He could have gotten out of his "contract" in legal ways, but he chose to run, to go awol, to become a criminal in the eyes of the law. Fuck him, he deserves nothing but contempt from any and all of you lily-livered, liberal, doo-gooder pussies and wimps! Baron Max
Fuck the anti-war movement! If we begin to change our laws just because a few people are protesting, what do you think will become of our "glorious, highly moral" legal system? And is that what you want? Well, do it then, Fraggle! You, as a citizen of the USA, have the right to do just that ....so do it! But lest you forget, you'll also have to bring those charges against every single congressman in that was in office at the time of the voting to go to war. Are you sure, really sure, that you want to tackle that legal proceeding? And do you think you'd win? Baron Max
