It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SGT Benderman recommended for Court Martial (from ATSNN)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   
The judge in the case has recommended that he be charged with two counts of violating the UCMJ (Arts 85 and 87).
 



www.latimes.com
An Army hearing officer has recommended a court-martial for a soldier charged with desertion after he refused to deploy to Iraq.

In a Feb. 16 report just released, Lt. Col. Linda Taylor recommended that Sgt. Kevin Benderman face a general court-martial, the most serious type. The procedure requires approval from Ft. Stewart's General Court-Martial Convening Authority.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I think that justice will be served when he is found guilty by a jury of his peers. I fail to see any defense that can prevent him from a Bad Conduct Discharge and prison time.

Related News Links:
www.libertyforum.org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
My Husband Is Defending Democracy




posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Voted no as your intro paragraph is lacking. It is a worthy story though.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Voted 'no' because quite simply, what kind of sourcing is LibertyForum.org?




seekerof



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
My apologies for posting the entire article, but the source for it requires you to sign up in order to read it.



Soldier Seeking Conscientious Objector Status Loses A Round

An army officer is recommending against granting conscientious objector status.

By Michael Fabey

Sgt. Kevin Benderman faces a tougher battle in his bid for discharge as a conscientious objector.

The Fort Stewart soldier learned Wednesday that the investigating officer considering Benderman's request is recommending against his application.

Benderman, 40, is still in the early stages of the process that could lead to his obtaining conscientious objector status. Experts say it could take a year or more.

But the negative recommendation now makes Benderman's task more difficult.

Benderman said that the investigating officers' packet includes incorrect information and material that has nothing to do with his conscientious objector application.

"I'm going to file a rebuttal to everything that he included," Benderman said.

He said he has 10 days to file the rebuttal, which would be included with his application.

The Army had no comment.

The denial comes only a week after the Army informed Benderman it would continue to prosecute him on charges of desertion and missing movement because he failed to deploy with his troops in January.

Army prosecutors have argued Benderman defied orders by remaining behind to avoid hazardous duty.

Benderman, a veteran of the war on Iraq, said he was just following instructions. Benderman said his superior released him the night Benderman was scheduled to leave for Iraq and told him to go home and think about his desire to remain behind and be discharged as a conscientious objector.

The maximum penalties for the charges Benderman faces include forfeiture of benefits, loss of rank, dishonorable discharge and up to seven years in jail.

The conscientious objector request and trial for desertion and missing movement are two different legal procedures going on at the same time.

During a recent hearing the 3rd Infantry Division hearing officer reviewing Benderman's conscientious objection request had questioned the timing of the filing: Dec. 28, only several days before the sergeant was scheduled to leave for Iraq.

Benderman said he wanted to make no rash decisions.

He said he needed time to process all he had seen during his first tour in Iraq, during the invasion, and to sort out his anti-war feelings.

He added that he also needed to weigh how best to lead his men: by going with them or standing up for his principles.

Benderman's request will now go up the chain of command.

No court date had been released by Wednesday for his court-martial trial for desertion and missing movement.


Any thoughts? This is going exactly as was predicted. He is guilty and will now be paying the price.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
He will be charge that is all that is to his ordeal, he refused an order while serving in the military you will be charge and you will be hold responsible the military do not take kindly to deserters.

Sad that he was obviously at the end of his career.

By the way I didn't have time to vote but I would have votes yes because is a worthy story.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   
In case anyone still cared:

BENDERMAN FOUND GUILTY

If you ask me, he got off light. He should have been charged with desertion, how he did not is a huge mystery to me.

Fortunately he will no longer be a burden to the US Army after he finishes his sentence.

[edit on 31/7/05 by COOL HAND]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   
When you sign on that dotted line you don't get to make those decisions about your life anymore for some time. When they say go, you go, or you get punished. That's how it works. I think it's sad, but I understand both sides.

I'm glad he was convicted of the lesser charge. He obviously had served his country and he had a history of fulfilling his duty.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I'm glad he was convicted of the lesser charge. He obviously had served his country and he had a history of fulfilling his duty.


Why should he have gotten the lesser charge? Past service, while appreciated, should not have factored in to this punishment.

He waited almost a year after coming back from Iraq to file a CO claim, which just happened to be a week before he was to ship out again. If, as he claims, he saw all of these horrible things then why did he not file for CO status right away.

This guy got off easy. They should have thrown the book at him.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I'm glad he was convicted of the lesser charge. He obviously had served his country and he had a history of fulfilling his duty.


Why should he have gotten the lesser charge? Past service, while appreciated, should not have factored in to this punishment.

He waited almost a year after coming back from Iraq to file a CO claim, which just happened to be a week before he was to ship out again. If, as he claims, he saw all of these horrible things then why did he not file for CO status right away.

This guy got off easy. They should have thrown the book at him.


Christ, take it easy, the guy already served a succesful tour over there. Some people just reach their limits.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join