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.

 

Antiwar Sailor Is Charged By Navy (from ATSNN)

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Don't know if anyone else saw this article or not over the weekend. As some of you may recall, this was the guy who had sat down on the pier as his ship was leaving for a deployment to the Middle East. He managed to stage his own press conference where he states why he refused to go off to war. Now the Navy has charged him under the UCMJ and it is time to see if he is willing to accept punishment, or will he just keep going on about why he is innocent.
 



ANTIWAR SAILOR IS CHARGED
March 26, 2005

Antiwar Sailor Is Charged By Navy
SAN DIEGO - A Navy sailor opposed to the war in Iraq who refused to board his ship bound for the Persian Gulf will face a special court-martial, the military equivalent of a civilian misdemeanor trial, the Navy announced Friday.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


He was assigned to the Bonhomme Richard, which as you may remember, was one of the leading ships for the humanitarian mission in Indonesia.

I wonder what he thinks now? His ship spent most of its deployment providing humanitarian aid and comfort, rather than engaging in what he thought of as an illegal war.

My guess is that he will be found guilty and given the maximum punishment.



[edit on 28/3/05 by COOL HAND]

[edit on 28/3/05 by COOL HAND]

[edit on 28/3/05 by COOL HAND]

[edit on 28/3/05 by COOL HAND]




posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Delete this post.

[edit on 28-3-2005 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   
It is not a matter of where he is deployed, the fact is that he signed a contract with the government to defend the nation in any way Uncle Sam sees fit. Also, what does he care about Iraq? He is an Enlist in the Navy. I don't think that he is going to get hit with an RPG on the high seas. He needs to suck it up and be a true soldier.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   
At least he didn't flee the country like some, and seems to be aware that his actions do have consequences.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
In light of recent events, it does not seem to matter if he would have left the country or not.

If anything, he could have at least avoided working with other military members if he would have gone to Canada, or something like that.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Ya, and waste Canadian tax money with a pointless refugee claim?



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
The Canadians did not seem to think it was a waste. There was some support in getting refugee status for those who fled to Canada.

Fortunately the Canadian legal system saw these men for what they were, cowards and oppurtunists.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
The point is not whether he should have fled or not, but rather that he is undermining the authority and judgement of his superior officers. This is a major offence in the military. When you join the military you relinquish certain rights to defend the rights of others. Therefore, he should be punished because he disobeyed rules that he knew were in place.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Oliver North- Iran/Contra calling someone a coward?! That in itself has to be news

North should be in prison. North is retired and drawing a pension on YOUR tax dollars- an admitted felon.

Back to Paredes, conscientious objector status is legal and recognized in America. I can't see calling someone a coward that exercises their rights. Is America getting like that?

The guy joined and now doesn't want to kill people- this is not Doom3 or Half-Life folks. This is real life.

    IF you were standing on the street and a Sheriff came up and deputized you, handed you a gun and ordered you to help kill some people in a house - - - -


The military could have processed his CO status in January and none of this would be happening now. But the military chose to use their 'inherent' powers to stall the CO discharge. The military deserves a black eye.

(looking at the votes for this news it will not make it to ATSNN- to bad, news is news)
.

.

[edit on 28-3-2005 by JoeDoaks]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Back to Paredes, conscientious objector status is legal and recognized in America. I can't see calling someone a coward that exercises their rights. Is America getting like that?

Just like all the other cases of CO, he filed this just before his ship was to get underway. It wasn't like he did not have months to prepare himself and his case.



The military could have processed his CO status in January and none of this would be happening now. But the military chose to use their 'inherent' powers to stall the CO discharge. The military deserves a black eye.

What stalling tactics are you referring to? Are you aware of the steps to getting CO status? This process is a long and involved one, designed to eliminate any question as to his desires.



(looking at the votes for this news it will not make it to ATSNN- to bad, news is news)


Your peers have spoken, they are the ones who did not want it there.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Oliver North- Iran/Contra calling someone a coward?! That in itself has to be news

North should be in prison. North is retired and drawing a pension on YOUR tax dollars- an admitted felon.

Back to Paredes, conscientious objector status is legal and recognized in America. I can't see calling someone a coward that exercises their rights. Is America getting like that?

The guy joined and now doesn't want to kill people- this is not Doom3 or Half-Life folks. This is real life.

    IF you were standing on the street and a Sheriff came up and deputized you, handed you a gun and ordered you to help kill some people in a house - - - -


The military could have processed his CO status in January and none of this would be happening now. But the military chose to use their 'inherent' powers to stall the CO discharge. The military deserves a black eye.

(looking at the votes for this news it will not make it to ATSNN- to bad, news is news)
.

.

[edit on 28-3-2005 by JoeDoaks]



What position are you on? For the guy or for the military? Also, the military probably has more important matters than swiftly pursuing the CM of this punk. Heck, look at the US court system. Unless you make the 6 o'clock news, you have to wait a couple months to get to trial



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAConrad0825

Originally posted by JoeDoaks

What position are you on? For the guy or for the military? Also, the military probably has more important matters than swiftly pursuing the CM of this punk. Heck, look at the US court system. Unless you make the 6 o'clock news, you have to wait a couple months to get to trial

America's 'position' (side) that's which one. The military should and could have bounced him out in January- nope, drag heels and let a routine unworkable enlistee become a national rage.

Why? Who benefits? No one. This guys has as much right to change his mind as anyone else. The hand-wringing is your right but if falls on deaf here. Cos are part of military life. This is nothing new.

Had the military been realistic during Vietnam much of the Canadian flight would not have happened. Wait until the new draft is imposed and let's see how 'beliefs' on this board change. Wait until that 'little letter' with your name on it arrives- then tell us how you feel.

America recognizes no-fault divorce, unilateral breach of contract and many more legal rights to change of mind- the CO claim is nothing different. I would much rather have someone claim CO than be next to me when the bullets fly and then tell me they aren't participating

.

.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
However they are in contract with the US government. You relinquish certain rights when you become a solider. Therefore going AWOL is not an easy thing to brush off. Also, it is up to government to pursue the crime with whatever speed they wish. They had to investigate the charges and make sure they were valid. Believe me, 3-4 months is not that long in investigation of a criminal case, civilian or military.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
However they are in contract with the US government. You relinquish certain rights when you become a solider. Therefore going AWOL is not an easy thing to brush off. Also, it is up to government to pursue the crime with whatever speed they wish. They had to investigate the charges and make sure they were valid. Believe me, 3-4 months is not that long in investigation of a criminal case, civilian or military.

Fine- I 'got' the contract issue. That is one of my points. This is one reason the CO out exists- change of heart or mind.

3-4 months, agree again.

BUT the guy clearly designated himself CO- ergo, he is not acceptable to send to potential hostile duty. That is common sense. In any contract action, when one party wants out there are potential penalties. To try and force continuation is ridiculous. This is one reason divorce laws changed.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   

It is not a matter of where he is deployed, the fact is that he signed a contract with the government to defend the nation in any way Uncle Sam sees fit

Indeed, why join the military if you won't fight when it tells you? Its kind of part of the deal. You don't get to pick and choose which wars are unjust and which aren't.

Tho I suspect that there might be some precedent to support him, insofar as soldiers can refuse illegal orders. But that would require demonstrating that the whole war, irregardless of how it was carried out, was illegal, not that illegal acts occur there. That precedent also can work against him, since he can refuse any illegal orders he might be given.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
Ithe fact is that he signed a contract with the government to defend the nation in any way Uncle Sam sees fit.

By Uncle Sam your reffering to UNCLE BUSH right?


Theres a huge difference in times... back then Uncle Sam's wars were for a good cause this (Iraq and Afghanistan) on the other hand is a blood for oil campaign. I was debating joining the navy or the air force. The navy seems to be acting like the marines right now so looks like im joining the Air Force
. If I sign up I wont protest whatever it is I may be fighting for. (BTW Im joining as an officer)



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I am glad that you are not going to protest. At least someone knows what they are getting into. However, wars being justified? What about the Central American Campaigns, Somalia, Bosnia, Vietnam, Korea? What about WII and how we turned our eyes to atrocities until it was on our soil? What about our campaigns now being not about human rights but WMD. Also, it is not cost efficient for the US to import oil from the middle east. What freeing up oil countries is that once stabalized the US would have more friends on OPEC and therefore more leverage to lower prices. I know they are high now but I do not feel that they will always be. But, why start a war over WMD when human rights (the un's area of expertise) is ignored? That's a good moral reason to start a war. But not the western world turns the other cheek, only in the wrong situation.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks

The guy joined and now doesn't want to kill people- this is not Doom3 or Half-Life folks. This is real life.


Yes, and in real life, you break the contract, you meet the lawyers. It's rather convenient to wait until there is a war going, to decide that it's not for you. This looser should have looked the facts over before he signed up. Besides, I doubt that swabbing the decks would have ever put him in harm's way.


Originally posted by JoeDoaks
The military could have processed his CO status in January and none of this would be happening now. But the military chose to use their 'inherent' powers to stall the CO discharge. The military deserves a black eye.


Why should the military get a black eye? What did they do wrong? If I were his CO, I'd let him sit in a cell until his time is up. Then show him the door, 'nuff said.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
The military is not the US court of Justice. There are different rules and regulations and people need to realize that. You need a dictatorship to defend out democracy.



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewTB
Theres a huge difference in times... back then Uncle Sam's wars were for a good cause this (Iraq and Afghanistan) on the other hand is a blood for oil campaign. I was debating joining the navy or the air force. The navy seems to be acting like the marines right now so looks like im joining the Air Force
. If I sign up I wont protest whatever it is I may be fighting for. (BTW Im joining as an officer)


Afghanistan was for Oil? I could have never guessed. I seriousally doubt that though. I seem to remember something about a bunch of lunatic Muslums flying jets into a few U.S. buildings. I can mabey see your point on oil in Iraq, but, not Afghanistan. That war is justified, at least in my mind, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that thought.

I hope you enjoy your AF career choice.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join