WAR: Navy Judge Convicts Anti-War Sailor

A member of the US Navy who refused to board his vessel, USS Bonhomme Richard, as it was being deployed to the Iraq theater of the war on terror has been convicted for violating Article 87 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Missing Movement. Missing movement by design carries the penalties of a Dishonorable Discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years. Missing movement by reason of neglect carries the penalties of a Bad-Conduct Discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year. A second, lesser charge, Article 86, Unauthorized Absence, was dismissed.



This individual chose to turn his back on his fellow sailors and his nation in a time of war and did his best to make a media spectacle of the event. The Navy responded by simply asking him to leave the dock, thus diffusing what I'm sure he and his supporters hoped would be very messy incident.

Now, he's just one more convicted felon awaiting sentencing. The outlook for his future is not particularly bright. Any less-than-honorable discharge is an albatross around the neck of the recipient and his leftist friends will forget him as soon as he's behind bars.

Related News Links:
www.military.com
www.signonsandiego.com
www.swiftsmartveterans.com
usmilitary.about.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
politics.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 05/5/12 by GradyPhilpott]

Personally I am glad he was convicted. What did he think would happen when he joined the Navy? That he could pick and choose what he wanted to do?

from the original article mentioned

Paredes, a New York native who has been in the Navy for nearly five years, surrendered to military authorities on Dec. 18 after applying for conscientious objector status. The Navy denied his request. That ruling is being appealed.

I think if you want to apply for conscientious objector status you are supposed to do it right away -- not after being in the military for almost five years.

.
His moral convictions are stronger than blind patriotism.
He is the hope of a better humanity.

For a fact to be Universally true it must be true in the broad vision as in microscopic detail.

If your moral stand excludes close examination of resulting details your morality is a lie.

Sort of like, "Everything looks beautiful when i blur my eyes"
"It's only Ugly when I see with crystal clear focus."

Some moralites don't stand up to the light of truth.
.

Well, slank, when this individual gets out of prison, you can offer to be his buddy, but personally with friends like him, I don't need friends.

.
He probably won't turn me into the NAZI storm troopers,

Nor will be as likely to knife me in the back economically like American Corporations.

He is someone you could have sane rational conversations with.
.

This is *so* not a story. If this guy had such great moral convictions, he should not have enlisted in the first place.

He violated the UCMJ. He got punished. Nothing to see here, folks. Move on.

Nice to know that justice was served in this case.

Personally I think he got off extremely light. Wonder if there was any attempt at a plea bargin?

Hope he likes making little rocks from big ones.

Originally posted by slank
.
He probably won't turn me into the NAZI storm troopers,

Nor will be as likely to knife me in the back economically like American Corporations.

He is someone you could have sane rational conversations with.
.

he is not loyal to his word, he joined then signed a contract then he broke it because he felt like it..the military isnt a democracy.

The sailor in question was sentenced to three months hard labor and a reduction in rank. There was no mention of a discharge:

www.kvia.com...

I may not have been for the war in Iraq but my stance on this is clear, you enlist and you do what you're told. A draft is one thing but he enlisted on his own free will. If he didn't want to go to war he never should have enlisted.

My great-grandfather was in the Battle of the Bulge, was shot, and taken prisoner. My great-grand uncle enlisted right after Pearl Harbor and he fought with the British in the Saharra, and then went to fight in Italy. They weren't draftees, but they did the job anyhow. When great men like that put their lives on the line like that without question it makes you wonder, why the hell should some modern sailor get off easy just because he didn't like the war? I never did quite understand those who enlist on their own free will and then desert.

Originally posted by slank
.
His moral convictions are stronger than blind patriotism.
He is the hope of a better humanity.
....................

And some people still think that soldiers can refuse to go to war...

There is nothing moral about not fullfilling your duty and choosing not to go to war....as if it was his choice...

There is a difference between an immoral order, such as shooting women and children unarmed, and not following an order to go to war with terrorists/insurgents...

If this sailor thought he could choose what wars he could go to i guess he didn't read his contract at all....and you've also got to be a dumb idiot to actually think you can join the military and choose not to go to war when you are given the order...

[edit on 12-5-2005 by Muaddib]

Just another guy looking for a free ride. He wanted the armed forces to pay his way, then when it came down to fulfilling his obligation, he balked.

If you don't want to go to war, don't join the armed forces. It's real simple. If this putz had been allowed to get away with this, soldiers might be throwing down their weapons all over, and that would be disastrous. I personally don't agree with this war, but I do understand the necessity of war, and one can't fight effectively without well trained, obedient soldiers. If we had an actual war following this travesty, how much harder would it be, to fight effectively, if half the troops saw this knuckleheads example and followed suit?

One necessity in any war is troops who will obey orders, secure in the motivations of their commanding officers. This has never been harder, but it's no less important. Soldiers are pretty much worthless to the service if they won't fight.

So be smart, don't join up unless you are willing and able to fulfill your duty. Service is just that, service. You are a servant, in servitude. It couldn't be more clear if it was made of crystal. Just serve. Soldiers have to be reliable to a fault, they have to be that way because being any other way is a liability, both for their commanders, and their fellow soldiers.

If you'd rather not be a fleshy automaton, don't join up. The benefits and signing bonuses might seem slick when you're unemployed and hungry, but think of the consequences, and be prepared to fulfill your obligations. A lot of people think they can take what the armed services offer, without having to pay the price. It just doesn't work that way.

Oh, and one more thing, disobeying immoral orders is much different than refusing to fight in a war. This has been mentioned, but I wanted to reitterate. Soldiers are well within their rights to disobey orders that could result in war crimes charges. This doesn't include deployment to a place your politics don't agree with, and this doesn't include actions against people your politics pity. Soldiers fight when they're told to fight, they don't make up their minds about complicated political situations and decide for themselves. They just follow orders. If you want to be a juggler, join the circus. If you want to a soldier, join the armed forces.