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.

 

National Guard Soldier Charged With Desertion

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Ya gotta love it. Resident George W. Bush went AWOL for a year back in '72 - in a time of war and was never held accountable for that.

When you go AWOL in a time of war that is called DESERTION. That's much more serious.

Yesterday I came across a story reporting that a National Guard soldier who came home for leave from Iraq did not want to go back and applied for conscientious objector status. He then went AWOL. He was later arrested and charged with DESERTION.

See what happens when you're not the son of a wealthy government official and you go AWOL during a war? That's what really happens - to regular folks. Those born into privelege are not held to the same standard as the rest.

It's complete Bu#!



[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]




posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Here's a link to the article at FindLaw:


Anti-War Soldier Charged With Desertion
By RUSS BYNUM Associated Press Writer

SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) - A National Guardsman who criticized the "oil-driven war" in Iraq was charged with desertion for refusing to rejoin his unit after a two-week furlough.

Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia of the Florida National Guard was charged after traveling to Fort Stewart from his home in Miami Beach, Fla., Fort Stewart spokesman Richard Olson said Friday.

news.findlaw.com... 0008_10.html



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I wonder if they will actually exercise the option to execute this guy. Probably not, because of the whole 'public opinion' problem, and with it being an election year, etc.

It sucks to be this guy though. They fully have the option to kill him if they feel like it. I wonder what will become of it.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I highly doubt they would exercise the option of execution. But it sucks to know that this guy is going to get reemed, fine and imprisonment.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   
No, he'll probably go to Leavenworth for one long, miserable year.

The bad thing is, he applied for consciencious objector status. It's not like he just took off. Or sniffed a bunch of coke and couldn't pass his uh.. flight physical....



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 06:36 AM
link   
When you go AWOL in a time of war that is called DESERTION. That's much more serious.

ECK,
Have you ever actually read the UCMJ? A person can be declared a deserter after 30 days of being AWOL (if they can show that the service member does not intend to return) while on active duty. Which is what this guy did, and he is quite lucky that the worst he can expect is a BCD and a year (possibly) in Leavenworth. If anyone is being held to a different standard it is this guy.

BTW here is what the UCMJ acutally says about deserters:

885. ART. 85. DESERTION
(a) Any member of the armed forces who--

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or

(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States;

is guilty of desertion.

(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.



[Edited on 31/3/04 by COOL HAND]



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Exactly, LT. There have been instances where personnel are declared deserters on times of peace. Note the description of the UCMJ article. It says nothing about "time of war". However, this does add to the severity of the crime, thus comes into play the "(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service;".

It is not common for people to be declared deserters, in fact, it happens very often. However, during these days and times, personnel who abandon ship will be publicized, simply because of the on-going war effort, and the influence that this has on other troops.

BTW, I still am trying to figure out how this applies to GW. Do you have proof that he deserted? I think not, because if he really deserted, there would have been "serious" consequences.

(Notice how this "GW Desertion" thing came up right as the elections were upcoming. No one seemed to care about it before, and it's not like no one knew about it.)



Mr. M



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I'll let the fact that both of you seem to be too young to recall, first of all, this was BACK during Vietnam. It was a different time, different world. CoolHand doesn't know that military regs change frequently in both small and large ways. But hey - CoolHand did some research - way to go!


The fact that you are defending the indefensible is funny. How in the world can anyone still defend this twit of a president? It's absurd.

Starchild, this issue was brought up back in 2000 when Shrub was running for president, but the good 'ol media let it slide down the memory hole - like they let Shrub get away with not answering questions about his drug use.

The year 1972 Bush went missing from duty. For an entire year. No explanation other than "failed to finish flight physical" and a request for transfer to a paper unit in Alabama. The request was denied, btw. And just for the record, failed to finish flight physical most likely means drugs showed up in his blood or urine.

He was also missing for a year. Without explanation. That's far worse than what the National Guard guy did. At least he made it known that he was in opposition to the war and applied for consciencious observer status. He was denied. He wasn't missing nearly as long - and he returned to Ft. Stewart - where he was arrested.

The military is being vindictive with him. Bush got away with it because his father was a congressman (at the time). Complete Bu#.

I have to say, in all fairness, when I was in the Army, I couldn't stand those who cried consciencious objector. But I see things a bit differently now all these years later. This war in Iraq is a violent quagmire and many of the guys and girls over there are probably quite traumatized by what they are witnessing. This time around I can understand why they might come home and want to get out or apply for that status. Not everyone is built to kill. They may not realize that about themselves until they have their baptism of fire. Personally, if I'm in the field, I want to be with people who have no problem with using deadly force - not people who are unsure. I say give them the status or give them a general discharge.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 08:20 AM
link   
The fact that this dude deserted his unit has nothing to do with Bush.

As far as I am concerned, he should be strung up by his heels. How bout the men back in his original unit in Iraq? What if one of them gets killed because this chicken-shyte dirtbag is off back in the states parading around in front of the cameras spouting off about a "evil war"?

You sign on the dotted line...you do your damn duty. No one made you sign up.

The fact of the matter is that war is not only Hell, but it is hard and uncomfortable. To me it smells like slacking.

If this schmuck is a conscientious objector, he should have never joined in the first place.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I'll let the fact that both of you seem to be too young to recall, first of all, this was BACK during Vietnam. It was a different time, different world. CoolHand doesn't know that military regs change frequently in both small and large ways. But hey - CoolHand did some research - way to go!


As a member of the military it is my responsibilty to periodically review the regulations. Ever hear of GMT? I am pretty sure that I am more up on the regs than you are.

Starchild, this issue was brought up back in 2000 when Shrub was running for president, but the good 'ol media let it slide down the memory hole - like they let Shrub get away with not answering questions about his drug use.

How about it was a non-issue, and would not be today if the Dems weren't getting desperate.

The military is being vindictive with him. Bush got away with it because his father was a congressman (at the time). Complete Bu#.

If anything the military is being fair with him. If they went by the book, then they would be setting up for an execution.


eck, can you show me the actual declaration of war against Vietnam?



[Edited on 31/3/04 by COOL HAND]



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I love bein' the cat to your mouse. It's just too easy, CoolHand.



Originally posted by COOL HAND
As a member of the military it is my responsibilty to periodically review the regulations.


Ever hear of GMT? I am pretty sure that I am more up on the regs than you are.

I'm sure it's never occurred to you that I might have actually written some.. not just studied them.




ECK:
Starchild, this issue was brought up back in 2000 when Shrub was running for president, but the good 'ol media let it slide down the memory hole - like they let Shrub get away with not answering questions about his drug use.

How about it was a non-issue, and would not be today if the Dems weren't getting desperate.

Desperation, huh?
This administration is who is feeling desperation. The lies they've told are swirling around so fast, they're having a helluva time keeping them straight at this point. why the hell do you think Karen Hughes had to come back to rescue Shrub's a$$? Use your own brain for once, CoolHand.



If anything the military is being fair with him. If they went by the book, then they would be setting up for an execution.

Thoroughly antiquated punishment. Get with the program.


eck, can you show me the actual declaration of war against Vietnam?

Of course not!
Congress abdicated its constitutional duty to declare war, just like they did this time around. Keep on defending the indefensible, though.




[Edited on 31/3/04 by COOL HAND]



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I love bein' the cat to your mouse. It's just too easy, CoolHand.


Really, casue you look like a fool right now to me. Read on:

Ever hear of GMT? I am pretty sure that I am more up on the regs than you are.

[I'm sure it's never occurred to you that I might have actually written some.. not just studied them.


Whatever. Just like you said the regs keep changing and you have been out so long that whatever you learned is no longer valid.

Desperation, huh?
This administration is who is feeling desperation. The lies they've told are swirling around so fast, they're having a helluva time keeping them straight at this point. why the hell do you think Karen Hughes had to come back to rescue Shrub's a$$? Use your own brain for once, CoolHand.


Really, what has she done so far?

If anything the military is being fair with him. If they went by the book, then they would be setting up for an execution.

Thoroughly antiquated punishment. Get with the program.

How is it antiquated? Why shouldn't someone who flees in a time of war be expected to pay for his crime.


eck, can you show me the actual declaration of war against Vietnam?

Of course not!
Congress abdicated its constitutional duty to declare war, just like they did this time around. Keep on defending the indefensible, though.


Then how can you keep saying that Bush was abesent at a time of war when NO WAR WAS EVER DECLARED? Did you just happen to remember that little nugget when you wrote your response to me?

In the future please think before you write, it would do us all a favor.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
If this schmuck is a conscientious objector, he should have never joined in the first place.

Most likely, he joined before this Iraq BS took place. That's what happened to a friend of mine when the last war happened. He just happened to be in the reserves when they went to war on Iraq.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr

Originally posted by Pyros
If this schmuck is a conscientious objector, he should have never joined in the first place.

Most likely, he joined before this Iraq BS took place. That's what happened to a friend of mine when the last war happened. He just happened to be in the reserves when they went to war on Iraq.


He was signing up for the military. Just what did he think would happen?

I love how people want the benefits but are not willing to pay the price when it comes time.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Really, casue you look like a fool right now to me.

Name-calling. Impressive.

Whatever. Just like you said the regs keep changing and you have been out so long that whatever you learned is no longer valid.

I can read the regs till my eyes cross If there is a reason to.


Desperation, huh?
This administration is who is feeling desperation. The lies they've told are swirling around so fast, they're having a helluva time keeping them straight at this point. why the hell do you think Karen Hughes had to come back to rescue Shrub's a$$? Use your own brain for once, CoolHand.


Really, what has she done so far?

Say what?!


How is it antiquated? Why shouldn't someone who flees in a time of war be expected to pay for his crime.

Why don't you tell us when the last time it was they executed someone for desertion.


Then how can you keep saying that Bush was abesent at a time of war when NO WAR WAS EVER DECLARED? Did you just happen to remember that little nugget when you wrote your response to me?

It's all semantics. I don't expect you to grasp that, tho.


In the future please think before you write, it would do us all a favor.

You should do us the same favor.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I can read the regs till my eyes cross If there is a reason to.

Hey you are the one who said it, not me.

Why don't you tell us when the last time it was they executed someone for desertion.

If I were you I would say "use the mighty google search," but since I am not you I will tell you. It was in WWII. Need more info than that?

Then how can you keep saying that Bush was abesent at a time of war when NO WAR WAS EVER DECLARED? Did you just happen to remember that little nugget when you wrote your response to me?

It's all semantics. I don't expect you to grasp that, tho.

What is there to understand, you made the claim that Bush did worse than this guy in a time of war, now you agree that there was no war declared.

You should do us the same favor.

I am not the one with the mythical claims here.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
He was signing up for the military. Just what did he think would happen?

I love how people want the benefits but are not willing to pay the price when it comes time.

No offense to those in the services, but most people who join aren't the brightest bulbs on the strip, if you know what I mean. Until 9/11, there was no reason to assume the US would be at war any time soon. When people join, they know that it's a possibility, but they don't think they're going to have to go to war until it happens. I've known several people that happened to, when Desert Storm happened. IMO, they were stupid to sell their souls to the gov't in the first place. You won't catch me doing that. The benefits of staying out of the military far exceed the benefits of joining.

BTW, I'm not the only one who thinks that the new army slogan is the dumbest thing ever, am I? I mean, come on! "Army of one" What the # is that? To me, that means, you're on your own.



What is there to understand, you made the claim that Bush did worse than this guy in a time of war, now you agree that there was no war declared.

We still haven't officially declared war on Iraq, have we?


[Edited on 3-31-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I love how people want the benefits but are not willing to pay the price when it comes time.
No offense to those in the services, but most people who join aren't the brightest bulbs on the strip, if you know what I mean. Until 9/11, there was no reason to assume the US would be at war any time soon. When people join, they know that it's a possibility, but they don't think they're going to have to go to war until it happens. I known several people that happened to, when Desert Storm happened. IMO, they were stupid to sell their souls to the gov't in the first place. You won't catch me doing that. The benefits of staying out of the military far exceed the benefits of joining.

I agree that there are some not so smart people who are or were in the military. Some of them can even be found here.

However, once again I have to point out that the military's job is fighting (or preparing for) war. Our job involves risks, but in exchange for taking those risks we get to leagally blow things up and shoot guns.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Our job involves risks, but in exchange for taking those risks we get to leagally blow things up and shoot guns.

That statement just showed your mentality. I'd say you must be one of those dimmer bulbs.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Our job involves risks, but in exchange for taking those risks we get to leagally blow things up and shoot guns.

That statement just showed your mentality. I'd say you must be one of those dimmer bulbs.


Well, no I would say that I am not.

I choose to show the lighter side of life in the military since most people do not want to hear about how much the hours suck, how bad it is to be away from your family for months at a time, etc.


Sheesh, you try to bring a little levity here and you get accused of being dim.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join