Jail for soldier who refused deployment

He refused to go to Afghanistan, saying the war violates international law

FORT HOOD, Texas - An American soldier who refused to deploy to Afghanistan over his beliefs that the war violates international law was sentenced Wednesday to a month in jail.

Spc. Victor Agosto, 24, pleaded guilty to disobeying a lawful order to report to a site that performs medical, legal and other services for troops before they deploy. The judge also reduced his rank to the Army's lowest level, a private, which also was part of the maximum penalty he faced in his plea agreement with the military.

Agosto said that when he enlisted in 2005, he felt invading Iraq was wrong but that troops had a mission to complete. He said he began to oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after he served a 13-month tour in Iraq, which ended in late 2007.

Source

This man wasnt a threat to anyone. Why place him in jail? the jail system already is a financial burden on this country. He refused to fight because the army was keeping him past his enlistment date.

you are a fighting soldier first then your mos 2nd...

If he was called to the battle field and refused to fight and my son died becuase of his actions...

You bet I'm going to be pissed!!!

I dont see anything wrong with this.

Failure to follow lawful instructions in a time of war, bam off to Military Jail.

Unlike the Major, the Specialist was AWOL from his place of duty, with the intent of missing movement. (EG transport to duty station.) In a less enlightened time, he would have been shot for attempted desertion. (WW1 time frame.) As it stands, for his disobedience, he will serve jail time, get a BCD, and effectively has screwed his chances at decent employment for the rest of his life.

It would have been smarter for him to write his Congressman, Governor, and other possibly sympathetic agencies. Or tried to get admitted for 'mental problems.'

You sign up, you supposedly swear to or tacitly agree to follow the orders of your superior officers, defend the Constitution and so on....

While part of me can admire a person for having moral courage to stand up and say something is wrong; there is a right and wrong way of doing so. Also, a soldier does not have the liberty to pick or chose where they may or may not go.

So I will say I have little stomach, personally, for the Specialist's behavior; that he was treated fairly (IMO), and leave it at that.

M.

Originally posted by Indianapolis
you are a fighting soldier first then your mos 2nd...

If he was called to the battle field and refused to fight and my son died becuase of his actions...

You bet I'm going to be pissed!!!

I dont see anything wrong with this.

I know you are speaking hypothetically here, but If he was not on the battlefield how could he be responsible for anyone's death?

You would never know one way or the other whether his absence resulted in anyone's death, therefore you could not blame him or be pisst at him.

I think when the gov. wants to fight a war oversees the enlisted should be asked to volunteer, not forced to fight someone elses war.

Relax. I read the end of the story and we is all worm food sooner or later.

Have fun while you experience your short stay on planet earth.

Look, he agreed to go to fight in that war. I'm sorry he now believes that the war is illegal and doesn't want to fight, but he signed up for it.

He knew what would happen if he didn't go.

He Violated his Oath of enlistment. Ive been in the military for a lil over 7 years. I have been deployed to Iraq twice, huricane Katrina, and Some towns in distress with Ice storms. My point is, once you enlist you are obligated by law to follow all lawful Orders given to you from your supperiors. And another thing. hes lucky hes not awol. cause technicaly, awol in time of war (If thats what you wanna call it) can be punsished by death. But anyway, he signed the lines, he owes his body to the gov for the next 6-8 yrs. he realy doesnt have a voice anymore, do as your told or face the man.

[edit on 11-8-2009 by sapperranger04]

Well I find it quite ironic that media and the US public often brands their soldiers as brave heroes willingly fighting for their country and their belifes when obviously they cannot refuse to fight.

In my opinion a soldiers duty is only to defend his country. Any foreign invasion should not be seen as compulsive and if it is then those serving are not patriots but slaves.


Flame on.

Originally posted by Never Anonymous
Well I find it quite ironic that media and the US public often brands their soldiers as brave heroes willingly fighting for their country and their belifes when obviously they cannot refuse to fight.

In my opinion a soldiers duty is only to defend his country. Any foreign invasion should not be seen as compulsive and if it is then those serving are not patriots but slaves.


Flame on.

Well duh!

Of course they are branded as heroes and leaders...makes the guys that need an ego boost in their life feel all the more macho.

Basic marketing. Not a bad gig though if you don't die. Great benefits, decent money, a job, for someone who might not have many other choices.

You give up your right to make decisions, and in return they give you money, food, shelter.

If the benefits don't outweigh the latter, then whats the point to anything you do in life?

reply to post by phi1618


If one was to read their contract then they would see that even after your enlistment is up they can put you on a stop loss. He signed it and with all things legal, ignorance is not an excuse.

Even if that was not the case there is something called inactive reserve. Every military member that serves less then 8 years is part of it. So they could have let him ETS and then called him back up.

For example.

If you serve only 4 years then you finish out the other 4 on the inactive reserve list. In that 4 years you can be called back into active duty at anytime if your MOS strength calls for it.

So even if he did this because he was on stop loss, he still is obligated to serve if called upon because he still had time on the clock.


Sounds to me as if he just didn't want to be deployed. He wanted to stay in, but on his terms. The military doesn't work like that. He got off light, atleast he wont be getting a dishonarable discharge.

reply to post by FritosBBQTwist


There is a differance between the public seeing the soldiers as heroes and the soldiers seeing themselves as heroes.

In my 10 years I have yet seen or heard of a soldier refer to themselves as heroes.

I can personally tell you that it is pretty embarrissing when someone walks up to me while in uniform and thank me for serving.

But keep on thinking it boosts our egos and makes us feel macho.

Thumbs up for that soldier.

Soldiers certainly have an obligation to follow orders, but they have a higher obligation to DISOBEY if they believe the orders are illegal.

This guy might just have to take his medicine, but he might have saved his soul in the process...

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist

Originally posted by Never Anonymous
Well I find it quite ironic that media and the US public often brands their soldiers as brave heroes willingly fighting for their country and their belifes when obviously they cannot refuse to fight.

In my opinion a soldiers duty is only to defend his country. Any foreign invasion should not be seen as compulsive and if it is then those serving are not patriots but slaves.


Flame on.

Well duh!

Of course they are branded as heroes and leaders...makes the guys that need an ego boost in their life feel all the more macho.

Basic marketing. Not a bad gig though if you don't die. Great benefits, decent money, a job, for someone who might not have many other choices.

You give up your right to make decisions, and in return they give you money, food, shelter.

If the benefits don't outweigh the latter, then whats the point to anything you do in life?

In a society which finds pride in itself and its taste for freedom a soldier should not be without free choice. He should willingly at all times be able to choose if the situation is worth fighting for or not. Now when you enlist to fight in a specific situation then you should be obliged to do that. But just because you want to defend your country shouldn't mean that a corrupt leadership should be able to send you away anywhere.

I don't think it's right in anyway, but he did sign a contractual agreement to follow ALL orders.