Female Soldier From Wis. Denied Conscientious-Objector Status

[rodeodance]

Female Soldier From Wis. Denied Conscientious-Objector Status


http://www.channel3000.com/news/9277098/detail.html?rss...

Female Soldier From Wis. Denied Conscientious-Objector Status
Wautoma Native Gets Bad-Conduct Discharge

POSTED: 7:21 pm CDT May 25, 2006

FORT BENNING, Ga. -- A former Wisconsin resident who joined the National Guard while attending college in Texas and unsuccessfully sought conscientious-objector status has received a bad-conduct discharge.
......

The Iraq Veterans Against the War said Jashinski pleaded guilty to refusing to obey a legal order but was acquitted of the more serious charge of missing movement by design.

.......

Jashinski is said to be the first female soldier to seek conscientious-objector status in a stand against fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Army denied her application for a discharge and she was court-martialed for refusing to train with weapons.......

[AnOhioan]

1. Good for her...she got out.

"The anti-war group said she plans to return to school at the University of Texas in Austin and continue working with the newly founded Austin GI Rights Hotline."

[Catch22Dem]

2. I have a HUGE problem w/ Conscientious-Objector Status

In todays military that is. It's an all-volunteer force. Conscientious-Objector Status should exist during a time of draft, but not for people who volunteer to serve. I spent 8 years in the USAF and I knew I could be called upon to go to war at any time. I knew this when I signed up. You shouldn't sign the paper if you object to that possibility.

I'm glad she got out, but she never should have volunteered in the first place.

[leesa]

3. National Guard, first of all. Secondly, it is an illegal war, everyone

should object.

[Catch22Dem]

6. National Guard can get activated at any time

You should know that going in. People pretend the Guard isn't the real military. Foolish mistake.

[1monster]

25. People pretend? The National Guard promotes has always

promoted itself as a "one weekend a month" deal and with very very few exceptions, until the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, has not been activated to fight in wars for fifty or more years. the National Guard has been activated to help in natural disasters and other domestic events, but not since World War II has being in the National Guard been for all pratical purposes been the same as being in the regular Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force.

Junior ROTC, ROTC, and National Guard are all promoted as a means to get an education. I was in a class room right at the beginning of the Iraq invasion when a National Guard recruiter was a guest speaker/teacher. The lies she was feeding thos kids (by the way, lower level students) made me want to throw up.

on edit: clarification

[Breeze54]

35. National Guard served in Vietnam

http://www.vetshome.com/vietnam.htm
DRAFTEES VS. VOLUNTEERS:
a.. 25% (648,500) of total forces in country were draftees.
b.. (66% of US armed forces members were drafted during W.W.II).
c.. Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in Vietnam.
d.. Reservists killed: 5,977.
e.. National Guard: 6,140 served, 101 died.
f.. Total draftees (1965-73)1,728,344.
g.. Actually served in Vietnam 38%.
h.. Marine Corps draft: 42,633.
i.. Last draftee: June 30, 1973.

[1monster]

37. I did note that there were some exceptions. I know that there were

some National Guard units activated in Vietnam. However, for the most part, the National Guard was a way of NOT serving in Vietnam.

[Breeze54]

45. I'm not looking to be 'right' but...

... no you didn't.

"NG...has not been activated to fight in wars for fifty or more years.
The National Guard has been activated to help in natural disasters
and other domestic events, but not since World War II has being in
the National Guard been for all pratical purposes been the same as
being in the regular Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force."

THEY ARE SERVING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN!!

They did serve in Vietnam.
I don't know if they volunteered or were drafted though.

PEACE!!
Have a Memorial Day.

[1monster]

46. Sorry, I expected you to understand that I meant from WWII and

Korea until now... I noted in my first post that there were a very few exceptions to that general rule.

I don't always spell out every word in a post. I perhaps wasn't clear.

I don't know if you served in the National Guard. My brother did (he just missed being drafted in the Vietnam era -- high draft number -- but joined the National Guard in the mid to late 70s.

My point was that kids, who don't know any better, are being lied to about what being in the National Guard means.

These kids are not allowed by law to drink alcohol because they lack experience and judgement, but they are expected to know their way around a military contract which has a number of "fine print" exclusions all favoring the military and not them (i.e.: the stop/loss orders)?

[Breeze54]

53. I understand... *sigh*

I didn't serve in the National Guard but my son is... just a month home from Iraq.
All the military recruiters LIE to the 'innocent' recruits!
If they told the truth? No one would sign on! ;)

I don't think it's 'just they are being lied to',
the Pentagon is changing the rules of the game....mid-stream...
that's the issue!
The military/Pentagon changed the terms of the contracts!!! :grr:
To --> STOP LOSS ----

CAN'T YOU SEE????????

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Soldiers of Peace
Graham Nash, Craig Doerge & Joe Vitale (1987)

Soldiers of peace are not fighting a war
Are not looking for enemies behind every door
Are not looking for people to kill or to maim.
Soldiers of peace are just changing the game.

Men who were fighting for all of our lives
Are now fighting for children, for homes and for wives,
Fighting for the memory of all who fell before,
But the soldiers of peace just can't kill any more.

So come all you warriors who live for the fight,
Come listen to somebody, somebody who might
Have been there before you and they have the right,
They've been dying to tell you the score.
The old warriors don't want you to hurt any more.

Soldiers of peace can still hear the cries
When the people were screaming and losing their lives,
When bodies were broken and spirits were torn
The soldiers of peace do not want you to mourn.

So come all you warriors who live for the fight,
Come listen to somebody, somebody who might
Have been there before you and they have the right,
They've been dying to tell you the score.
The old warriors don't want you to hurt any more.

Soldiers of peace are not fighting a war.
No more, no more, no more, no more.

Listen Here: http://www.jwsrockgarden.com/Peace.ram

:cry:

[Catch22Dem]

68. Not all recruiters

I must say, my recruiter was very forthcoming. He didn't mislead or give false information at ANY stage of the recruitment process. When I got into basic training, I heard many stories from the other recruits and I was thankful there were still some recruiters out there like mine. He was an honest man, and I remember him to this day for it.

[Catch22Dem]

70. I was never foolish enough to believe that

The NG can get activated at any time. Anyone who doesn't realize that, and thinks the NG is a harmless gig, is a fool.

[Breeze54]

54. You are ill-informed. .... n/t

[Catch22Dem]

69. 8 years in the military and I'm ill-informed?

No, the information is out there, and I'm 100% correct. It's the people who enlist without getting all the information who are ill-informed. If you enlist based on ONLY the information you get from your recruiter, you're an absolute fool. I'm ill-informed??? I'm dying to hear how.

[saigon68]

7. Totally agree with you

These rustics join up- (with IQs of 80 and dreams of glory) - Then they have second thoughts.

My motto

"DON'T FUCKING JOIN THIS GANG OF THUGS AND HOODLUMS"

They will use you up, then THROW YOU AWAY.

[Breeze54]

9. My son joined

during the Clinton years. Way before 9-11 and Iraq. He didn't join the BushCO$ team.

What are the contracts anyway? Do they have a choice in how many years they sign up for?
Is it a straight six years (two reserves) or are there four and five year contracts?
I've heard many variations about this, that's why I ask. I've also heard the 8 year scenario.

And how does Stop-Loss fit into all this? :shrug:


Seems STOP LOSS does exist!!! :grr:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36979-2003Dec28?language=printer
Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
Orders Extend Enlistments to Curtail Troop Shortages
snip-->
Through a series of stop-loss orders, the Army alone has blocked the possible retirements and departures of more than 40,000 soldiers, about 16,000 of them National Guard and reserve members who were eligible to leave the service this year. Hundreds more in the Air Force, Navy and Marines were briefly blocked from retiring or departing the military at some point this year.

By prohibiting soldiers and officers from leaving the service at retirement or the expiration of their contracts, military leaders have breached the Army's manpower limit of 480,000 troops, a ceiling set by Congress. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, disclosed that the number of active-duty soldiers has crept over the congressionally authorized maximum by 20,000 and now registered 500,000 as a result of stop-loss orders. Several lawmakers questioned the legality of exceeding the limit by so much. <--snip

Snip-snip-->
According to their contracts, expectations and desires, all three soldiers should have been civilians by now.
But Fontaine and Costas are currently serving in Iraq, and Eagle has just been deployed.
On their Army paychecks, the expiration date of their military service is now listed sometime after 2030
-- the payroll computer's way of saying, "Who knows?" <--Snip

INDEFINATE SERVITUDE??? :wtf:

http://www.pbs.org/now/society/natguard.html
snip-->
The Stop Loss Policy

National Guard and Army Reserve members are also affected by the ongoing Stop Loss Policy, which allows the Pentagon to keep soldiers whose enlistment is due to expire in order to maintain troop strength and unit integrity. The restrictions bar voluntary separations and retirements for soldiers in designated units beginning 90 days before deployment until 90 days after their units return to their home stations. Specifically, "the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States." A Stop Loss order for National Guard and Reserve units activated for the war against terrorism has been in effect since November 2002. Army officials announced June 1 the latest Active Army Stop Loss/Stop Movement Program for active Army units preparing for deployment overseas in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom remains in effect.

A lawsuit, Doe v. Rumsfeld, was filed against the Stop Loss Policy in August of 2004 in federal court in San Francisco on behalf of an Army recruit who served nine years on active duty, most recently in Iraq. The plaintiff is currently a reservist in the California National Guard. The suit contends that the plaintiff only signed up for one year, and that the stop loss could force him "to return to Iraq for up to two years, and possible continued military service beyond that time."
Some critics have referred to the Stop Loss policy as a "backdoor draft." <-- snip


http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/a/stoploss.htm
STOP LOSS

snip-->
STOP LOSS, on the other hand, means extending a military person in the Guard or Reserves,
or on active duty, beyond what their normal separation date would be. Those who join the
military agree to this provision under paragraph 9c of the enlistment contract states:

In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6)
months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the
United States.

That, is the basis of STOP LOSS.
The Department of Defense maintains that the term "war" means anytime America's Armed
Forces are engaged in hostile conflict, and not just "war declared by Congress."

Would that stand up in court? <--snip

This is NOT a war!! UNDECLARED!!!

[MiniMe]

10. Is it the Iraq/Afghan war, or the "war on terrorism" that needs to end?

And do the soldiers know which war they are talking about? The war on terrorism is said to be at least 20 or 30 years. Does that mean that these soldiers can never get out?

An interesting question and concept.

[Breeze54]

12. It looks ...

... that way, doesn't it? :shrug:
Those three (in article I posted above) have separation dates on their paychecks that say 2030!!
That's ABSURED!!!!

I'd have to look up "War on Terror" and Iraq and Afghanistan declarations for legal wording.

[HereSince1628]

13. But, rustic has nothing to do with it.

I agree people should know what a contract means.

But really, being from an area of tiny hamlets, really doesn't imply low IQ. Pollution not withstanding, high IQ's are distributed without respect to geography.

In my first teaching job out of grad school I had a kid from the same general area (Wild Rose) in my class. Like a lot of kids from there he'd grown up on dairy farm. Well, his dad had named his first son after Bart Starr. Bart, who could provide stats on dairy bulls AND Major League Baseball players like an ESPN color commentator went from little Carroll College to an MD PHD program then to post docs at MIT and then to National Institutes of Health, all by age 26. Anomaly? I dunno, his younger brother followed along with a 3 year BS, and admission to med school.

[SoCalDem]

36. Me too.. Free medical and dental coverage have consequences

if your "boss" is the US military... Volunteer military in a time of peace is a pretty nice deal, but that darned fine print can come back to haunt you if a militaristic lout takes you into war..:(

[jody]

14. The problem is we all have inalienable rights as civilians but not as

members of the military. Inalienable means a right can not be given away but our government uses its power to take inalienable rights from those in service. As a result, military members can not simply resign from their jobs, the only such job in the U.S.

The sad thing is SCOTUS approves that abuse of power in both peacetime and wartime.

[jody]

15. I assume you also disapprove of divorce. n/t

[Catch22Dem]

39. Not even in the same ballpark

When you join the military you sign a contract for a specified number of years. Not so in marriage.

[jody]

47. SCOTUS has ruled the government can keep service personnel on

active duty indefinitely regardless of what the so called contract says.

[Catch22Dem]

61. Yes, and Stop Loss is something I have a problem with as well

But it's a different branch of the same conversation.

[jody]

63. How is it a different branch? It shows government when war has not been

declared can force people into involuntary servitude.

Men and women in our military can not quit their job. If they refuse to work, they can be sent to prison.

Such government power might have some merit when war has been declared to save the nation but IMO it is not morally correct in peacetime.

[Catch22Dem]

65. Of course it's correct in peacetime

You can't have your military members just quitting whenever they choose to in peacetime. How does that make sense? Bottom line, when you enlist, you do so for X number of years, and that's that. You should know that you could go into combat at any time. While morally wrong, there's nothing illegal about the Iraq invasion. God, how I wish there was! Unfortunately, the rethugs and the spineless Dems in congress saw to that when they voted for the IWR. So, even though everything about this war is wrong, technically it's not illegal, therefore these soldiers are being given lawful orders.

Stop Loss is complete bullshit, absolute, complete bullshit, but it's also in the contract you sign when you enlist. Therefore, while wrong, not illegal.

What troubles me is even during the height of the Vietnam war, when the country was divided, and the war was going so terribly, our troops still had a one year tour and that was that. On the day you were sent, you knew exactly what day you were going home (assuming you lived.) Once you were done, you were done. This is how we treated our draftees, but we can't afford the same to our volunteers.

I hope you can understand where I'm coming from on this issue.

[jody]

66. Why can't military personnel quit in peacetime? What other job in the U.S.

can a person be put in prison for if they try to quit?

Does a person have an inalienable right to work in a job of their choice? If not, then they are essentially slaves.

Inalienable means a person can not give or contract a right away but you support the position that in peacetime a person can sign away their personal freedom. Your position means that personal freedom is not an inalienable right.

[Catch22Dem]

67. You sign away that right when you sign the enlistment contract

If a person objects to this, then they shouldn't enlist. It's that simple. When you enlist, you agree to those conditions. When you get hired at a corporation, you don't. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

[jody]

73. You miss my point. If personal freedom is inalienable, one cannot sign

that right away. There might be arguments for forcing people to die for their country in wartime but IMO there are no arguments for that act in peacetime.

SCOTUS allows corporations which have no rights under our Constitution to avoid their contractual obligations, e.g. retirement programs, so why doesn't SCOTUS allow individuals to avoid their obligations with military contracts about which you are so concerned?

Why do multinational corporations and the wealthy people who own and control those corporations have rights that are denied to We the People who are expected to fight and die so worldwide assets of multinational corporations are protected?

[Breeze54]

55. Please explain that to the 40,000 stop lossed! n/t

[Catch22Dem]

62. See above

I have a problem with Stop Loss as well. I got out shortly before Stop Loss was implemented. However, I think it's just as wrong for the military to ignore their end of the contract as it is for enlistees to ignore theirs.

[Dogmudgeon]

16. Either way, it's a tough call

Joining the military, in any situation, is a deadly serious decision, and most people don't take it seriously enough.

For a number of casual enlistees who thought it would be the equivalent of one weekend a month at summer camp, being ordered into a rich man's recreational war turned it into the ultimate nightmare. I do not blame a single one of them for seeking to get out, and to have to cultivate a set of scruples in a hurry.

But the price has been high, and I'm not sure the military is entirely to blame. That's the way military matters are. Once you swear to take up arms for your country, you've surrendered your right to disobey the President in such matters, even if the President turns out to be an arrogant, ignorant, feckless whistle-ass.

Perhaps we need to make some changes in the military, or recruitment, or the concept of national service. Maybe we need to make changes in all of them. And we certainly need to make changes to the way this country goes about its international business. But I don't think that anyone in the volunteer military can be said to have been dragooned or defrauded into service.

--p!

[atreides1]

19. Here's the Oath

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

You will notice that they swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States", you will also notice that they swear to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same", and you will note
that both of these are before the part about obeying the orders of the president.

As yet in this "war", the military has failed to defend the Constitution, yes they follow orders blindly but so did Werhmacth, and perhaps someone here can explain to an old soldier what is the US military protectiong us from?

Without the Constitution there is no country to defend, by doing nothing as this president continues
to whittle away the very meaning of the document that they have sworn to defend the military has shown that it will follow orders to drop bombs on wedding parties and defenseless villages, but they have still done nothing to defend this country.

The one change that needs to be made is to insure that every person entering the military understand that their primary duty is not to anyone in the White House, but to the Constitution of the United States of America.

[Azathoth]

38. How did this war violate the Constitution?

International law? Sure, but not the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we can't drop bombs on farmers in Iraq. It might be wrong, it might be immoral, it might be an affront to human decency, but it isn't unconstitutional.

The one change that needs to be made is to insure that every person entering the military understand that their primary duty is not to anyone in the White House, but to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Actually, the military is Constitutionally obligated to follow the President's orders, hence the whole "Commander in Chief" thing.

[meow2u3]

42. Congress did not formally declare war on Iraq

That's how this war is unconstitutional.

[Azathoth]

44. No, that just means it isn't technically a "war"

It is, however, a "military action" that was authorized by the United States Congress. Presidents have been sending the military into combat without a congressional declaration of war for a long, long time.

[Breeze54]

56. Doesn't make it LEGAL!!!

Do we HAVE a Constitution anymore?????
Any Laws? Rules? Nada? Zilch? :shrug:

You seem to agree with BushCO$!! Make it up as he goes along!!!
:nuke:

[Azathoth]

60. It isn't unconstitutional

If that means I'm in league with Bushco, well, so be it. The invasion of Iraq violates international law, but it doesn't violate the US Constitution. Why is that significant? Because the original poster was suggesting that the US military was obligated to mutiny and refuse to obey orders because the Iraq invasion was somehow unconstitutional.

You seem to agree with BushCO$!! Make it up as he goes along!!!

Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and John Kennedy also seem to agree with Bushco on this one. The President can order troops into combat without a congressional declaration of war.

[Pavulon]

49. They pay for it

that makes it a war.b

[Breeze54]

57. It's a police action. NOT a 'war'! ,.... n/t

[Catch22Dem]

71. As I said in another post...

When the spineless dems capitulated to this thugish gang, and voted for IWR, they made the orders of the president LAWFUL. As it currently stands, the military is obligated to follow those orders as long as they remain lawful. Now, butchering civilians as those marines recently did, is not a lawful order and we go through training to ensure everyone understands the difference. I know, I've been through it. But, the invasion itself, is an order that must be followed thanks to IWR.

[Catch22Dem]

40. "most people don't take it seriously enough"

Exactly. Most people go in thinking they'll get some travel and some education. This is true, but there's ALWAYS the possibility your ass could go to war.

[noonwitch]

17. I totally agree about the voluntary army thing

Nobody forced her to go in, she chose it.

I know that when my brother had to register for the draft, he registered as a CO. Or at least that's what he told us. I don't know if the registration forms provide for that option, being a female and all.

[Breeze54]

58. Can you say STOP LOSS?? .....n/t

[Ms. Toad]

20. Generally, I agree...

Far too many people join the armed services for the benefits, believing that it is an easy way to get a few extra bucks as a weekend warrior and that they will never really have to go to war - then develop a "conscientious objection" to war when reality hits.

Conscientious objector status is a hard won right to be granted the "benefit" of being assigned to do generally disagreeable work as an alternative to performing military service when there was a draft. Early conscientious objectors went to prison rather than violate their conscience. That hard won right should not be used as a matter of convenience to avoid paying for the benefit of the bargain when the price belatedly looks too high.

That said, quite a few of the volunteers are young and naive. Some really do come to conscientious objection after enlisting sincerely believing at the time of enlistment that they could carry out their duties as part of the military. For some it is gaining a few years of maturity under their belt. For others, it is the reality of practicing shooting guns at "people" and the military practice of dehumanizing of the enemy which makes it emotionally possible to handle killing other human beings. Those folks need to have a way out.

I don't know how I feel about single war conscientious objection. In this age of a volunteer army, it strikes me as similar to anti-choice individuals who, knowing that being a pharmacist involves handing out a variety of prescriptions including the morning after pill, choose to become pharmacists anyway. On the other hand, being an anti-war activist for over four decades, I certainly want to encourage anyone who wants to opt out of participating in war to do so.

[lonestarnot]

21. Exactly.

[Evergreen Emerald]

22. I agree with you in theory, however...

...the agreement between soldiers and government is that

Service-people: sign up knowing they can be called upon to go to war at any time

Leaders: do not risk the lives of those that serve for personal or political gain or send them to war as a last resort.

I believe that Bush used the lives of the military for his and PNAC's political ideologue purposes. They broke the agreement.

[gratuitous]

23. But what if the other party doesn't honor its contract?

Yes, she signed a contract to enlist in the Guard. But the obligations for the party of the second part (the government) are also spelled out in that contract. When the government doesn't honor its obligations to the enlistee, what obligation does the enlistee continue to have?

[slackmaster]

27. Unlike other agreements, the government owns military people

When the government doesn't honor its obligations to the enlistee, what obligation does the enlistee continue to have?

They can sue, and they usually lose.

[gratuitous]

30. One can sue, or . . .

Go the CO route.

[slackmaster]

31. Not once you have signed up

If you are a CO, you don't belong in the military or the organized militia.

[gratuitous]

33. Yup

And oddly enough, people change their opinions and attitudes between the time they're 18 and, say, 25. Things that hadn't occurred to an 18-year-old can take on new meaning and new relevance to someone just a few years older. Additionally, 18-year-olds are greatly uninformed and misinformed about a number of things, which is why they're such prime candidates for military recruitment.

After finding out that the government is not obligated to tell them the truth, doesn't use the military for defense, and that violence is not the redemptive cure-all it is sold as in our culture, it's perfectly logical (to me) to assume that a reasonable person might change his or her mind, even after signing up.

[MGKrebs]

52. Not really.

The military needs chaplains and cooks and carpenters and medics. Many people may volunteer to seve with a reasonable expectation that they won't have to actually shoot anybody. Sure, they sign the agreement and are obligated to do what they are told ( to an extent), but there is room for many to serve in ways that do not involve killing.

[slackmaster]

64. I have to question that based on real-life family experience

My grandfather considered fulfilling his draft obligation during World War I by becoming a cook or medic, but on questioning the Army recruiter he discovered that he would be obligated, when under combat conditions, to carry a weapon and fight like any other member of the service. So he claimed CO status. To make a long story short, the elders of his church couldn't be bothered to back up his claim of religious pacifism, so he was sent to prison for life. President Wilson pardoned him after the war ended, along with about 41 other young Mennonites, Quakers, Hutterites, etc. who had suffered similar fates.

Many people may volunteer to seve with a reasonable expectation that they won't have to actually shoot anybody.

I'm sorry, but that is not really a reasonable expectation.

[Ilsa]

Yeah, an uncle was working with a few Reservists back in 1990

and 1991 on his civilian job. When they heard that SecDef Cheney had ordered up a couple hundred thousand body bags for US troops going to Iraq for PGW-I, they all suddenly got sick or started having joint and muscle problems and couldn't go anywhere. My uncle had "covered" for them when they were on their Reservist duty. They didn't object to going because they even knew shit about the situation, otherwise he would have supported their decision to object to going. They just didn't want to go, but they sure didn't mind continuing to draw their benefits. (It pissed the uncle off because he was drafted into the army during Vietnam, but was so smart, that he was sent to Japan for some sort of communications work unstead of infantry.)

[Ilsa]

24. Yeah, an uncle was working with a few Reservists back in 1990

and 1991 on his civilian job. When they heard that SecDef Cheney had ordered up a couple hundred thousand body bags for US troops going to Iraq for PGW-I, they all suddenly got sick or started having joint and muscle problems and couldn't go anywhere. My uncle had "covered" for them when they were on their Reservist duty. They didn't object to going because they even knew shit about the situation, otherwise he would have supported their decision to object to going. They just didn't want to go, but they sure didn't mind continuing to draw their benefits. (It pissed the uncle off because he was drafted into the army during Vietnam, but was so smart, that he was sent to Japan for some sort of communications work unstead of infantry.)

[slackmaster]

26. I agree - She should never have joined the NG

I'm glad she got out, but she never should have volunteered in the first place.

Right on.

[Shadowen]

28. Bullshit.

Someone who joined the military in the '90s might have done so thinking he was going to do some good in the world--and done so, in Bosnia, for example.

If that person were still in the military by the time Bush invaded Iraq...

Y'see where I'm going with this? The military is not a static thing; it changes with politics and leaders like any other institution. If it changes to something you are no longer proud to serve with...

[Catch22Dem]

41. You don't get that option.

Pride ain't getting you out of your obligation.

[Shadowen]

48. It doesn't, no.

I wasn't saying it did.

I'm saying that the concept of "you can't be a conscientious objector in a voluneer army!" is fallacious. Like many things, it's a question of when as much as what and how and why.

[Pavulon]

50. No its Binary

when you sign up you know you are joining the ARMED FORCES. It is not the boy scouts or the vienna boys choir. You job is generally geared toward war or support there of.

I joined the ANg after gw1 and ended up part of IFOR. Was not surprised. 1 year or so gone from school and family.

And for the rustic crap it paid for my EE at state.

[Shadowen]

59. Oh, yes.

Because there's only one type of war. World War II and Vietnam were the same war, fought for the same reasons, both completely and utterly moral.

The assault on the Taliban and the invasion of Iraq, to use an all-volunteer example, are the exact same thing, morally speaking.

It's not binary. It's hexadecimal.

[Trajan]

72. This cannot be a valid claim ....

And here is why ...

When someone joins a state militia, they presume, automatically, that they would ONLY be utilized in a moral action ... ONLY in a justifiable manner based on honest appraisals of an 'enemy's' intention to violate international law and to wrongly prosecute war in violation of that law ....

A volunteer soldier would be expected to serve his full commitmentin ANY such legal action, and could not claim conscientious objector status, as long as the action was justifiable ....

But if an administration comes into power that itself violates international maxims for justifiable military actions, and begins ordering soldiers into wars that have no legal or justifiable basis, then the soldier SHOULD have a right to change their status, even if they had joined with the intent of serving a full commitment ...

A good soldier follows orders, but a good human being follows their conscience and refuses to violate their own sense of justice IF their leaders show a lack of moral turpitude in their prosecution of their constitutional role as commanders of a national military organization.

A volunteer soldier would be expected to follow orders for EVERY legal action, but would be justified to object, through conscience, if the soldier believes no justification exists for that action.

[noamnety]

4. K&R

The war resisters deserve all the recognition they can get.

[lindisfarne]

5. Very few countries around the world view the US war in Iraq as just.

I can see someone volunteering to fight in certain circumstances, but changing their mind on Iraq. A bit naive on their part, but most 18-year-olds aren't too good at critical thinking skills.
Meant this as a reply to #2.

[Kailassa]

8. Many people have joined the armed forces for reasons that

were admirable and moral.

The problem is not with people changing their minds at the last minute about fighting.

The problem is with the way the military limit concientious objector status to those who don't want to fight anyone, ever.

There is a huge difference between being prepared to give your life to defend your country and being sent to illegally fuck over a country so an unelected president and his buddies can become even more rich and powerful.

[Posteritatis]

11. This long and only one female soldier seeks it?

That seems a bit odd, considering the size of the US military and the number of people engaged, doesn't it?

[Brazenly Liberal]

18. Is her real name "June Cleaver"?

Because unless she refused because she thinks a woman's place is in the home, wearing high heels and pearls to do the housework, I don't see why AP is making such a point of her being a woman.

I'm not overly PC about this stuff. If AP wants to refer to the employees available to do a job as "manpower," I don't care. But, really now, how on earth is her gender so relevant to being a conscientious objector?

To go back on topic, I wish the article had more detail. I have to wonder why someone who is a CO would join the NG? If her objection is to fighting in an illegal and immoral war, as opposed to fighting in general, the article doesn't say so. Or did she have an epiphany after she joined, realizing that she cannot in all good conscience fire a gun? Or does she think this administration has lost its collective mind and she's gotta get out any way she can? Or did she join before the war, never dreaming the US would do something as crazy as invading Iraq?

[Joe Chi Minh]

32. Compare the consequences of the contractual breaches of

society's sharks (for the incurably affable - the "fat cats"), such as all too many of the politicians and prominent business people, local as well as national, with the breaches of the national guard service people claiming to hold conscientious objections; not to speak of the immense breaches of contract of the politicians, who caused the war on false pretexts, in the first place. They are too hideous and topical to explicitly remind ourselves of. But what of the consequences of the latter's objection to serving?

Come to think of it, neither do the atrocities and horrors they will avoid becoming implicated and complicit in, bear thinking about, either; and how much less potentially injurious to themselves and to their country, most particularly, to their families, than the harrowing state of health of those service people returned from Iraq, often irreparably broken in mind and body.

Although it is incumbent on our leaders at the top, to get things right, and thereby direct our lives propitiously and harmoniously for the wellbeing of all of us, when they get it all wrong, as they almost invariably do, it is not normally good practice for us to abjure our customary civic responsibilities and down tools, moral and material, as they've done. However, when those duties are so clearly inimical to the common good, it gets very knotty.

The Pharisees loved to do the superficial things punctiliously, but this kind of situation is where genuine Christian faith comes in - doing what we think is right, even though wracked with uncertainty. It might mean serving in Iraq, or might mean refusing to do so. Either could be done in a spirit of heroism or from fear. Only God will know our true motivation, our integrity or our weakness in the face of such a nightmarish dilemma. However, in this scenario, holding national guard people to higher standards than the many people in a so much more comfortable scenario, who should know better, and who indeed conspired to created the nightmare (most of all, for the innocent Iraqi people), doesn't commend itself to me one jot.

[Spangle]

29. What did she sign on to do?

When you join the military, your filling a 'job spot' and take training for it. Your told want the job is, etc... before you actually sign the paperwork. However, later the miltary can change your job.

If she signed up to do 'work' that didn't involve killing (exspet in self defense) and later her job changed... The CO could very well be an issue.

If she signed up to be a grunt.. then it doesn't matter if she signed up as a NG or army, navy, etc. Her training was to be a grunt, on the killing field in a time of battle. When her group is called to activite.... It's what she signed up to do.

Being female shouldn't be an issue here.

[AnneD]

34. When I enlisted....

I knew and was prepare to go to war and possibly die. But back then, my contract was respected. The minute they started this stop loss, continual call ups, and lied about Iraq, it violated the terms of the contract. I support these folks in their efforts to get out and I support bringing our soldiers back ASAP. The National Guard gets bump kiss in the way of benefits etc compared to the Army Reserve and yet they take the same risks that the active Army does. They are doing jobs they were not designed, trained, or supplied to do. The National Guard was suppose to be stateside for emergencies requiring policing and heavy duty support. The Army Reserve goes with the Army.

[sweetheart]

43. prison is the solution, what is the question?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1283288&mesg_id=1283288

[IChing]

51. This is a battle that has been fought over the centuries

Defending your country is one thing,
defending your freedoms and your conscious has always been another thing
Sometimes they meet in war as comrades, but not today my friends
Her conscious won.

I guess she could see that she did not want to be a party to "War Crimes" anymore