you’d think his Father being in Vietnam would have given him a hint on that one, huh?:dubious:
I served in the Navy and asked for and received discharge as a conscientious objector. The process is long - it took a year from submitting my paperwork to signing my discharge form and walking out of the office a civilian. It also requires considerable proof. One must submit a well-written and eloquent application, fly witnesses in at one’s own expense for the investigative hearing, and dance to avoid any duty during the waiting period that would create even more pressing moral qualms. Because it’s a pain in the ass, the CO community has long been made up mostly of entirely sincere people who honestly experienced a profound change of belief after entering service. People who just want out for other motivations can normally do it through easier ways, and are a minority that can only serve to give legitimate CO’s a bad name.
[QUOTE]
**Are you kidding me? The kid joins the Marines, and it’s only when he goes through boot that he figures out that killing is part of the job description? Didn’t his father’s Vietnam experience kinda clue him in?
Everyone knows that the military kills, but sometimes killing becomes a problem only after entry. For me, I could have cared less about loss of life for the enemy when I signed up. It wasn’t until I was increasingly active in the peace and justice side of my church that I saw a conflict between the job I was in and the new person I had become.
Monty the PO can answer that, but isn’t the discharge of which you speak available only for a serviceperson’s first six months in the military?
For information about getting out of the military - there’s a way out for nearly everyone unhappy about being in - try The GI Rights Hotline
UnuMondo
Regrettably “selective conscientious objection”, that is objecting to a specific type of war (nuclear war especially), is not legally recognised. Nearly every major church in the US has lobbied Congress to make allowances for it, and bills appear occassionally to make it legal, but they haven’t succeed as yet. A soldier who refuses to fight an unjust war is a conscientious objector, but the US military won’t treat him as one.
UnuMondo
He went through Marine boot camp, there was no emphasis on learning how to be a reservist or being part of a support battalion. He was given the basic skills to be a Marine. He was given a rifle and taught to shoot. He was given a pack and taken on a few humps. If he wanted to object he should have done it prior to graduating boot camp. Or prior to enlisting in the first place. It’s funny how he just now realizes he a conscientious objector. He didn’t sign up for a part-time job, he signed up to be a part of the United States Marine Corps, if he wanted a part-time job he should have applied at McDonalds.
He would rather march with anti-war hippies than do his job. Perhaps he needs to go report to his Senior.
Geez, I can never get the formatting right. In my comment two posts up, this is from me:
“Everyone knows that the military kills, but sometimes killing becomes a problem only after entry. For me, I could have cared less about loss of life for the enemy when I signed up. It wasn’t until I was increasingly active in the peace and justice side of my church that I saw a conflict between the job I was in and the new person I had become.”
UnuMondo
Maybe you can answer my question then, I’m assuming you joined voluntarily and were not drafted, if that’s not the case then obviously this question is moot, did you not know the purpose of the Navy when you joined? Or did you experience this change of belief after entering the service? And in either case what’s your opinion on this case?
I answered this above, but you might not have seen it the first time because I screwed up the formatting.
I knew the purpose of the military when I joined, or should I say, I knew that killing is involved. I did not know the purpose of my particular rating (Cryptologic Techician - Interpretive) because recruiters advertise it as something very different than what it turns out to be.
CO discharges are based up change of conscientious which occur after entering the service. An applicant for CO discharge must prove a “crystallization of conscience” which occurred during his time in service.
UnuMondo
OK, fine- let’s give this dude his “CO” status, and whatever discharge is legally justified. He does seem sincere. But- we ARE going to make fun of this fool naif, and he deserves it.
Yes, indeedy, anyone who joins the Goddamn MARINE Corps should know they they are there to KILL the enemies of our Nation. They showed him how to kill with bayonets & shoot rifles for some sort of “get in touch with your inner child” excercise? :rolleyes:
OHMYGOD DDg, you seriously contend that this kid is smart enough to pass the entrance exam & graduate from High School- and he DOESN’T KNOW THAT MARINES ARE THERE TO KILL PEOPLE?!?. And to “prove” that he was mislead, you quote some Marine recruiting info (which we do not know is the info he got) to show that it doesn’t say “kill people”?!? Give me a break. Of course, the main mission for a “support unit” is not to fight, it is to support. Thus it is quite likely he could go over and never have to raise a hand in anger at the enemy- but he has to be able & willing to do so if the circumstances arise. In fact, most of our men over there haven’t “killed anyone” yet, either, and most won’t. Many will never fire a shot.
Hell, my Dad fought for 4+ years in the US Army OVERSEAS in WWII and even in the front line, and was decorated- and never actually shot anyone- although he did get shot AT. (He was a courier, thus his job was to run/drive like hell and get the message through, not stop & shoot back). But he had no illusions about that being something he MIGHT have to do, even though his MOS & orders were to avoid shooting back.
I see this thread rapidly morphing into “ex-military types come out of the woodwork to flame pussy CO” thread. Perhaps it should be moved to the Pit. :rolleyes:
I’ve known a number of people in my time who have joined various “reserves”, and it’s always with the expectation of getting good jobs and benefits, not with the expectation of ever having to go to war and shoot people. When you go to sign up, it’s barely even mentioned as a possibility. It’s just understood that the “regular” military does the actual fighting and the reserves would be called up only if the Soviets or the Red Chinese or the Bosnians should decide to invade the U.S. in person. Which possibility was always dismissed with a light laugh, “Ha ha, we all know how silly that is.”
And yes, you go through boot camp and you hump a few hikes and you learn how to shoot a rifle, but it’s presented as “this is what we all have to go through, and it doesn’t take that long, and then you can start your cushy part-time job with all the great benefits”.
Bayonet, “participating in Mafia activities” cannot be equated with “going AWOL from the Marines”. The two things have nothing to do with each other for the purposes of this discussion. Yes, they’re both illegal, but so are baby-snatching and impersonating a police officer.
We are equating "“participating in Mafia activities” with “participating in Marine activities”, and “quitting the Mafia” with “quitting the Marines”. “Going AWOL from the Marines” isn’t even in the discussion, as “going AWOL” is different from “quitting”, meaning “resigning from”, which is what we’re talking about here.
I’ll address a few things here, and the answers I’m putting forth should make it clear what I’m addressing, thus no quoting of what’s earlier in the thread (read the whole thread; it’s good for you! 
).
Yes, there is something called an entry-level discharge. It’s available only for a certain time-period between enlistment and granting of said entry-level discharge.
Recruiters fibbing: I call BS on that. Every single person who’s told me that he got lied to by the recruiter also signed his own name and initials onto the enlistment/reenlistment contract (DD Form 4). {Aside: what the hey were DD Forms 1, 2, & 3?} That contract had the explicit program for which the person was enlisting. And, shocker of shockers!, it also informed the person entering into the contract that he may be required to kill and/or put himself in danger of getting killed. That same contract also has wording to the effect that the only promises that are valid are the ones written into that very contract. In other words: Someone tells me they got lied to by their recruiter and they still enlisted, I think I’m dealing with a fool until they actively prove otherwise.
Degrees of CO: Some Conscientious Objectors object to any war other than one in response to an actualy physical attack on their country’s territory; some object to any war at all but do not object to serving in a non-combat position which would not require them to take up arms; some object to any position at all in the Armed Forces. Each of those positions is arrived at by the i ndividual concerned. As nobody can read another’s mind, what one has to do is take the stated position as is and compare it to the actual life of the person. One cannot rule out a change of philosophy either, say from extreme gung-ho to extreme pacifist. Again, that is arrived at via individual choice.
UA: IIRC, the Page Six (Record of Unauthorized Absence) in the Navy had the following divisions: UA over Leave or Liberty (meaning you didn’t get back on time), AWOL (meaning you were at work and you just up and left), and…drat!..I can’t remember the other one. Oh, well. BTW, during my Army days, I learned that the Army didn’t call it AWOL, but rather AWL. That had something to do with the fact that the SIDPERS mnemonic for that particular duty status only had room for three characters. (The duty status DECEASED was thus abbreviated DED; causing a lot of odd jokes.)
Reserves: The Reserve and National Guard components are not just part-time hire-ons. They are Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen. They are just as professional as their Active Duty counterparts. They are an essential part of our country’s Armed Forces. The very same contract referred to above is the one they sign; it is identical in every way as the Regular Branch’s contract, but with one exception: the component into which they are enlisting is indicated as either Reserve or National Guard.
Military Service Obligation (MSO): Even if you enlist into the Regular Army for say, a four-year stint, you are not discharged at the end of that four-year period. You are separated from active duty and transferred to one of the Reserve components. Currently, the MSO is eight years; therefore, the person enlisting now for a 4-year stint as Regular Army would have four years more to complete in a Reserve component until actually receiving a discharge. When I first enlisted, the MSO was only six years. Since I did 6.5 years on Active Duty, I had already fulfilled my MSO by the time I got out of the Army.
Want to learn more than you ever dreamed about asking about this stuff? Go to www.bupers.mil and read the appropriate sections of the MILPERSMAN.
On preview, I see Dr Deth’s posting. What? Nobody deserves to be made fun of for making a difficult and unpopular moral choice.
On the same preview, I see DDG’s posting. The time I spent (after separation from the Army) in the Army Reserves did not have the “you might get recalled to Active Duty” as a big secret known only to a select few. I would appreciate also your not including me in the “flame the CO” description, especially since I’m doing exactly the opposite of that.
Left one thing off.
UA: Also, being UA (on an Unauthorized Absence) is grounds for trial by court-martial. As a matter of fact, any violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is grounds for such a trial. The last time I checked, being a Conscientious Objector did not constitute a violation of the UCMJ. UA, OTOH, does and the accused’s (that’s the military term for defendant, go figure) Commanding Officer may request the court-martial convening authority to institute such proceedings or the Commanding Officer may dispense of the matter via Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP), known by the Army & Air Force as Article 15, by the Navy as Captain’s Mast, and by the Marine Corps as Office Hours. I don’t know what the Coast Guard calls it colloquially.
Let me add something here: Those that are making fun of this guy for his self-identification as a CO are not acting maturely nor responsibly. Even making fun of his going UA isn’t a mature reaction. Say he gets sent-up on court-martial or Office Hours. Once that proceeding is completed, to include the sentence, if any, then it’s done and over with.
We’re talking about someone’s life here, and that someone is in the midst of a difficult decision, a very unpopular one, and which he has made at least one mistake regarding his method of communicating his decision to his chain of command. This is not the third grade playground.
Well, I hope I didn’t give you that impression. I think if someone is a true CO they should do their damnest to get out and they shouldn’t jeopordize anyone else’s safety until they can. I personally never had a problem with COs, protestors, homosexuals, whatever. It’s your right to be what you want to be. Use the rules to your advantage. More power to you.
What I did have a problem with, were the guys and gals facing UCMJ trouble, or a lousy assignment, and then out of nowhere they suddenly announced to everyone they were CO’s or homosexuals, and shouldn’t even be there to begin with. Granted these were a minority, malingering was the most popular seperation method. Sleepwalking, narcolepsy, self-mutilation, etc.
This guy may or may not be a “pussy” but, if you break the law, which is posted loud and clear, don’t try to squirm out of it because you became a CO, drank too much, found Jesus, etc. Which was the gist of my response to the OP, “Suck it up. Being an objector does not give you the right to break the UCMJ.”
Does it hurt to roll your eyes like that all the time after blowing responses out of proportion?
And when people sign up for reserves, they are thinking it is barely possible as well. SWF? It is the military!
How does one get to be 18 years of age and be eligible for military service of any kind and not know what the military is for? Why do you find this question so unreasonable that your most direct response is to avoid answering it?
Have you gone through boot camp?
As an aside, the Marines take great pride in the fact that every Marine is a rifleman first, and whatever MOS second. In all the other branches of service, you could spend your entire career and never fire a shot in anger, or be shot at (affectionately known as REMFs).
From here
And here
Heck, you gave me that impression. And this last posting of yours still gives me that impression.
[qutoe]I think if someone is a true CO they should do their damnest to get out and they shouldn’t jeopordize anyone else’s safety until they can. I personally never had a problem with COs, protestors, homosexuals, whatever. It’s your right to be what you want to be. Use the rules to your advantage. More power to you.
[/quote]
A CO is not “using the rules to his advantage.” A homosexual is not “using the rules to his advantage.” Clearly, you’re not understanding what I, along with others, have said about what CO is and isn’t. Perhaps you could ask the questions you have about it and some of us can try to inform you.
Thus the bit about the disciplinary proceedings must be brought to a close before eligibility for an Administrative Separation. Contrary to what some folks believe, an ADSEP isn’t always a punitive thing.
[quote]
or a lousy assignment, and then out of nowhere they suddenly announced to everyone they were CO’s or homosexuals, and shouldn’t even be there to begin with.
I’m calling BS on this statement, absent your providing a reputable statistical study.
Observable medical condition. Thus a medically-based ADSEP.
Observable medical condition. Thus a medically-based ADSEP.
Observable medical condition. Thus a medically-based ADSEP. Etc.
Instead of ranting, please ask the questions you have about what a CO is and isn’t.
BF: Even REMFs come under fire. But, hey, if that “military myth” makes the Marines who tout it feel good about themselves, and especially if it makes them better at their jobs, more power to it!
You and I know that Monty, but I did say that you could never be shot at.
A few random thoughts:
On objecting to particular wars, or particular kinds of wars: I’m sorry, but IMHO that’s just not feasible. The military has to be generally available to be a tool in the hands of policymakers, to apply force when diplomacy has failed. If the troops can opt out from this or that conflict, then it’s not going to be a very useful tool.
This is why I believe that, absent a clear call from God to be in the military, a Christian has no business being there: you are signing up for the possibility of being put in the position of having to kill people that God doesn’t want dead, but some earthly power does.
You want to argue the legitimacy of the above Christian POV, we should probably do it in another thread; I’m game. But the point of it is that my moral reality recognizes the military’s practical reality. I don’t think there’s any good way around the latter.
On how visible is the reality that being ready and willing to kill is the military’s job: I think it’s pretty obvious, and doesn’t need a whole lot of restatement.
Ironically, I think the best argument to the contrary is a conservative argument from the Reagan years. Remember how it was briefly a big deal that Reagan called the Soviet Union the “evil empire”? To me, it seemed both obvious and cartoonish: everyone paying the slightest bit of attention had to know that the Soviets were a totalitarian regime that kept their people, and a number of satellite countries, in line by force and intimidation. But the conservatives said no, if you don’t make a big deal of it from time to time, people won’t realize that.
The same argument would apply here: if recruiters and recruitment literature don’t emphasize the fundamental purpose of the military, you’ll get recruits who join for all those other reasons, who aren’t particularly eager to be part of a fighting force.
I rejected the “evil empire” argument then, and I reject this argument about the U.S. military now. Armies, navies, etc. are fighting forces. That’s obvious, and doesn’t need to be said.
On DDG’s web links: on her first linked page, I found this:
Certainly suggests something, doesn’t it? But if you follow the “About the Marines” link at the bottom of that page, the page starts with:
That leaves no room for doubt.
About the Reserves: let’s face it, the likelihood of a Reservist or National Guardsman being called up has varied considerably over time. There might well be a legitimate perception gap here. Regardless of what the fine print says, bait-and-switch is immoral even when not illegal. A recruiter certainly can give a recruit the impression that after boot camp, it’s almost surely back to an easy time of weekend-warrioring. (The military career of our current President certainly gives credence to that, and he was a Reservist during Vietnam, fercryinoutloud.)
Perhaps one thing every Reservist recruit ought to be made to sign before signing enlistment papers is a list of each conflict the Reserves have been called up for in the past 15-20 years, with the approximate numbers of Reservists called up for each one. Nothing like hard facts to add a little Truth in Advertising.
On even sven’s characterization of the recruitment process:
I’m willing to believe this; I’ve heard some stories from servicepersons.
Pardon me if I want some evidence that this sorta stuff is part of the US military’s recruiting process, before giving it any credence. Even if you believe the military thinks this is a good recruitment approach, which I don’t believe, I’m surprised they’d have the budget for all this.
Getting back to Cpl. Funk’s case: I’m sure the military has had a fair number of cases, over time, where someone eligible for disciplinary action is also applying to be let out of his/her service commitment for whatever reason. Whatever they’ve been doing in those cases, is what they ought to do with Funk. Being AWOL since mid-February sounds nontrivial to me. If standard treatment of similar cases involves some months in a military prison before he’s dismissed from the service, it won’t break my heart. But just because his case is more newsworthy (IOW, bizarre - I mean, gay Marine CO? Sounds like a friggin’ tabloid headline!), or because this is a time of war, doesn’t mean he should be treated any better or worse than others who have been similarly situated, IMHO.
BTF: What?
RTF: The contract is what the Reservist (to include the National Guardsman) signs. The Reserves have gotten called up and it’s not a secret that it happens. Heck, being Active Duty doesn’t guarantee you’re going to get sent to a combat zone either! It’s not a legitimate point to call the Reserve components “hire-ons.” It’s demeaning, insulting, and worst of all, inaccurate.
“Lied to about what jobs they were going to get.” I call BS. If the contract has the MOS/Rating/AFSC listed, then they get it. At least they get sent to the training for it. If they fail to meet the standards required for that MOS/Rating/AFSC (such as flunking the course), then that portion of the contract no longer applies, as the contract itself stated. The individual is then given an option: retraining in another MOS/Rating/AFSC or separation.
“I’ve known people who’ve been recruited.” Arguing from a logical fallacy. After all, every single person with whom I served was recruited.
“I’ve heard some stories from servicepersons.” I’m maintaining that’s exactly what those were: stories. Maybe the people telling you those stories felt better about themselves, or maybe they thought it’s just more cool to accuse someone who’s not there and therefore is unable to defend himself of the charge of illegal activity.
“I’m sure the military has had a fair number of cases, over time, where someone eligible for disciplinary action is also applying to be let out of his/her service commitment for whatever reason.” And, yet again, I have to mention that there’s this requirement for the disciplinary actions to be completed prior to the ADSEP.
“Being AWOL since mid-February sounds nontrivial to me.” Darn right! Being UA since yesterday is also non-trivial.
& I think I’ll scream the next time I hear “this is a time of war.” Congress has not declared war.
I think the term is “War or National Emergency”, nor does Congress have to DECLARE war for us to make war. Congress gave the Prez the power to make war against Iraq. So far, the courts have agreed.
But I do agree that we have not yet “declared war”, although that seems to be only a legal nitpick.