# Marine petitions for conscientious objector status; didn't know Marines were violent **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 4, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480 "2003-04-04T16:02:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2003, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/101 "2003-04-06T22:47:49Z")
Wabbit: For the last freaking time, a Dishonorable Discharge is only available as part of a sentence at a court-martial. UncleBill: Try not to be such a jackass, okay? And whilst you’re working on that, please provide also proof or your mind-reading ability as to that individual’s claim. “Other individuals” also included those who just sat around and didn’t prevent the assault. Actually, I find your scenario not very credible given that it’s not usual at all for the captain to run to the colonel because “he didn’t do what I told him to do! Wahhhh! Teacher! Do something!” A Battalion or Brigade Commanding Officer assaulting a junior enlisted member doesn’t really strike me as the way it’s done. Actually, it’s a pretty good way for the accused to get a pretty good result at his court-martial. Weeks of discussion, huh? How many of those who read your posts in this thread do you think are just absolutely stupid? You’re now saying that everyone was just standing around by the packed gear and the airplane for this “weeks of discussion” to conclude? ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2003, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/102 "2003-04-06T22:49:57Z")
He was UA for 47 days. On the 47th day he turned himself in with the intention of applying for C.O. Status. I ask **Monty** for the facts on this, but I don’t believe a Good Conduct C.O. Discharge can be given him since he deserted and missed movement. [cite](http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/115386_wobjector02.shtml) for the 47 days and Deserter status. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2003, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/103 "2003-04-06T22:51:28Z")
It’s been a little while since I’ve had to fill out an application for employment much of anywhere, but I remember a part about “Are you now, or have you ever been, in the military?” Is it again my cold-addled brain remembering _something_ about asking for under what status you left the military (i.e. honorable/dishonorable discharge, etc) if you weren’t active duty/reserve? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2003, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/104 "2003-04-06T22:55:39Z")
Desertion is currently defined as either being UA over 30 days, going UA when one is already facing disciplinary action, or one has made manifest his intention to desert (such as stating, “I’m leaving and not coming back.”). Avail yourself of the (in)famous MILPERSMAN conveniently provided at www.bupers.navy.mil\* for more information about: (a) UA and desertion, (b) types of separation from service, © characterization of service, and (d) Conscientious Objector. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2003, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/105 "2003-04-06T23:10:55Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m leaving and not coming back. Do they ever come back and wonder very loudly if anyone missed them?😃 ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2003, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/106 "2003-04-06T23:17:54Z")
iampunha: Actually, there was one young Airman on my first ship who would go UA and then arrive just before payday. Then he would get bent out of shape when he discovered that he didn’t get paid for the days he was absent. He wondered very loudly why that was. He forgot to check his calendar the last time he pulled the stunt and reported back to the ship a day after he was declared a deserter. Funniest one was when one Seaman had been gone quite some time. He was discharged in absentia. That Friday afternoon he came back to the ship wanting to turn himself in. The Command Duty Officer enusured he was given a copy of his DD Form 214. Lesson to be learned: Learn the Calendar! ---
**Author:** ![GusNSpot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gusnspot/32/436_2.png) [@GusNSpot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GusNSpot)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2003, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/107 "2003-04-06T23:21:45Z")
So, UncleBill is right, right? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2003, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/108 "2003-04-06T23:24:57Z")
No, the guy didn’t desert, Gus. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2003, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/109 "2003-04-06T23:42:33Z")
If anyone’s actually interested in facts, here’s the Department of Defense directive: [DoD Directive Number 1300.6, “Conscientious Objectors.”](http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/text/d13006p.txt) This part is quite interesting: > [@](#): > > 4.2. Because of the personal and subjective nature > of conscientious objection, the existence, honesty, > and sincerity of asserted conscientious objection beliefs > cannot be routinely ascertained by applying inflexible > objective standards and measurements an “across-the-board” > basis. Requests for discharge or assignment to non-combatant > training or service based on conscientious objection > will, therefore, be handled on an individual basis with > final determination made at the Headquarters of the > Military Service concerned in accordance with the facts > and circumstances in the particular case and the policy > and procedures set forth herein. As is this part: > [@](#): > > 5.3.2. A primary factor to be considered is the sincerity > with which the belief is held. Great care must be > exercised in seeking to determine whether asserted beliefs > are honestly and genuinely held. Sincerity is determined > by an impartial evaluation of the applicant’s thinking > and living in its totality, past and present. Care > must be exercised in determining the integrity of belief > and the consistency of application. Information presented > by the claimant should be sufficient to convince that > the claimant’s personal history reveals views and actions > strong enough to demonstrate that expediency or avoidance > of military service is not the basis of his claim. > > 5.3.2.1. Therefore, in evaluating applications the > conduct of applicants, in particular their outward manifestation > of the beliefs asserted, will be carefully examined > and given substantial weight. How about this one? > [@](#): > > 5.3.3. Particular care must be exercised not to deny > the existence of bonafide beliefs simply because those > beliefs are incompatible with one’s own. Or this? > [@](#): > > 5.5. An applicant claiming 1-O status shall not be > granted 1-A-O status as a compromise. Let’s put emotions on hold, not lambast this guy, and let HQUSMC (or whatever the current abbreviation is) make the decision as required, based on evidence, on facts. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2003, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/110 "2003-04-06T23:45:48Z")
A nifty site: [http://www.objector.org/advice/conscientious\_objector-12.html](http://www.objector.org/advice/conscientious_objector-12.html) ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/111 "2003-04-07T02:03:34Z")
“That individual” was assigned to my battery when the other battery deployed. I was the Battery Executive Officer, and involved personally in the early stages of his package for C.O. Status. I don’t read minds, I listen to the person speak and read what he writes. The “weeks of discussion” was, as any rational person may infer, BEFORE we were on the tarmac. We had orders to deploy to SWA. Date to be announced, but we were going. Said Marine had made it clearly known he was not going to go. Said Marine had failed in his C.O. quest. Since this issue was being brought to a head, and the Captain, my Battery CO, was deploying before the Colonel and the rest of the Battalion, it was decided that the action take place as I described so that the Colonel would be there to do the paperwork while the Captain and the rest of us flew onward to the sandbox. I said nothing of the sort that we were standing around packed while this happened, you pulled that one out of your ass. And I still call bullshit on your “assault” crap, since this was orchestrated by people who actually made it their job to know the law. I honestly don’t care if you believe me or not, I was personally witness to this specific incident, I was personally interviewing this Marine, and I personally spoke with the JAG about his performance and stated intentions. As I recall, the personnel chief was not involved in the events leading up to this, but probably did the paperwork afterwards. If you’d like to call me a liar, go ahead, but I’m having trouble following this “not a deserter” thing: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by UncleBill_ > He was UA for 47 days > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Monty_ > Desertion is currently defined as either being UA over 30 days, … > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Monty_ > No, the guy didn’t desert, Gus. I give you MCO 5800.10B, which states, in part > [@](#): > > 1. Definitions. > b. Deserter. A Marine in an unauthorized absence status for greater than 30 days… ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/112 "2003-04-07T02:07:18Z")
I have been following this thread (and the one in GD) since they started. I have to say after all that reading this guy reminds me of the 60’s song **The Draft Doger Rag** by _Phil Ochs_ > [@](#): > > Sarge I’m only 18, I got a ruptured spleen > And I always carry a purse… and the last two lines > [@](#): > > And if you ever get a war without blood and gore > I’ll be the first to go! ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/113 "2003-04-07T02:28:53Z")
Well, UncleBill, I did misread the “47” as “27.” I stand corrected. The rest of your story, why, yes, I am calling you a liar. I don’t believe it. It’s just too much bullshit packaged into one story. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/114 "2003-04-07T02:45:07Z")
Seeing as you have a hard time keeping your stories together, UncleBill, let me remind you of what you said to begin with. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBill \* > The second guy decided he wanted to be Muslim, too, after the deployments had begun. He had no basis for this claim, and we had him, packed, at the base of the stairs to board the plane to fly over there. The Captain asked him to board, then ordered him to board. Then the Colonel ordered him to board, and when he refused, the Colonel made an effort to physically put him on the plane. When he resisted, the MP’s slapped the cuffs on him, and I was still visiting him in the Brig six months later after all the shooting was done and everyone was back home. You then provide, in a later posting, this gem: > [@](#): > > This all occurred within about 30 seconds, and was orchestrated with Legal and MP advice. They did not move on the lesser offenses, waiting for the Missing Movement charge (as I recall, that was the charge that put him in the pokey). Still no indication of weeks of discussion prior to the assault on the purported CO, nor any mention of a request for recognition of such status being denied prior to the incident. Your next posting has this: > [@](#): > > I am well aware of that, and this Marine said it with the same conviction I did. He was investigated for his claims by the proper authorities in accordance with relevant procedure for months. He made the calim in August, Alpha Battery deployed in August/September, 1990, this incident occurred in December. Finally! A time frame involved. Problem is that this posting contradicts your previous version of the incident. Yes, I made a mistake on the 47 days bit. The rest of the story you provide looks, walks and sounds like a lie. That is why I called you a liar. And just because your narrow-minded foolish view that personnel/admin types aren’t real Soldiers, Sailors, or Marines doesn’t make that true either, jerk. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/115 "2003-04-07T02:46:35Z")
Wabbit > [@](#): > > It’s all in the timing Otto: why not inform the Marines he was a CO and/or gay in Basic? Had he informed them he was gay in basic training, he would have been discharged. He was not a CO in basic training, although it was during basic training that he began to have doubts about his being a combatant. This is all covered in the article I linked to in my first post in this thread. You might try reading it. You would also learn that he had conversations with several people over the last year about his doubts but was not advised that he had the option of claiming CO status. > [@](#): > > Given the facts that I know about the case–I think he’s a malingerer. You don’t. Can we agree on that at least? Can we agree that you think he’s a malingerer and I don’t? Absolutely. Can we also agree that you you’ve been a judgmental prick who has willfully ignored information from sources which don’t support your “he’s a malingerer” bullshit? ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/116 "2003-04-07T03:15:53Z")
Here is the timeline. Both Marines were Stinger Gunners assigned to Alpha Battery. Alpha Battery was designated to be with 6th MEB. 6th MEB was ordered to deploy earlier than the rest of the Battalion, in Aug/Sep, 1990. As these two Marines made the request for C.O. status, they were transferred to my battery, Bravo Battery, so that there requests could be processed. One panned out as legit, and he agreed to go to SWA as a driver, without a weapon. The second claimant’s story did not pan out, his package was denied. When the time came that we knew Bravo Battery was going to be deployed (probably late November, 1990), this second Marine declared he was not going to go. Since this was a big issue, Legal Counsel was sought. The Battalion H&S Battery was scheduled to deploy AFTER Bravo Battery. Since this Marine was planning to Miss Movement, we needed someone from the Command left back after his refusal to process him. He was kept in Bravo Battery. He did not resist packing his gear, he did not resist going to the flightline. He kept saying he was not getting on that plane. Since only H&S Battery would be left CONUS after this refusal to deploy, the Battalion Commander was involved, as was the C.O. from the Joint Legal Center, MCAS Cherry Point, as were the base Military Police. As a member of Bravo Battery under order to deploy, that Battery CO ordered him to board. Then the Bn CO ordered him. All refusals. The Battalion CO placed his hands on this Marine’s shoulders (your “assault”) to force him to board, and this Marine shook off the Colonel and moved to get away. Then the MP’s grabbed him, and I got on the plane with the Captain and the rest of Bravo Battery and we left. H&S Battery followed weeks later. I am still in frequent contact with my former Battery CO’s ex-wife, and I can send you his e-mail address tomorrow. His is still active duty, selected for Colonel. He was more involved with this than I was. Since you are fond of quoting me, show me where I said personnel/admin types aren’t real Soldiers, Sailors, or Marines. I have neither said nor intimated that. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/117 "2003-04-07T03:30:25Z")
**Monty** , rather than accusing someone of lying when their post/account does not mesh with what you know to have been true in your experiences, is it possible that: 1. Someone is misremembering one or two details; 2. You have a superlative experience and others did not; 3. oddities exist in any sufficiently large organization such that things contrary to how you understand things to be run sometimes happen, and that said oddities manage to sneak past those involved? Regardless, I personally would hate to see you and **Bill** start to fight over a matter so seemingly trivial (to a perpetual civilian, of course:)) as this. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/118 "2003-04-07T03:42:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*Great. I got a pet. Whoop-de-doo. Anyone got some advice on how to take care of it? \*\* I’ll take care of it for you. It seems to be all claws and spit. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/119 "2003-04-07T03:48:21Z")
No kidding, iampunha. UncleBill finally provided a coherent and complete with timeline account. And it still includes an assault. Isn’t amazing that some folks, such as the Battalion Commander, feel the need to violate the UCMJ in order to force someone else to follow what they think the UCMJ says? Yes, folks get sent up on BS charges. I’ve seen someone get punished for “Damaging Government Property” for inadvertently getting sunburned. Since they’re not government property, that’s a BS charge. UncleBill: I got the sense from your postings here and in a couple of other threads that you were intimidating that. If you’re not, fair enough. I withdraw the comment. Send me the e-mail. iampunha’s right. The issue here is: “How will the Marines go about determining this particular case?” What I’ve been railing against in both this thread and the GD thread is the people who are just spouting off “Throw him to the lions!” There’s a procedure in place for a reason. Let’s not “reinvent the wheel.” Let the process function. imampunha’s right also in that it’s a silly fight on the hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/120 "2003-04-07T03:53:22Z")
Danged military’s got us brainwa…er, trained, that’s it…trained too well! Really, I don’t mind the Marines. They’re all right. The above brought to you by this Calamari (Monterey Squid) in an effort to lighten the mood and dissuade anyone from thinking that the hijack above is a Marine vs. Sailor issue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480.md?page=7)