# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Sue\_Duhnym](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@Sue\_Duhnym](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sue_Duhnym)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/121 "2003-04-07T04:27:48Z")
Jesus, Monty, you’re really an asshole. _::shakes head::_ ---
**Author:** ![Spit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/76d3ee/32.png) [@Spit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spit)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/122 "2003-04-07T04:35:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*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. > \*\* I’ve always heard of that in a joking matter, but if you say it actually happened, then I gotta see a cite man. [sub]I can’t believe you called a Marine a liar…Balls man, balls.\*\*. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/123 "2003-04-07T06:05:31Z")
Yeah, we joked about Damaging Govt Property. But there was the thought that Malingering (art 115) or Self Injury without intention to avoid service (art 134) might be the appropriate charge. ---
**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, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/124 "2003-04-07T06:40:35Z")
Go to hell, Sue. ---
**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, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/125 "2003-04-07T12:16:36Z")
By the way, put that “assault” bullshit back where you got it, up your ass. > [@](#): > > Article 128 - Assault > > (a) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts or offers with unlawful force or violence **to do bodily harm** to another person, whether or not the attempt or offer is consummated, is guilty of assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. > > (b) Any person subject to this chapter who— > > (1) commits an assault with a dangerous weapon or other means or force **likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm** ; or > (2) commits an assault and intentionally inflicts **grievous bodily harm** with or without a weapon; is guilty of aggravated assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. (Bolding mine) You are full of shit, **Monty**. ---
**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, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/126 "2003-04-07T15:15:34Z")
The only comment I withdrew, you fool, was the one about your attitude towards one particular group of Servicemembers. The story you related, _as amended_ to finally make some sense, still includes a physical attack on someone. The only reason you’ve given for that attack is that the BC wanted the guy to get on the airplane. Disobeying the order was already good enough to get the guy sent up on charges. You think I’m full of shit. And yet 'tis you who is amending the story as it goes on. What’s the next installment? ---
**Author:** ![Sue\_Duhnym](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@Sue\_Duhnym](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sue_Duhnym)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/127 "2003-04-07T16:02:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > Go to hell, Sue. Honey, if heaven is full of self-righteous pricks like you, I’ll gladly go to hell. You called UncleBill a liar, a jerk, an asshole AND was condescending to him when he tried very hard to answer all of your questions in a civil way. The only person I see being a jerk is you. You just can’t _ever_ be nice, can you? ---
**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, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/128 "2003-04-07T16:31:56Z")
I could write a three page dissection of my posts showing there are not inconsistencies, but you are not worth the effort. Just like you calling me a liar does not bother me all that much, I do not hold your opinions in very high regard. Perhaps if you specifically point out these alleged revisions, I can specically teach you reading comprehension, or even possible clarify the language I used, which may have **legitimately** caused you to misconstrue my words. I will put everything here for you, so you don’t have to scroll too much. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBill \* > \*\*Second, when my Active Duty Marine Corps battalion was deploying to Gulf War, Episode One, we had two guys claim C.O. One had converted to Islam while in the Marine Corps, and did not feel at all comfortable with the prospect of killing a fellow Muslim. But he knew he made a committment and wanted to honor it. He agreed to be the Colonel’s driver, and served very well in that capacity while deployed to Saudi Arabia. He was promoted to Corporal. > > 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. > > This Funk guy reminds me of the second case, except in my case the Marine had the balls to be there and face it, and didn’t run off. > > * * * > > 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). > > * * * > > 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. > > “Other indivuals”? By re-reading my post you may see that only one person touched him before the MP’s arrested him. And I was unaware your 20 years of faithful and loyal service in personnel and administrative billets gave you more insight into Military Law (over the internet, no less) than the Judge Advocate General Colonel and the Military Police had after weeks of discussions on this matter. > > * * * > > “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. > > * * * > > 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 removed editorials and left the story. ---
**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, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/129 "2003-04-07T16:34:08Z")
I did not spell out the deployment schedule in the first post, because it was not germane to my point, and I try not to waste words. I was talking about two specific people, on two sides of a legitimate C.O. Status. ---
**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, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/130 "2003-04-07T18:02:19Z")
You’re not exactly worth much of time, UB, especially when it comes to relating the facts of an incident. I’m not saying the event you related didn’t happen, UncleBill. Your comment about “go ahead and call me a liar” got my goat. All I did was ask you what about the other violations of the law evident in that incident. You got on your high horse immediately and denigrated a particular segment of the military. Did I say you attacked the guy? NO! I did indicate that you did nothing to prevent the attack. What was so freaking hard about telling the complete story to begin with? What was so freaking hard, back when it happened, to actually just place the guy in military apprehension and court-martial him for what he actually did? Other questions arise, now that you’ve given the whole story: Did the accused’s lawyer raise the issue of the Commander attacking him? Did that lawyer raise the issue of “how could it be missing movement when he was removed from the unit prior to movement?” What charges, exactly, did he get sent to the brig for? All legitimate questions, IMHO. Yes, there are those who falsely claim CO status. That is why there’s a process in place to evaluate it. The MP’s apprehended him. Prior to that the Commander attacked him. The individual has a right to defend himself from attack. Sue: I’m quite nice quite often. You, being the bitch you are, don’t get to see that because, well, I’m not impressed by bitchiness. ---
**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, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/131 "2003-04-07T19:00:45Z")
Your answers. I was not present for the court martial, I got on the plane. But let me explain again. Using small words. He was in Battery A. Battery A got orders in August to deploy. This guy raises the C.O. Flag, and is transferred to Battery B, who was not yet scheduled to deploy. Battery A left. Marine stayed behind. Marine’s C.O. Package was denied for lack of proof of his religious convictions statements (I believe). Marine is STILL assigned to Battery B. November rolls around. Battery B gets deployment orders. H&S gets deployment orders. Marine, STILL assigned to Battery B, and now without his C.O. approved, says he will not go. Battery B prepares to deploy, and the scene plays out on the tarmac. Battery B leaves. Marine is in handcuffs. Apparently physically refusing to board a plane is enough for Missing Movement, as I believe this was the charge. I do not have personal specific recollection of the charge. Your view of the CO “attacking” are certainly different than the views of the legal professionals on the scene, as well as my views. He was given a lawful order to board. Hands were placed on his shoulders in a manner to enfore the lawful order, and frankly to show absolutely without refute that this guy was refusing to go. I’m glad you stopped using the word “assault” since the UCMJ specifically spells out what that means, and this was not an assault. ---
**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, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/132 "2003-04-07T21:03:04Z")
IMHO, UncleBeer, it is an assault (128a), just not an aggravated assault (128b). Small words suit you. ---
**Author:** ![Spit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/76d3ee/32.png) [@Spit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spit)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/133 "2003-04-07T21:31:51Z")
Damn **Monty** - Grow up man. ---
**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, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/134 "2003-04-07T21:32:21Z")
128a as stated here? Or 128(1)? Again, I bold. Audience, please note I provide cites and quotes, and refute his statements with facts. > [@](#): > > (a) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts or offers with unlawful force or violence **to do bodily harm** to another person, whether or not the attempt or offer is consummated, is guilty of assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. > > (b) Any person subject to this chapter who— > > (1) commits an assault with a dangerous weapon or other means or force **likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm** ; or > (2) commits an assault and intentionally **inflicts grievous bodily harm** with or without a weapon; is guilty of aggravated assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” > > Elements. > > (1) Simple assault. > > (a) That the accused attempted or offered **to do bodily harm** to a certain person; and > (b) That the attempt or offer was done with unlawful force or violence. > > (2) Assault consummated by a battery. > > (a) That the accused did **bodily harm** to a certain person; and > (b) That the **bodily harm** was done with unlawful force or violence. > > (3) Assaults permitting increased punishment based on status of victim. > > \ > > (4) Aggravated assault. > > (a) Assault with a dangerous weapon or other means of force likely to produce **death or grievous bodily harm**. > (i) That the accused attempted to do, offered to do, or did **bodily harm** to a certain person; > (ii) That the accused did so with a certain weapon, means, or force; > > (iii) That the attempt, offer, or **bodily harm** was done with unlawful force or violence; and > > (iv) That the weapon, means, or force was used in a manner likely to produce death or grievous **bodily harm**. > > (Note: When a loaded firearm was used, add the following element) > > (v) That the weapon was a loaded firearm. > > (b) Assault in which grievous bodily harm is intentionally inflicted. > > (i) That the accused assaulted a certain person; > (ii) That grievous bodily harm was thereby inflicted upon such person; > > (iii) That the grievous bodily harm was done with unlawful force or violence; and > > (iv) That the accused, at the time, had the specific intent to inflict grievous bodily harm. (Note: When a loaded firearm was used, add the following element) > > (v) That the injury was inflicted with a loaded firearm. I see a trend here, a specific part of this law which rhymes with **bodily harm**. There was no such stated intention, threat, or actual physical contact which would in any way be described as causing bodily harm. [Cite](http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl128.htm) And my screen name is **UncleBill**. The Moderator is the other guy. ---
**Author:** ![Wabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ba9def/32.png) [@Wabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wabbit)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/135 "2003-04-07T22:27:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Otto \* > \*\* > 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? \*\* Sure, we could do that as long as you agree that you’re a pie-in-the-sky idiot with his head so far up his ass that you’ve evolved to breath methane. Alternatively, we could can the name-calling and act polite–your call. Also note in your article that he says it’s ultimately his fault. This is the first thing this guy has said that makes sense. Now all he has to do is own up to his mistake and all will be well in Wabbitland once again. **Monty** : you remember accusing me of pretending to be a mind reader? Don’t you think you’re doing the same thing with **UncleBill**? You want to reflect on that a little before going off half-cocked and accusing him of being full of shit? Oh yea, and how do you account for 4.5.1 - 4.6.1 in your argument? ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/136 "2003-04-07T22:37:25Z")
I have no military experience, so perhaps **Monty** and/or **UncleBill** could explain a few issues of military law and procedure to me that might make the issues in UncleBill’s story a bit clearer. One question is that the individual in question appears to have been transferred between Battery A (his original unit which left first) and Battery B (UncleBill’s unit which left later) while his C.O. processing was underway. Is transfer among batteries in a battalion a simple thing that can be done by the battalion commander for administrative convenience or is it an involved process? Also what exactly is the H&S Battery, and why was the Colonel deployed with it? Is there some reason why this individual couldn’t have been transferred to the H&S Battery when Battery B deployed, or was this not done because his application for C.O. status was in process when Battery A had deployed and had been denied when Battery B was to deploy, so matters were at a head? As to the incident on the tarmac, may a military superior under the UCMJ use reasonable physical force on a subordinate to enforce a lawful order? Would the Colonel’s placing his hands on the individual’s shoulders be considered such reasonable physical force? Did the Colonel use any real force on the individual, or was it more of a ceremonial gesture? Was the Colonel’s laying of hands on the individual an intended part of this set-piece drama, or did it just happen? What if the Colonel had carried the individual onto the plane, or ordered other subordinates of his or the MPs to do so? As to the missing a movement charges, was it necessary for the Colonel (or other officer) to physically lay hands on the individual, or would violating a verbal (or written) order to board been sufficient? If not, was the physical laying of hands by the Colonel a recommendation of the legal counsel to increase the charges or to make later proof at trial clearer? As a lawyer, I realize that sometimes these little differences in what happens can make a significant legal difference, and when preparing clients to face situations I will direct them to take certain actions or make certain statements for later legal effect. To my unmilitary but legal eye, it looks like that all parties played their parts in this little drama in a choreographed way so as to make clear their positions with as little actual conflict or confusion as possible. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the individual had legal advice as to where and how exactly to disobey so as to make his point and stand his ground without untoward chaos or unintended consequences. To whate extent does my impression match the facts? Thanks. ---
**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, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/137 "2003-04-07T23:11:39Z")
I am not a military lawyer, not do I play one on the SDMB, but I’ll try to address these from my experiences. The transfer from Alpha to Bravo was very simple, it is a matter of little paperwork. **Monty** can certainly address this better than I. H&S is Headquarters and Service Battery or Company. They hold the Admin, Intel, Operations, and Logistics functions for the Battalion, as well as Motor Transport, Supply, and Communication assets. In deployments, the Battalion Commander tends to stay with H&S, or an H&S detachment. The reason he was not transferred to H&S was that if he refused to deploy with H&S (who left last in this case), there would be noone left from the Command to process his charges. And yes, his package had been dismissed by November, when Bravo got orders. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I have seen many times when reasonable physical actions, not to the level of inflicting **bodily harm** , are used in such a way. It was used on me, and did no damage whatsoever physically or psychologically. From my observations, the senior Military Lawyer on the base decided that the Colonel’s hands on the Marine was quite reasonable. No OBVIOUS force was used, hands were placed, and the Marine shook them off and stepped aside quickly. It was scripted that way. Fairly ceremonial. I feel he was not carried on the plane because there was a system to handle it back at Cherry Point, and we did not want to mess with it while deploying to Saudi Arabia. I’m not sure about carrying him aboard, but that sounds a bit more forceful, and we didn’t want him anyway. The laying of hands was scripted by legal counsel, but I won’t guess as to why specifically. The Marine did have legal counsel before this happened (a friend of mine, actually) but from what I observed he knew he was headed to the brig, and that was worth it to him. ---
**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 8, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/138 "2003-04-08T00:51:28Z")
I don’t have to address section 4 at all. My argument is that it was not aggravated assault. My position (argument, if you will) is that touching the Marine is not required and thus is unlawful. I see in UncleBill’s last posting a bit about the “laying on of hands.” Perhaps one of the lawyers reading this board, who also happens to have some military law experience, could weigh in on whether that’s lawful or not? ---
**Author:** ![Geobabe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/geobabe/32/3908_2.png) [@Geobabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Geobabe)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/139 "2003-04-08T01:12:17Z")
I sure hope touching a Marine isn’t illegal. Otherwise, I’m in big trouble. ---
**Author:** ![CanadianSue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@CanadianSue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanadianSue)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480/140 "2003-04-08T01:28:38Z")
To the brig with you missy! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marine-petitions-for-conscientious-objector-status-didnt-know-marines-were-violent/166480.md?page=8)