Marine petitions for conscientious objector status; didn't know Marines were violent

The BBQ Pit
41

UnuMondo: “Shitbag” is a bit harsh, isn’t it? Neither of us knows what that particular Lance Corporal’s performance prior to the time he went UA was. Now, UA is a specific violation of the UCMJ and the UCMJ does have a method to deal with that.

Spit: Thanks for the correct link. I hope the general readership here understands that there are more than a couple of posters there just tossing out accusations and character assassinations regarding both LCpl Funk and recruiters.

The issue of Conscientious Objector is not a cut and dry “I will serve” or “I shan’t serve” issue. There are different categories of CO recognized by the federal government. The same government does strive to, not cater, but accommodate a person’s ethical dilemma when that person has come to a point in their life where their current status in the Armed Forces (say, holding the MOS of 11B (Infantryman) in the Army) is now incompatible with the individual’s current/u] ethics.

Being a Conscientious Objector is not being a “pussy” has some have decided to call them. It does not constitute being a coward. It does not constitute being a “shitbag.” What it does constitute is being a human being who now has a conflict between an ethical system recently arrived at (for one who becomes a CO after enlistment) or already held (for one who is a CO prior to any draft/conscription/voluntary enlistment) and the type of service required.

Spit provided three examples of conscientious objectors who served, valiantly, in combat zones. As medics, they would also have put their lives at risk to perform the same services for the enemy Soldiers. One of those individuals Spit mentioned, as he pointed out, received the Congressional Medal of Honor. That is certainly not cowardice.

If you’ve been following the recent conflict in Iraq, you may have heard one of the US pilots, when answering why he put himself at risk to rescue wounded Iraqi Soldiers, say, “Once those individuals were wounded, the war was over for them.” <–That’s not an exact quote, I typed that from memory.

Look, folks, requesting and receiving or being denied change of status to Conscientious is an administrative issue. It is not something to be decided on emotional reactions. Holster your emotions and think before you speak about this issue, if you don’t mind.

UnuMondo and Spit are doing very good at speaking from a factual basis. So, in closing, I’ll quote an old commercial, but this time, I’m referring to their examples: “Try it, you’ll like it!”

42

Wabbit: I must tell you something. I find your comments about Graves Registration to be insulting to those Soldiers who hold or have held that MOS. They also perform under fire when required. It is not a “safe, cushy” job.

43

Ya know, Monty I didn’t read Wabbit’s graves registration comments like that. I think what he was trying to say was, put him in a non-combatant job that shows him first hand those who were willing to make the sacrifice he is unwilling to make, to shame him.

That’s my take on it anyway.

44

pw: I’m just saying that it looks like Wabbit doesn’t consider that job to be a real Soldier. And unwilling to make is not what CO is about. It’s a moral choice.

45

That is true, Monty but the whole “I’m a conscientious objector! Oh and I am gay too!” just seems a bit disingenuous.

Seems to me the only thing he is conscientiously objecting to is getting his ass shot at.

Therefore give him a look at those who were willing to live up to their commitment.

46

No, but at nineteen, I was an adult capable of analyzing situations, making my own decisions, and living with the results. I was also somehow able, despite the recruiting commercials, to grasp the fact that “joining the military” might equal “having to go to war”. The nicest thing I can say about this guy is, he might simply be a moron.

47

ARGHAHHAHAHAHHAHA!

Did you even read what I just wrote? It looks like you did, based on the first part of your last posting, pw. But then the last part looks like you just forgot the whole thing.

48

I did read it. My point is that Funk’s “Moral Choice” is more I Don’t Wanna Get Shot and less Killing People Is Bad.
I understand that Graves Reg is not a slack easy job. I served in the Air Force and went through Graves Reg as a casualty. (Simulated). I wouldn’t wish that job on anyone. That is, anyone except fake ass conscientious objectors who use CO as a “Get out of being shot at free” ticket. If the Funker didn’t wanna get shot at, he should have joined the A.F. like I did.*
(Fat load of good it did me, tho. I ended up dead!)*

**(I got better.)

49

Granted, your jokes above are funny, in a juvenile sort of way, but hey I like juvenile humour also.

The point is that nobody can read someone’s mind. The individual concerned is purporting to have come to a different set of ethics than he had before. It is also possible that he’s faking it, thus the requirements involved in the adminsitrative processing to ensure, as best as possible, he’s not faking it.

Glad you got better; try not to have a relapse, okay?

50

What’s really funny is that there are two threads on this matter right now: this one in the BBQ Pit which reads more like a Great Debates thread, and the one in Great Debates which reads more like a BBQ it thread!

51

Alright Monty, you seem to think I have no respect for Conscientious Objectors. This is untrue. When men were drafted into service, and declared themselves C.O.s, they had every right to do so. Those men didn’t have a decision as to whether they would join the military. The individual in question had a choice. he made it, and now that he is being presented with the repercussions of that choice, he appears to be hiding behind the CO *and[/] gay excuses for not wanting to follow through.

I might have respected the lad if he had claimed to have been “born again” or had some other religious awakening. But I don’t see anywhere in the articles presented that this was the case.

I realize that the above articles do not give a complete picture of the guy, but I am not buying it as it’s presented. SO. If the above articles are to be taken at face value, THEN I think the guy is a sniveling coward that needs to be sent to the stockade.

And if the above posts and others of yours are to be taken at the same face value, then you are a condescending asshole, and, as such, may procede to fuck the hell off.

52

I finally went over to the GD version of this thread.

I take back the condescending asshole crack. I apologise.

It was way outta line. I see that Monty does a much better job of establishing credentials and making his case over there.
Still doesn’t change the fact that I think Funk is a malingering coward, but I respect Monty’s stance.

53

I don’t think that you don’t have any respect for Conscientious Objectors, particlewill. I just think that too many folks are letting their emotions run their day regarding this issue, and when they lambast this particular alleged CO, they go ahead and tar all COs. At any rate, it’s not only a religious awakening that changes someone’s system of ethics.

I’m glad you recognized your remark was out of line. Thank you for the apology. I accept it with gratitude.

I also respect the stance of someone who, with evidence, can refute someone’s claims. I believe the military will take care of all three issues here, but by following the rules of evidence, the rules of the ADSEP procedure, and the provisions of the UCMJ. The three issues, of course, are: (1) UA, (2) Conscientious Objector, and (3) Claim of being Homosexual.

Finally–geez, pw! Now this thread reads like a Pit Thread!

54

Well it will be quite interesting to see exactly what the military does with Cpl. Funk. Interesting indeed.

And hey, that “juvenile” thing kinda stung Monty I was just trying to lighten up the mood. The whole experience of becoming a simulated casualty in the Air Force is one of my better comedy bits. I had to walk to the Morgue, fer crying out loud. And I had to ask a Security Police Airman for directions.

55

Monty–particlewill pretty much nailed what I meant to say. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I consider Graves Registration one of the toughest jobs in the military–heaven knows I couldn’t do it–so I have the upmost respect for anyone who has that MOS. Medics–same thing. You don’t have to kill to be a soldier; you do have to be willing to put it on the line for your buddies and have enough sand to live up to your responsibilities, no matter how inconvenient (or dangerous) it is. This guy should be put in a situation where he sees, first hand (because otherwise he’ll probably miss it), what being a soldier is all about. Like I’ve said before, his lameass attempts to wiggle out of his commitment is an insult to not only soldiers everywhere, but also real CO’s and homosexuals.

56

I guess I’m missing the part of this story that indicates this guy is trying to get out of the military. If somebody can point me toward a source that says “CO status” equals “automatic discharge” I’d appreciate it. A source that says he wants out rather than that he’s willing to remain in but not as a combatant would also be appreciated because I’m not seeing it.

I would also suggest that it takes some level of courage to face the derision this guy is facing. I’m sure all the manly men on this board will disagree with me. Wouldn’t be the first time and probably won’t be the last.

57

First point: My favorite Marine Corps Recruiting poster is titled, “We Don’t Promise You a Rose Garden”.

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.

58

Maybe this will clear up your question:

(bolding mine)

The “Don’t Tell” part of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” means that if you tell, like in a written statement, you can eventually be discharged for that fact.

59

Wabbit: In other words, you don’t give a rat’s mo^ng ddi’t about facts. Gotcha.

60

That individual came to a change of ethical position which allowed him to participate in the Armed Forces in a non-combatant position. Some folks arrive at an ethical position which is incompatible with serving in any capacity in any armed force. Requiring such a thing would be akin to requiring a hit man who “found religion” to fulfill the contract he had entered into prior to finding religion. Note that I am not equating military service with illegal activity. I am making a contrast between what a particular ethical system permits and another one does not permit; in this case, the first one (for the hitman) permitted him to kill, the second one (for the hitman, now religious) does not permit killing.

Except, perhaps, that he had recited the Shahada (is that the right term?).

What did the MPs do for the other violations of the UCMJ described here?

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. **
[/QUOTE]