So asswipe number one gets a year and asswipe number two gets eight months. Now compare that with this
Torture innocent people with electrical wires and you get the same punishment as a guy who doesn’t want to return to an unjust war. I found this particularly interesting:
Witnessing US soldiers mistreating innocent Iraqis was a large part of what soured Mejia on the war and forced him to follow his conscience as he has.
So according to the military, refusing to participate in the abuse of innocent people is just as bad or worse than torturing them with electrical wires.
Our military priorities are in our fucking asses, man. :mad:
Meija could have refused to take part in the torture without leaving. I agree with you that torture is worse than desertion, but in this case I feel that while the punishment for the torturers was not severe enough, punishing deserters harshly is still appropriate. Meija could have followed the dictates of his conscience by staying and refusing to abuse unarmed Iraqis. Instead, he abandoned his fellow soldiers when he should have been setting a moral example for them by performing his duties with honor. Inexcusable.
Change “torture” in my last post to read “abuse”, of course.
He’s an NCO, and that means he’s sworn to do certain things, like hold his men accountable for their actions and set a good example for them. If this was really about conscience, and not just being freaked out, he’d either stay and do his duty, or apply for conscientious objector status through the proper channels (and stay and do his duty until it was granted). He’s a soldier, and that means (among other things) that he can’t honorably quit in the middle of a war when his fellow soldiers (not just Bushco) need him.
Hmm, so a deserter is given the same sentence as two idiots who commited assault and car battery.
That is odd. Desertion is usually punished much worse than that. Hell, during WWII, we executed a guy named Private Slovik for it. Seems to me this guy got off easy.
In point of fact, Coin, Mejia did not leave the field. He simply refused to return to the field after a furlough. His actions did not put anyone in danger. He showed no cowardice in the field and his actions were dictated by moral convictions not physical fear.
I don’t see Mejia as someone who literally deserted his fellow troops in the field but as a legitimate conscientious objector who felt he could not morally return to unjust war.
YMMV as to the virtue of his actions, but he didn’t hurt anyone and my point is that he doesn’t deserve the same punishment as soldiers who tortured innocent people.
I’ll grant that the man showed no physical cowardice, and if he’d gone through the proper channels and made certain one or more of his underlings was trained to replace him I would even go so far as to call his actions moral. Since he apparently didn’t do this, I have to assert that he showed moral cowardice by washing his hands of the situation rather than doing what he could to make his small part of it right.
But he did desert them (by failing to ensure that there was a replacement in line for him) and he is not a legitimate conscientious objector in the legal sense of the term because he did not go through the proper channels. Whether he is one in the moral sense of the term is highly questionable, because even if his actions stemmed from his moral beliefs he betrayed his oaths as an NCO and as a U.S. soldier by abandoning his duty. His failure to return was both dishonorable and immoral; dishonorable because he broke his word, immoral because the soldiers under him must now bear burdens that are by right his (and because he is not there to provide them with a good moral example, as a sergeant should do)
He didn’t hurt anyone, granted. That’s not good enough for an NCO…he should be there doing his damndest to prevent his soldiers from abusing civilians accidentally or purposefully in the importance of their duties. The incident at Abu Ghraib (sp?) happened because we didn’t have moral leadership there; it is not moral of Meija to strip the Army of moral leadership by ignoring his duty. If anything, a leader like him should feel more obligated to serve in an unjust war, to do what he can to make it more just.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding the fact that punishments for crimes are not dependent upon each other? This is the third thread that you’ve posited the idea that a deserter should get off with nothing but a slap on the wrist because either a) Someone else got a slap for what you consider to be a worse crime, or b) Bush didn’t go to jail for desertion.
Once again you’ve set yourself up to be slapped around like you were in the other threads, simply because you can’t get it through your head that the crimes and the accompanying punishments have nothing to do with each other. There is no relativism, there is no comparison, they quite simply have nothing to do with each other.
Not that I expect you to get it this time, either. :rolleyes:
Sole person executed for desertion since the Civil War, and surely he was not the single wartime deserter in the last 140 years. Plus he actually deserted in the front, as opposed to just refusing to go back incountry. But that’s neither here nor there, desertion should carry a stiff penalty; and if he could have said something to help stop the abuse, he was specially derelict. BUT, abuse of prisoners should ALSO carry stiff penalties. It so happens that the standard GCM-level punishment for an enlisted man seems to bes between 6 months and a year in Leavenworth, forfeiture of rank and benefits, and a BCD.
No, of course not. I was just making fun of your lack of perspective by giving you a mirror image of your own argument. I know you hate the war and will grasp at any possible indictment of U.S. action in Iraq, D, but calling this “torture” is a bit of a stretch.
Cops use stun guns to subdue prisoners with some regularity. These range from 100,000 to 600,000 volts. cite. The homemade stun-gun the soldiers used to subdue their prisoner delivered 110 volts. Not a 110 thousand volts. 110 volts. Call it an overgrown joy buzzer.
Because it was an unusual and physical punishment it counts as assault (as would hitting a guy with a rubber chicken), but torture? Nope, it ain’t that.
I’m sorry, I just think that electrocuting people for fun deserves a stiffer penalty than deciding not to go back to a war. They are not morally equivalent crimes in my eyes. My point with this thread was not to demand less time for Pejia (that would be pointless) but to lament the fact that the torturers got off so lightly. I think that the military should punish war crimes more harshly than what Pejia did. Pejia did not desert, IMO. Not in the true meaning of the word.
Well, maybe he doesn’t get it because it doesn’t seem to make much sense! Just stating that they have nothing to do with each other doesn’t make the comparison vanish in a puff of brilliant military logic!
You know, something about the punishment fitting the crime. Are such ideas old-fashioned in the New World Order?
So therefore corporate theft (i.e. Enron and their ilk) should get a slap on the wrist because it’s not comparable to murder? I’m sure Ken Lay would be glad to know that his fraud shouldn’t be severely punished.
Oh, wait one. His crime may not be comparable to murder, but it has prescribed punishments upon conviction. Kinda like military justice.
Funny how military justice bears a striking resemblance to the civilian criminal justice system, isn’t it?
I have been electocuted by a power converter, ya idiot. Chances are, you’ve had a bit of a sting from your household wiring at one time or another, too. A brief 110 volt shock is painful, but orders of magnitude less than the 110,000 volts of a commercial stun gun. Both the stun gun and household wiring use alternating current. Honestly, am I the only one who can see that 110,000 is a much larger number than 110?
Perspective people, perspective. That’s all I ask. The damn setup had one thousand times less power than a stun gun. If they tagged him with a stun gun a couple of times, would there still be an outcry of “torture!” from you?
I think monkey’s comments about “proper channels” are what is most pertinent re the Meija case. Consider the story of Staff Sgt Jimmy Massey, who also decided the war in Iraq was wrong:
Contrast that with Meija, who just didn’t turn up for 5 months, and only applied for CO status after the fact.
Failure to return to duty from leave is a very common method used by deserters. It’s quite rightly treated the same as walking off from your unit.
Excuse me if I think it’s a little TOO convenient for Meija to claim that he saw prisoners tortured. Wouldn’t jump at the chance to hit a hot button issue, would he?
Obviously, the court marshal officials saw through that crap easily enough. I think a year was too light a punishment for him.
Desertion should be more heavily penalized than moderate prisoner abuse. It has potentially greater consequences.