It seems that Sgt. Jenkins, who (allegedly) deserted from the U.S. Army during the Korean War has surrendered and, if the article is correct, resumed active duty.
He is being issued a new Army ID card, assigned to a unit and given administrative duties. He has free run of the base where he is assigned.
Is he really being “welcomed” back into the army? Why is he being returned to active duty complete with assignments, a uniform (I presume, not explicitly mentioned) and Army benefits? Shouldn’t he be in the brig awaiting whether or not a decision on a court-martial?
And lastly (and I know this isn’t a GQ, but it doesn’t warrant a completely separate thread) how will his new unit-mates feel working alongside him?
For one thing, at age 64, he is NOT a Korean War veteran. He may have served in Korea and he definitely defected to Noth Korea.
Please quote from that article specifically where it mentions he’s being returned to active duty.
Correction: Jenkins did not disappear during the Korean War; he disappeared in 1965.
Here’s an interview from September 1. On the advice of his legal counsel, Jenkins does not talk about his disappearance, nor does he confirm or deny that he did indeed desert. But given North Korea’s kidnap-happy ways during the seventies, perhaps Jenkins was an early test run abduction, and the U.S. military either knows it or sees which way the evidence points.
OK, once we get past the semantics here - the basic questions are - 1) why isn’t he in the brig until a question of a court-martial and 2) even if he doesn’t belong in the brig, does he really belong on active duty, in uniform, performing administrative duties?
Hi Zev,
Yeah sorry for getting into the semantics aspect of the posting.
And as if I wasn’t being sufficiently anal-retentive, I decided to look up the phrase “free run” (I checked about 10 online dictionary sites). You know what ? The phrase doesn’t exist in any of those dictionaries. (Which surprised me too because I have used it and have heard it used many times before).
Perhaps the correct expression is “free rein” ? According to this site: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/free%20rein.html
the definition of free rein is:
freedom to act: complete freedom to make decisions and take action without consulting anyone else
If nothing else, we learned what the proper phrase is.
He is an active duty member of the Army until he is discharged. His status hasn’t changed since the day he enlisted, or was drafted.
When I was in the Army, I knew a few people who took “extended leave” without authorization, although not for 30 years. When they returned, they were put back in uniform, given non-judicial punishment (Article 15), and their enlistment was extended by the length of their “vacation”.
Right. The Army never really discharged him, and won’t Article-15 or Court-Martial a civilian.
As to his being given “free run” i.e. unconfined, the investigators have probably got so far as to not consider him an immediate threat. And I think it’s not like he won’t be watched, just not interfered with unless he does anything untoward
No, “free rein” and “free run of” are two different phrases with two different meanings. “Free rein” means what you said. To have “free run of” an area means that you can move about within that area freely.
Usage is widespread. A google search for “free run of” yields lots of relevant results, often related to pet training. The earliest usage I can find quickly is from 1784, in William Beckford’s The_History_of_Caliph_Vathek: " … a heat, in one long sitting, without flagging power. Young and lively, he delivered himself up to a free run of fancy, revelled in the piled-up enormities of the Wicked Mother, who had not brought up Vathek properly, …"
In this passage, the phrase is used metaphorically, implying that it’s well-known to the audience. A 1912 usage in the more literal sense that comes immediately to mind is from Sam Hopkins Adams, who in From_a_Bench_in_our_Square writes: “… (Ungrateful young scoundrel, so to describe my two-hours-a-day of brain-hammering, and the free run of my library.) …”
I’m sure there’s an earlier usage than Beckford, but I’ll be damned if I’ll dredge it up. I think it’s safe to say it’s a firmly established phrase.
Also, looking up the words “free” and “run” in a dictonary yields relevant definitions, making the phrase meaningful even if looked at piecemeal.
The military took him off active status some time after he disappeared. I wouldn’t be surprised if he were declared legally dead at for some period of time.
They are returning him to active status in order to prosecute him. The military cannot prosecute a civilian, or a dead guy, or even a retired military person for crimes committed while in the military.
There is a novel by Nelson DeMille (the title escapes me at the moment) with certain similarities to this. The protagonist is accused of actrcities in Vietnam 30 years after the fact – the first action the military took was to recall him to active duty so they could bring him before a military tribunal.
As for him being given free run of the base, I would imagine that the guards at the checkpoints would be given instructions not to let him leave. I’m not in the military, but I imagine that a military base has only a few exits and those are staffed.
It depends on the base. There are several large military bases that you can enter and leave without going through checkpoints, or at least there WERE some time back. I bicycled through Camp Pendleton in CA and never had to speak to a sentry. My sister was stationed at Fort Meade in MD 20 some years ago, and I could get to her barracks without any check, and that’s the home of the NSA’s code crunchers. I’m sure you couldn’t get to critical areas, but some of the bases are so huge it’s impractical to close them off.
The Navy barracks on Homestead AFB (when it still existed) were adjacent to the … I think they called it “detention dorm”, or something like that. Anyhow, I remember talking to a guy who had gone AWOL. When he came back they threw him in that dorm, didn’t give him anything to do, and took away his ID card. I suppose the theory was that he’s already run away once so he’s already in trouble; running away again wouldn’t really put him in any more trouble than he already was.