Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
ashw_justin

National Guard: At least Canada is in N America...

Recommended Posts

I disagree, mattp. I think the question here is, did he violate his oath, which he freely took, when he signed up? It's as simple as that. A secondary question is, to address your other thoughts, did he act upon his convictions within the framework of the agreement he signed? Or, did he just run away without informing his superiors (which it sounds like he did)...

 

There is no question that he violated his oath. That is not in question at all.

 

The question I ask is: can there be justification for doing so. You say no. You apparently decline to recognize that there could be any justification based on one's being ordered to kill innocent civilians or to wantonly destroy cities and towns or to torture civilians or similar acts that are not justified by military necessity, or simply say that none of this could be occurring -- I'm not sure which.

 

As to whether he understands that his actions have consequences? If he has chosen to leave the U.S. and to be unable to return, for a long time if not longer, I'm sure he not only realizes there are consequences but he has chosen to accept them.

 

Again: I'm not arguing that you should praise or condone his actions; my question is whether you can see any possible justification or perhaps lesser reason that falls short of justification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other unrelated thought that occurs to me: could it be that they shipped him home so that he COULD go awol rather than keep him there and have him act as you might more approve of and "take it like a man" if he disobeys orders and is sent to the brig?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That kid sounds like a fucking dumbass.

 

 

probably why they bumped him into military intellegence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One other unrelated thought that occurs to me: could it be that they shipped him home so that he COULD go awol rather than keep him there and have him act as you might more approve of and "take it like a man" if he disobeys orders and is sent to the brig?

 

no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question I ask is: can there be justification for doing so. You say no. You apparently decline to recognize that there could be any justification based on one's being ordered to kill innocent civilians or to wantonly destroy cities and towns or to torture civilians or similar acts that are not justified by military necessity, or simply say that none of this could be occurring -- I'm not sure which.

 

He never killed anyone. He never destroyed a city. He tortured anyone. He was an intell geek whose day was spent doing exactly what you are doing right now.

 

He had no right to go back on his word and he had even less right to go back on his oath; morally or legally matt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Scott, play along now:

 

could there be any circumstances where one might be justified in "going back on their word?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He never killed anyone. He never destroyed a city. He tortured anyone.

 

And if he had?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so this thread is winding down to: ultimately there is little to no difference between the national guard and the regular military, in terms of commitments, responsibilities, appropriate use of personnel and resources. The NG website itself makes it pretty clear:

Most recently, following the attacks of September 11, 2001, more than 50,000 Guardmembers were called up by both their States and the Federal government to provide security at home and combat terrorism abroad.
Perhaps the recruiting is even honest about that, even though in the past the impression may have been that the National Guard is meant to, well, guard the (this) nation. In this case, one party is lying. Either the deserter/objector is lying about how he was recruited, or the Guard lied to recruit him.

 

Ok so, hypothetically, what if he had been drafted? Assuming that the strong critics here would still find reason to hold him in contempt, how would you do so in the absence of the voluntary contract? Would he be compelled to comply simply by virtue of his citizenship? Or do you simply have no tolerance whatsoever of conscientious objection? If it were based upon the refusal to commit what is considered an international war crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have much sympathy for this current batch of AWOLs. Conscientious objection is one thing, draft dodging even, but volunteering for service and then fleeing the country to avoid that service? That's just lame. You knew the rules, you broke the rules, you go home and face the music.

 

People like to describe this sort of thing as civil disobedience, but that's dishonest. True civil disobedience entails a willingness to accept the consequences of your actions - tear gas, police beatings, jail, even execution in extreme cases - but this kid just ran from his obligations and now wants to be sheltered from the consequences of running away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Murray: like Scott and Canyondweller, you don't recognize that in "running away" he has in fact opted for some serious consequences? You wouldn't find leaving friends and family behind, and residing in a country where you may not get a work permit or whatever they call it in Canada to be "consequential?"

 

I understand your position that when one joins the service they have made a contract. Clearly he broke his commitment. He has to be subject to punishment under all applicable law. If he were 100% honorable, he would subject himself to that law. I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: does anybody here believe that Private Lynndie England was not acting on orders at Abu Ghraib? Had she refused and turned herself in for punishment, would you have supported that act? How about a female soldier who is raped on post? Would you offer any lenience if she goes awol? Are there any limits to this idea that once one signs up, they must obey all orders and complete their term?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, Murray: like Scott and Canyondweller, you don't recognize that in "running away" he has in fact opted for some serious consequences? You wouldn't find leaving friends and family behind, and residing in a country where you may not get a work permit or whatever they call it in Canada to be "consequential?"

 

Personally, I don't feel that having to spend the rest of your life living in Canada is a terribly serious "consequence". Having to stay in some malaria-infested central-American swamp, or the Sahara Desert, Paris - fine, those might be "serious consequences". But these current guys are in, what, Toronto? C'mon.

 

But even if you do feel that's serious, you don't get to pick and choose. If you desert - which is exactly what we're talking about here - you don't get to pick your consequences. And Canada is under no obligation to allow you to stay. Part of your consequences is not that you might "have to" stay in Toronto but rather, that you might not be allowed to stay. You might, in fact, be shipped back home to face the music. Those are the consequences, not some self-imposed exile in a country of your choosing.

Edited by murraysovereign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the Canadians are under no obligation to allow them to stay and it would indeed be "just" consequences if they were shipped home for military justice. Those guys will have to live with their decisions.

 

Personally, I'd take it pretty serious if I had to leave my home country, potentially never to visit my friends and family again ... but that's just me. You "by the book" people are a hardcore bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the Canadians are under no obligation to allow them to stay and it would indeed be "just" consequences if they were shipped home for military justice. Those guys will have to live with their decisions.

 

Personally, I'd take it pretty serious if I had to leave my home country, potentially never to visit my friends and family again ... but that's just me. You "by the book" people are a hardcore bunch.

 

I don't know if you are really this slow Matt or whether this is your natural lawyer "devil's advocate" mode. There are reasons that you must be "by the book" in situations such as this. Think about the percentage of people who "don't want to be here" during a firefight.

 

Tha is the reason you must be by the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thick headed? I'm not sure what you call it but you apparently are unable to grasp where I have written, at least thee times now, that obviously we cannot allow soldiers to pick and choose which orders to follow, that he has to be accountable under the law, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forthright straightforwardness may appear "hardcore" to thickheaded twits.

 

That's funny, coming from the one who denied that there is significant racial tension in Michigan and argued that the "honesty" demonstrated in a state where the Klu Klux Klan is active is good for race relations.

 

Are you with Scott in arguing that there can never be any justification for any soldier to refuse to obey orders? How about if their commander is drunk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forthright straightforwardness may appear "hardcore" to thickheaded twits.

 

That's funny, coming from the one who denied that there is significant racial tension in Michigan and argued that the "honesty" demonstrated in a state where the Klu Klux Klan is active is good for race relations.

 

Are you with Scott in arguing that there can never be any justification for any soldier to refuse to obey orders? How about if their commander is drunk?

 

I never said that Matt. Obviously there are times when you simply cannot for the pure sake of morality coomply with orders.

 

You asked me if a soldier could ever go back on his oath. There is nothing in the oath about illegal activities. Since this kid was never asked to do any illegal activities, there is no way that his argument could hold any water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, Scott, play along now:

 

could there be any circumstances where one might be justified in "going back on their word?"

 

no.

 

From a well-known researcher on cults:

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

 

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

 

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

 

3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

 

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

 

5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

 

6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

 

7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

 

8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

 

9. The group/leader is always right.

 

10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

--from the Ross Institute

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, Scott, play along now:

 

could there be any circumstances where one might be justified in "going back on their word?"

 

no.

 

From a well-known researcher on cults:

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

 

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

 

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

 

3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

 

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

 

5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

 

6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

 

7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

 

8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

 

9. The group/leader is always right.

 

10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

--from the Ross Institute

 

 

 

so what you are saying is that communism is a cult? Ok, point taken, but lets get back on track junior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US Military would seem to fit most if not all of the criteria cited here for the definition of a cult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...you don't recognize that in "running away" he has in fact opted for some serious consequences?

 

He doesn't get to choose the consequences; those are already laid out in the contract he signed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you guys really that bad at reading comprehension? I have written, at least four times now, that we don't and can't allow him to choose his consequences. The plain fact is that he did, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×