Conscientious Objector?

Politics International Politics
1

[quote]TIKRIT, Iraq - Two U.S. Army medics in Iraq have applied for conscientious objector status and want to be honorably discharged from the military because the idea of killing is “revolting” to them, their company commander said Tuesday.

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … bjectors_1
[/quote]

Just wondering what you folks think of this. I was surprized and disappointed to read the above news. I don’t think these guys should be honorably discharged. I mean, if in the US, military service was compulsory, then I can understand a person claiming that the idea of killing is “revolting” and thus him/her objecting to military service. And yes, I agree that the idea of killing is revolting… but, if killing is something that you cannot bring yourself to do, then why in the world would you voluntarily join the military?

2

5 years at Ft Leavenworth and a DD should do the trick.

lvarea.com/cvb/prisons.htm

3

Agreed. The purpose of soldiers is to fight. They knew that when they joined, and they did volunteer after all. Anyway, they are medics, so just how much fighting were they doing?

4

Traditionally medics don’t even carry weapons. Vietnam was the first war in which medics received weapons training, were armed and didn’t wear distinguishing Red Cross emblems. The Communists tended to shoot medics and radiomen first. Anyway, after all the military medical training received, they knew exactly what they were in for. Anyway, a large portion of their time would have been spent operating medical clinics for civilians. Would have involved things like checking school kids for malnutrition…real stressful. :fume:

Combat Medical Badge

5

In the Socialist nightmare that is Canada, I know doctors and dentists have the highest rate of student loan default. They think society owes them a debt of gratitude for entering the medical profession. I am sure this doc joined the army to get his education paid for. And now that there is some element of the unknown to his/her work, the doctor is playing this “conscientious objector” card. I say make him/her stay and complete their duty - in the brig if necessary.

Chewy

6

But on the other hand, people change, particularly in extreme circumstances. Maybe when they signed up the military sounded reasonable, but upon encountering the realities of people blown to bits and other atrocities they came to find all the killing and maiming to be revolting and could not in good conscience continue in their present profession. Maybe they are not the same men that they were when they signed up.

7

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]
But on the other hand, people change, particularly in extreme circumstances. Maybe when they signed up the military sounded reasonable, but upon encountering the realities of people blown to bits and other atrocities they came to find all the killing and maiming to be revolting and could not in good conscience continue in their present profession. Maybe they are not the same men that they were when they signed up.[/quote]

Yeah, and if someone breaks into your house and is raping your wife, you’d better pray that when the cops come, they don’t have a “crisis of conscious” and decide a cup of coffee and a donut would be a better use of their time. :unamused:

People are depending on these assholes to help them if they are wounded. This is reality, not some dope smoking bullshit session out in the north California woods.

8

I don’t buy it. It’s dereliction of duty. They knew full well what they were getting in to when they signed up, and they have probably received a very comfortable life and training up to the point of their posting to Iraq. But the purpose of an army is to fight a war. Period. Having a good conscience is not a luxury a soldier can wear on the sleeve, indeed conscience and war scarcely belong in the same sentence when talking about soldiers.

How about non-military doctors and medical staff in Iraq. They are also dealing with body parts and horrific scenes. Should they also all walk away because it disturbs them, or because they would rather be delivering babies in a nice clean hotel? Lastly, though they are primarily soldiers, their role is that of medics. Thus their function is to save the lives of their comrades. An army cannot function if one part of it decides it doesn’t like its task assignment, and it thereby lets down the whole team.

Now if they had become disillusioned, they should seek a discharge by the appropriate method. Walking away is a dereliction of duty (and honour).

9

If their consciences truly have changed so they are physically sickened and incapacitated by the thought of killing, but their applications to be relieved on that basis are denied, would you want to be dependent on them, not knowing that they may end up sitting in the corner wimpering when the fighting starts? Would you want them to be forced to continue serving so you could then depend on them like that?

10

Isn’t that exactly what they did? They found their consciences would no longer permit them to participate in the war machine so they applied for conscientious objector status. Isn’t that exactly the appropriate method?

:uhhuh:

Incidentally, I believe the standard for CO is stated below:

Members of the military who develop a “firm, fixed, and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms,” based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, are entitled to discharge from the military or transfer to non-combatant status.

objector.org/girights/gettin … html#38276

:yinyang:

11

Do you really belive they are killing anyone? Really? Troops go out of their way to keep medics safe and sound. You know why? Because their lives depend on the medics being alive! Medics do NOT receive the kind of training a combat infantryman receives. A medic has his own job to do and that is not going out assaulting machine gun positions. :unamused:

These guys are scamming and you are buying the scam. You know, you really should go back to the States and join up. Do 4 years and then come back and your opinions and suppositions will be much more valuable.

12

Maybe they are scamming, maybe not. Do you know them? Have you spoken with them? Are you saying that one should never be allowed out based on CO status? Is it always a scam?

13

I don’t think these guys have an aversion to killing, or if they do, it is irrelevant since their daily jobs don’t entail killing anybody. I think they just have an aversion to sand, hot dry weather and exposing themselves to 1/10 the risk of getting killed as what their ground pounding trigger puller colleagues are exposing themselves to everyday when they go on patrol. I say discharge these fuckers unarmed in their fatigues in the middle of the Suni triangle. Seems fair to me.

14

I have no objections to their wishing to escape, return to the US and set up in a nice wealthy little practice somewhere with nice weather and easy access to the golf course.
But they want an honorable discharge? What the fuck is honorable about what they are trying to do?
They were trained and probably educated by the army to do a job and now they want out. Well, boo fucking hoo.
Go on, get the fuck out. Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out. But you can take your honorable discharge and ram it where the sun don’t shine.

Also, I might be wrong about this, but if they get a honorable discharge, doesn’t that mean they’ll be entitled to an army pension and veteran benefits for the rest of their lives?

15

I think the whole question also depends on whether a particular war is deemed as justified or not. I was for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, so I think this bloke’s behaviour is wrong. However, I would have had no problem with people who served in Vietnam and later protested against the war (like my USC history prof during undergrad studies who served on a military boat in the Mekong and later joined “Veterans Against the War.”)

However, if some medic joined the army, went to Vietnam, and then became a objector half way during his service, I would laugh in his/her/its face. I think only those who have served and completed their service should have the right to complain. Not some clown who changed his mind half way through his service or some rich college student who is protesting the war so he can get laid with some granola pussy at the rally. :slight_smile:

This medic is a joke.

Chewhy

16

I agree with Closet that since it’s voluntary service, and they voluntarily signed up, there should be a higher bar for them to declare themselves conscientious objectors.

Where I might draw a line, and it doesn’t seem applicable in this situation, is if they were given orders beyond the pale of any “reason” in the context of war. thus, if they were ordered to do a My Lai, or to do a SS, to use extreme examples, then i think such a case would be warranted.

there is another case of conscientious objector in the news i posted. in particular he objected to the killing of civilians while being ambushed, perhaps indiscriminately in his view.

[quote]The justification for this war is money and no soldier should go to Iraq and give his life for oil," Mejia told reporters Tuesday.

He was accompanied by his mother, an aunt and Spc. Oliver Perez, who served with him, when he reported to the Florida armory.

Perez said Mejia is “a brave leader” and should not be prosecuted.

“I fought next to him in many battles. He is not a coward,” Perez said.

In the filing, Mejia said he was particularly upset over an incident in which his unit was ambushed and innocent civilians were hit in the ensuing gunfire, and another in which he says an Iraqi boy died after confusion over which military doctor should treat him.

He also criticized his superiors for “instances of abuse of power, bad leadership, and total disregard for the well-being of soldiers and civilians.”
[/quote]

17
18

OT, but some names up there are a blast from the past- Chewycorns, Sandman, Mother Theresa, Comrade Stalin…