Officer plans to refuse to go to Iraq

[clerkenwell]

[quote="Bigity";p="643993"]No, clerkenwell, that fact that he would be break his oath if he does not report for duty is not up for debate.[/quote]

Ummm, where did I say that?

There are and have been allowances for objectors made in the past, yet this "officer" has made no attempt (documented attempt) to recieve such status. He simply plans not to go, and even made his intentions public, I believe in shallow attempt to save his ass from the penalties of his decisions.

It's not "simply" that. He pursued every other avenue available to him in an effort to not go, including attempting to resign his commission as well as putting in for reassignment. He made an oath, but the army has given him no possible room to maneuver within that oath and still maintain his personal sense of morality. Thus, he decided to refuse to go at all.

[Bigity]

[quote="clerkenwell";p="644056"][quote="Bigity";p="643993"]No, clerkenwell, that fact that he would be break his oath if he does not report for duty is not up for debate.[/quote]

Ummm, where did I say that?[/quote]

And while you're up there on your high horse, fully bedecked in your grey wig and gavel, melodramatically accusing Phong of authoritarianism and preaching piously on integrity and strength, remember that, in this person's case, your precious integrity and strength are exactly what is needed to fulfill his orders, the duty he swore an oath to uphold.

Only if he's borrowing your moral compass, Deacon. Only then.

There are and have been allowances for objectors made in the past, yet this "officer" has made no attempt (documented attempt) to recieve such status. He simply plans not to go, and even made his intentions public, I believe in shallow attempt to save his ass from the penalties of his decisions.

It's not "simply" that. He pursued every other avenue available to him in an effort to not go, including attempting to resign his commission as well as putting in for reassignment. He made an oath, but the army has given him no possible room to maneuver within that oath and still maintain his personal sense of morality. Thus, he decided to refuse to go at all.

No, he never filed to obtain objector status. He did file a request to resign, but as his unit is not letting anyone resign or retire at this time (called stop-loss), his request was denied, along with others far more deserving. There is also no mention that I can find where he requested a transfer to another unit.

[Deacon]

I know, let's let everyone who doesn't feel like fulfilling their voluntarily sworn duty decide not to go whenever it's convenient for them! That sounds like a fantastic plan.

[clerkenwell]

[quote="Bigity";p="644063"][quote="clerkenwell";p="644056"][quote="Bigity";p="643993"]No, clerkenwell, that fact that he would be break his oath if he does not report for duty is not up for debate.[/quote]

Ummm, where did I say that?[/quote]

And while you're up there on your high horse, fully bedecked in your grey wig and gavel, melodramatically accusing Phong of authoritarianism and preaching piously on integrity and strength, remember that, in this person's case, your precious integrity and strength are exactly what is needed to fulfill his orders, the duty he swore an oath to uphold.

Only if he's borrowing your moral compass, Deacon. Only then.

[/quote]

Interesting (read: incorrect) interperetation. What I was actually saying there is that while Deacon's moral compass puts duty before conscience, this Lt. does not. I was pointing out that Deacon's statement only applied if the Lt. also put duty before conscience.

It's not "simply" that. He pursued every other avenue available to him in an effort to not go, including attempting to resign his commission as well as putting in for reassignment. He made an oath, but the army has given him no possible room to maneuver within that oath and still maintain his personal sense of morality. Thus, he decided to refuse to go at all.

No, he never filed to obtain objector status. He did file a request to resign, but as his unit is not letting anyone resign or retire at this time (called stop-loss), his request was denied, along with others far more deserving. There is also no mention that I can find where he requested a transfer to another unit.

The article clearly states that he filed for reassignment. Why he didn't file for objector status, I couldn't say. I would guess that it is because he is against the military being in Iraq period, even in a non-killing role, and that for him to be there at all in uniform would be contradictory to his beliefs about the U.S. presence in Iraq.

[Seraphim]

Interesting (read: incorrect) interperetation. What I was actually saying there is that while Deacon's moral compass puts duty before conscience, this Lt. does not. I was pointing out that Deacon's statement only applied if the Lt. also put duty before conscience.

He enlisted and took an oath saying that he would put duty before conscience. It's pretty simple, if he didn't mean it he shouldn't have said it. Disagree with the war in Iraq? Tough shit. Don't join the military then. When you do so you declare that they have the right to send you wherever they want, and do whatever they want. Once again: If you don't believe that then don't swear on you life/honor/everything that you do. Which he did. He's a villain either way. He's either amoral or he lied under oath when he took his oath. Your pick. I don't care either way.

[Phong]

Jus to expound on what Seraphim was saying, this is the oath that he swore;

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

[10bellies]

Ah, but did he have his fingers crossed when he said it...

[Bigity]

[quote="clerkenwell";p="644255"][quote="Bigity";p="644063"][quote="clerkenwell";p="644056"][quote="Bigity";p="643993"]No, clerkenwell, that fact that he would be break his oath if he does not report for duty is not up for debate.[/quote]

Ummm, where did I say that?[/quote]

And while you're up there on your high horse, fully bedecked in your grey wig and gavel, melodramatically accusing Phong of authoritarianism and preaching piously on integrity and strength, remember that, in this person's case, your precious integrity and strength are exactly what is needed to fulfill his orders, the duty he swore an oath to uphold.

Only if he's borrowing your moral compass, Deacon. Only then.

[/quote]

Interesting (read: incorrect) interperetation. What I was actually saying there is that while Deacon's moral compass puts duty before conscience, this Lt. does not. I was pointing out that Deacon's statement only applied if the Lt. also put duty before conscience.

It's not "simply" that. He pursued every other avenue available to him in an effort to not go, including attempting to resign his commission as well as putting in for reassignment. He made an oath, but the army has given him no possible room to maneuver within that oath and still maintain his personal sense of morality. Thus, he decided to refuse to go at all.

No, he never filed to obtain objector status. He did file a request to resign, but as his unit is not letting anyone resign or retire at this time (called stop-loss), his request was denied, along with others far more deserving. There is also no mention that I can find where he requested a transfer to another unit.

The article clearly states that he filed for reassignment. Why he didn't file for objector status, I couldn't say. I would guess that it is because he is against the military being in Iraq period, even in a non-killing role, and that for him to be there at all in uniform would be contradictory to his beliefs about the U.S. presence in Iraq.[/quote]

Bullshit it's incorrect. It just doesn't jive with your backpeddling.

The articles I've read don't say a thing about reassignment, they only mention that it has been done in the past, or is a possible way out for the officer. I can't find an article that states that he officially filed for anything other then resignation. If there is one out there, and there may be, please link it. I have seen one or two that say something like 'he asked for a new assignment', but that's not good enough for me. I'd like to see one that states he officially put in for reassignment.

[CyberEd]

holy quote batman !

[clerkenwell]

[quote="Bigity";p="644368"]Bullshit it's incorrect. It just doesn't jive with your backpeddling.

The articles I've read don't say a thing about reassignment, they only mention that it has been done in the past, or is a possible way out for the officer. I can't find an article that states that he officially filed for anything other then resignation. If there is one out there, and there may be, please link it. I have seen one or two that say something like 'he asked for a new assignment', but that's not good enough for me. I'd like to see one that states he officially put in for reassignment.[/quote]

Nope, it's incorrect. I don't know why you're so damn determined to prove that I disagree with you on this particular point. Yes, I fully acknowledge that he is breaking his oath. I never said he wasn't, and I apologize if you were unable to correctly comprehend any of what I said, be it because I'm writing unclearly or because your simply a bull-headed idiot.

The article you linked says "asked for reassignment." I don't know if that means he asked officially or unofficially. I would assume officially, because it seems like they would make note of the fact if it was not an official request.

He enlisted and took an oath saying that he would put duty before conscience. It's pretty simple, if he didn't mean it he shouldn't have said it. Disagree with the war in Iraq? Tough shit. Don't join the military then. When you do so you declare that they have the right to send you wherever they want, and do whatever they want. Once again: If you don't believe that then don't swear on you life/honor/everything that you do. Which he did. He's a villain either way. He's either amoral or he lied under oath when he took his oath. Your pick. I don't care either way.

I've already responded to this argument in part, but I'll let you find that on your own. To add to what I've already said, his was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Ultimately he chose to be damned for not doing his duty instead of being damned for betraying his morals. It's pretty clear that most of you put duty before morality, but frankly, what any of you think isn't worth a damn when it comes to morality, because morality is a subjective matter. The best you can hope to say is, "If I were in his position, and had his opinion on the U.S. presence in Iraq, I would not do the same thing." There is no such thing as objective morality, and so any attempt to criticize his beliefs comes from your own beliefs, unsubstantiated by anything objective or empirical. This man deserves none of your criticism just as no man who would choose duty over morality deserves it.

[Seraphim]

I don't put duty before morals. Which is why I didn't take the oath.

He wasn't damned if he did, damned if he didn't. If he wasn't prepared to go anywhere and do anything and shouldn't have enlisted. Period.

"But the war in Iraq hadn't started." So? We've had military actions all over the middle east all the time for as long as I can remember. He should have been well aware of that fact that he might get sent there, or to some other foreign country. What is he objecting exactly? What are his qualms with the war in Iraq? How is the war in Iraq differant from Any of the other over seas actions we taken in the past few decades? If he doesn't agree with our foreign policy, or just plain hates war, then the army was a bad choice for him. There's not justifying his actions. He had choices, and he made all the wrong ones.

[StruckingFuggle]

"But the war in Iraq hadn't started." So? We've had military actions all over the middle east all the time for as long as I can remember.

...which is apples to pineapple grenades.

[Arc Orion]

This officer took an oath to do whatever his government required of him. If he could not consider the possibility that he might be asked to do something he might not want to do, then it is his own fault for lacking in foresight. Should any other officer refuse such an order, one will face the same ramifications of one's actions. Nobody forced him at gunpoint to agree to the oath. Nobody told him that he would never have to fight in a war he would not want to fight. It is his responsibility to continue the service he has promised, whether he wishes to do so or not. If he wants to back out on his responsibility, he must be willing to suffer the ramifications of his decision.

[StruckingFuggle]

If he could not consider the possibility that he might be asked to do something he might not want to do, then it is his own fault for lacking in foresight.

Does no one consider that requiring the Robot Oath might be wrong, and the nature of the oath might automatically or even "just possibly" put the government in the wrong, first? Or if not in the wrong, then the nature of the oath, and hte fact it's the only offered and required oath for military service, might function as something of a mitigating factor, here?

If he wants to back out on his responsibility, he must be willing to suffer the ramifications of his decision.

Be that as it may, some of the ramifications proposed by people like Phong are going way too far beyond what the situation calls for.

[Seraphim]

StruckingFuggle, how?

How is the war in Iraq differant from any other military action we have taken in the past few decades? How is it fundamentally and morally differant? He went into the military knowing he might be required to go to the middle east and do what they're asking him to do. If he doesn't like it don't take the oath.