Army officer says won't fight in "unlawful" Iraq war

[x SF med]

AL-
I think he could probably get hit with disobeying a lawful order, I'd love to see him also get hit with treason in a time of war - which still does hold the death penalty. I think he should be horsewhipped, put in stocks for 30 days and then see if he'll fulfill his sworn duty. If he won't, then go for the Court Martial, seeking the maximum penalty - and hopefully it'll go to the rope. Honor and integrity above all set the truly professional soldier above the poseurs and politically minded, he fits the latter categories to a tee.

[aestreet]

I agree with tracking down our AWOLs, if you have lost all of your morals, and have gone off the deep-end enough to abandon your country and your duty, than its time you stop enjoying its freedoms.

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by CPTAUSRET

I have np problems with seeking the death penalty in this case, just don't think it will fly! Also don't think you can single him out, when MANY are AWOL, having missed shipment, and they have not even been apprehended. I say we go after all of them, males, females, every last one of them.

He is not merely AWOL. Articles 86, 87 and 92 are just the lesser included offenses. He has publicly stated that he will not fulfill his oath, that his morality and judgment are superior to that of his commanders, and that his country is engaging in "[t]he wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people."

"Any member of the armed forces who ... quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service.... is guilty of desertion. Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion. Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct... ."

"Any person subject to this chapter who before or in the presence of the enemy ... through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property; ... is guilty of cowardly conduct; [or] ... willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; ... shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court-martial may direct."

"Any person subject to this chapter who ... willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct... ."

[CPTAUSRET]

So, would it have to be a declared "war" ratified by both houses, to qualify him?

[Airbornelawyer]

No. I don't have time to pull it up, but there has been extensive discussion over the past few years on the net regarding whether we are "at war" as a legal matter. I believe there is also case law, evolving out of some of the terror and detention cases. The consensus is that we are.

[vsvo]

My Constitutional Law professor says we are at war, based on the theory of "constitutional gloss."

By authorizing the President to act via the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and appropriating the necessary funds, Congress has in effect waived its power to declare war. The Supreme Court, in the recent Gitmo cases, has held that the President is authorized to wage the GWOT. Thus, the three branches have interpreted congressional authorization coupled with the funding to mean the President is authorized to carry out the GWOT.

[incommin]

Does it have to be a declared war? As the Commander in Chief, if he has the authority to dispatch troops, isn't that enough? Does that not make it legal? If Congress says "We give you the authority to do what is necessary to combat terriorism"; isn't that a blank check to act?

[jon448]

Don't forget he could also be guilty of sedition and mutiny via his statement that "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war."
So he is essentially encouraging mutiny which according to UCMJ art. 94

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

Another reason to put him to death.

Originally Posted by CPTAUSRET

I understand that there are a great many who are AWOL from their units, some missing shipment to a war zone. We can't just single this one glaring a$$hole out, we need to apprehend each one of them and utilize the UCMJ.

I've heard that AWOL instances have actually dropped since the war began. Maybe I'm misinformed.

[CPTAUSRET]

Originally Posted by jon448

I've heard that AWOL instances have actually dropped since the war began. Maybe I'm misinformed.

Maybe.

Maybe the rate has dropped, and there are still a hell of a lot of AWOLs.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...eserters_x.htm

[Monsoon65]

This loser does piss me off. As the story said, he's NEVER even been there! He gets orders, and suddenly he's applying for CO.

Someone senior needs to break their foot off in his ass.

[Warrior-Mentor]

Time to make big rocks into little ones....who is he to pontificate with a press conference the way he did? He smells like a liberal opportunist. He had no problem taking a pay check until the deployment orders arrived. Did he not understand his oath?

[Tangodown_inc]

This guy must make the Officer Corps proud. I wonder how much tough guy talk he spouted in Korea? Of course he wasn't staring across the DMZ every morning from Camp Greaves. On top of that all the moral issues he just created in a group of soldiers he was supposed to lead in combat.

[Kingfisher]

A little time in Kansas to reflect on his decision is in order.

[x SF med]

What Branch is this guy? I don't think it says - if he's not CA he's doubly a wimp, if he is CA he's an honorless, self serving, loser. The SOB VOLUNTEERED to join the ARMY as an officer, to protect and defend the Constitution, and more importantly to protect and defend the men under his command while making sure the mission is accomplished. This puke has no excuse, and no moral or ethical ground to stand on in my book. You do not have to believe in every policy to do your sworn duty, honor demands that you follow through on an oath, they are not mutually exclusive - I think most of us here on the board do not agree with every policy in this administration, but if asked to do a job in the purview of our chosen profession (or in some cases former profession) we would do it, and question it later - our Team depends on our skills, and our country depends on the Team doing its job.

sorry 'bout the rant all - this guy just makes me want to break out the Rem 700, 36" barrel, w/ a Zeiss 40x400 - and practice harrassing fire, one limb at a time.

[Simple Simon]

It amazes me at all those who joined before Sept. 11, 2001 for a free ride, money, college, etc and now that there is a war on all the sudden some feel that deploying is not in their job description. Do your damn duty, in some countries military service is mandatory, what would these pukes do then.

Whatever happened to the saying "Don't think just react" quit analyzing the war and using it to make a statement. It is not your job to analyze what is right and wrong in the war on terror, you have duty to you country, do it and get out if you disagree with the administration. Take your freakin' orders and move out. He took the oath, in peace and war. Well the war is on LT suck it up, do your job and shut the hell up. By the way he disgraces the officer corps, who are supposed to be leaders, what kind of example does this set for all those soldiers on the fence. "Well if the LT is applying for CO status so am I"

Life at Leavenworth for being among other things a coward.

I'm disgusted by this fellow officer.

Sorry for the rant.