In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
NOW? NOW you realize this?????
Doc
Member Posts: 13,898 ✭✭✭
Some guy graduates from the Naval Academy, is commissioned as an ensign in the U.S. Navy, and THEN decides he is a conscientious objector and wants out of the military. What, it never occurred to him that he opposes military service during the four years he spent at the MILITARY ACADEMY? With the help of those good old ACLU lawyers (may they all burn in Hell) this moron has been granted an honorable discharge. So, he is now walking around with a degree from the Naval Academy in his pocket AND an honorable discharge with all the benefits that provides.
This is ridiculous. He should NEVER have been granted an honorable discharge. Plus, he should now be given the choice of either paying back the taxpayers for the cost of his college education or have the Academy rescind his degree (the SCOTUS has ruled that colleges can "take back" a degree for cause and it has happened).
This cretin is a shining example of much of America's youth. Play the system, rip off the taxpayers, serve yourself and screw everybody else. I wish him all the worst. May his life be miserable and as worthless as he is personally.
This is ridiculous. He should NEVER have been granted an honorable discharge. Plus, he should now be given the choice of either paying back the taxpayers for the cost of his college education or have the Academy rescind his degree (the SCOTUS has ruled that colleges can "take back" a degree for cause and it has happened).
This cretin is a shining example of much of America's youth. Play the system, rip off the taxpayers, serve yourself and screw everybody else. I wish him all the worst. May his life be miserable and as worthless as he is personally.
....................................................................................................
Too old to live...too young to die...
Too old to live...too young to die...
Comments
It will catch up to him.
Indeed.
Too old to live...too young to die...
Personally I think he should be prosecuted for fraud.
It will catch up to him.
+1 What goes around comes round
I agree it sounds like a case where he should have to pay back the taxpayers. I also know that young adults are not always settled in their minds, still a work in progress. So I can accept religious conversions, moral and ethical beliefs developing and changing that are counter to what they started out to do in the military. That's natural enough.
Beyond those generalities, need to read some news stories to know what to think about this specific person. Superficially it sounds like the taxpayers got screwed though.
If garnishment of income isn't an option they damn sure should rescind his degree.
As for veteran's benefits, these require a certain amount of time served on active duty. I'm aware that with at least some of these the active duty clock doesn't start until the member's service obligation is met - meaning 4 yrs. after graduation from a service academy.
Some guy graduates from the Naval Academy, is commissioned as an ensign in the U.S. Navy, and THEN decides he is a conscientious objector and wants out of the military. What, it never occurred to him that he opposes military service during the four years he spent at the MILITARY ACADEMY? With the help of those good old ACLU lawyers (may they all burn in Hell) this moron has been granted an honorable discharge. So, he is now walking around with a degree from the Naval Academy in his pocket AND an honorable discharge with all the benefits that provides.
This is ridiculous. He should NEVER have been granted an honorable discharge. Plus, he should now be given the choice of either paying back the taxpayers for the cost of his college education or have the Academy rescind his degree (the SCOTUS has ruled that colleges can "take back" a degree for cause and it has happened).
This cretin is a shining example of much of America's youth. Play the system, rip off the taxpayers, serve yourself and screw everybody else. I wish him all the worst. May his life be miserable and as worthless as he is personally.
At the very least the USNA should refuse any references and should blackball him to future employers.[:(!][:(!]
There is a reason the constitution protects the freedom of conscience.
Funny how quickly people wish to forget that.
The conscientious objector status is not simply claimed, or easily recognized.
A good safeguard would be for him to not get his benefits, and to have to pay for the education he received. He doesn't have those things coming anyway.
They should have transferred him to the Marine Corps and shipped him down to Parris Island for an "attitude adjustment". After a few weeks in "Motivation Platoon", he would want to kill every sumbitch he could! [:D]
+100....this kid knew what he was doing all along. i believe this was his plan from the beginning. Its unfortunate that it actually worked for him. what about all his classmates that graduated along side of him?? Im sure they OBJECT to his decision.
Graduated and served his time before quarterbacking for the Dallas Cowboys .
I am sure the financial loss of that 4 years was substantial .
Oh Well !
Staubach is a man of honor .
He played the system, and should not reap any rewards.
next you here of him he might be running for POTUS, and win[:(]
Dang you beat me to it - that was going to be my next comment. [;)][^]
This azzhat could be made to serve. Lots of 'conscience objectors' have served in the military, just not in combat.
www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23objector.html
I am trying to figure out when "conscientous objector" changed from not serving in a weapon carrying capacity, to "get me out of the military altogether." Back in the days of the draft, we had a number of young men that were members of the 7th Day Adventist Church- long established non-violent religion- that were drafted. I had several serve as my medics. They went through all training that the rest of the trainees did EXCEPT weapons (rifle, bayonet, hand-to-hand) were DAMNED good soldiers- and went into combat carrying a mdeic's pack.
That was just what I was thinking. He should have been made to serve in the U.S. mainland then.
I don't think being a CO about being in the military should be taken serious.
Sounds like he played the system just to mock it.
Clouder..
I am trying to figure out when "conscientous objector" changed from not serving in a weapon carrying capacity, to "get me out of the military altogether."This is addressed in the NY Times article.
He claimed to have become a Quaker, which equates to the belief in no military service of any kind.
'Navy officers tried to persuade Mr. Izbicki to consider alternatives to discharge: Could he become a Navy medical officer or dentist? He replied that his pacifist beliefs were irreconcilable with any effort to prepare troops for battle. "I could not contribute in any way whatsoever," he said.'
BTW - He did more than just receive a degree from the US Naval Academy. After graduation he went on to receive his Masters in computer engineering from Johns Hopkins University - also apparently on our dime. Only then did he decide to request discharge as a contientious objector.
Some guy graduates from the Naval Academy, is commissioned as an ensign in the U.S. Navy, and THEN decides he is a conscientious objector and wants out of the military. What, it never occurred to him that he opposes military service during the four years he spent at the MILITARY ACADEMY? With the help of those good old ACLU lawyers (may they all burn in Hell) this moron has been granted an honorable discharge. So, he is now walking around with a degree from the Naval Academy in his pocket AND an honorable discharge with all the benefits that provides.
This is ridiculous. He should NEVER have been granted an honorable discharge. Plus, he should now be given the choice of either paying back the taxpayers for the cost of his college education or have the Academy rescind his degree (the SCOTUS has ruled that colleges can "take back" a degree for cause and it has happened).
This cretin is a shining example of much of America's youth. Play the system, rip off the taxpayers, serve yourself and screw everybody else. I wish him all the worst. May his life be miserable and as worthless as he is personally.
+1
I am trying to figure out when "conscientous objector" changed from not serving in a weapon carrying capacity, to "get me out of the military altogether." Back in the days of the draft, we had a number of young men that were members of the 7th Day Adventist Church- long established non-violent religion- that were drafted. I had several serve as my medics. They went through all training that the rest of the trainees did EXCEPT weapons (rifle, bayonet, hand-to-hand) were DAMNED good soldiers- and went into combat carrying a mdeic's pack.
and it sure sounds to me these men were very brave, and very sincere about their faith.
I'm with Doc, that is a total load of BS.
dishonorable discharge, loss of benefits.
At best, pay back the USNA for his education, at worst rescind his degree.
I really doubt this guy woke up one morning and had an ephiphany that he was now a CO.
Dishonest scumbag is more like it.
quote:Originally posted by 11b6r
I am trying to figure out when "conscientous objector" changed from not serving in a weapon carrying capacity, to "get me out of the military altogether."This is addressed in the NY Times article.
He claimed to have become a Quaker, which equates to the belief in no military service of any kind.
'Navy officers tried to persuade Mr. Izbicki to consider alternatives to discharge: Could he become a Navy medical officer or dentist? He replied that his pacifist beliefs were irreconcilable with any effort to prepare troops for battle. "I could not contribute in any way whatsoever," he said.'
BTW - He did more than just receive a degree from the US Naval Academy. After graduation he went on to receive his Masters in computer engineering from Johns Hopkins University - also apparently on our dime. Only then did he decide to request discharge as a contientious objector.
sounds like a parasite to me...
I don't buy the idea that he suddenly became a Quaker while in the academy or in graduate school...and you don't join a MILITARY ACADEMY without the assumption that you will serve in the MILITARY!
bleening coward.
I have no problem with legitimate opposition to military service due to religious conviction. But deciding that you object to military service AFTER graduating from the military academy is preposterous.
You're right Doc. It smacks of fraud on its face.
Now, for the sake of argument let's assume this deadbeat is being truthful and honest. YOU'RE STILL RIGHT.
By graduating from the Naval Academy he incurred a five year active duty obligation to the U. S. Navy. Now he chooses not to live up to that obligation. He should pay for four years of education.
Revoking the degree isn't good enough. He won't unlearn what he learned and will benefit from it.
I have heard though of the Navy offering guys to get out for free if they had an influx of young junior officers and because of budget cuts they needed to get rid of some they would offer them to get out without having to pay back tuition and they would get an honorable discharge. They offered that to a group of us once who were waiting to class of for Aviation Preflight Indoc. From what I remember, I think 3 guys took the deal out of 170+. Thats somewhere around 2% that slipped through the system, I dont even think a lot of oil filters are that good.
"As part of his CO discharge, Izbicki must reimburse the Navy for his education at the academy."
http://www.christianpost.com/news/quaker-sailor-granted-discharge-as-conscientious-objector-49186/
Revoking the degree isn't good enough. He won't unlearn what he learned and will benefit from it.The hardest he could be hit would be revocation of his degree, requiring full reimbursement and having him serve out his four year contractual obligation.
Of course, with only a high school diploma he'd have to serve in an enlisted slot. The question is, what work could he do that wouldn't conflict with his stance that, '...his pacifist beliefs were irreconcilable with any effort to prepare troops for battlle'.
What Navy rating is it that maintains a ship's sewage systems?
I find it hard to believe that he SUDDENLY feels military service is wrong after at least 5 years of schooling towards a military career but even if he DID have a genuine change of heart I DON'T CARE. He still should have gotten a general discharge and be billed for the cost of his education. Period.
Too old to live...too young to die...
quote:Originally posted by Doc
I have no problem with legitimate opposition to military service due to religious conviction. But deciding that you object to military service AFTER graduating from the military academy is preposterous.
You're right Doc. It smacks of fraud on its face.
Now, for the sake of argument let's assume this deadbeat is being truthful and honest. YOU'RE STILL RIGHT.
By graduating from the Naval Academy he incurred a five year active duty obligation to the U. S. Navy. Now he chooses not to live up to that obligation. He should pay for four years of education.
Revoking the degree isn't good enough. He won't unlearn what he learned and will benefit from it.
I came back to this post because I saw your name as latest poster and I try to read your opinions/thoughts every chance I get. I don't always agree but your responses are always worth reading and well to the point. In this case I don't believe this guy was out to perpetrate a scam on anybody.
Since it is a fact that;
1) we have Quakers and
2) they were not all raised as Quakers
then it follows that some became quakers later in life.
Since we do have freedom of religion in this country then we must allow for the chance that sometimes defining religious moments may occur at inopportune times. This "choice" is not the same choice as deciding what job to take or what flavor ice cream to have but is rather a slower recognition of who you are.
Once he had clarified the exact "flavor" belief which fit him it precluded his further participation in the military in any capacity. If he became incapable for a different reason such as suffering a brain injury while off duty and on leave we wouldn't even consider punishing him by fining him the price of his education.
You may object on the grounds that one is an accident and the other a selfish decision but I would say that he had no choice with either path.
PS. There is a whole other argument which also could be mentioned. That would concern tactics used by recruiters to get naive youth to sign up under false expectations. We don't pay fighter pilot wages to paint scrapers just because they were led to believe it was possible for them to qualify for such a position by a recruiter.
Not to mention that our gov. has been the worst example of breaking faith of any I can think of. To date I believe not one treaty with any indian nation has ever been kept.
quote:Originally posted by PBJloaf
quote:Originally posted by 11b6r
I am trying to figure out when "conscientous objector" changed from not serving in a weapon carrying capacity, to "get me out of the military altogether." Back in the days of the draft, we had a number of young men that were members of the 7th Day Adventist Church- long established non-violent religion- that were drafted. I had several serve as my medics. They went through all training that the rest of the trainees did EXCEPT weapons (rifle, bayonet, hand-to-hand) were DAMNED good soldiers- and went into combat carrying a mdeic's pack.
and it sure sounds to me these men were very brave, and very sincere about their faith.
I'm with Doc, that is a total load of BS.
dishonorable discharge, loss of benefits.
At best, pay back the USNA for his education, at worst rescind his degree.
I really doubt this guy woke up one morning and had an ephiphany that he was now a CO.
Dishonest scumbag is more like it.
Not being mean or anything, pbj, but how would you be in the least bit qualified to speak for someone elses' faith in Christ, and his calling by God ?
I have really been amazed lately at how fast people are willing to deny unalienable rights to conscience and contract to others.
If the DOD has a policy that he will pay back, then fine. I see no problem with that.
But if they do not, then no one, and that means no one, has the legal, moral, or philosophical standing to try to punish the guy for his statement of faith.
What in the world are things coming to ?????
well, at least I can read and understand your post (for a change).
the way I was raised, if you signed a CONTRACT, you are morally and legally obliged to fufill the terms and conditions of that contract.
And, Barzilla, one does not have to be a Christian to have morals.
I've met plenty of "Christians" who were morally lacking.