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.
quote:Originally posted by Doc
He still should have gotten a general discharge and be billed for the cost of his education. Period.Contrary to popular belief, Honorable and General discharges carry the same benefits.
quote:Originally posted by Doc
This story ran in this morning's edition of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. I'm sure they got it from some news service. AR Dem Gaz has an online edition if anyone cares to search for it but I do not doubt the story.
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.
From what I read, it appears he answered a question on a Psych exam and that raised some red flags. It doesn't appear that he sought a discharge before the Navy Chaplain suggested it.
It's one thing to be an arm chair General (like many that post here) and quite another of actually being in a position that may require you to launch Nukes. I don't envy that young man for having to confront that very issue. He wasn't a Marine Officer nor Naval Aviation (which is another mindset) and might not have considered what his duty might be (as a weapons officer).
For the past 30 years or so, if you don't want to be in the military, the military doesn't want you either.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by PBJloaf
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
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.
I do not doubt that.
What I said was saying is that since you are adverse to the Chrisitian faith, it is difficult to imagine that you have either the experience in doctrine or calling to make judgments about the doctrinal outworkings and the call of God, to that man, as you did :
quote: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.
I have already said that if the contract specifies repayment, so be it.
You certainly do not seem to be in favor of doing the same, despite your later claim to be concerned about a contract, from your words quoted above.
So which is it ?
hey, here is it.
I was talking about the faith the men who served in combat with 1lbr6.
NOT this person who graduates from the USNA and THEN decides he's a CO
This is why I do not want to exchange posts with you.
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
It's one thing to be an arm chair General (like many that post here) and quite another of actually being in a position that may require you to launch Nukes. I don't envy that young man for having to confront that very issue. He wasn't a Marine Officer nor Naval Aviation (which is another mindset) and might not have considered what his duty might be (as a weapons officer).That's all moot.
If for any reason a member isn't deemed suitable for nuke duty they're simply assigned elsewhere. That sort of stuff happens.
This guy was told he could instead serve out his enlistment in other capacities, but he chose to fight for a discharge.
quote:Originally posted by Txs
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
It's one thing to be an arm chair General (like many that post here) and quite another of actually being in a position that may require you to launch Nukes. I don't envy that young man for having to confront that very issue. He wasn't a Marine Officer nor Naval Aviation (which is another mindset) and might not have considered what his duty might be (as a weapons officer).That's all moot.
If for any reason a member isn't deemed suitable for nuke duty they're simply assigned elsewhere. That sort of stuff happens.
This guy was told he could instead serve out his enlistment in other capacities, but he chose to fight for a discharge.
He answered a question on a Psych exam which raised red flags. A Navy Chaplain suggested CO status. The Navy concluded he isn't fit for service, thus the discharge.
I know just enough about the Quakers to use their actual name- Society of Friends- but ran across this on the web-
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a Quaker organization that includes people of various faiths who are committed to social justice, peace and humanitarian service. Our work is based on the principles of the Religious Society of Friends, the belief in the worth of every person, and faith in the power of love to overcome violence and injustice.
Read our complete Mission and Values statement
Board of Directors | Staff Leadership
History:
AFSC was founded in 1917 during World War I. In accordance with their Quaker faith, the new organization gave young conscientious objectors ways to serve without enlisting in the military or taking lives. They drove ambulances, ministered to the wounded, and stayed on in Europe after the armistice to rebuild war-ravaged communities.
quote:Originally posted by 11b6r
I know just enough about the Quakers to use their actual name- Society of Friends- but ran across this on the web-
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a Quaker organization that includes people of various faiths who are committed to social justice, peace and humanitarian service. Our work is based on the principles of the Religious Society of Friends, the belief in the worth of every person, and faith in the power of love to overcome violence and injustice.
Read our complete Mission and Values statement
Board of Directors | Staff Leadership
History:
AFSC was founded in 1917 during World War I. In accordance with their Quaker faith, the new organization gave young conscientious objectors ways to serve without enlisting in the military or taking lives. They drove ambulances, ministered to the wounded, and stayed on in Europe after the armistice to rebuild war-ravaged communities.
I may be mistaken ,but wasn't Alvin York a member ?
I spent three and a half years at Naval Station Annapolis, right across the Severn River from the USNA. I trained midshipmen on Yard Patrol Crafts. Anybody that goes through four years and all of a sudden say conscientious objector, I say BULL. He jsut milked the system for a free education. He should not only pay what the tuition would have been but all the money he was paid while there.
I have alot of respect for the men and women that graduate from the acadamy. Sure there were some that I hoped I would never cross paths with in the fleet, there were also some that I would have had no problem with serving under them.
To pull this stunt dishonors all past and future grads.
quote:Originally posted by skicat
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
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.
It doesn't matter if he intended to perpetrate a scam. He made an agreement with the United States that in exchange for an education at USNA and one half O-1 pay while being educated and trained , he would serve five years active duty in the United States Navy.
He received the education, training and pay and now reneges on his obligation. The Navy is better off without him, but there is still the matter of value received.
According to iceracerx's post, "Izbicki must reimburse the Navy for his education at the academy." I hope that includes his stipend, housing, clothing allowance and meals, etc., but that puts an end to my part of the discussion.
recouping the expenses for his education is not a punishment. It is simply recovering an expenditure where the recipient is in default.
PS. The argument concerning recruiters doesn't apply. Recruiters seldom mislead naive youth about what is ahead of them, but it wouldn't apply anyway. Izbicki was accepted to the Unites States Naval Academy. Competition for appointment to the USNA is fierce. There is no need to mislead anybody.
Our government's breaking faith, or criminal activity for that matter, does not justify my or anyone else's failure to honor their word.
PPS. You are correct that some people become Quakers later in life.
I have a cousin who became a Quaker after she married a lifelong Quaker. I never knew he was a Quaker until I went to his funeral.
I don't think I ever met a more honest man. He went through college on a football scholarship and was an avid bird hunter.
The purpose of the M67 fragmentation grenade is not to kill the enemy but to wound him, demoralize him and cause him to be a drain on enemy resources.
When I heard those words in boot camp I realized that I just might have made a very serious mistake. But, there was no way I was gonna take an easy out, I signed up for 4 years and I served 4 years, none of it in a combat zone.
If for any reason a member isn't deemed suitable for nuke duty they're simply assigned elsewhere. That sort of stuff happens.
This guy was told he could instead serve out his enlistment in other capacities, but he chose to fight for a discharge.
The article didn't even say he was a special weapons officer. It just said he answered a question that he couldn't launch a nuclear missile. His chances of ever being in that position were remote.
It's a lot easier for people working in any capacity with special weapons to get disqualified than it is to get qualified. Disqualification doesn't come with a discharge, but it can slow down a career.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Doc
Barzilla- 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 seem to be suggesting that a young man's heart cannot be changed.
Or that the young man entered the service with this end in mind.
I'll bet the DOD examined that possibility quite thoroughly.
The process can take anywhere from six months to a year for such an appeal to be decided.
CO status is simply not that easily recognized, it is not "apply and get out", and it is by no means a dishonorable act.
I don't think one becomes a CO overnight. Being a CO may not be dishonorable, but deliberately waiting until after one has diploma in hand to make the announcement is. That he repays funds laid out by the military for his education is sufficient for me.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
In consideration of the fact that no one knows the details of the situation, and no one knows the man's heart except God, what gives anyone the right to judge the heart of the man, and to require more of him than the military already does ?
To imagine and claim that the man who exercises his conscience is a crook, a criminal, a perjurer, and a coward, and to seek unconstitutional retaliation against him, is an ugly predictor of the future.
I think this was pretty much resolved when he agreed to pay for his education. I don't think anybody is judging his heart, just his actions. I won't try to make a judgment whether he's a crook, a criminal, a perjurer or a coward, but I'll admit as a Christian I get a little angry when anyone says they can't meet their obligations because they are a Christian.
His replacing what he took is neither retaliation nor unconstitutional. I'll never call for persecution of Christians because it would be wrong and because I'm a Christian, but at the same time I'm not willing to give us a free ride because we can't meet our obligations because we're Christians.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Doc
Barzilla- 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 seem to be suggesting that a young man's heart cannot be changed.
Or that the young man entered the service with this end in mind.
I'll bet the DOD examined that possibility quite thoroughly.
The process can take anywhere from six months to a year for such an appeal to be decided.
CO status is simply not that easily recognized, it is not "apply and get out", and it is by no means a dishonorable act.
I don't think one becomes a CO overnight. Being a CO may not be dishonorable, but deliberately waiting until after one has diploma in hand to make the announcement is. That he repays funds laid out by the military for his education is sufficient for me.
You present a scenario that is internally inconsistent.
The claim to CO is either a true one, or not. If it is true that the young man was honest in his claim, that would include refusal to participate in military training and any other military organization, as well.
It does not seem likely that a legitimate CO would wait, with full knowledge that he still participates in the military and is doing so in sin, and would do so out of his own self interest.
There is no evidence of that occurring, and no evidence that anyone here knows the young man, and no evidence to suggest that the DOD failed to examine the case thoroughly.
No one makes the claim and then simply goes home. Far more people apply for the status, than are actually granted the status.
In consideration of the fact that no one knows the details of the situation, and no one knows the man's heart except God, what gives anyone the right to judge the heart of the man, and to require more of him than the military already does ?
To imagine and claim that the man who exercises his conscience is a crook, a criminal, a perjurer, and a coward, and to seek unconstitutional retaliation against him, is an ugly predictor of the future.
I am unaware that being a CO imbues a person with all sorts of other admirable traits and removes the bad - you propose that a CO is not capable of deceiving, of dissembling or perhaps remaining quiet until a time to his advantage becomes apparent? Or that becoming a CO washes over him entirely one day and the thought of military service is repulsive?
A CO may be an otherwise terrible human being and being a terrible human being would not preclude one from being a CO - I do not see the linkage. Likewise his CO mindset may have come upon him gradually.
None of us is intimately involved with the case, I do not think it is at all out of line, supposing as we are, that this fellow's CO position evolved and had its start prior to graduation. If that's the case I think a fellow has an obligation to raise the issue.
Folks do all sorts of things that seem inconsistent with their values I suppose. It occurs to me though that aquiring this position takes some thought and is an evolved process. For me, it strains credulity to believe it occured only after he had his degree in hand.
I served and also through family am familiar with how the military works. I know anyone who wants out for what the military views as a questionable reason faces a difficult time. A four year degree for a good deal of aggravation and difficulty - whether it is worth it depends on the person I suppose.
Edit: I found a link to the subject, it appears he served for a time and upon learning he could go from a non-combat to combat role raised the CO question.
'But after being assigned to submarine training in South Carolina, he was given a routine psychological exam. Among the several hundred questions, he was asked if he could launch a nuclear missile.
"It was the first time anybody had really put it so bluntly," he said. "At that point I thought to myself, I couldn't."
That answer flagged him for further interviews with a Navy psychologist, who recommended that he talk to a Navy chaplain. After numerous meetings, Izbicki said the chaplain suggested that he might be a conscientious objector -- a term he only vaguely knew -- and gave him an application to study.'
Read the NY Times article and you'll see that it states the Navy offered him a slot in a non-combat medical role, but he still declined to serve and sought a complete discharge.
Comments
He still should have gotten a general discharge and be billed for the cost of his education. Period.Contrary to popular belief, Honorable and General discharges carry the same benefits.
Seriously.
This story ran in this morning's edition of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. I'm sure they got it from some news service. AR Dem Gaz has an online edition if anyone cares to search for it but I do not doubt the story.
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.
From what I read, it appears he answered a question on a Psych exam and that raised some red flags. It doesn't appear that he sought a discharge before the Navy Chaplain suggested it.
It's one thing to be an arm chair General (like many that post here) and quite another of actually being in a position that may require you to launch Nukes. I don't envy that young man for having to confront that very issue. He wasn't a Marine Officer nor Naval Aviation (which is another mindset) and might not have considered what his duty might be (as a weapons officer).
For the past 30 years or so, if you don't want to be in the military, the military doesn't want you either.
quote:Originally posted by PBJloaf
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
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.
I do not doubt that.
What I said was saying is that since you are adverse to the Chrisitian faith, it is difficult to imagine that you have either the experience in doctrine or calling to make judgments about the doctrinal outworkings and the call of God, to that man, as you did :
quote: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.
I have already said that if the contract specifies repayment, so be it.
You certainly do not seem to be in favor of doing the same, despite your later claim to be concerned about a contract, from your words quoted above.
So which is it ?
hey, here is it.
I was talking about the faith the men who served in combat with 1lbr6.
NOT this person who graduates from the USNA and THEN decides he's a CO
This is why I do not want to exchange posts with you.
Have a nice day.
It's one thing to be an arm chair General (like many that post here) and quite another of actually being in a position that may require you to launch Nukes. I don't envy that young man for having to confront that very issue. He wasn't a Marine Officer nor Naval Aviation (which is another mindset) and might not have considered what his duty might be (as a weapons officer).That's all moot.
If for any reason a member isn't deemed suitable for nuke duty they're simply assigned elsewhere. That sort of stuff happens.
This guy was told he could instead serve out his enlistment in other capacities, but he chose to fight for a discharge.
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
It's one thing to be an arm chair General (like many that post here) and quite another of actually being in a position that may require you to launch Nukes. I don't envy that young man for having to confront that very issue. He wasn't a Marine Officer nor Naval Aviation (which is another mindset) and might not have considered what his duty might be (as a weapons officer).That's all moot.
If for any reason a member isn't deemed suitable for nuke duty they're simply assigned elsewhere. That sort of stuff happens.
This guy was told he could instead serve out his enlistment in other capacities, but he chose to fight for a discharge.
He answered a question on a Psych exam which raised red flags. A Navy Chaplain suggested CO status. The Navy concluded he isn't fit for service, thus the discharge.
The "rest" is moot.
Don't pop a gasket Doc. The kid will reap what he sews.
Amen...
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a Quaker organization that includes people of various faiths who are committed to social justice, peace and humanitarian service. Our work is based on the principles of the Religious Society of Friends, the belief in the worth of every person, and faith in the power of love to overcome violence and injustice.
Read our complete Mission and Values statement
Board of Directors | Staff Leadership
History:
AFSC was founded in 1917 during World War I. In accordance with their Quaker faith, the new organization gave young conscientious objectors ways to serve without enlisting in the military or taking lives. They drove ambulances, ministered to the wounded, and stayed on in Europe after the armistice to rebuild war-ravaged communities.
I know just enough about the Quakers to use their actual name- Society of Friends- but ran across this on the web-
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a Quaker organization that includes people of various faiths who are committed to social justice, peace and humanitarian service. Our work is based on the principles of the Religious Society of Friends, the belief in the worth of every person, and faith in the power of love to overcome violence and injustice.
Read our complete Mission and Values statement
Board of Directors | Staff Leadership
History:
AFSC was founded in 1917 during World War I. In accordance with their Quaker faith, the new organization gave young conscientious objectors ways to serve without enlisting in the military or taking lives. They drove ambulances, ministered to the wounded, and stayed on in Europe after the armistice to rebuild war-ravaged communities.
I may be mistaken ,but wasn't Alvin York a member ?
I have alot of respect for the men and women that graduate from the acadamy. Sure there were some that I hoped I would never cross paths with in the fleet, there were also some that I would have had no problem with serving under them.
To pull this stunt dishonors all past and future grads.
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
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.
It doesn't matter if he intended to perpetrate a scam. He made an agreement with the United States that in exchange for an education at USNA and one half O-1 pay while being educated and trained , he would serve five years active duty in the United States Navy.
He received the education, training and pay and now reneges on his obligation. The Navy is better off without him, but there is still the matter of value received.
According to iceracerx's post, "Izbicki must reimburse the Navy for his education at the academy." I hope that includes his stipend, housing, clothing allowance and meals, etc., but that puts an end to my part of the discussion.
recouping the expenses for his education is not a punishment. It is simply recovering an expenditure where the recipient is in default.
PS. The argument concerning recruiters doesn't apply. Recruiters seldom mislead naive youth about what is ahead of them, but it wouldn't apply anyway. Izbicki was accepted to the Unites States Naval Academy. Competition for appointment to the USNA is fierce. There is no need to mislead anybody.
Our government's breaking faith, or criminal activity for that matter, does not justify my or anyone else's failure to honor their word.
PPS. You are correct that some people become Quakers later in life.
I have a cousin who became a Quaker after she married a lifelong Quaker. I never knew he was a Quaker until I went to his funeral.
I don't think I ever met a more honest man. He went through college on a football scholarship and was an avid bird hunter.
When I heard those words in boot camp I realized that I just might have made a very serious mistake. But, there was no way I was gonna take an easy out, I signed up for 4 years and I served 4 years, none of it in a combat zone.
That's all moot.
If for any reason a member isn't deemed suitable for nuke duty they're simply assigned elsewhere. That sort of stuff happens.
This guy was told he could instead serve out his enlistment in other capacities, but he chose to fight for a discharge.
The article didn't even say he was a special weapons officer. It just said he answered a question that he couldn't launch a nuclear missile. His chances of ever being in that position were remote.
It's a lot easier for people working in any capacity with special weapons to get disqualified than it is to get qualified. Disqualification doesn't come with a discharge, but it can slow down a career.
quote:Originally posted by Doc
Barzilla- 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 seem to be suggesting that a young man's heart cannot be changed.
Or that the young man entered the service with this end in mind.
I'll bet the DOD examined that possibility quite thoroughly.
The process can take anywhere from six months to a year for such an appeal to be decided.
CO status is simply not that easily recognized, it is not "apply and get out", and it is by no means a dishonorable act.
I don't think one becomes a CO overnight. Being a CO may not be dishonorable, but deliberately waiting until after one has diploma in hand to make the announcement is. That he repays funds laid out by the military for his education is sufficient for me.
In consideration of the fact that no one knows the details of the situation, and no one knows the man's heart except God, what gives anyone the right to judge the heart of the man, and to require more of him than the military already does ?
To imagine and claim that the man who exercises his conscience is a crook, a criminal, a perjurer, and a coward, and to seek unconstitutional retaliation against him, is an ugly predictor of the future.
I think this was pretty much resolved when he agreed to pay for his education. I don't think anybody is judging his heart, just his actions. I won't try to make a judgment whether he's a crook, a criminal, a perjurer or a coward, but I'll admit as a Christian I get a little angry when anyone says they can't meet their obligations because they are a Christian.
His replacing what he took is neither retaliation nor unconstitutional. I'll never call for persecution of Christians because it would be wrong and because I'm a Christian, but at the same time I'm not willing to give us a free ride because we can't meet our obligations because we're Christians.
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Doc
Barzilla- 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 seem to be suggesting that a young man's heart cannot be changed.
Or that the young man entered the service with this end in mind.
I'll bet the DOD examined that possibility quite thoroughly.
The process can take anywhere from six months to a year for such an appeal to be decided.
CO status is simply not that easily recognized, it is not "apply and get out", and it is by no means a dishonorable act.
I don't think one becomes a CO overnight. Being a CO may not be dishonorable, but deliberately waiting until after one has diploma in hand to make the announcement is. That he repays funds laid out by the military for his education is sufficient for me.
You present a scenario that is internally inconsistent.
The claim to CO is either a true one, or not. If it is true that the young man was honest in his claim, that would include refusal to participate in military training and any other military organization, as well.
It does not seem likely that a legitimate CO would wait, with full knowledge that he still participates in the military and is doing so in sin, and would do so out of his own self interest.
There is no evidence of that occurring, and no evidence that anyone here knows the young man, and no evidence to suggest that the DOD failed to examine the case thoroughly.
No one makes the claim and then simply goes home. Far more people apply for the status, than are actually granted the status.
In consideration of the fact that no one knows the details of the situation, and no one knows the man's heart except God, what gives anyone the right to judge the heart of the man, and to require more of him than the military already does ?
To imagine and claim that the man who exercises his conscience is a crook, a criminal, a perjurer, and a coward, and to seek unconstitutional retaliation against him, is an ugly predictor of the future.
I am unaware that being a CO imbues a person with all sorts of other admirable traits and removes the bad - you propose that a CO is not capable of deceiving, of dissembling or perhaps remaining quiet until a time to his advantage becomes apparent? Or that becoming a CO washes over him entirely one day and the thought of military service is repulsive?
A CO may be an otherwise terrible human being and being a terrible human being would not preclude one from being a CO - I do not see the linkage. Likewise his CO mindset may have come upon him gradually.
None of us is intimately involved with the case, I do not think it is at all out of line, supposing as we are, that this fellow's CO position evolved and had its start prior to graduation. If that's the case I think a fellow has an obligation to raise the issue.
Folks do all sorts of things that seem inconsistent with their values I suppose. It occurs to me though that aquiring this position takes some thought and is an evolved process. For me, it strains credulity to believe it occured only after he had his degree in hand.
I served and also through family am familiar with how the military works. I know anyone who wants out for what the military views as a questionable reason faces a difficult time. A four year degree for a good deal of aggravation and difficulty - whether it is worth it depends on the person I suppose.
Edit: I found a link to the subject, it appears he served for a time and upon learning he could go from a non-combat to combat role raised the CO question.
http://www.military.com/news/article/navy-discharges-conscientious-objector.html
I found a link to the subject, it appears he served for a time and upon learning he could go from a non-combat to combat role raised the CO question.
http://www.military.com/news/article/navy-discharges-conscientious-objector.htmlHe never served in the operational Navy at all. It was during his first training outside the Academy when he announced his religious opposition to military service.
From the article you linked:
'But after being assigned to submarine training in South Carolina, he was given a routine psychological exam. Among the several hundred questions, he was asked if he could launch a nuclear missile.
"It was the first time anybody had really put it so bluntly," he said. "At that point I thought to myself, I couldn't."
That answer flagged him for further interviews with a Navy psychologist, who recommended that he talk to a Navy chaplain. After numerous meetings, Izbicki said the chaplain suggested that he might be a conscientious objector -- a term he only vaguely knew -- and gave him an application to study.'
Read the NY Times article and you'll see that it states the Navy offered him a slot in a non-combat medical role, but he still declined to serve and sought a complete discharge.