If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Birther Colonel sentenced to 6 months for refusing to deploy. If only there were someone in high office to whom he could appeal for a pardon   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 276
    More: Spiffy, court martial, Maj Gen, military prison, LTC Terrence Lakin  
•       •       •

9413 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Dec 2010 at 7:38 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



276 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-12-16 11:38:43 PM
I Like Weapons: Um...If he's a colonel, he can't be dishonorably discharged. Dismissed, sure, but no duck dinner.

Why is this and what is the functional difference between the two?

Seems like if you do something bad enough to get kicked out, you should have the same punishment regardless of rank. Hell, at a higher rank you should know better anyway.
 
2010-12-16 11:40:06 PM
kleppe: Officers aren't discharged, dishonorably or otherwise. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

For an officer, dismissal is pretty much the same thing.
 
2010-12-16 11:47:18 PM
gilgigamesh: Sgt Otter: hnaval: OK, missed movement. 6 months is bs.

We had an enlisted E-5 refuse to get back on the plane to Iraq after his mid-tour R&R was up. He got six months at a medium-security facility, then booted out with a Bad Conduct Discharge.

The farked up thing was, because we were on an extended 15-month tour, homeboy was out and clear before we even got back.

That's pretty farked up, except you guys will have a nice fat pension when you all retire and probably a sweet consulting gig to boot, while he'll be pretty much stuck spending the rest of his days mopping up kiddie vomit in the bathroom at your local Chuckie Cheese.


That's FUNNY. I served (SW Asia service medal with star, armed forces expeditionary medal for desert shield), EAOS'd after 4, and may have to spend the rest of my days cleaning up kiddie vomit at CEC unless something happens fast :(
 
2010-12-16 11:47:51 PM
shivashakti: uncletogie: No, he's not "doing what he thinks is right."

He took an oath to follow orders. It's just like perjury on a witness stand... you can't legally lie just because you suddenly think it's a good time to ignore the oath you took. Imagine the judge's response were you to tell him/her, "Well, I felt it was the right thing to do!"

Sometimes doing the right thing isn't the same as following oaths or following the law. Sometimes you have to break the law to do the right thing.

The judge can hand down whatever sentence he/she thinks is just, but that doesn't mean the judge is right or the judge is doing the right thing.

Again, I think this person is an idiot. Obama's proven that he was born in Hawaii. He's a US citizen. But let's say hypothetically Obama WAS foreign-born. Let's say he was as these birther nutjobs suspect, a terrorist plant.

Then, yeah, ethically, I can see why he's doing what he's doing. I still disagree. But I can understand why he's doing it and why it even merits breaking the oaths he's taken.

But I still personally think he's wrong.


even if he was foreign born, his mother was an american, granting him citizenship by birth and still eligible for the presidency.
 
2010-12-16 11:48:39 PM
JerseyTim: I can't stress enough how much I would love it if Obama pardoned this guy.

I had to think about why you would love it, then it hit me. HAHAHAHA
 
2010-12-16 11:49:28 PM
Hubris is the word that comes to mind.

Being that this has likely been sensationalized in one form or another, I am reserving judgement. However, missing a 2nd attempt to get you to your Command, under these circumstances, can only be described as hubris. It doesn't matter what his personal beliefs are.
 
2010-12-16 11:54:18 PM
annitabonghit

Sensitiveborderarea: It would be easier for me to be angry at this fellow if the military was still actually being used primarily to defend our country. We are all over the world participating in conflicts that should be none of our business while millions of invaders flow across our own borders unchecked. "La Raza" has taken over much of the American southwest politically, and our leader appoints a member of that group to be a judge in the Supreme Court. "La Raza" want to take over and run our country, but the one they already run just to the south of us is full of corruption and crime. Islamic extremists openly declare their desire to take over our country and we allow them to do it through immigration and their superior birthrates. We even bombed the predominately Christian country of Serbia to help out their Muslim foes while Islamists were openly plotting against us. I have great respect for our military men and women, but I feel that they are being horribly misused and disrespected by their leadership.



This is for you homie (new window)



This is for you, Buckwheat.
Link
 
2010-12-16 11:55:39 PM
shivashakti: But I can understand why he's doing it and why it even merits breaking the oaths he's taken.

...and the contracts he's signed?

Ok, let me rephrase my question another way:

Is it moral to attempt to waste a government agency's time and resources to pursue your own personal agenda, one that you're well aware is at odds with that of your boss, his boss, and in fact the entire organization?

In the civilian world, that's hookers, blow, and a prison sentence, AKA embezzlement.
 
2010-12-17 12:02:49 AM
give me doughnuts
Wrong. Read the oaths:

How does that disagree with my point? "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same" seems to explicitly support what I said.
 
2010-12-17 12:07:12 AM
In the meantime, this guy is a total douche.

/Just re-centering this ridiculous (on some parts) discussion.
 
2010-12-17 12:15:22 AM
The birthers have been pretty quiet lately. I hope this guy becomes their martyr and they start holding rallies and bombard Palin, Bachman and other top republicans with demands for action. It could be quite hilarious. And the Colonel is a clown. He was all big doodah talk until there were consequences to his actions.
 
2010-12-17 12:17:41 AM
Execution.

/Former Army
//Current disabled vet
 
2010-12-17 12:19:46 AM
Although I don't care for the guy, it seems pretty obvious that Obama was American to begin with because someone would have checked all that before him being eligible for the office of Senator.

That being said, the officer was an idiot.
 
2010-12-17 12:32:22 AM
He's not a birther Colonel any more.

He's a birther Private.
 
2010-12-17 12:32:39 AM
Maybe now he'll know what it feels like to be spermed.

Happy six months, traitor!
 
2010-12-17 12:59:13 AM
I wonder why the dipshiat didn't just resign his commission? Last I heard, officers could do that whenever the hell they want, and the military can't do anything about it.
 
2010-12-17 01:01:52 AM
It's kinda sad. He threw a 17 year career down the drain over something so ridiculous.

Maybe this is what he wants, a martyr for the wackjobs.
-----------

And he was 100% correct.

Obama has yet to produce a valid Certificate of Live Birth - and never will.
 
2010-12-17 01:06:11 AM
fark80: It's kinda sad. He threw a 17 year career down the drain over something so ridiculous.

Maybe this is what he wants, a martyr for the wackjobs.
-----------

And he was 100% correct.

Obama has yet to produce a valid Certificate of Live Birth - and never will.


Would you bet your entire retirement nest egg on your perceived rightness, even though you have no proof?

This idiot did.

He could have done his tour, come home, and retired in 3 years, and instead, he'll do six months in lockup and spend his twilight years emptying bedpans at some podunk clinic in birther country.
 
2010-12-17 01:26:26 AM
As a retired soldier and combat veteran, I have to say that I'm pissed about this. Six months? WTF is that all about? They're not called invitations,they're called orders for a reason: You can't pick and choose which ones you obey.

This idiot isn't standing on principles, he's a coward PERIOD!

I loved him saying that he still wanted to serve. Bull crap! He wants to protect his pension. Well, we all saw how well that worked out, didn't we?
 
2010-12-17 01:29:48 AM
Enjoy your prison stay simply for being stupid. I bet you really would like to serve your tour of duty now that you realize how totally you farked it up for yourself and your family if you have any. Too bad. Hope you lose your pension and your medical license too (which was probaby paid for by the army you chose to desert from).
 
2010-12-17 01:34:18 AM
stoli n coke: fark80: It's kinda sad. He threw a 17 year career down the drain over something so ridiculous.

Maybe this is what he wants, a martyr for the wackjobs.
-----------

And he was 100% correct.

Obama has yet to produce a valid Certificate of Live Birth - and never will.

Would you bet your entire retirement nest egg on your perceived rightness, even though you have no proof?

This idiot did.

He could have done his tour, come home, and retired in 3 years, and instead, he'll do six months in lockup and spend his twilight years emptying bedpans at some podunk clinic in birther country.


Or become a military analist for FOX news or WND.
 
2010-12-17 01:35:09 AM
Or, he could become the personal physician of Orly. I mean, the job opportunities are endless.
 
2010-12-17 01:40:14 AM
Bigdogdaddy: Enjoy your prison stay simply for being stupid. I bet you really would like to serve your tour of duty now that you realize how totally you farked it up for yourself and your family if you have any. Too bad. Hope you lose your pension and your medical license too (which was probaby paid for by the army you chose to desert from).

His pension is already gone. That was part of his dismissal. As for the license, I don't think the courts can do anything, but he will have to put his conviction on every job application he fills out.

Now, since a lot of hospitals have problems hiring people with criminal records, any medical job he gets will probably be some clinic in the middle of nowhere, probably making less than he would have gotten through his pension for doing nothing.

Enjoy Ma Kettle's gyno exam, you farking douchebag. Don't forget your miner's helmet.
 
2010-12-17 01:47:20 AM
RoxtarRyan: Sad day when an E-5 out-classes an O-5.

In my experience, that happens a lot.

/married to an O-3E
//she's formerly enlisted
 
2010-12-17 01:47:26 AM
Trucker
As a retired soldier and combat veteran, I have to say that I'm pissed about this. Six months? WTF is that all about? They're not called invitations,they're called orders for a reason: You can't pick and choose which ones you obey.

This idiot isn't standing on principles, he's a coward PERIOD!


How is it cowardice to refuse an order you consider unconstitutional? Isn't that the definition of principle?
 
2010-12-17 01:51:41 AM
RanDomino: Trucker
As a retired soldier and combat veteran, I have to say that I'm pissed about this. Six months? WTF is that all about? They're not called invitations,they're called orders for a reason: You can't pick and choose which ones you obey.

This idiot isn't standing on principles, he's a coward PERIOD!

How is it cowardice to refuse an order you consider unconstitutional? Isn't that the definition of principle?


Armymen (and the other guys, marines/jarheads/sailors/swabbies/airmen/aviators, whatever) aren't allowed to question "Why".

/Theirs is but to do or die for the billionairres under the Flag.
 
2010-12-17 01:55:46 AM
RanDomino: Trucker
As a retired soldier and combat veteran, I have to say that I'm pissed about this. Six months? WTF is that all about? They're not called invitations,they're called orders for a reason: You can't pick and choose which ones you obey.

This idiot isn't standing on principles, he's a coward PERIOD!

How is it cowardice to refuse an order you consider unconstitutional? Isn't that the definition of principle?


Not according to the 12 military jurors who heard his case and convicted him. That was probably because he submitted no Constitutional challenge based on evidence. And no, conspiracy theories are not "kinds of evidence."

Fun fact: During the time that the Constitution was written, soldiers refusing orders or deserting could be, and in some cases were, shot on sight.

So STFU, retard.
 
2010-12-17 01:58:12 AM
RanDomino: firefly212
Ya, that's what we want... to pay for a military that can simply walk away when they don't feel like defending the constitution any more.

The reason they're refusing is that they don't think their orders are consistent with the Constitution; in other words, from their perspective they would be violating their oath by not refusing.


Harmania
You're obviously not going to understand this using words, so I'll prove to you that warfare under those rules would work very poorly. You can do this experiment at home.

Poppycock. If mass desertions accompany a war, it probably isn't a just one; and, again, do you want people fighting if they'd rather not be there? If they're going to be unreliable, it's better to get them out as early as possible.


Guess_Who
He should have done this 2 years ago If he wanted the Hero tag.

yeah, just because something might be his right doesn't mean he's not a douche.


Poppycock yourself. I'm a raging pinko liberal and borderline pacifist, and even I know that you can't have every soldier on the line deciding on his own what his order ought to be. You have plenty of time to decide before you enlist or accept a commission. The point is that you consciously commit to surrendering part of your will (not your thought- your will) to others for a period of time. If you change your mind - tough shiat. It doesn't really work otherwise, and you know that, or you would have responded to my RISK object lesson.
 
2010-12-17 02:00:53 AM
MadAzza: shivashakti: I find it hard to criticize the guy even though I think he's a wacko.

Because if someone had done the same thing under Bush because they thought the war was unjust or whatever, I would have fully supported him.

Someone did do it under Bush. Look up Ehren Watada.



OMG He was born in Kenya Hawaii, its a leftistforeignercommo conspiracy!
 
2010-12-17 02:34:07 AM
SoxSweepAgain
Armymen (and the other guys, marines/jarheads/sailors/swabbies/airmen/aviators, whatever) aren't allowed to question "Why".

Every soldier is obligated to disobey illegal orders, so you're wrong on principle there. The degree to which a soldier should be allowed to refuse orders is what's in question.


stoli n coke
Not according to the 12 military jurors who heard his case and convicted him. That was probably because he submitted no Constitutional challenge based on evidence. And no, conspiracy theories are not "kinds of evidence."

That's irrelevant to my argument unless that court also showed that he came up with a lame excuse because he was trying to carry out fraud of some kind, which is a totally different crime. I don't think a court should have the ability to punish a person for refusing to fight for any reason.


Harmania
even I know that you can't have every soldier on the line deciding on his own what his order ought to be.

Yes, right, because that's exactly what I'm advocating! I don't know about battlefield desertions, but that's a different case than refusal to deploy in the first place, especially in these kinds of conflicts.

The point is that you consciously commit to surrendering part of your will (not your thought- your will) to others for a period of time.

...in which case they're not citizen-soldiers, but indentured servant-soldiers.
 
2010-12-17 02:39:50 AM
President Obama should pardon him under the condition that he come to the White House to have a beer with him so we can all see if this asshat has the guts to say it to President Obama's face. :)

And when the guy admits that he was wrong to President Obama, he should say, "Now, deploy to Afghanistan."
 
2010-12-17 02:43:50 AM
RanDomino: ...in which case they're not citizen-soldiers, but indentured servant-soldiers.

I'm just going to go ahead and let you know that you obviously do not have a basic understanding of how the military is structured and what it means to "enlist". When you "enlist", you literally sign your life away to the military. You surrender your rights at the door. From then on, you follow orders.
 
2010-12-17 02:48:59 AM
Pocket Ninja: OK, just so I understand...a soldier can end up spending 18 months or more on a single tour, right? And he gets 6 months? It seems to me like the sentence for refusing direct orders to deploy--especially for people at a command level--should exceed what they'd have to spend on their tour in the first place. Otherwise what's to stop me from weighing 6 months in prison against 18 months in a warzone and deciding, yeah, what the hell, prison ain't so bad?

Well, after you get out of prison you get a dishonorable discharge and lose any benefits you might have earned from being a vet, so there IS that...
 
2010-12-17 02:50:32 AM
RanDomino: stoli n coke
Not according to the 12 military jurors who heard his case and convicted him. That was probably because he submitted no Constitutional challenge based on evidence. And no, conspiracy theories are not "kinds of evidence."

That's irrelevant to my argument unless that court also showed that he came up with a lame excuse because he was trying to carry out fraud of some kind, which is a totally different crime. I don't think a court should have the ability to punish a person for refusing to fight for any reason.


Actually, your argument is irrelavent. The charge he was convicted on was failing to show up for his deployment. The charge was just for the fact that he was not physically on the plane when he was ordered to be. His defense was the Constitutional challenge that he had no actual evidence for, and the jury didn't buy it.

There was no burden on the prosecution to prove the Constitutionality of Obama's Presidency, as that was not relevant to the act the colonel was accused of.

Add that with the fact that he pleaded guilty to the charge of disobeying orders, and he didn't have a leg to stand on.
 
2010-12-17 02:56:23 AM
RanDomino:

That's irrelevant to my argument unless that court also showed that he came up with a lame excuse because he was trying to carry out fraud of some kind, which is a totally different crime. I don't think a court should have the ability to punish a person for refusing to fight for any reason


Because that's TOTALLY not the case here, the excuse wasn't nearly lame and he wasn't trying to commit a fraud on the Army or anything by taking all the training and bailing out when it was time to pay the piper. Please, for the love of ghod, quit eating the farking paint chips already, it interferes with the action of the kool-aid.
 
2010-12-17 02:57:29 AM
RanDomino: SoxSweepAgain
Armymen (and the other guys, marines/jarheads/sailors/swabbies/airmen/aviators, whatever) aren't allowed to question "Why".

Every soldier is obligated to disobey illegal orders, so you're wrong on principle there. The degree to which a soldier should be allowed to refuse orders is what's in question.


stoli n coke
Not according to the 12 military jurors who heard his case and convicted him. That was probably because he submitted no Constitutional challenge based on evidence. And no, conspiracy theories are not "kinds of evidence."

That's irrelevant to my argument unless that court also showed that he came up with a lame excuse because he was trying to carry out fraud of some kind, which is a totally different crime. I don't think a court should have the ability to punish a person for refusing to fight for any reason.


Harmania
even I know that you can't have every soldier on the line deciding on his own what his order ought to be.

Yes, right, because that's exactly what I'm advocating! I don't know about battlefield desertions, but that's a different case than refusal to deploy in the first place, especially in these kinds of conflicts.

The point is that you consciously commit to surrendering part of your will (not your thought- your will) to others for a period of time.

...in which case they're not citizen-soldiers, but indentured servant-soldiers.


So where do you draw the line, you farking idiot? A show of hands before every campaign? Every battle? Every charge? The line of commitment needs to be drawn somewhere, and it is made abundantly clear to all who enlist or are commissioned that they are choosing to step over that line. You swear an oath to follow the orders you are given. Don't like it? Don't swear the oath.

I know I couldn't do it, so I didn't swear the oath. It's that simple.
 
2010-12-17 03:05:26 AM
If Obama pardoned the guy, he'd stay in jail voluntarily because he doesn't recognize Obama's authority as President. Right?
 
2010-12-17 03:16:08 AM
Bigdogdaddy:

Or become a military analist for FOX news or WND.


He'd fit right in at FOX News, since they've had:

A guy kicked out of the Marine Corps Reserve for doing gay porn.
A guy banned from his last unit for divulging classified training information.
Oliver North.
A fake Green Beret whose confirmed kill total consists of one American civilian.
A guy thrown out of the embedded reporter pool for drawing maps on live TV of classified U.S. troop movements.
 
2010-12-17 03:18:54 AM
There's a FB friend of mine who I debate with occasionally. He's in his late 50s (I'm 40), and has managed to merge "I hate the wars we're in because they're unjust and scams" with "Obama's a dirty filthy liar."
I often have to strain to explain to him that Obama inherited these, and you can't just call it quits and evac, since the evac costs as much as the deployment, etc. etc.

Anyway, this guy sounds like he not only flipped off the President, the Pentagon and the Chiefs of Staff...he also took a dump on every grunt in the war zones, and their honor and dedication to at least fulfill their obligation.
I don't understand the light sentence. He should be doing hard time in Leavenworth, with no pension or benefits, and his rank stripped.

/Why the fark aren't people who started and perpetuated the birth certificate myth being brought up on charges of sedition?
 
2010-12-17 03:35:18 AM
I was considering how fscking DUMB his entire stance was.
His stance can be boiled down to:
"I believe my top boss is not qualified to hold his job by dint of believing he is not legally an American by birth, and demand he prove himself to me. Otherwise I refuse to work for him."

Right. Try calling out your boss's boss's boss's boss at work and see how well that goes over for you.

Then the birfers chime in.
"Yeah Obama, you need to prove yourself!"

Obama:
"Hey guys. I called the current department of health registrar in Hawaii, they aren't in the habit of giving out original birth certificates these days, they give these COLBs instead. Not that I see why I need to show this to YOU, because hey, the FBI gave me Top Secret-SCI-Presidential clearance way back when I was nominated, and just try getting that if you lied about your background, and besides even if you DO get me impeached the Presidency would just go to Biden and you don't want that do you. But anyway...here you go."

Birfers:
"Not good enough! It's a conspiracy! We demand the doctor, the hospital, and a shrubbery!"
Colonel:
"I still belive you're an usurper and refuse to go to war for you."

FBI:
"Our background check says no he was not born in Kenya, you lackwits. Nor does he need TWO American born-parents to be an American citizen and thus eligible. Your argument has no merit."
Hawaii Dept. of Health chief:
"We have his original on file, but no, you can't have it. It's policy we've had for years."

Birfers:
"Not good enough! You're ALL in on the conspiracy!"
Colonel:
"Still not going."

This would be the point where Obama should have put on his best Morgan Freeman impression.
"Now let me get this straight. You believe that I, one of the most powerful, most influential men in the world, is secretly a foreigner that has managed to get the FBI, state and local authorities, the entire Democratic Party, and a majority of the American electorate to cooperate in a conspiracy to allow me to gain access to the most powerful political office in the country...and your plan... is to tell me you refuse to do your job, and thus be asking to get fired? Good luck.

Colonel:
"Um...er...you can...ah...I'll just go to work now."

Seriously, sir. If there was a nationwide conspiracy to protect Obama, did you really think that the conspiracy would have any problem squishing anybody who rose up against it, especially if that somebody is covered under the UCMJ instead of civilian due process?
 
2010-12-17 03:35:27 AM
After seeing the pic, all I have to say is "Alec Baldwin got old fast!"
 
2010-12-17 03:49:36 AM
SilentStrider: Watada

Watada was a young Louie who wasn't claiming the President was unfit due to a legal technicality: his claim was that the war itself was illegal, and that going would put him in moral hazard of being forced to commit war crimes.

'Nam in the desert, in otherwords.

He also tried to outright quit first.
 
2010-12-17 04:00:17 AM
JohnnyC
I'm just going to go ahead and let you know that you obviously do not have a basic understanding of how the military is structured and what it means to "enlist". When you "enlist", you literally sign your life away to the military.

For the last farking time, I GET IT! I understand that's the current situation! I'm saying that's not how it should be!


stoli n coke
There was no burden on the prosecution to prove the Constitutionality of Obama's Presidency, as that was not relevant to the act the colonel was accused of.

Either he honestly believes Obama is not the real President (in which case he's crazy), or he's just trying to get out of it. In neither case is this someone I'd want to be relying on in any capacity in a war zone.


Harmania
So where do you draw the line, you farking idiot? A show of hands before every campaign? Every battle? Every charge? The line of commitment needs to be drawn somewhere

Since it seems like the vast majority, if not all, of the refusals have been refusals to deploy, that seems like a good point. If someone tries to refuse after that, I don't know, and I don't really care since it doesn't seem like it happens (I'm only talking about people refusing to fight because of some principle, not for any other reason). Unless it's in the middle of a firefight, they should probably be sent home at the earliest convenience- would you want to be relying on someone whose heart wasn't in it?

Keep in mind, I'm operating under an assumption that people would be perfectly willing to fight in genuine defense of their homes. That's what it means to be a citizen-soldier. Slave armies are only suited to imperial expansion and defense of tyrannies. Surely that's not the US... right?

and it is made abundantly clear to all who enlist or are commissioned that they are choosing to step over that line. You swear an oath to follow the orders you are given. Don't like it? Don't swear the oath.

So what if they swear an oath? It's not like it's a magic spell. A person shouldn't be able to sign away or swear away their freedom.
 
2010-12-17 04:00:22 AM
thomps - vossiewulf: Dishonorable discharges don't go over too well on job applications.

i dunno, there is very likely an active community of like-minded crazies that would hire him in a second. probably another handful that would pay a speaking fee to have him come talk to their local group.



propasaurus - He'll serve his 6 months, write a book that WND & Newsmax will buy in bulk, then go on the teabagger lecture circuit.



Indeed...

www.foxnews.com
 
2010-12-17 04:27:03 AM
To put it another way- most people think of volunteering as a positive action, i.e. "I choose to do this". That's what it should mean to be a free citizen-soldier; "I choose to fight". This is in contrast to compulsory militaries, where you have no right to not fight. However, signing up for the US "volunteer" military is a negative action, because people who do so sign away their ability to not fight. That's not the same thing as choosing to fight; therefore the US effectively does not have a volunteer military.
 
2010-12-17 04:42:11 AM
I wouldn't shoot innocent Muslims just because some Kenyan told me to, either.
 
2010-12-17 05:22:52 AM
RanDomino: To put it another way- most people think of volunteering as a positive action, i.e. "I choose to do this". That's what it should mean to be a free citizen-soldier; "I choose to fight". This is in contrast to compulsory militaries, where you have no right to not fight. However, signing up for the US "volunteer" military is a negative action, because people who do so sign away their ability to not fight. That's not the same thing as choosing to fight; therefore the US effectively does not have a volunteer military.

Why would the military waste their time and money housing, feeding, and giving weapons and tactics training to people that reserve their right to not fight? That's as dumb as giving a scholarship to a football player and telling him he doesn't have to play on game day if he doesn't feel like it. How to fight is the first thing recruits get taught. They know fighting is part of the deal.

As for this guy, he had enough time in where he could have exercised his right to not fight by simply resigning his commission quietly in November of 2008. He may have even been able to keep a percent of his pension. Instead, he wanted to get famous with the birther crowd and the Beckerheads and put on this sideshow.

Thanks to his martyr complex, he's gone from being able to retire before 50, a luxury not many people get, by the way, to having to start saving for retirement all over again with a criminal conviction on his record, eliminating a lot of job prospects.

Frankly, I'm overjoyed that he's getting the boot. There's probably a kid who's going to spend today cleaning shiathouses in Kabul that could teach this colonel a thing or two about integrity. You sign up for a job, you do the job. It's simple as that.

I can't believe someone this dumb ever had a license to practice medicine.
 
2010-12-17 05:47:19 AM
i471.photobucket.com

R.I.P. Barry Larkin
 
2010-12-17 06:40:37 AM
stoli n coke:

Why would the military waste their time and money housing, feeding, and giving weapons and tactics training to people that reserve their right to not fight? That's as dumb as giving a scholarship to a football player and telling him he doesn't have to play on game day if he doesn't feel like it. How to fight is the first thing recruits get taught. They know fighting is part of the deal.

As for this guy, he had enough time in where he could have exercised his right to not fight by simply resigning his commission quietly in November of 2008. He may have even been able to keep a percent of his pension. Instead, he wanted to get famous with the birther crowd and the Beckerheads and put on this sideshow.

Thanks to his martyr complex, he's gone from being able to retire before 50, a luxury not many people get, by the way, to having to start saving for retirement all over again with a criminal conviction on his record, eliminating a lot of job prospects.

Frankly, I'm overjoyed that he's getting the boot. There's probably a kid who's going to spend today cleaning shiathouses in Kabul that could teach this colonel a thing or two about integrity. You sign up for a job, you do the job. It's simple as that.

I can't believe someone this dumb ever had a license to practice medicine.


RINO! ;)
 
2010-12-17 06:45:15 AM
RanDomino: To put it another way- most people think of volunteering as a positive action, i.e. "I choose to do this". That's what it should mean to be a free citizen-soldier; "I choose to fight". This is in contrast to compulsory militaries, where you have no right to not fight. However, signing up for the US "volunteer" military is a negative action, because people who do so sign away their ability to not fight. That's not the same thing as choosing to fight; therefore the US effectively does not have a volunteer military.

Active military here.

Choosing to fight is not a subcontract of your enlistment. You choose to yield to a higher standard of laws when you sign that paper and take your oath. They *do not kid you around* on this one. It's very clear. You take that oath, you're agreeing to do whatever they ask you to do that is within the confines of the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. You are no longer blanket-protected by the Constitution; you are a defender of it. We lose a lot of our constitutional rights when we sign up. This is also not something we suddenly discover later. It's very clear that we *cannot* do whatever we want, and we *do not* have total freedom. We sacrifice a portion of our freedom to be who we are. My supervisor has the right to come over and reprimand me if my apartment looks like shiat. He doesn't do that... but he can. When you sign up, you don't get a la carte on which rules to follow. Keep your place clean, keep your clothes sharp (in uniform and out), be respectful, do your job, work whenever we tell you to (even if we call you at 2 a.m. and say 'be here in 15 minutes'), and farking go to war when we say.

None of this is vague in the initial process.

It's he same as any other employer. You sign up knowing everything you're supposed to do and what the job entails. When you sign that line, you're *agreeing* to do whatever anyone above you says, right up to the POTUS. If the POTUS says go, you go. You don't pick and choose which orders to follow.

Sounds like a suck deal, but it's really not. I wake up looking forward to every day; even after, and during, 4 deployments.

My take on the guy in this article? Typical high-brass. Thinks he can dictate his destiny the day he gets a secretary.

Still, if he were my boss, I'd do whatever he told me to do until the day they hauled him away because that's what I agreed to do in my contract.
 
Displayed 50 of 276 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report