Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Taking the other extreme I think all soldiers should always have the option of saying "F*** this. You guys fight your own damn wars." Eventually we might have all the kings, commissars, representatives, senators, presidents and rich investors fighting it out with stones and clubs on a football field some where. When the battle was over the spectators could then hang the winners.
You overlook an important point. The military is all volunteer. They signed up with the knowledge of what might be required of them. This fact is what makes deserting a criminal offense.
Knowing how political the military has gotten and how directed by politicians the upper members have become, I have my doubts that they entertained anything that counters their ordered decision.
Yep. I'm sure there was "not a smidgen of corruption" here either.
But you appear to be all for giving him a pass on his actions. Equates to praise.
Why do you say that? Over and over, in this thread and others, I have said that I think that getting him back and then subjecting him to the military justice process is what should happen, and, as far as I can tell, *is* what is happening. My only concern is that he is being treated fairly. As long as that happens, I am fine with the results, whatever they may be.
I have no reason to care what that result is, anymore than I care what any arrestee in the newspaper gets, as long as he gets a fair trial. I am mystified why you and others keep insisting that I *must* take a side while the trial is proceeding.
You overlook an important point. The military is all volunteer. They signed up with the knowledge of what might be required of them. This fact is what makes deserting a criminal offense.
That's a *very odd* statement. The British army and navy regularly impressed guys they literally kidnapped from taverns. These unwilling men were subjected to an extremely draconian punishment system, which did indeed consider them criminals if they tried to desert from their forced servitude. Impressment is one of the acts that caused Americans to rebel in the first place.
The charge of desertion is an ancient one, and was not invented because the army/navy that is deserted is all volunteer.
Why do you say that? Over and over, in this thread and others, I have said that I think that getting him back and then subjecting him to the military justice process is what should happen, and, as far as I can tell, *is* what is happening. My only concern is that he is being treated fairly. As long as that happens, I am fine with the results, whatever they may be.
I have no reason to care what that result is, anymore than I care what any arrestee in the newspaper gets, as long as he gets a fair trial. I am mystified why you and others keep insisting that I *must* take a side while the trial is proceeding.
I apologize for the assertion. You must however see that some of your comments bear a striking similarity to defending his actions without comment on whether or not he is found guilty.
That's a *very odd* statement. The British army and navy regularly impressed guys they literally kidnapped from taverns. These unwilling men were subjected to an extremely draconian punishment system, which did indeed consider them criminals if they tried to desert from their forced servitude. Impressment is one of the acts that caused Americans to rebel in the first place.
The charge of desertion is an ancient one, and was not invented because the army/navy that is deserted is all volunteer.
Do you realize that "impressing" one into service is totally different than having one volunteer for a specific time period?
Very odd that you equate a process that has not occurred in more that 100 years. Can you see a difference?
Do you realize that "impressing" one into service is totally different than having one volunteer for a specific time period?
Very odd that you equate a process that has not occurred in more that 100 years. Can you see a difference?
You said that desertion is a criminal offense because today's military is all-volunteer.
I pointed out that desertion has always been a criminal offense, even when a military force was *not* all-volunteer. So whether a military person is legally liable to be charged for desertion does not depend on whether that person is a volunteer or not or whether the military force that is deserted is all-volunteer or not.
I apologize for the assertion. You must however see that some of your comments bear a striking similarity to defending his actions without comment on whether or not he is found guilty.
No, I don't see that at all.
I cannot see how defending due process is the same thing as defending any particular person's actions.
I apologize for the assertion. You must however see that some of your comments bear a striking similarity to defending his actions without comment on whether or not he is found guilty.
And by the same token, you must see how many of your comments in this thread bear a striking similarity to guilty unless proven innocent. I think all jacqueg is doing is defending the system of due process, which you don't like because you have already decided, outside of the process, that he is guilty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
