- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,257
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
A judge has ordered the Marines to release a recruit as a conscientious objector. I have a problem with this decision, and I will explain it in 3 parts.
1) The kid knew what he was getting into when he joined. The Marines train "killing machines" for battle. When at war, you are supposed to kill. That is the nature of war.
2) Conscientious objector status was created under the old draft system, because our government realized that some people had legitimate religious or moral differences of opinion with the government about serving in the military. That is understandable, and the government took that into account. This DID NOT APPLY to those who enlisted, since the action of enlisting demonstrated that no special religious or moral difference of opinion existed in the first place.
3) By letting this kid change his mind, the court has set a precedent which allows anyone in the military to "change their minds" about their own enlistments, which were completely voluntary in the first place. No military, even the all-powerful US military, can work properly under this type of paradigm.
This is a no-brainer, but a court got it completely wrong. While, in this particular circumstance, the stockade might not be the best recommendation, the kid should at least have gotten a dishonorable discharge if he refused orders. That would have been the appropriate way for him to leave the military - By accepting the consequences of his own actions.
We live by the choices we make in life, that is, unless we can get a lawyer to go to bat for us by telling the world that our fault really isn't our fault.
Article is here.
1) The kid knew what he was getting into when he joined. The Marines train "killing machines" for battle. When at war, you are supposed to kill. That is the nature of war.
2) Conscientious objector status was created under the old draft system, because our government realized that some people had legitimate religious or moral differences of opinion with the government about serving in the military. That is understandable, and the government took that into account. This DID NOT APPLY to those who enlisted, since the action of enlisting demonstrated that no special religious or moral difference of opinion existed in the first place.
3) By letting this kid change his mind, the court has set a precedent which allows anyone in the military to "change their minds" about their own enlistments, which were completely voluntary in the first place. No military, even the all-powerful US military, can work properly under this type of paradigm.
This is a no-brainer, but a court got it completely wrong. While, in this particular circumstance, the stockade might not be the best recommendation, the kid should at least have gotten a dishonorable discharge if he refused orders. That would have been the appropriate way for him to leave the military - By accepting the consequences of his own actions.
We live by the choices we make in life, that is, unless we can get a lawyer to go to bat for us by telling the world that our fault really isn't our fault.
Article is here.