The soldiers who can no longer fight

Status
Not open for further replies.

Liebling:-)))

Sussi *7.7.86 - 18.6.09*
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2004
Messages
30,997
Reaction score
10
The soldiers who can no longer fight

Hundreds of US armed forces personnel have applied for conscientious objector status since the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001 - and military rights' campaigners say the number is growing.

A report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) showed that 425 servicemen and women made applications for CO (conscientious objector) status between 2002 and 2006.

Of these, 224 were approved but Bill Galvin of Washington's Center on Conscience and War says the real number of applications is far higher because many are not recorded.

"Nobody knows exactly how many applications there have been because people apply at the local level and statistics are only kept on the cases that actually make it to the national level. The real number is a lot higher.

"We also know that many people are conscientious objectors and find some other way to get out. They never apply for CO status because it's not the easiest way.

"Some of them go AWOL, some can prove medical reasons or some may challenge their enlistment agreements. So when people come to us we help them explore all their options."

Stress

The centre is part of the national GI Rights Hotline which offers practical help and counselling to military personnel seeking to leave the armed forces.

"I think there's also a link between the number of people dealing with issues of conscience and the rise in the number of cases of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)," says Mr Galvin.

"There's a lot of research to suggest that when people start asking such questions it contributes to high levels of PTSD."


Overnight I became a 'bad' soldier

Aidan Delgado

Aidan Delgado, 24, attained CO status and was given an honourable discharge from the army after returning from deployment in Iraq.

He joined as an army reservist on the morning of 11 September 2001, unaware that the terrorist attacks had just taken place.

"I straddled exactly the period when being in the reserves was a joke to being a deeply serious commitment and you were certain to be deployed," he says.

He is now a law student at Washington's Georgetown University but, at the time he enlisted, he was doing badly at school, felt confused about his life and thought the army would offer him some structure and discipline.

During his basic training he became a Buddhist and began to question his role in the military.

Hostile reaction

"In 2003 I began the formal process of saying I can no longer participate in this. My commander's reaction was that I was trying to escape from the deployment (in Iraq) and overnight I became a 'bad' soldier."

Some of his comrades also reacted badly and Mr Delgado says he was attacked by a member of his unit when it became known he was applying for CO status.

"To have the knowledge that members of your unit disliked you so much that they would assault you was really tough.

"I think they were hostile not because of what I was doing but because of the implicit judgement on them. It was as if I was saying 'I'm too moral to do what you do' or that I was looking down on them because they were a bad person."

The number (of objections) is small relative to the Armed Forces' total force of approximately 2.3 million service members

GAO report

It took 18 months for his application to go through, a process that involved a lot of paperwork, written essays about his beliefs and interviews with army staff culminating in a three-hour session with an investigating officer.

"He asked me if I would have fought Hitler. My first response was that I don't think you can project yourself into another historical person's shoes - it's paradoxical.

"But my other answer was that certainly I would have resisted Hitler. I might have done so in 1929 or diplomatically in 1932 and that part of my pacifism and part of being a conscientious objector is preventing the need for violence."

The report from the Government Accountability Office says the US Armed Forces recognise that service members religious, ethical or moral beliefs can change after joining the military and lead to a conscientious objection to war.

Exposure to combat or the death of a family member can trigger the change, it says.

But it also notes: "Despite the possible understatement in the number of applications for conscientious objector status, this number is small relative to the Armed Forces' total force of approximately 2.3 million service members."

BBC NEWS | Americas | The soldiers who can no longer fight
 
refer to Reba's post from other thread -

"Conscientious Objector" is a very specific legal term, with very specific qualifications. The content described in that letter would not qualify.

If Clinton was classified a CO, it would not be on the basis of the information contained in that letter. Also, classification as a CO does not automatically excuse one from military duty. A CO can serve in a non-armed combatant status, such as chaplain or medic.

Selective Service System: Fast Facts
 
This thread is nothing but an anti-American thread. It has been tiring to me, IMHO.
 
This thread is nothing but an anti-American thread. It has been tiring to me, IMHO.

I do not see anything that the article, I forward is anti-American. I find disrespectful of you to accuse Americans as an anti-American for vent their feeling out because the article I forward is about Americans.
 
I do not see anything that the article, I forward is anti-American. I find disrespectful of you to accuse Americans as an anti-American for vent their feeling out because the article I forward is about Americans.

I am speaking of YOU, not them.

Do not expect me to make another reply in this thread.

Enuff is said.
 
This thread is nothing but an anti-American thread. It has been tiring to me, IMHO.

Define "Anti-American" to me with actual quotes and explain why you think they are defined that way.
 
The original post of this thread is an expression, completely constitutional in "Freedom of Speech" point of view. It isn't Anti-American to me to express one's opinion.

It is Anti-American to attack the United States i.e. 911, pentagon, physically harm Americans or to violate the law imposed by the United States.

This article is an expression in debate, no way are they defined as "Anti-American".
 
Personally, I don't see anything Anti-American in this thread. :dunno2:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top