THROW HIM IN JAIL!

[variablebinary]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080516144757.0ds7otes&show_article=1

US soldier refuses to serve in 'illegal Iraq war'

May 16 10:49 AM US/Eastern



'Illegal Occupation': US Soldier Refuses To Deploy To Iraq



Matthis Chiroux is the kind of young American US military recruiters love.

"I was from a poor, white family from the south, and I did badly in school," the now 24-year-old told AFP.

"I was 'filet mignon' for recruiters. They started phoning me when I was in 10th grade," or around 16 years old, he added.

Chiroux joined the US army straight out of high school nearly six years ago, and worked his way up from private to sergeant.

He served in Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, and the Philippines and was due to be deployed next month in Iraq.

On Thursday, he refused to go, saying he considers Iraq an illegal war.

"I stand before you today with the strength and clarity and resolve to declare to the military, my government and the world that this soldier will not be deploying to Iraq," Chiroux said in the sun-filled rotunda of a congressional building in Washington.

"My decision is based on my desire to no longer continue violating my core values to support an illegal and unconstitutional occupation... I refuse to participate in the Iraq occupation," he said, as a dozen veterans of the five-year-old Iraq war looked on.

Minutes earlier, Chiroux had cried openly as he listened to former comrades-in-arms testify before members of Congress about the failings of the Iraq war.

The testimonies were the first before Congress by Iraq veterans who have turned against the five-year-old war.

Former army sergeant Kristofer Goldsmith told a half-dozen US lawmakers and scores of people who packed into a small hearing room of "lawless murders, looting and the abuse of countless Iraqis."

He spoke of the psychologically fragile men and women who return from Iraq, to find little help or treatment offered from official circles.

Goldsmith said he had "self-medicated" for several months to treat the wounds of the war.

Another soldier told AFP he had to boost his dosage of medication to treat anxiety and social agoraphobia -- two of many lingering mental wounds he carries since his deployments in Iraq -- before testifying.

Some 300,000 of the 1.6 million US soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from the psychological traumas of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression or both, an independent study showed last month.

A group of veterans sitting in the hearing room gazed blankly as their comrades' testimonies shattered the official version that the US effort in Iraq is succeeding.

Almost to a man, the soldiers who testified denounced serious flaws in the chain of command in Iraq.

Luis Montalvan, a former army captain, accused high-ranking US officers of numerous failures in Iraq, including turning a blind eye to massive fraud on the part of US contractors.


Ex-Marine Jason Lemieux told how a senior officer had altered a report he had written because it slammed US troops of using excessive force, firing off thousands of rounds of machine gun fire and hundreds of grenades in the face of a feeble four rounds of enemy fire.

Goldsmith accused US officials of censorship.

"Everyone who manages a blog, Facebook or Myspace out of Iraq has to register every video, picture, document of any event they do on mission," Goldsmith told AFP after the hearing.

"You're almost always denied before you are allowed to send them home."

Officials take "hard facts and slice them into small pieces to make them presentable to the secretary of state or the president -- and all with the intent of furthering the occupation of Iraq," Goldsmith added.

Chiroux is one of thousands of US soldiers who have deserted since the Iraq war began in 2003, according to figures issued last year by the US army.

But while many seek refuge in Canada, the young soldier vowed to stay in the United States to fight "whatever charges the army levels at me."

The US army defines a deserter as someone who has been absent without leave for 30 days.

Chiroux stood fast in his resolve to not report for duty on June 15.

"I cannot deploy to Iraq, carry a weapon and not be part of the problem," he told AFP.

[Jay Cunningham]

I say let him out. I sort of am of the Starship Troopers mentality here - if he wants out let him out; who needs him?

[tuff]

Firing Squad........:D You can stand behind our troops or in front of them, its your choice..

[Gutshot John]

I say let him out. I sort of am of the Starship Troopers mentality here - if he wants out let him out; who needs him?

I totally agree. Court Martial his sorry ass and give him the Big Chicken Dinner.

If he wants to make a statement and actually believes what he's saying...than have the balls to stand tall before the man and explain yourself without taking the coward's way of just not showing up.

[RWK]

Court Martial his sorry ass and give him the Big Chicken Dinner.

You must be from the "kinder, gentler" Army. :p

I vote for Court Martial for desertion, conduct unbecoming, etc., etc.; several years of brig time at hard labor (stockade for the Army folks), followed by a dishonorable discharge. No BCD's or other "administrative" punishments.

I often wonder when it became more or less policy to let deserters walk. When is the last time anyone's heard of a deserter actualy being Court Martialed and serving appropriate brig time? All I ever recall hearing about are BCD's or OTH.

[Jay Cunningham]

I have a different opinion when it comes to "deserters" from an all-volunteer Army vs. deserters during a draft in a time of war.

[RogerinTPA]

I have a different opinion when it comes to "deserters" from an all-volunteer Army vs. deserters during a draft in a time of war.

Agreed. He did serve in A-stan, so he's not a coward. If he's got a problem with current policy in Iraq, charge him with missing a movement, desertion, failure to repair (failure to follow orders), give him a year hard labor w/BCD and kick him out. His objection of current policy is not authorized while on active duty. Keep a diary and write a book when you get out. Lessoned learned: When you volunteer, you better read the fine print. In case of war, your ass is going.

[Leonidas]

Should you be sent to jail for standing behind the oath that you took when you enlisted?

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

I happen to remember a part in the Constitution that states that only Congress can declare war, and nothing about delegating that responsibility to the Executive branch. Should we send all those soldiers to jail who violated there oath and willingly participated in a undeclared war?

[Gutshot John]

Should we send all those soldiers to jail who violated there oath and willingly participated in a undeclared war?

Bad analogy.

Congress voted to send troops into Iraq to wage war. Declaring war is irrelevant as the President has the constitutional authority to send troops into combat whenever and wherever he pleases.

That they swore an oath to obey their officers includes their commander in chief. You do have the option of refusing an unlawful order, but you still have to answer for it to see if your "peers" agree that the order was illegal.

[Business_Casual]

I happen to remember a part in the Constitution that states that only Congress can declare war, and nothing about delegating that responsibility to the Executive branch. Should we send all those soldiers to jail who violated there oath and willingly participated in a undeclared war?

FFS. What a stupid argument. What exactly does "declare war" have to mean? Do they have to write "we declare war" on a post card and send it to Iraq? Don't you think that authorizing funds for a bunch of people with weapons to invade a country qualifies as declaring war?

Do you have to wear a black mask and turtleneck sweater and carry a white bag with $$ on it to qualify as a burglar?

Read the constitution and quote the text where it spells out HOW congress declares war. It doesn't. Giving the executive branch billions in supplementals for the war qualifies it as a war.

M_P

[Heavy Metal]

Bad analogy.

Congress voted to send troops into Iraq to wage war. Declaring war is irrelevant as the President has the constitutional authority to send troops into combat whenever and wherever he pleases.

That they swore an oath to obey their officers includes their commander in chief. You do have the option of refusing an unlawful order, but you still have to answer for it to see if your "peers" agree that the order was illegal.


The .mil is not a buffet. You do not get to chose what wars you will and won't go to.

If they want to ship you Smurfland to bomb the crap outta commie Smurfs, then you are going to go and make blue paste for uncle.

[Gutshot John]

The .mil is not a buffet. You do not get to chose what wars you will and won't go to.

If they want to ship you Smurfland to bomb the crap outta commie Smurfs, then you are going to go and make blue paste for uncle.

Sorry "option" was a bad choice of words. I totally agree with you in principle.

Technically you don't have to obey an unlawful order (e.g. to murder civilians) but if you don't obey you WILL have to answer for it. You can make the excuse that the order was unlawful...but a court martial will decide if you're right.

Chances are you're going to Leavenworth.

[KACSR15]

I say turn him loose just like anyone else who doesn't want to do his or her job. They volunteered for the service and have done their time or original enlistment. Now they don't want to play any more so get the f*ck out :eek: . If you can't deploy because of an injury, illness, or what ever that is one thing but if you just don't want to go then you better find a different occupation as a civilian. Welcome to the real world.

So if the Army bounces his ass out will he get an Honorable, Less than Honorable or Dishonorable discharge? Will he skate free for refusing to perform his duty or will he be forever branded?

[RogerinTPA]

I happen to remember a part in the Constitution that states that only Congress can declare war, and nothing about delegating that responsibility to the Executive branch. Should we send all those soldiers to jail who violated there oath and willingly participated in a undeclared war?

Pure semantics. There hasn't been a declared war since WWII. Korea and Vietnam were "Police Actions", but ask any vet who served in those theaters and see if they felt they were in a war or not. As others have stated , congress voted to send troops/fund the war and POTUS has, IIRC, a 90 day period in which he can send troops without congressional approval. FYI, the military did send deserters/AWOL's to jail during every war/police action/current war we've had.

[RWK]

Am I misreading something or do some of you actually think it should be okay for someone who has taken an oath of enlistment to be able to just walk away whenever they damned well please with what amounts to a slap on the wrist? I really hope I'm just misreading something.

The "volunteer" part is that you voluntarily enlist and take an oath, rather than compulsory service or a draft. Once you take that oath, your ass is in. Period. End of story. When you sign that paper and take the oath, you suborn yourself to the service. You don't have all of the same rights and priviliges as a civilian. You bind yourself over to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And there's no "quitter clause" in the UCMJ. But there damned sure is one regarding desertion.

There's a huge difference between refusing an unlawful order and desertion. And the only practical difference between a deserter in peacetime and a deserter in wartime is that in wartime it can be a capital offense.

I don't care if someone has served zero or ten tours in Afghanistan, Iraq, or the shores of Tripoli - if you're medically fit and don't have a hardship case and the order comes down that you're going back, you lace up your boots and prepare to march. Otherwise, you should stand tall in front of the old man and get to learn firsthand how terrible and swift the UCMJ can be.

rharris2163 said "He did serve in A-stan, so he's not a coward". I disagree because of this little gem: "I was from a poor, white family from the south, and I did badly in school... I was filet mignon for recruiters". Ah, the classic blame-the-recruiter bit. Exactly what does that have to do with anything? Nothing. That's a coward's attempted way out.

The "Constitutionality" argument that someone posted is ludicrous. Someone else already covered that.

Maybe I'm all out of proportion on this argument. But, deserters do tend to bring that out in me. I rank them about the same as child molesters.

[Jay Cunningham]

Am I misreading something or do some of you actually think it should be okay for someone who has taken an oath of enlistment to be able to just walk away whenever they damned well please with what amounts to a slap on the wrist?

Yeah, basically. Who needs them? It should require desire and effort and dedication to get in the military and remain in the military, not the opposite. Too many in now seem to treat it as just another gubment job. I am all for taking out the trash and making the .mil leaner and meaner.

Draft dodgers during a time of war is another matter. IMHO, of course.

[RWK]

Yeah, basically. Who needs them? It should require desire and effort and dedication to get in the military and remain in the military, not the opposite. Too many in now seem to treat it as just another gubment job. I am all for taking out the trash and making the .mil leaner and meaner.

I think we may agree in spirit. I'm all for weeding out the undesireables by not promoting them and inviting them to not return at the end of their enlistment. But, I'm not at all in favor of allowing folks to just walk away from their obligations before the end of their enlistment. In the case of deserters, I firmly believe that it should hurt on their way out and carry a stigma for a long, long time.

[Furious]

I think we may agree in spirit. I'm all for weeding out the undesireables by not promoting them and inviting them to not return at the end of their enlistment. But, I'm not at all in favor of allowing folks to just walk away from their obligations before the end of their enlistment. In the case of deserters, I firmly believe that it should hurt on their way out and carry a stigma for a long, long time.


AMEN! I grew up in a military family that taught me that deserters go to prison.
Like my First SGT says..... "This may sting a bit":eek: . Make it so that sorry POS cant even get a job at McDonalds.

[Jay Cunningham]

I can't understand forcing (or at least making it really hard to get out) people who have decided that they hate the Army to stay in the Army when we currently have an all volunteer force.

How would it benefit the Army to retain some worthless scumbag who hates the Army and hates the mission?

Let them go. Buh-bye.

[variablebinary]

I can't understand forcing (or at least making it really hard to get out) people who have decided that they hate the Army to stay in the Army when we currently have an all volunteer force.

How would it benefit the Army to retain some worthless scumbag who hates the Army and hates the mission?

Let them go. Buh-bye.

I dont think they should be forced to stay enlisted and go fight. They should be Court Marshalled and thrown in prison

[Iraqgunz]

**** this douche bag. So what if he went to A'stan? This guy enlisted and if I am not mistaken re-enlisted because a 6 year contract isn't the norm. He took the money and knew the deal. To top it off, I believe he was a "combat photographer" or something. As it has been pointed out, you volunteer, take an oath and serve your time. It's about time that we call these guys what they really are DESERTERS. They should probably get the death penalty, but in the current political climate we know that isn't going to happen. So I say send his ass to Leavenworth, Dishonorable discharge, no G.I Bill and no other veterans benefits.

[RWK]

I can't understand forcing (or at least making it really hard to get out) people who have decided that they hate the Army to stay in the Army when we currently have an all volunteer force.

How would it benefit the Army to retain some worthless scumbag who hates the Army and hates the mission?

Let them go. Buh-bye.

I'm sure there are many soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines who hate the service. Such was the case when I was in and I'm fairly certain that hasn't changed much. The difference between them and a deserter is that they still fulfill their obligations and perform their duties. They just don't re-enlist at the end of their hitch. A deserter turns their back on their obligations and sworn duties.

I'm with you - I don't want someone like that forced back into service. It would serve no useful purpose and may in fact be counter-productive. Where we apparently disagree is that I want them Court Martialed, imprisoned, then dishonorably discharged. (If I really had my way, they'd be stripped of their citizenship, too.) I don't want them to be able to just walk away with a slap on the wrist, which is what I consider a BCD or OTH discharge in desertion cases.

[Striker5]

"A group of veterans sitting in the hearing room gazed blankly as their comrades' testimonies shattered the official version that the US effort in Iraq is succeeding." Shattered - oh the humanity.

What the big shots need to do w/ these atrocity allegations is get some investigators and pump these whistle blowers for details - names and dates. I recall reading that this is how they handled Kerry's allegations and him and his little band of hipsters had to break contact.

Whistle blowing always raises my suspicions. Bureaucracies can indeed screw up and cover it up, but when it comes to the military I think it is too easy for dirtbags to use politics as a smokescreen for their own failure to perform. Last year Janet Karpinski the CO of Abu Gharib was writing articles on the Huffington Post about how bad the government/military/intel agencies are - a situation so totally jacked and hypocritical that it almost defies belief.

Point is, if you cry about the war you will be lauded as a hero by segments of our society. Fraud, murder etc are part of every war of any serious duration. If they see it they should report it and the different levels of command should address it. The UCMJ spells it out, it's not something new that just started to happen in Iraq.

As to Douche, what he and his ilk fail to understand is that when he takes his big moral stand, someone is going to have to go in his place. Even if he has a soft job, some other guy is going to be seperated from his family and carry the can for this guy who strikes me as a coward and a sea lawyer. His statement sounds like it was written by Seymour Hersh - gimme a break.

[Gutshot John]

As to Douche, what he and his ilk fail to understand is that when he takes his big moral stand, someone is going to have to go in his place. Even if he has a soft job, some other guy is going to be seperated from his family and carry the can for this guy who strikes me as a coward and a sea lawyer. His statement sounds like it was written by Seymour Hersh - gimme a break.

F*$)in A.

I was hardly a "good" sailor (loved parts, hated others) I did my time and said adios, but I knew what my duty was when I signed on the dotted line. I don't think I could live with someone taking my place. Conscientious objectors have SERVED honorably since WWI, they don't have to kill anyone, but they still have to serve.

One more case of Americans losing sight of their duty and their republican virtue. Fortunately he represents the absolute minority of those that serve their time honorably.

That someone else has to go in his place is cowardice of the most cynical nature.

The notion that the mil is covering up atrocities or abuses is wrong. They may not advertise them, but that doesn't mean they don't deal harshly with violators. Whatever else happened in Abu Ghraib it came to light and was dealt with openly. I'd bet that since the start of the war there have been THOUSANDS of such investigations. What other nation does that? I'm not saying they're perfect or they don't make mistakes, but no other nation comes close to our transparency and sense of fair play/decency.

[CarlosDJackal]

I personally would not want anyone like that serving next to me. I don't mind serving next to a conscientious objector as long as said person still follows orders and does his or her job as best they can. But someone like this - I say revoke his citizenship, deport him to whoever wants to take him, and let's move on. JM2CW.

[rayray]

Throw His deserting ass in prison for a couple of years so He can think about it. It's not like the recruiter twisted his arm, he joined because He wanted to.

[Eagleks]

I agree with many of you.

Give him some "time" working at hard labor, then a dishonorable, and let him find out the price he pays for a dishonorable discharge..... which never goes away.

[sharps_74]

I know that we have in our membership here many that served/are serving. So let me ask you this, How many of y'all actually looked forward to it when you found out that you were going to war? Most if not all I'm sure would say that you didn't. A soldier goes to war for many reasons. Among them is honor and duty. This fella has no honor or sense of duty. I say boot him with a high polished boot. Unless of course he signed some sort of pansy clause in the enlistment contract that nobody else knows about that gives him the choice to follow orders or not.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

This guy needs to complete his hitch in jail. Then he needs to be kicked out on his ass with a dishonorable discharge.

[m60g]

**** this douche bag. So what if he went to A'stan? This guy enlisted and if I am not mistaken re-enlisted because a 6 year contract isn't the norm. He took the money and knew the deal. To top it off, I believe he was a "combat photographer" or something. As it has been pointed out, you volunteer, take an oath and serve your time. It's about time that we call these guys what they really are DESERTERS. They should probably get the death penalty, but in the current political climate we know that isn't going to happen. So I say send his ass to Leavenworth, Dishonorable discharge, no G.I Bill and no other veterans benefits.

Amen, When we all took the oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, Nobody had a gun to our heads. We VOLUNTEERED. It ain't like this ****er was drafted.

We said we'd go stomp whoever the President wanted, whenever he wanted, and wherever he wanted. If you don't like that, then don't join up. Otherwise, this dude needs to STFU, and get back to his unit. If he isn't willing to go back, then Leavenworth is where he needs to be.

[Texas1965]

How ever many years this Soldier signed up for I say make him do every day of it. locked up, then after his enlistment is up give him his dishonorable discharge and show him the door..

When joining the United States Military there is an oath every man/woman takes upon their enlistment.

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

This young man took this same oath, now by his actions he has proven himself as less than a man, and more of a liar.

He should be treated as such, there is no Honor in a man that will not keep his word.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

Good God, I think this guy may be "the Cruiser" from "Stripes." He was aware there is no draft, I presume?:confused:

100 percent FDA grade A douche.

[BigMarine]

It seems to me that he deploys when the operation/deployment is of his liking, and Iraq is not (too hot and dusty I guess), he obviously is an attention whore who has no loyalty to his country or the soldiers in his unit.