Some Soldiers Trying to Get Out of Army

[cal04]

Kevin Benderman spends his days sitting in a plastic chair in the stockade at Fort Lewis, Wash., completing a 15-month sentence for "missing movement" with his unit. Jeremy Hinzman is raising his baby boy in Toronto, awaiting a court date when he hopes the Canadian government will grant him political asylum. Aidan Delgado is back in school, studying religion at the New College of
Florida and practicing Buddhism.

All three are among a small but growing number of soldiers who have become disillusioned with the war in Iraq and are trying to get out of their required service. Increasing numbers of men and women in uniform are seeking honorable discharges as conscientious objectors. Others are suing the military, claiming their obligation has been wrongfully extended. Many have simply deserted, refusing to appear for duty. Some are more desperate: Last December, Army Spc. Marquise J. Roberts of Hinesville, Ga., persuaded a cousin to shoot him in the leg. The cousin was sent to jail, Roberts to the stockade. You sign a contract and you're required to serve for whatever time period you've agreed to," said a Pentagon spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke.

"There are certain standards the enlistment contracts oblige soldiers to, and they are required to fulfill them." But Pentagon policies do have exceptions, and soldiers are increasingly challenging their mandatory service. Requests for conscientious objector status, which can qualify someone for an honorable discharge, have steadily increased since 2000 - about 110 soldiers filed the complex paperwork in 2004, about four times the number in 2000. Of those, about half were approved. Those who were rejected either went back to the war or refused to serve. Some are now on the lam. Others have been court-martialed and done time.

Former Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia, 30, of Miami Beach, Fla., says he had change of heart while on a two-week leave last year after spending a year in Iraq. "Going home gave me the opportunity to put my thoughts in order and to listen to what my conscience had to say. People would ask me about my war experiences and answering them took me back to all the horrors, the firefights, the ambushes, the time I saw a young Iraqi dragged by his shoulders through a pool of his own blood or an innocent man was decapitated by our machine gun fire," he said.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GETTING_OUT?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

[EST]

1. If Boosh the douche can dishonor his contract

with the American people, why should anyone need honor a contract with these criminals, other than the fact that they can and will imprison, torture and kill you?

[KC21304]

5. You're right. I think we should make more of this issue.

Bush did whatever the hell he felt like it when it was his time to serve. This should be incorportated in the defense of these people. Or at least discussed. Let's hear it loud and clear.

[EST]

6. Both as pretzeldunt and airman.

[Sparkman]

2. The civilian courts can remedy any "dishonor" edicts by mil courtmarshall

for life amongst us back home. If a soldier is going to miss out on the benefits, a civilian court can determine, with civilian jurors, if a soldier was justified in going awol or a dishonorable.
My advice is just document all that one can while on duty, and if it gets intollerable, QUIT.
It's much easier living with a clear conscience, than killing innocents or following illegal orders, than relying upon U.S. military justice. After all, U.S. military history has proven that they will commit genocide for our politicians, drop atom bombs on Japanese civilians, Nuke the Bikini Islands, condemn El Toro Marine Corps with trichlor and petroleum pollutants, pay outrageous contracts for the WAR PROFITEERS, etc., etc., etc.
Just get out as smartly as possible, and run if you have to. Canada's nice. Cuba may even be nicer.
Habla Espanol?

[pocket]

4. Cuba would be safer

Canada may send you back.

[TahitiNut]

3. I love how they use a term like "contract" ...

... and then impose CRIMINAL rather than civil penalties. It's a fascinating corruption of the language, creating the presumption that 'performance' on either side of the agreement has some balanced enforcement under law. It doesn't. After all, exactly what 'damage' is done to the government when some poor enlisted schmuck bails out early?? Are the penalties commensurate with the damages? The enlistment 'papers' bear as much resemblance to a normal civil contract as rape resembles love. "Contracts" like those are like the 'contracts' with organized crime's loan sharking -- fail to pay and get your legs broken or your child killed. Anyone who thinks a 'contract' with the government is equally binding should look into bridges for sale in the New York City area.