GhostofSparta Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Hmmm... Always knew conservatives were anti-messiah and anti-christian :peace: :paranoid: Crap! I gave away our secret! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinnedAussie Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I know of a married female Army officer, who was sent to East Timor on peace keeping duties. Her husband, also in the Army, stayed home. She was on duty for four months, and came home three months pregnant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I fail to see why the military should care about the motivations. If a pilot is too hung over to fly today's mission, do they have to prove that he got drunk specifically to avoid flying? Or is "unfit for duty" a good enough reason? If a soldier is AWOL, do they have to prove that he was intentionally AWOL? Or is "he ain't here" all it takes? (OK, I could see how some excuses might be considered as basis for reduced sentence. If the hungover pilot got drunk because Goose died when he attempted to eject yesterday, then I could see a basis to not rule that "well, the guy's entitled to a one-day drunk". Similarly, if, say, the soldiers having sex used a condom, and the damn thing failed, then maybe I could see a basis for a reduction of sentence. I just don't think that "intent to avoid service" should be a requirement in order to prosecute.) I respectfully disagree. Suppose a Private John Doe is a member of a regiment that just received word that it is about to be deployed to Iraq. The following day, Pvt. Doe decides to go play a game of pickup football with a few buddies and blows out his knee during a play. Should Pvt. Doe be punished for blowing out his knee? I don't think so, even though he knew that playing football places his body at risk of injury. On the other hand, if Pvt. Doe received word that his unit was about to be deployed and then beat his knee with a baseball bat in order to avoid service, I would argue that he should be punished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I know of a married female Army officer, who was sent to East Timor on peace keeping duties. Her husband, also in the Army, stayed home.She was on duty for four months, and came home three months pregnant. I think that's obviously the more serious side. Certainly, there are many duties a woman shouldn't perform in the military while pregnant and one can argue that there are a number of locales that she shouldn't even be in, but it's not necessarily right that it be considered a crime or court marshable offense either. Clearly, the woman in the above situation would not have been court marshalled for that (I hope), but I don't know that the rule itself is just. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frostyj Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Lets not pass up the issue that it is against UCMJ to have sex in theater. So, unless you came impregnated(highly unlikely) you are infact breaking the rules and they have been letting them off the hook by just wending them home. They should be punished and I support him 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I respectfully disagree. Suppose a Private John Doe is a member of a regiment that just received word that it is about to be deployed to Iraq. The following day, Pvt. Doe decides to go play a game of pickup football with a few buddies and blows out his knee during a play. Should Pvt. Doe be punished for blowing out his knee? I don't think so, even though he knew that playing football places his body at risk of injury. On the other hand, if Pvt. Doe received word that his unit was about to be deployed and then beat his knee with a baseball bat in order to avoid service, I would argue that he should be punished. absolutely he should, he put his body at risk with full knowledge he was going to be deployed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loren Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I respectfully disagree. Suppose a Private John Doe is a member of a regiment that just received word that it is about to be deployed to Iraq. The following day, Pvt. Doe decides to go play a game of pickup football with a few buddies and blows out his knee during a play. Should Pvt. Doe be punished for blowing out his knee? I don't think so, even though he knew that playing football places his body at risk of injury. On the other hand, if Pvt. Doe received word that his unit was about to be deployed and then beat his knee with a baseball bat in order to avoid service, I would argue that he should be punished. That's not really analagous. I mean, if they play a tackle football game with no pads, and someone gets hurt, yeah, maybe he should get court martialed for that. Or if they have a drunken bare knuckles boxing match, yeah, they should be court martialed if they get hurt. If they're just playing touch football, and some freak thing happens, he probably shouldn't. If a woman gets pregnant, she knows she has to go home. And, in almost every circumstance, whether or not you get pregnant is 100% preventable. It's not too much to ask if you're going to do the act that makes you pregnant, you be expected to safeguard yourself against getting knocked up (or knocking someone else up, in the case of a man). It's the military, it's not an accounting job. You give up ALOT of your rights, and for good reason. If a unit is understaffed, it puts everyone else on that unit in fatal danger. To put your unit in that sort of danger because of a night of unprotected good times can be considered selfish, and if a general wants to make it a military crime not to take appropriate precautions, I don't have trouble with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loren Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I know of a married female Army officer, who was sent to East Timor on peace keeping duties. Her husband, also in the Army, stayed home.She was on duty for four months, and came home three months pregnant. I think that's obviously the more serious side. Certainly, there are many duties a woman shouldn't perform in the military while pregnant and one can argue that there are a number of locales that she shouldn't even be in, but it's not necessarily right that it be considered a crime or court marshable offense either.Clearly, the woman in the above situation would not have been court marshalled for that (I hope), but I don't know that the rule itself is just. Actually, maybe my math is wrong, but I think the situation AussieSkin presents is a pretty strong case for court marshall. After all, if she's married, is deployed for four months, comes back three months pregnant, doesn't that mean she got pregnant OVER THERE? And if her husband was at home the entire time, then it means her getting pregnant was an especially big no-no... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Actually, maybe my math is wrong, but I think the situation AussieSkin presents is a pretty strong case for court marshall.After all, if she's married, is deployed for four months, comes back three months pregnant, doesn't that mean she got pregnant OVER THERE? And if her husband was at home the entire time, then it means her getting pregnant was an especially big no-no... Seldom if ever do you see adultery prosecuted in the military. About the only time you see it is when it's being tacked on to other charges and normally only when it's between two members that are military or with a military spouse. Reason it's such a big deal is because of the "good order and discipline" aspect of it. I mean, if you're banging another military guys spouse it can cause serious problems in regards to the military mission. If you're banging some civilian who happens to married, meh, who cares as long as the mission gets accomplished. What you'll typically see is a person being given a No Contact Order which is a lawful order to cease having any contact with the person in question but the key is it has to be for a reasonable amount of time. You can't say "I forbid you from ever seeing person X again". So, if the person breaks the NCO you can bust them for failure to obey a direct order. You just don't see a lot of adultery stuff pursued unless it's disrupting the mission. The pregnancy thing goes back to the same thing, the mission. If someone is doing something to purposely impede the mission then they should be prosecuted. Plain and simple, it is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loren Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Seldom if ever do you see adultery prosecuted in the military. About the only time you see it is when it's being tacked on to other charges and normally only when it's between two members that are military or with a military spouse. Reason it's such a big deal is because of the "good order and discipline" aspect of it. I mean, if you're banging another military guys spouse it can cause serious problems in regards to the military mission. If you're banging some civilian who happens to married, meh, who cares as long as the mission gets accomplished. What you'll typically see is a person being given a No Contact Order which is a lawful order to cease having any contact with the person in question but the key is it has to be for a reasonable amount of time. You can't say "I forbid you from ever seeing person X again". So, if the person breaks the NCO you can bust them for failure to obey a direct order. You just don't see a lot of adultery stuff pursued unless it's disrupting the mission. The pregnancy thing goes back to the same thing, the mission. If someone is doing something to purposely impede the mission then they should be prosecuted. Plain and simple, it is what it is. Well, I'm not saying adultery should be prosecuted, but I'm just saying, in that case, it doesn't seem like there's a good case for NOT prosecuting the pregnancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I respectfully disagree. Suppose a Private John Doe is a member of a regiment that just received word that it is about to be deployed to Iraq. The following day, Pvt. Doe decides to go play a game of pickup football with a few buddies and blows out his knee during a play. Should Pvt. Doe be punished for blowing out his knee? I don't think so, even though he knew that playing football places his body at risk of injury. On the other hand, if Pvt. Doe received word that his unit was about to be deployed and then beat his knee with a baseball bat in order to avoid service, I would argue that he should be punished. Private Doe does not own his body. The US government does. He may not damage it to the point where it cannot perform it's duty any more than he may not take out a tank and drive it into the river. it's that simple. When you sign up, you sign away certain rights to yourself. Your body is now a soldier, and it is owned lock stock and barrel by whichever service you've joined. You may not do anything to it that damages it's effectiveness unless they order you to do so. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOLASKINSFAN Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Sunburn nearly got me in that mess for sure. I worked through it,but that's because of the consequences if I didn't. I think the General is at his wit's end on this one. Doing everything else to have his people at least show caution,(protection,abstinence),and at the most some will power and apparently it hasn't worked. So he goes this route. Same thing happend to me... I was young: got drunk passed out on the beach in Pensacola. I was able to work but I went into to see the doc for my annual Airman's physical and he freaked out and started laughing. I told him I "fell asleep" on the beach. Long story, but I ended up getting 15 days extra duty, but that was more a message that they knew I was drinking underage and I needed to be carful... :hysterical: Anyway back on topic, I'm divided, If you stationed in a war zone or on a ship- you can't preform your duties. I guess it's kind of cut and dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinnedAussie Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Seldom if ever do you see adultery prosecuted in the military. About the only time you see it is when it's being tacked on to other charges and normally only when it's between two members that are military or with a military spouse. Reason it's such a big deal is because of the "good order and discipline" aspect of it. I mean, if you're banging another military guys spouse it can cause serious problems in regards to the military mission. If you're banging some civilian who happens to married, meh, who cares as long as the mission gets accomplished. OK, so you are saying that it's ok for married military personnel to have an affair with a civilian (of the same or opposite sex?), but when the affair is between military personnel, it's a matter of national security? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOLASKINSFAN Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 OK, so you are saying that it's ok for married military personnel to have an affair with a civilian (of the same or opposite sex?) No, and doing so is a violation of the UCMJ but when the affair is between military personnel, it's a matter of national security? Could be, but in any event it is much more likely to be recognised as both parties are in the service, leading to a greater chance of exposure. Obviously in that case you have 2 people violating the code of conduct they swore to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I have zero problem with this. Getting pregnant shouldn't bail you out of the military. You didn't have to sign the dotted line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 absolutely he should, he put his body at risk with full knowledge he was going to be deployed. So, any member of the armed forces who (1) has received deployment orders and (2) puts his body at risk should be punished? Nearly every human activity entails some risk. A person can get hurt playing tennis, driving a car down the street, etc. So, under your standard, nearly everyone who has received deployment orders should be punished unless they strap themselves to a gurney from the moment they get their orders until the moment they walk towards the C-5 Galaxy to fly abroad. Granted, sexual activities tend to entail more risks than say, playing a flute, but I don't think the line is nearly as clear as you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 So, any member of the armed forces who (1) has received deployment orders and (2) puts his body at risk should be punished? Nearly every human activity entails some risk. A person can get hurt playing tennis, driving a car down the street, etc. So, under your standard, nearly everyone who has received deployment orders should be punished unless they strap themselves to a gurney from the moment they get their orders until the moment they walk towards the C-5 Galaxy to fly abroad. Granted, sexual activities tend to entail more risks than say, playing a flute, but I don't think the line is nearly as clear as you think. anyone who uses their brain can figure out what is too risky and what isn't. As we're taught at VMI, you can play the game and break the rules, but if you're caught, you have to accept the consequences. If this person wants to play pick up football, they have to realize that if they hurt themselves the consequence is that they get into a LOT of trouble. It's called personal responsibility, maybe they don't have that in Madison or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 anyone who uses their brain can figure out what is too risky and what isn't. As we're taught at VMI, you can play the game and break the rules, but if you're caught, you have to accept the consequences. If this person wants to play pick up football, they have to realize that if they hurt themselves the consequence is that they get into a LOT of trouble. It's called personal responsibility, maybe they don't have that in Madison or something. Apparently, they don't teach cadets the difference between objective standards and subjective standards. Either that, or you just don't understand that making a determination as to whether conduct is "too risky" calls for the application of a subjective standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Apparently, they don't teach cadets the difference between objective standards and subjective standards. Either that, or you just don't understand that making a determination as to whether conduct is "too risky" calls for the application of a subjective standard. well, fortunately my views are the right ones and yours aren't: the UCMJ, military, and legal precedent back up my opinion. yours is just an opinion and will stay that way. rightly so I might add. I guess in your world waivers don't count for anything either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 well, fortunately my views are the right ones and yours aren't: the UCMJ, military, and legal precedent back up my opinion. yours is just an opinion and will stay that way. rightly so I might add. I guess in your world waivers don't count for anything either. Apparently, they don't teach cadets the difference between fact and opinion either. I offered my opinion as to when punishment SHOULD be meted out; I never purported to say when punishment IS meted out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Apparently, they don't teach cadets the difference between fact and opinion either. I offered my opinion as to when punishment SHOULD be meted out; I never purported to say when punishment IS meted out. I know that, that's why I said 'your opinion' and that it isn't the way it is, and it will never be that way. Apparently they don't have reading comprehension in Madison either :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I know that, that's why I said 'your opinion' and that it isn't the way it is, and it will never be that way. Apparently they don't have reading comprehension in Madison either :doh: I know that you said it was my opinion. You also said my opinion was wrong and your was right, which is why I said that they don't teach cadets the difference between fact and opinion. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickclone Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Wow, I can't believe no one defended the other side on this issue...not a single person. The govt has no right to tell any woman whether or not they can get pregnant. I don't care if the general is losing Ms. Einstein, it's something that he has to accept with accepting women into the military. Even if the women are just doing it to get out (which I highly doubt) punishing them for getting pregnant is ridiculous. I hope the general is dumb enough to actually enforce this, not only will he have the ACLU on his ass, but a truckload of pissed off women. America is so simple (well, conservatives), first you cry about women being able to get abortions and now you're going to punish women for getting pregnant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I know that you said it was my opinion. You also said my opinion was wrong and your was right, which is why I said that they don't teach cadets the difference between fact and opinion. :doh: Jesus Christ, now you're just arguing semantics. YOU are WRONG. end of story. good night, I'm done studying for my last final tomorrow, have fun roaming the internets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Wow, I can't believe no one defended the other side on this issue...not a single person. What if there's evidence that a woman got pregnant to avoid duty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.