Does an active duty military officer have the right to refuse to deploy?

Choice

We all make choices.
He made one when he joined.
He is making one now that will
be just as important as the first one.

Hopefully some of the people who have responded
helped the person make the correct choice.

HQ
 
He's a traitor.

Before you even ask: no, that isn't harsh. While in the military, you are legally bound to obey the lawful orders of those appointed over you. As this war in Iraq has been going on for four years now with no generals court martialed, it's obviously still very legal. Therefore, he's in violation of the UCMJ. Furthermore, his flagrantly irresponsible actions may inspire others to the same end, which will further undermine the ability of his unit to function properly.

He (and everyone else in the military who has since gone UA, AWOL, deserter, or intentionally missed a deployment) really ought to be executed as traitors.
 
Does an active duty military officer have the right to refuse to deploy?
NO.

And does he have the right to openly campaign against the war?
NO.

It's time to shackle him, and drag him off to await court martial. There's not much that can be said from the stockade. Why is the Army not responding appropriately?
 
What Right?

A Looie has about the same rights as a buck private, only he has the right to
resign if his betters care to approve same. Theres not a terrible lot of difference in the Uniform Code of Military Justice from the older, now dropped Articles of War and the Navy and Marine "Rocks & Shoals" except you now can't get ten days P&P for silent contempt.

Friends, that old "I can't stand the thought of killing another human being" translates to the real "I can't stand the thought of being shot at" . And that this Republic doesn't deserve my life in its long, honorable existence and defense".
These cowardly SOBs do not care of the First Bombing of New York, nor the second one on 9/11 nor the sub human scum behind these atrocities. Nor the job of trying to rid the world of these insane parasites.

And save your shock and indignation for the fact that about 50% of the United States does not support American Made martyrdom for the evil
cretins in Iraq, and Afghanistan and elsewhere where they abide and plot and plan the bombings of decent humans, here and abroad.

American soldiers fought in the War of Northern Agression, Confederate soldiers fought in the War for Southern Independence, and when it was over the old Veterans again joined the US Army to fight Spain, former enemies side by side against the Spaniards in Cuba and the Phillipines. I often ask, "Lord,
where have the good American gone? Why did someone hatch all of these quisling Americans"? Quisling means turncoat.
 
What part of "....I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion....." needs explaining?

Many of us took the oath, and honored it, under a variety of circumstances, and a succession of leaders, that were not to our liking, but honoring the oath was never an option.
 
he has the right to obey orders or be tried for cowardace in the face of the enemy. which if my memory serves correctly could mean up to death sentence. you chose sucker chose wrong and i'll volunteer for the squad
 
he has the right to obey orders or be tried for cowardace in the face of the enemy. which if my memory serves correctly could mean up to death sentence. you chose sucker chose wrong and i'll volunteer for the squad
Click to expand...

sounds like it could be a line from a Dirty Harry knockoff movie....could I recommend a little less caffiene?
 
Thank you so much for that link Ziryo, I needed it desperately to win an argument with my son.

Back OT
He's been in for three years as of Jun 06
The Iraqi operation started Mar 03.

If by chance he's rounding off and actually joined just before the invasion started

He still had many opportunities to leave the service with his record intact.

Seems to me that he skated past combat for three years and suddenly had a crisis of conscience when he found out that he had to put his ass on the line with the others.

If may have a little respect from me if he had started his campaign when there was not a imminent deployment or if he had dropped out in BCT
 
Yes he/she does

Does an active duty military officer have the right to refuse to deploy?

Every human has the right to behave in whatever way they choose. They also have the privilege of the consequences.

Hopefully, the rules will apply to this person and he will be sent to jail for failing to obey orders, being insubordinate and engaging in sedition. He agreed to certain terms when he joined the military. Those are not terms of convenience.

There should be no confusing the freedom to act with the freedom from responsibility.

This young man who is refusing to deploy, says that he is willing to face his court-martial. We will see if he does. I doubt it. I believe that the Democratic Party and groups like the ACLU will move to confuse this issue in the eyes of the public.

He has every right to do it - we can never believe that people do not have the right to do something. That is their choice – but more importantly we can never forget that they also chose the consequences of their actions, knowingly or unknowingly.

By right he is choosing not to serve and he is choosing to be placed in jail that is of course, if he is a man.
 
I am not convinced one has a legal right to do something, hence it is a "right," if that action results in legal action against the person for performance of said activity. He does NOT have the right to refuse. He can refuse and there will be consequences. Having a right means having fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by law. Law does not guarentee him the right to disobey orders.


mayosligo, your perception of "rights" seems to be one of a song lyric about doing the crime if you are willing to do the time. This is not a good basis for "rights."
 
When you sign on the dotted line, you are agreeing beforehand to follow lawful orders. He just arbitrarily decided for himself which ones he would follow. This conscientous objector status really has no place in a volunteer military. You go in knowing the expectations, you weren't drafted and made to adhere to things you were uncomfortable with. Courts Martial would be well deserved in this case, if not trial for sedition/traitorous acts. :mad:
 
No, he doen't have the right to refuse. Court-martial him and throw him into Leavenworth, then give him a dishonorable discharge.:mad:
 
This guy is an idiot. What makes him think that everyone else who has served always agreed with what they were asked to complete. IMO the military will be better off without him and prison will be better for him. You sign, take an oath and if you're not man enough to live up to your obligation I have no use for you. Your word is your bond.
 
Has a Human being you have the right to refuse anything....

I can't wait to talk about this with the Guys at Work, since are all ENLISTED and not Officers. (Insert lots of jokes about Officers here)

Now on a serious note. I've seen this before here in Washington. One of the Guys off of a Carrier didn't want to go to Iraq so he put on a shirt that said something to the Effect of I'm not going to War or something like that and stood outside the gate protected by the Media, while everyone else was hugging the family good bye and getting on a boat for a 6 month deployment.
 
Officers and soldiers have an OBLIGATION to refuse to disobey manifestly unlawful orders. A manifestly unlawful order would include:

" shoot those prisoners!'
"loot that church!"
"torture those children!"
"go to the PX and buy me two dozen beers out of your own money!".

The order must be so plainly unlawful that no soldier of normal sense and understanding would consider it illegal. The orders to torture prisoners at abu grabie were quite clearly unlawful, and should have been refused.

The order to deploy is not manifestly unlawful, for a variety of reasons, the main one being that in the US congress authorised the use of force against Iraq.

It is important to always understand soldiers are not automatons, superior orders can be disobeyed if to do so is to commit a crime. That does not apply here.
 
Antipitas said:
A candidate for the old, "Six-Six-and-a-Kick!" Worthy of it, I might add.
Click to expand...

Hmph. More like a candidate for the ".45 caliber court-martial".

A right to refuse? I'm sorry, there seems to be some confusion as to what a SIGNED CONTRACT obligates someone to do and how legally binding it is. Let us reference the Uniformed Code of Military Justice:
Article 86: Absent without leave
Article 87: Missing a movment
Article 89. Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer
Article 90. Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer
Article 92. Failure to obey order or regulation
Article 94. Mutiny or sedition
Article 98. Noncompliance with procedural rules
Article 99. Cowardice before the enemy
Article 133. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman
Article 134. General article. Includes offenses that are not specifically listed in the Manual for Courts-Martial and which may "cause disorder and neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces."
Click to expand...

Choose any that apply. By the way, Cowardice before the enemy is still punishable by death.
 
pickpocket, I presume that you know what 6-6 & a kick means?

How easy would it be to find a decent job with bad paper following you? Here in Idaho, you might find a job with a BCD... But a UD or DD? No way.

Going through life with a felony would be bad enough, but bad paper is much worse.
 
NO and YES are the answers, provided that his anti-war campaigning doesn't interfere with his duties (and if he's deployed, I should think that they would).

Choose any that apply
Click to expand...

NONE apply to the free speech campaigning, IMO. Several apply to the refusal to follow an order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top