Conscientious Objector

[BiffF15]

Rez,

In WWII the bomber pilots were told.... 'you are going to be baby killers'..... at least they weren't American babies....right!

Were they told this before or after learning that the life expectancy of a bomber pilot in Europe was well below 25 missions and that a large percentage of them would be buried in the European countryside at 200mph?

Right after 9/11 the press was going nuts over the military flying CAP over US cities.. they [the press] loved it. And it seemed the PR officers for these squadrons were right out of press school.... I like the fighter jock interviewed as he preflighted his jet..... "I wouldn't like it...but yeah, I'd shoot down a US airliner". Sh!t hot dude! only four more to go!

Did you ever think that some of those pilots have friends that fly for the airlines? Did you ever think that the fighter jock you so easily scoff at might have to shoot down an airliner with a good friend on board, then go an explain to his friends widow and kids what he did?

It's black and white baby! Clear cut decisions with no grey! Rock on!

Yes, there is something black and white here and it's not what you think.

Your attempt at humor, flame bait or whatever it was has set an extraordinarily low bar.

Biff

 

[Scrapdog]

In WWII the bomber pilots were told.... 'you are going to be baby killers'..... at least they weren't American babies....right!

Right after 9/11 the press was going nuts over the military flying CAP over US cities.. they [the press] loved it. And it seemed the PR officers for these squadrons were right out of press school.... I like the fighter jock interviewed as he preflighted his jet..... "I wouldn't like it...but yeah, I'd shoot down a US airliner". Sh!t hot dude! only four more to go!

Then there was the tanker pilot who said flying airliners.... "pretty much bus driver kind of stuff. You take off, you land, it's all automated." As for tankers, "you won't get this kind of fun flying anywhere else."




It's black and white baby! Clear cut decisions with no grey! Rock on!

Wow Rez - I used to be mildly amused by your antics on the military board and our bickering back and forth. Whatever right, it was all fun and games. This BS is an all time low. This confirms I've got absolutely nothing for you dude. I did more months of Noble Eagle than I know what to do with. 5 to 6 hour vuls over DC, Camp David, etc...protecting the POTUS and our capitol. Do you think I enjoyed taking off with live missles and loaded gun? Are you f'in kidding me man? The thought of shooting down innocent people on airliner makes anyone's gut sick and it's something I never thought I'd be tasked to do when I signed the dotted line. However, if it saved thousands of other lives, then you're damn right - I'm going to do exactly what I'm told to do by our leadership. That's a decision that you'll never deal with.

What in the hell is your deal with military pilots anyway? Did you get burned in the past? Your above post not only ruined your credibility in my book, but I'll garauntee you it ruined your credibility in many other military flyer's books as well. Very poor taste and poor form man...

 

[jetjock6]

I met a -135 driver that got a discharge from the AF on the basis of being a "conscientious objector." Funny thing was it wasn't even in a time of war. I don't know what the hell a tanker pilot has to object to but he did it.

 

[Mud Eagle]

I met a -135 driver that got a discharge from the AF on the basis of being a "conscientious objector." Funny thing was it wasn't even in a time of war. I don't know what the hell a tanker pilot has to object to but he did it.

I love it when people suddenly "decide" they are a CO. What, did they not know what the military was all about when they initially signed up?

 

[BiffF15]

I met a -135 driver that got a discharge from the AF on the basis of being a "conscientious objector." Funny thing was it wasn't even in a time of war. I don't know what the hell a tanker pilot has to object to but he did it.

I don't think being a tanker pilot had anything to do with it. I wonder if the airlines were hiring at the time he became a CO?

 

[hoover]

My original question was sparked from hearing an story on NPR about a military officer (probably the same one mentioned on here) speaking out against the Bush Administration regarding the Iraq war. While I happen to agree with what the officer said, I don't agree with how he went about it. You don't air dirty laundry in public. He should have gone through proper channels. But what I am getting from the replies on this thread is that there are no proper channels. The take home message seems to be that you had better be prepared to do some things that you don't believe in if you join up.

 

[BiffF15]

My original question was sparked from hearing an story on NPR about a military officer (probably the same one mentioned on here) speaking out against the Bush Administration regarding the Iraq war. While I happen to agree with what the officer said, I don't agree with how he went about it. You don't air dirty laundry in public. He should have gone through proper channels. But what I am getting from the replies on this thread is that there are no proper channels. The take home message seems to be that you had better be prepared to do some things that you don't believe in if you join up.

Hoover,
Everyone disagrees with something while they are in. To think otherwise would be folly. If you disagree with a policy, whether it's at the local squadron level or at the national level that's your prerogative. At the local level discuss it with your boss. Either he / she will change their mind / policy or they won't. That is the COMMANDERS choice. Either way when you leave it's a done deal and you go with what your boss decided. At the national level military members are represented by their leadership. They do the same thing at their respective levels with the same outcome.
If you choose as a military member not to follow those rules and speak out publicly you undermine the commander or commanders and that is not allowed. For those who have never served this is a fundamental difference between mil and civil affairs. You absolutely cannot have someone undermining the leadership (while during peace or at war) as it will cause a breakdown in the chain of command. This is simple and every military officer knows this (BECAUSE THEY ARE TAUGHT IT).
To answer your question, yes, there is a way to "go against policy".

 

[JimNtexas]

"But what I am getting from the replies on this thread is that there are no proper channels."

There are proper channels to register your concerns. On a bumper sticker they boil down to going through the chain of command, or alternatively going to the IG if you think regulations or laws are being violated.

If either of those methods don't give our hypothetical officer the answer he or she wanted to hear then our concerned officer has only two choices:

1) comply.

2) resign. If his or her resignation is refused (perhaps because they are under a service commitment) then this officer must either comply with orders or refuse to comply and accept the consequences like a man/woman.

That's the proper proceedure.

 

[bssthound]

The take home message seems to be that you had better be prepared to do some things that you don't believe in if you join up.

Ultimately, yes.

As an additional take home message please notice JimNtexas' post: Go to the IG if you think laws or regs are being violated. It's not "my way or the highway." There are checks and balances.

By the way, good on ya for takin' some heat, my own included, and coming back with a calm, levelheaded clarification of your question.

 

[hoover]

I am glad to hear that there is a way for having your concerns met, or at least addressed. I've always believed that an honest question deserves an honest answer, but recognize that the honest answer may not be one you like to hear. Thanks for the replies.

 

[Benhuntn]

Hoover why don't you do a search for Hank Hill the two of you probably have a lot in common.

 

[FlyinGuy]

If someone really changes and becomes a C.O. then there will be a trail that led to that decision. That individual will be discharged honorably. If someone goes into their commander and claims to be a C.O. just to get an airline job, then there will be consequences.

 

[JPAustin]

Man, this thread should go into the AOL forums so we can watch the misinformed lefto-wackos fly away with it.

Opening remark aside though, I agree with the bare-bones majority consensus: If you decide to be a CO, don't volunteer, but appreciate those making the sacrifices that allow you to make that decision.

 

[Draginass]

My original question was sparked from hearing an story on NPR about a military officer (probably the same one mentioned on here) speaking out against the Bush Administration regarding the Iraq war. While I happen to agree with what the officer said, I don't agree with how he went about it. You don't air dirty laundry in public. He should have gone through proper channels. But what I am getting from the replies on this thread is that there are no proper channels. The take home message seems to be that you had better be prepared to do some things that you don't believe in if you join up.

Your individual opinion about politics has no place in the military organization. All military member, of course, have the right to vote, etc, but when there are pretty close controls on military members politicing and especially in uniform or in an openly partisan fashion representing the military. This is ESSENTIAL to military discipline. You don't want superiors trying to force their political slant on subordinates. That is a recipe for a quick meltdown. The military must be, and be seen as non-partisan and apolitical. When the military becomes politicized, then confidence of the citizens wanes.

There are no proper military channels for voicing ones "displeasure" with the Executives' foreign or domestic policies, no should there be. The proper channel for the individual military member in that regard is at the ballot box. You are not there to question policy. During the Clinton administration there were numerous times when he made some real boner decisions with the military, but it was my duty to comply, which I did.

If you have a crisis of conscience with the policies of the Executive, then you can resign, if eligible, or take the medicine. The military is not a political science and sociology course. The military has to actually do things, quickly and well. We can't take a vote and get everyone's opinion or "feelings" about everything. Also, I'm not entirely sure but I don't think disagreeing with the policies of the Executive is grounds for CO status. If, for instance, you're a Quaker and have strong religious convictions that ANY killing is murder, then that would clearly qualify if it was clearly sincere.

So if you can't hack it, don't join. Slack it and enjoy the freedom that others provide you.

"To be a man, you must first learn to obey."
-- Robert E. Lee while head of Washington University (later Washington and Lee University) after the War Between the States.

 

[JimNtexas]

I retired in 1994, so maybe things are different now, but I doubt it.

In my time I don't recall any aircrew who 'objected' to combat missions, although I suppose it may have happened.

In fact in my community the very worst punishment a commander could impose was telling an air crew member that he would not be allowed to fly combat missions.

 

[Huggyu2]

I am not the sort of person who can blindly follow orders without understanding the rationale behind them.

It's not the duty of "the leadership" to explain each and every decision to each and every military member and ask for an "are you good with that?" before engaging in combat ops. Many times, the reasons may not be known for years,... maybe never,... due to the political/military sensitivities on how that info was obtained, and the decision made.

There are both "lawful" and "unlawful" commands. Learning which is which is a good thing. But when a unit gets told to deploy and fight, it's time to respect the authority of "the leadership", and get the job done.

 

[BiffF15]

I retired in 1994, so maybe things are different now, but I doubt it.

In my time I don't recall any aircrew who 'objected' to combat missions, although I suppose it may have happened.

In fact in my community the very worst punishment a commander could impose was telling an air crew member that he would not be allowed to fly combat missions.

Jim,
Things haven't changed about going to war since you retired. The worst thing a combat ready crew"person" can hear is "you're not going". Any self respecting combat aviator wants to prove themselves or they should be doing something else.
Biff

 

[poor2thecore]

I guess my decision not to join the Air Force was the right one then. I am not the sort of person who can blindly follow orders without understanding the rationale behind them. To know that in a given situation, I could be sent to jail for exercising my own intelligence, reasoning, and values that may have conflicted with orders is disheartening.

Good. The military wouldn't want you anyway.

 

[pilotyip]

For those who deplore violence

Good. The military wouldn't want you anyway.

Hoover would not have fit. "For those who deplore violence, they rest peacfully in their beds at night because of the acts of those who engage in violence on their behalf, Stuart Mills 1870's" If Hoover thinks he is smarter than the rest of us, it is our job to project his right to think like a person of out touch with the reality of the rest of the world.

 

[highsky]

He'll likely cut a deal and walk while we prosecute Marines making split-second decisions

Sad, but unfortunately true. I get sick to my stomach watching what those prosecutors are doing to those young men VOLUNTEERING to serve in a place 99% of Americans don't have the balls to go anywhere near.

No excuse not stepping up to the plate with this conscientious objector $hit. Twenty years in prison would be what I would hand down as a judge.

The whole anthrax thing really pissed me off too in the late 90s. My Reserve unit, and many other Gaurd and Reserve flying units lost 75% of the pilots who refused to take the shots. Pu$$ys.