Conscientious Objector

[hoover]

What would happen if a military pilot decided he could not in good conscience participate in a conflict that was occurring somewhere in the world. I don't mean that he is a traitor, or that he gets up in the air over the target and refuses to drop his bombs; What I mean is that some conflict starts up that the U.S. is participating in, and this pilot decides that he cannot be a participant in it if his unit gets called up. What are his options? What would happen to him?

 

[HoursHore]

Leavenworth.

You are supposed to have that stuff sorted out before you take the oath.

Objector status has to be made before one gets drafted. there is actually a process to it.

Since there is no draft, there are no conscientous objectors. Its a volunteer force, and they don't expect people to volunteer for things that they don't agree with.

Some Army LT in hawaii is going thru this now.

 

[Draginass]

That officer would likely, and justifiably, be charged with direct disobedience to a lawful order and face a general court martial.

This isn't the Cub Scouts. It's deadly serious business.

 

[pilotyip]

In the whole Vietnam conflict one officer flight crewmember, a B-52 Nav out of Utapao, refused to fly a mission. In Dec 1972. He turned in his wings prior to being assigned another mission over Hanoi. He was given an administrative discharge under honorable conditions. During WWII, pilot would "Bomb Nuts" and say they could not fly another mission. In the RAF, they were branded with "Lack of Morale Fiber", drummed out of the RAF, and in some places actually imprisoned. The USAAF just spent them to a rest home, if they still could not fly. They were sent home to a ground job. Less than 1% of the USAAF pilots ever refused combat duty.

 

[Birdstrike]

Like everything else with military law these days, it's not as cut and dried as you might expect. In the Army anyway, you can claim that you "developed" these post-joining convictions after you signed-on. That's what I think I read that LT Wasabi (sp) is claiming. Who knows if it will succeed. He'll likely cut a deal and walk while we prosecute Marines making split-second decisions

 

[pkober]

Like everything else with military law these days, it's not as cut and dried as you might expect. In the Army anyway, you can claim that you "developed" these post-joining convictions after you signed-on. That's what I think I read that LT Wasabi (sp) is claiming. Who knows if it will succeed. He'll likely cut a deal and walk while we prosecute Marines making split-second decisions

Well said. He'll be a hero to the crazy left and probably write a book. Our Marines are chained to the floor while this guy will walk free.

 

[ultrarunner]

LT Wasabi (sp)....He'll likely cut a deal and walk while we prosecute Marines making split-second decisions

By the time this gig is over, all the Marines will be gone...KIA at some stupid road check point.

Just pull 'em out and NUKE the freaking place.

 

[HooverPilot]

Leavenworth would be appropriate. I say keep your word, you took an oath by your own choice, with no mental reservations. You need to suck it up until your current commitment is up, then walk away with a spine.

 

[stonewall]

That jackass is already a cult-hero of the left. Anyone who joins the military as an officer should be educated enough to what the commitment entails. People who suddenly develop certain "feelings" once medical/dental/grad school is paid for should be excoriated for any number of reasons.

Hypocrisy, opportunism, whatever. Hell, even if someone was GENUINELY a CO and STILL joined the military to pay for school, they should be scorned for the blatant opportunistic grab.

Bottom line: Any officer CO (or E for that matter) should get zero sympathy from anyone. They're either a coward or a hypocrite. Nowhere in between.

 

[JimNtexas]

What I mean is that some conflict starts up that the U.S. is participating in, and this pilot decides that he cannot be a participant in it if his unit gets called up. What are his options? What would happen to him?

Our hypothetical office should report to his commander, look the commander in the eye, and state that he will not follow an order to go to this war.

This officer should then plead guilty to disobeying a direct order and serve a term of imprisonment determined by a Courts Martial followed by a dishonorable discharge.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

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!

 

[hoover]

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.

 

[bssthound]

I guess my decision not to join the Air Force was the right one then.

Absolutely. It's a great way of life and I've met some of the most amazing people on this earth BUT there's a chance one will accidentally take out innocent cilivilans or not survive a mission. It's something we all understood when we joined and it became clearer as we progressed through training. No, it's not for everyone. If someone has qualms the best thing he/she can do is just stay out of the way.

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.

Depends on whether or not it's a legal order. Unlike what you've seen on war movies, or your best bud who "knows all about it" told you, etc. it's not really a case of one's commander telling you to "go bomb that building over there." Every target is chosen and every bomb is dropped for a reason. Believe it or not, the military goes to extensive measures to minimize collateral damage. I could be wrong as two boys makn' the beast with two backs, but I read the above post as insinuating military pilots "blindly" follow orders without understanding what's going on. That's shallow and uninformed at best. Use your intelligence and reasoning to figure out there might be a bit more to a military operation than you understand.

That being said I do honestly thank you for realizing that about yourself and not pursuing a slot. Miltary flying is not all movies and commercials and it definitely isn't for everyone.

 

[Draginass]

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.

I'm glad you didn't too. You're obviously too self-centered to function in a team in critically important situations. In 22 years of service, I never had to "blindly follow orders without knowing the rationale behind them." Also, in that time the topic of CO never entered into any kind of discussion in ANY of the squadrons or organizations I served in. Military members copping-out with CO claims is such an infinitesimally small issue in the military, that it doesn't even warrant attention.

You're idea of the military ethos is obviously garnered from TV and movies which bear almost zero resemblance to any sort of reality. The Hollywood dimwits can't even get the uniforms correct half the time, nor do they care about portraying a realistic image. It' all about selling tickets to other dimwits.

Military commanders rely heavily on the judgment and ethical decision-making by their subordinates.

Thank goodness there are much better men than you serving us courageously and selflessly. You can safely sit back and rely on their protection.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

 

[Deuce130]

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 decision on your part. Oftentimes soldiers and airmen don't know the big picture, but the commanders giving orders do. When told to bomb that building over there, it's quite possible that US lives are at stake and are counting on your ability to do what you're told when told to do it. Combat is a fluid, dynamic, time critical situation. Commanders don't always have the seconds or minutes to explain themselves to the trigger puller if that guy needs his values or reason assuaged. You made the right call for you.

 

[Deuce130]

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."

This is why you're not in the military. I'd rather a "fighter jock" shoot down an airliner and not like it than allow that airliner to crash into the Twin Towers. 200 dead civilians rather than 2000. Don't think for one second that "fighter jock" wouldn't lose sleep at night or question his decision in the years that would follow. He certainly wouldn't be thinking "four more to go." Not surprising that someone completely ignorant of the military would spout such drivel, though. Didn't you say your father was a Navy pilot or something? Where did this contempt for military pilots come from? Stick to ALPA, Rez. You're not very good as a military analyst.

 

[pilotyip]

Thank You

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.

I personally thank you for doing your country a service by not serving. It is called the service, because you serve and are suborinate to your commanders and their civilian oversite. It is about giving beyound yourself.

 

[C-17 Driver]

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.

http://www.psywarrior.com/sontay.html

I suggest you read about the Son Tay Raid by clicking on the above link. You really knocked over the lantern with that comment.

On Nov. 21, 1970, at approximately 11:18 p.m., the Son Tay raiders, accompanied by C-130Es called Combat Talons, departed Udorn, Thailand, for the final phase of their mission. At the same time, diversionary attacks were being launched all over the country. The U.S. Navy began a huge carrier strike against North Vietnam's port city of Haiphong. Ten Air Force F-4 Phantoms were flying MIG combat air patrol to screen the force from enemy fighters, while an F-105 Wild Weasel decoy force launched a raid on enemy surface-to-air missle sites. Five A-1 Skyraiders with the call sign "Peach One to Five", arrived on station to suppress ground fire around the enemy camp.

Rumor has it that some of these guys flying the diversionary missions didn't know why the purpose behind their missions was. What if they chose to not "blindly follow their orders?" There is a big picture out there that those at the tip of the spear do not see. Sometimes, you have to have faith in your leadership.

 

[Frisko]

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.

scoff

enjoy "exercising your intelligence, reasoning and values" from the comfort of your own home. My guess is you didn't make any "decision", but instead it was made for you. If you did in fact make a "decision" based off these issues then it obviously wasn't a very informed one.

 

[bssthound]

Frisko astutely stated:

My guess is you didn't make any "decision", but instead it was made for you.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! I think we have a winner!!

 

[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.