US soldier refuses to report for active duty in Iraq

[sabra]

Source: AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A month after US army reservist Matthis Chiroux publicly refused to deploy to Iraq, the former sergeant on Sunday set himself up for possible prosecution by failing to report for active duty with his unit in South Carolina.

"Tonight at midnight, I may face further action from the army for refusing to reactivate to participate in the Iraq occupation," Chiroux told reporters in Washington.

"I stand here today in defense of those who have been stripped of their voices in this occupation, the warriors of this nation...", Chiroux read from a statement as his father Rob, who had travelled to Washington from Alabama to support his son on Father's Day, stood beside him.

Last month, Chiroux rejected an order calling him back to active duty in Iraq, saying he considers the war "illegal and unconstitutional."

...

Matthis' father Rob, a rocket scientist who lives in the army town of Huntsville, Alabama, said mobilizing IRR members was a form of back-door draft.

"If our country is in such a dire emergency that we need to conscript manpower, congress has to vote to reinstate the draft," the elder Chiroux told AFP.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080615/ts_alt_afp/usiraqmilitaryprotest_080615214802

[BlooInBloo]

1. I can see 2 sides to this *specific* issue, but good luck to him.

[Cleita]

2. Workers have a right to strike because of unfair

working conditions and wages. Soldiers should have that right too. If they all refuse there will be no army to send there.

[uppityperson]

3. He has the right to not go, and the responsibility to accept the consequences of his actions.

I wish the best of luck to him and applaud his courageousness.

[pokercat999]

27. He is lawfully responding to unlawful orders. Those who go

are war criminals fighting an unlawful war. IMHO.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pokercat999]

43. So it's a lawful war? Not an unlawful invasion and

occupation of a sovereign country? GWB and cronies are doing the right thing and out Military are JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS.

The usual argument from those confused by the rhetoric that our wonderful military can do no wrong. How refreshing.

[northzax]

89. exactly how is it illegal?

please be so kind as to cite chapter and verse of the US Code specifying what law was broken?

[PDittie]

45. Not an appropriate response, even if

"crap" is indeed being "made up", and yes, 'just following orders' isn't a defensible excuse.

The war is over, if the soldiers want it.

[snot]

4. what are "IRR members"?

[TheDebbieDee]

12. Individual Ready Reserves.......

These are reservists that, for whatever reason, are not attached to a reserve unit.

They are like free agents. If they can find a unit nearby that has one of their MOSs, but has no empty slots personnel-wise, then an IRR can go to monthly drills with this unit and get attendance points for retirement purposes, but they won't get paid for it. It gets really stupid and complicated and I would never be able to explain it in a way that would make sense.

[Angleae]

29. Not quite

IRR is also called the Inactive Reserve. They don't drill or report to a unit. For all practical purposes they are a civilian but with one specific difference, they can be recalled to duty at any time. All individuals enlisting in the military have this in their contract. You enlist for 4 years active and 4 years inactive or 6 active, 2 inactive. When you 4(or 6) years are up, you are discharged and become an inactive reservist. Normally you won't even see the military for the duration of that term unless called up like this guy with the possible exception of having to report in to verity all your current paperwork (address, phone #, etc.)

[wmbrew0206]

62. Officers are a little different in respect to the IRR

After an officers does his/her combined eight years, they have to resign their commission and send in the paper work to to prove it. Otherwise, they stay in the IRR until they hit twenty years of service.

A lot of people found that out the hard way.

[lonestarnot]

5. Good luck wit dat dude.

:( You signed when? Before or after you figured out it was a lie?

[jmowreader]

35. He may have signed before Shrub was even elected

Anyone joining the Army has a minimum eight-year commitment "unless sooner terminated by the US Government." (IOW if they kick you out of the Army, your commitment ends; otherwise, the Army owns you for at least eight years.) If you go active duty, you serve for at least your initial enlistment--three years unless you enlisted in a "bonus MOS" in which case it's four years. Just before your active duty time ends you have three choices: reenlist for more active duty time, transfer to a Selected Reserve unit and drill for your remaining time, or do what most people do and join the Individual Ready Reserve, whose obligation is to let the Army Reserve Personnel Command in St. Louis know where you are living so they can call you back up if they run out of anyone else to send...you know, like's happening right now.

So let me see...eight-year commitment...Bush has been in for seven and a half years...yeah, this guy could have joined the Army under President Clinton.

[northzax]

90. eight years?

where did you get that? grunts can enlist from 2-6 years (bonuses get higher the longer you sign)

[wmbrew0206]

91. The contract you sign states X amount active duty + Y amount in the IRR = 8 years

[Barrett808]

6. US soldier refuses to report for active duty in Iraq

Source: AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A month after US army reservist Matthis Chiroux publicly refused to deploy to Iraq, the former sergeant on Sunday set himself up for possible prosecution by failing to report for active duty with his unit in South Carolina.

"Tonight at midnight, I may face further action from the army for refusing to reactivate to participate in the Iraq occupation," Chiroux told reporters in Washington.

"I stand here today in defense of those who have been stripped of their voices in this occupation, the warriors of this nation...", Chiroux read from a statement as his father Rob, who had travelled to Washington from Alabama to support his son on Father's Day, stood beside him.

Last month, Chiroux rejected an order calling him back to active duty in Iraq, saying he considers the war "illegal and unconstitutional."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080615/ts_alt_afp/usiraqmilitaryprotest

[Cleita]

7. If they all do this, there is no army to send there.

Workers have a right to go on strike. So should soldiers.

[az chela]

8. Send our troops home,the ones

already here stay here!!!!!!!!!!

[Captain Hilts]

9. If they can refuse Pres. Bush's orders, then they can refuse Pres. Obama's. Not good. nt

[nodehopper]

10. do you understand the concept of civil disobedience?

[surf]

11. They still have to face the consequences

If you want to pick what wars you fight in, don't join the military. I don't feel bad for him one bit.

[uppityperson]

14. People who are refusing to go are facing the consequences.

They have this right. Refuse to go and face the consequences. Some are chosing to do so.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. I don't feel bad for him either

I am damn proud of him. Soldiers refusing to serve helped end the Vietnam War. They were the true patriots of that war, as are the soldiers refusing to serve in Iraq.

[PinkyisBlue]

37. But this is not a war, it was an invasion and now it's an occupation.

[LynnTheDem]

51. What part of "illegal war" don't you get?

Soldiers are required to disobey unlawful orders. bUsh's war on the people of Iraq is in fact unlawful.

[wmbrew0206]

63. How is the war illegal?

The Congress authorized the President to go to use force in Iraq and then the President gave the order. According to the constitution that is what is legally required for the President to declare war. As far as the US Military is concerned they have received all the legal necessities necessary for it to go to war.

So how is this war illegal?

And if it is illegal how come, with all the Constitutional lawyers who opposed the war, not one case has been brought where a federal court ruled that Bush did not have the constitutional authority to invade Iraq?

The military has to respond to all legal orders given to it by the President or else we'll end up with a force that picks and chooses which wars it wants to fight and what Presidents it wants to obey.

[ScreamingWhisper]

67. Well said. /nt

[LynnTheDem]

81. You gotta be kidding...

:wow:

So Hitler's invasions were also "legal" and his troops had the "legal" duty to obey his orders. Well gee, that didn't work so well at the Nuremburg Tribunals.

How the fuck did so many Americans get to be so deeply dumb.

[wmbrew0206]

82. This thread is about a soldier who has refused to report for duty

If you want to discuss the legality of the war with respect to international law that can be done on another thread.

As far as this thread is concerned, this soldier is violating US law because under US law the war is legal. It is wasn't, all it would take is one federal judge to rule that Bush didn't have the authority to invade and the pentagon would have to start removing troops.

We can't have citizens deciding what US Law they are going to abide by and which ones they aren't because they are different than international law.

[LynnTheDem]

83. This is about a soldier refusing illegal orders to fight in an illegal war.

Good for him, that's a soldier's duty.

[wmbrew0206]

86. See post #85.

[Megahurtz]

94. FLUORIDE in the drinkining water.

Same shit Hitler did.

That's how Americans get to be so deeply dumb.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd102.htm

[Dogtown]

52. There is an understanding

with enlistment that you will *not* be ordered to act illegally.

Soldiers have no duty to disobey the law.

You'd know that if you had ever been a soldier instead of an apologist for conquest. Morally, with that comment, you're no better than the administration pursuing this illegal war.

[wmbrew0206]

70. There is also a legal obligation to obey all legal orders

Seeing as, whether we like it or not, Congress gave Bush the legal authority required by the US Constitution to go to war, then the orders to invade Iraq were legal under US law.

[Dogtown]

80. The war itself is not technically illegal

however, much has bveen done that's clearly illegal. As I read it, this soldier has not excused his behavior on the legality of the war, but other illegalities that has occurred and that he observed.

A public trial will bring much to light.

[LynnTheDem]

84. The "war" (ie illegal invasion) is in fact itself illegal.

Clearly. The USC itself calls all ratified treaties "the supreme law of the land".

George w. bUsh's illegal invasion of Iraq is in fact illegal under the United States Constitution.

[wmbrew0206]

85. What treaty is being violated?

If a treaty is being violated and US law is being broken, why hasn't Bush's orders to the military to invade Iraq been challenged in federal court and pronounced illegal?

BTW, in the interpretation of treaties, the Supreme Court has a long history of stating that treaty interpretations are left up to the executive branch and has given the executive branch a wide berth in those interpretations.

[LynnTheDem]

92. The UN Charter is a ratified treaty.

bUsh's illegal invasion of Iraq violated the UN Charter. Fact.

Violation of the UN Charter is a violation of the US Constitution. Also fact.

Both the above facts have been pronounced against the bUsh regime. Even the American chief prosecutor at the Nuremburg Tribunals has denounced bUsh's illegal invasion as illegal and a "supreme crime".

George W. bUsh's invasion of Iraq is, was, always will be, ILLEGAL.

A fact even members of the bUsh regime have admitted.

The only question is whether Americans and/or the world will hold the bUsh regime accountable.

And when will some Americans accept and get over the fact that George W. bUsh's illegal invasion of Iraq is in fact illegal.

[wmbrew0206]

93. Well, if that is the case why hasn't MoveOn or another anti-war organization

hired a lawyer and challenge the legality of the Iraq War in Federal court? If it is an open an shut case like you claim then any Federal judge would see the illegality of the war and rule against the Bush Administration orders to the military. That would effectively end the war.

Do you really think that if this war was illegal it wouldn't have been challenged in the US Courts during the five years it has been going on?

As of right now, not one US Court has ruled this war illegal. So right now the US judicial system says I'm right and this war is legal. If you can find a Federal Court ruling that says the war is illegal that hasn't been overturned, please feel free to correct me.

So you jump up and down and scream all day long that "This is an illegal war!" but until a US court rules the war illegal, you are completely wrong.

At this point your pretty much saying "I don't have any Federal Court opinions to cite or legal precedents to refer to but Damn it, this war is illegal because I want it to be and I can quote a bunch of people who agree with me! We're right and we don't need no stinking courts!"

Out of curiosity, do you think that the Gulf War was legal?

[Dogtown]

88. I agree, LTD

I conceded the point just to avoid the lengthy obfuscation of the trolls; those who claim this honorable soldier developed "cold feet".

Their piggies are ever-so-cozy, tucked under their chicken-hawk feathers...

[wmbrew0206]

71. I say that with the experience of having to tell my superiors what is legal and what isn't

I have said before, in previous posts, that I am a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC), which in means that I am certified to call in air strikes and artillery strikes.

While the "on scene commander" has to authorize the strike, I am responsible if anything goes wrong. Me, not the pilot or the on scene commander.

There have been times when a commander or pilot wanted to shoot something and I had to say "No" because the ROE did not allow it. I have gotten my @ss chewed for it but no one ever has ever tried to charge me because I was the subject matter expert. Once the heat of the moment passed, they normally agreed that I was right.

The US Military does its damnedest to ensure that the Laws of War are adhered to and goes after anyone who doesn't. However, we are bound by US law. If the Congress authorizes military action and the POTUS orders it, we are obligated to follow those orders and adhere to the Law of War.

As I have said before, the best way to end the Iraq War is to elect Obama and have him order us out of Iraq.

[Dogtown]

79. Thanks for the prop, wmbrew0206!

A perfect example of the need for discretion on the part of our miltary personnel. The simplifiers want to believe that a "grunt" is a dull tool without the need or ability to think for him/herself, but we were all trained in other stuff besides how to shoot.

It's pretty impossible to have served in our military without recalling the training.

:hi:

[bad_robbie]

56. For the sake of argument, let's say that's true . . .

. . . that if you join the military you no longer have any say in what wars you fight in. That's OK, though, because the government would only send you to fight in a justifiable war -- this is a representative government. So you sign up, either for active duty or the reserves, figuring that you'll learn skills, earn some money, get help with college, and in exchange you're available to go fight bad guys if the country is threatened. Not a bad deal.

But now we've got our leaders using our military for an unjust, unnecessary and unwanted war. But hey, those folks knew what they were getting into, they made an agreement, they need to hold up their end even if the leaders of the country don't. And if they refuse, send them to jail. (Jail for the resisters or illegal orders, of course, not the illegal order-givers.)

So that's our situation now. Given that situation, how are you gonna get new people to join up? Even if we get a change in leadership, your potential recruits are going to be aware that they're just one presidential election away from another disastrous adventure -- an enlistment is an 8 year deal. Something tells me that you're not gonna get the "best and brightest" to enlist. I don't even think you can get the second best and slightly dimmer. Without a draft, the military is stuck with a mix of the most desperate and the least educated.

The president and his enablers have compromised our country's ability to respond to actual threats, real disasters and genuine emergencies for years to come. I know I certainly would (and do) counsel any young person against considering the military as an option for their future.

[Captain Hilts]

47. You give up that right when you sign up. The military is not a Democracy. nt

[Dogtown]

53. Over simplification, MookieWilson

Soldiers have an absolute duty to disobey unlawful orders. It isn't slavery, it's duty, and duty is limited to lawful activities.


Else, there's no democracy at all.

Don't try to feed us talking points, Mook. People here think, as opposed to humbling themselves before their masters.

[ScreamingWhisper]

68. Your opinion is flawed, greatly

The military is not a democracy.
The role of soldiers from top rank down is to follow orders. Though each soldier can disobey, they can also risk legal ramifications for doing so.
In any given circumstance in military operations, there are numerous aspects that are not conveyed to a subordinate because, simply put, there isn't the time or reason. An order is given to be executed, and that subordinate is compelled to complete or delegate to a responsible lower rank.

What if the soldiers themselves feel that responsibility is not what they "personally" choose? Thats what this instance is.
If there is no order amongst ranks, then how can an objective be achieved.

Not a democracy.

[Dogtown]

77. Nobody made such claims.

Again, Nuremberg. We hanged "order followers". We can't (and don't) expect soldiers to blindly obey, when we've executed soldiers for not using their judgment.

Actually, the UCMJ has provisions for just this eventuality, and teaches those provisions in Basic Training to *all* recruits. Specific instances of properly refusing an unlawful order are given, to simplify the legalize.

In AIT (advanced individual training), specifically Infantry school, the subject is enlarged upon, due to the increased chance of problematic situations developing with the increased lethality of the job. Military Police also get extended training in these articles, for the same reason.

The days of shooting a man for not going "over the top" are done.


A trial *is* in order, to determine if the soldier in question has violated the UCMJ. That is not a "consequence", and none will be imposed until he is judged guilty by military court.

Unfortunately, under the junta this heroic soldier will not see justice. Perhaps Obama will be able to restore a semblance of justice with a presidential pardon. There's precedent for that. The upside is that it will be difficult for the coup to cover up this trial, and the publicity will only hurt their ability to fool us.


My opinion is not flawed, it's informed. Your view is much too simplistic. Even the military credits the trooper's ability to determine right from wrong.

[roody]

15. Not good. GREAT!!!

May they all do it immediately. End the wars. They are the most able to do so.

[uppityperson]

16. As during VietNam and other wars, they can chose to go to jail.

They can refuse and face the consequences. The consequences may be hefty, but of course they can refuse.

[kineneb]

57. but one has a much better survival chance in jail

then in Iraq...being stuck in the same position, I would probably go to jail.

[uppityperson]

64. I would also, had friends in Vietnam days who did also.

[harmonicon]

18. it's not about refusing orders

This is about refusing to be party to a crime. Would you criticize a police officer for refusing to follow an order to commit a crime? If one did, I don't think that means that they wouldn't follow orders to protect and serve the people. I think this man, like all soldiers, is very brave for serving in the armed forces. I think he's especially courageous for standing up for the rule of law. This war is blatantly illegal, and he shouldn't go. I applaud this decision.

[pokercat999]

30. Do you think President Obama will be nearly as stupid or

crazy as *ush?

If he is then by all means this would be good in that case also.

[sui generis]

42. well if Obama turns out to be as stupid as Bush then so be it.

Not about WHO is president it's about how they lead. Bush says we belong there and sleeps well at night while every single night of the year we have dead soldiers coming home in aluminum boxes.

I sure hope Obama changes that.

[FirstLight]

13. Dude...reservist means he was expecting a few weekends and some college money...

Not war and illegal occupation and God knows what other atrocities that are going on over there.

I would LOVE to see this on a large scale - to help drive the point home
AND put impeachment back on the table
followed by international indictment...

though if there are no soldiers, don't they just hire more mercenaries?
damn.

[hack89]

31. Dude - then he was a fool

he was still part of the army - armies fight wars.

[bean fidhleir]

33. "armies fight wars"

When did that happen? It used to be that armies existed to PREVENT war: "si vis pacem, para bellum". When did it change, and why?

[hack89]

66. You have a poor grasp of history

Switzerland is the only country that comes to mind that meets your criteria.

[Dogtown]

54. *Our* army is NOT supposed to be

used for wars of conquest. It has been done, of course, but history condemns those who use our army illegally.

This *IS* the 21st century, *Dude*. Our days of pretending to be civilized whilst committing genocide are supposed to be over. Would you bring that back?

If so, perhaps you should enlist and join in the spoils of conquest.

Rule of law applies, and your heroes are criminals.

[hack89]

65. Nice rant. nt

[ScreamingWhisper]

69. What Fuckin conquest?

Godamnit! Our troops have NOT held a fuckin conquest.
The troops went in.
The troops removed a dictator who killed millions of his own people based on political rumors of assistance to internal enemies (Iran)
This same dictatorship
had RAPE rooms
Beheaded opposition
Bombed opposition
buried entire townships including men, women and children

Upon liberation, the country of Iraq has a representative body never before seen...

The US or any allied force has taken NO reparations for OIL as it was projected
and in fact we (US) has spent millions rebuilding not just what we saw as being dilapidated, but what was
destroyed when we go there (YES...I have pics of rebuilding from a coworker who was there for 22months)

The control of Iraq is their own.

THAT is not conquest

[roody]

72. Where have you been for 5 years?

[Dogtown]

76. Party line

Only a fool accepts the neocon dogma.

Be happy in your ignorance.

[Thor_MN]

78. Expand your horizons. The conquest is tax dollars

The illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US was just a show piece to provide an excuse to pillage the US Treasury. Don't get me wrong, Saddam was an asshole. But he was absolutely no threat to the US.

I think that Chenney and Rumsfeld saw it as personal redemption for not being able to carry the Gulf War to Baghdad, and little Shrubbie saw it as a chance to one up his dad. But it has always been about transferring tax payer money from US citizens to private companies.

[jmowreader]

55. Dude...reservist means he signed up to fight wars

And because he's an Individual Ready Reservist, that means he was active duty once. Somehow, I think he noticed, as he went through his day-to-day life in his division, all the equipment the Army has that's made to kill people in wars.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

75. Dude, IRR is not "the reserves"

IRR is a status after an active duty hitch is done. After a few years of "real army", you are separated from active duty. No meetings, no summer camp, no haircuts, no nothing. There's an understanding that you could get recalled into active duty in a national emergency, but I don't know anyone who was recalled, or even thought it was a remote possibility.

Once you got that DD214 form in hand, it is over, done, finito, sayanara.

We are not in a national military emergency, no reason to recall the IRR into active duty.

Yeah, legally the guy could be in hot water, but in my book, he's served, so let him be.

:hi:

[truthisfreedom]

19. The first thing Obama does when he gets in office should be to work toward reinstating the draft.

We need to rebuild our military, and the way its been handled by bush, nobody wants to be in it.

[tomg]

20. Folks might want to read this part

of the article:

"Chiroux served five years in the army, with tours in Afghanistan, Japan, Germany and the Philippines.

He was honorably discharged last year and was placed in the Individual Ready Reserves (IRR), a pool of former soldiers who can be "reactivated" in a national emergency or war."

He signed up, served, was honorably discharged. There is a time when the IRR can and should be used. A little different but same principal: my father spent two years in the military, was discharged and then called back up a month later. Big Difference: he was discharged in late November of 1941, called back up in December. What Chiroux is undergoing is the back-door draft.

Right now there are a lot of people who are resisting, and in various ways. For anyone interested, there are groups like

the Fellowship of Reconciliation http://www.forusa.org/
the War Resisters League http://www.warresisters.org/
Central Committee on Conscientious Objection http://www.objector.org/

Chiroux seems, as a resister, to be doing it exactly right. Part of civil disobedience is knowing the consequences and placing yourself in a position whereby you accept them. My admiration for this citizen is immense.

Upthread someone said, "if he can do it for a President Bush, he can do it for President Obama." Well, if President Obama ( god, I like the sound of that)ran an illegal war and did it in this way, this person would, I imagine. A lot of us marched against Johnson's war before we marched against Nixon's.


edit:typo

[freefall]

22. Thanks for links. Rushing to work but will check out tonight. n/t

[iconicgnom]

32. I''m glad to see that there's resistance from below.

It would be nice to see this man supported. Since he's objecting on the ground that the war is "illegal and unconstitutional", clearly anyone who thinks the current administration is impeachable on grounds that they lied, that they broke not just the US constitution but the Geneva conventions -- any such person would want to support him. There'd be a consensus - that whether it was just a suit to vindicate Chiroux or a class action suit, there was a legitimate and pressing case for impeachment.

Through this whole 8 yrs I've wondered why this administration could only be stopped by impeachment, where impeachment seems to be a process that can be arbitrarily "tabled" - meaning trashcanned. Why can't impeachment be brought to court by a victim, or a class of victims?

[99th_Monkey]

21. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this war's illegal and unconstitutional ...

but more power to you Matthis and to your dad Rob, for standing with you. You are the real patriots.

[PinkyisBlue]

38. And Matthis' dad, Rob, just happens to be a rocket scientist!

Gee, those rocket scientists really ARE smart.

I congratulate this soldier for taking a stand against an illegal occupation. I'm sure if our country was involved in a real war, he would be right there with the rest of our soldiers.

[freefall]

23. Matthis Chiroux is a truly patriotic and brave soldier. If we had more like

him we might have gotten out of this illegal, immoral occupation and slaughter of innocents a few years ago. As much as I try, I find it difficult to respect people who actually agree to deploy to Iraq and participate in the horrible crime the US is committing there. It is a relief to know that we have some principled members of the military. Remember when the many Germans said they were "just following orders" and were told that was not an excuse. Why is it an excuse now that we are doing it?

Peace,

freefall

[fascisthunter]

24. GOOD! I Hope More Should The Same

More need to stand up also outside of the military against those who wanted this blood bath.

[Smith_3]

25. All power to him.

He is setting a great example.

[yy4me]

26. I remember the kids during the Vietnam war chanting:

"HELL NO, WE WON'T GO"

The beginning?
Finally?

I wish him well and also to those with the courage to follow him.
Somehow this mess has to stop
This action seems to me to be a sacrifice too.
He will carry his actions for his lifetime.
Maybe, just maybe, someone will hear and take action on
behalf of the troops who have no voice.

[pokercat999]

28. Also "Hey-hey LBJ how many kids did ya kill today" I

really think that is what was behind the "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve" statement.

[kineneb]

58. Hell, no we won't go, we won't fight for Texico

don't forget the rest of the chant...has even more relevance now.

[fasttense]

34. Unless you serve the uber rich, you have no occupation.

The CEOs, corporations and elite uber wealthy have defined the occupations of this country down to slave or prisoner. Those are your choices because they gots to make more money. The idle rich want you to do their dirty work and for very little pay.

And this comment says it best:

"I stand here today in defense of those who have been stripped of their voices in this occupation, the warriors of this nation...",

Even warriors have been turned into little more than slave labor.

[happygoluckytoyou]

36. time for the GOP robocops to come in....introducing COMMANDMENT IN CHIEF...McCain

[Doctor_J]

39. Remember what Col Flagg said memorably

"First one guy refuses to fight, then another, then another. Pretty soon you know what you've got?"

Hunnicutt: "Peace?"

Good on you sergeant. :thumbsup:

[Zachstar]

40. Everyone before you go and say there needs to be parades for this guy you need to think

Regardless of the situation there has to be a consequence. Now there are many good men fighting over there for no reason. But you do realize that if this goes unnoticed there will be many who refuse to serve there there is an emergency situation. (World War)


That's life. No military is perfect...


He will be brought to court and he will make his case in court that will further weaken George W Bush's phony war. He obviously has accepted that and is doing so honorably but don't start making comparisons to Vietnam and other wars.

He will be found guilty and he will likely face jail time. That he deserves for refusing to follow orders to return to duty I am sorry to say. Regardless of the situation.

If you don't want to be in some 8 year commitment where they can call you back at any time. Don't Join.

[sui generis]

44. reserves. What are they really for?

not for fighting foreign wars. They are for the domestic peace while our well staffed military is engaged in a foreign conflict. Only in a time of dire need are they supposed to be called into service. But we're the fucking idiots who caused that "dire need".

We are not in a conflict. It's an occupation.

There is no rule in the universe that says that consequence in the form of punishment is the only consequence that must come to pass. If it were so, we wouldn't have trials, and we would always be certain of the outcome.

I hope he prevails. In his own way he is fighting to bring our soldiers home. That's worth something.

[superconnected]

61. I think there is a difference between joining and fighting real wars

and joining and having to fight illegal ones. That's his point. It's an excellent one.

"You joined", is an imbecilic answer to allow unlimited abuse. Dick Cheney even used that rhetoric. I'm sad to see someone stoops to use it here, and in the same way it usually is used, as a dismissal of objections against abuse.

Your statement, not you, is pathetic.

[Xenotime]

46. Good for him. Here's a case where I can support our troops!

[happygoluckytoyou]

48. how do you blame the NAZIs ? ? ?

After WWII there was a cry that "I was just following orders" by German soldiers was NOT an excuse for the horror they put onto other people.

WE the American people REJECTED that concept. We made fun of the Sarge in Hogan's Heroes for always saying that "I see nothing...NOTHING...I am just following orders"

IF A SOLDIER needs to leave the military because he sees what they are doing as WRONG...or ILLEGAL...or NOT MORAL.... how can WE THE PEOPLE want to force him to "JUST FOLLOW ORDERS"

ALL I CAN SAY IS.... PUT ME ON THE JURY....

[AlbertCat]

49. Reinstate the DRAFT!

Hell yeah!

Let's draft some Congresspeople's kids.....and watch the war end so quickly your head will spin.

[happygoluckytoyou]

50. i hear that the bush and cheney girls are signing up already

[ThePowerofWill]

59. Good for him!

More should follow his example.

[superconnected]

60. What a hero! He's stands up and refuses to fight on the grounds he considers

it illegal. :)

Reminds me of a war hero professor I had in a college history class. He said, "If you don't want to fight and die for your country then you bloody well shouldn't".

Armies will survive without forcing people to stay.

[samsingh]

73. i don't blame him at all.

[orleans]

74. the kid's father is actually a "rocket scientist?" that's pretty funny

hey! even a rocket scientist knows better:

"Matthis' father Rob, a rocket scientist who lives in the army town of Huntsville, Alabama, said mobilizing IRR members was a form of back-door draft."

[Agony]

87. Matthis Chiroux has company.

Ryan Jackson
Agustin Aguayo
Mark Wilkerson
Ehren Watada
Suzanne Swift
James Burmeister
Eugene Cherry
James Circello
Robin Long
Brandon Hughey
Jeremy Hinzman
Brad Gaskins
Darrell Anderson
Ricky Clousing
Kyle Snyder
Stephen Funk
Dan Felushko
Carl Webb
Wilfredo Torres
Diedra Cobb
Perry O'Brien
Joel Klimkewicz
Chas Davis
Blake LeMoine
Joshua Despain
Michael Blake
Jessica Faustner
Neil Quentin Lucas
Chris Teske
Matt Lowell
Tim Richard
Robert Zabala
Christian Kjar
Camilo Mejia
Abdul Henderson
Ghanim Khalil
Pablo Paredos
Eleonai “Eli” Israel
Jonathan Barriga
Dale Bartell
David Beals
Kevin Benderman
Anuradha Bhagwati
Ivan Brobek
Peter Brown
David Bunt
Thomas Buonomo
Nathen Burden
Travis Burnham
Chris Capps
Sergei Chaparin
Travis Clark
Justin Cliburn
Justin Colby
Clifford Cornell
Erin Creagan
Jeremy Daniel
Michael Espinal
Jessica Faustner
Corey Glass
Chris Gorman
Robert Grubbs
Mary Hanna
Patrick Hart
Derek Hess
Clifton Hicks
Kevin Hicks
Jared Hood
Kyle Huwer
Bethany James
Kathrine Jashinski
Ryan Johnson
Terri Johnson
Joshua Key
Joel Klemkewicz
Dale Landry
Vincent LaVolpa
Calvin Lee
Kevin Lee
Brian John Lyman
Chris Magaoay
Jason Marek
Corey Martin
Jimmy Massey
Brad McCall
Phil McDowell
Melanie McPherson
Matt Mishler
James Morriss
Linjamin Mull
Greg Nash
Perry O'Brian
Ralph Padula
DeShawn Reed
Kimberly Rivera
Korey Rowe
David Sanders
Ross Spears
James Stepp
Michael Sudbury
Ronnie Tallman
Harvey Tharp
Marc Train
Jose Vasquez
Hart Viges
Jason Webb
Abdullah Webster
Chuck Wiley
Steve Yoczik
Robert Zabala
Joshua Casteel
Chris Harrison
Eric Riley
Preston Betts
Dean Walcott

My apologies if I missed anyone...

List from:
www.couragetoresist.org
ivaw.org
www.tomjoad.org