Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,099
- 245
I was pointing out how you were posting links without actually examining what they said. You were trying to argue that a person could not claim CO status, while posting links that they could. the fact that you think asking for proof is somehow the same as you posting links that prove you are wrong shows how incapable you are of actually thinking.
All I can say is.
Bullshit. I never claimed that someone could not claim CO status.
What I claimed was that CO status is not a "No Hassle" path to discharge out of the military as you said. I posted the military regulations that shows it is not, that it's actually a long drawn out process. Nor is it an automatic out.
Finally I disagreed with and proved under miltiary and civilian law that a CO claim is not a positive defense when charged with violations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Some people are able to admit they were wrong when faced with facts. Others are not. Such is life.
>>>>
My mistake. I was tired, and what you actually tried to argue was that,k because it did not actually use the words in the Manual for Courts Martial, an affirmative, or positive, defense of being a conscientious objector is not permitted, and challenged me to prove that it was.
From Military Regulations concerning conscientious objector status are not as easy as you imply. There are procedures to request such status, however those procedures require an indpendent investigation to determine the validity of such a request and the military does not view or process such requests favorably when:
1. Personal history and claims to being a conscientious objector prior to volunteering for the military.
2. Based on conscientious objector status claimed and rejected under the Selective Service System.
3. Based on disagreement with a particular action (such as deployment orders), pragmatism, or expediency to evade deployment.
4. Insincere claims.
5. Based on disagreement with a certain war.
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar600-43.pdf
"Affirmative defense?" That means that someone was charged with something (otherwise they wouldn't need a "defense").Even the UCMJ allows an affirmative defense.
Here is the link to the Manual of the Courts Martial -->> http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf
The MCM describes in detail the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it's punative articles, and the means of charging each and the criteria used in evaluating each of the charges.
Please quote the section that cites "conscientious objector" is a positive defense for any of the punitive articles contained therein.
I will gladly review your findings, but be aware the word "conscientious objector", "objector" or "conscientious" (as it pertains to this subject) do not appear anywhere in the Manual of the Courts Martial and so are not listed as a "positive defense" in respect to any charge under the UCMJ.
>>>>
I could be wrong about this also, but it might have been in response to this post that I pointed out that posting links and thinking are not equivalent. The Manual for Courts Martial is a guidebook, and is not all inclusive. For example, it doesn't mention Facebook or Twitter, but that will not stop either the prosecutor, or the defense, from using either, or both, to make their case if someone is charged with, for example, some idiot decides to post pictures of themselves abusing prisoners at a military prison.
Learn to think and you might not feel stupid when someone posts the obvious using your links. Or, if you are really as dumb as you pretend, keep doing the same thing and letting people use your own links to prove you are stupid, but continue to believe you are actually smart because you are incapable of seeing that you are wrong. That will quickly earn you the reputation of being just another rdean, which you do not want.