Desertion...our "Army of One"!!!!

[AtlantaWalter]

This guy is a Staff Sgt in the Infantry. A pretty poor example of leadership for his squad and to apply for conscientious objector status after being in the Infantry hardly makes sense. I think this was his first taste of having to actually do his job as an infantryman and he found a big yellow stripe down his back.
And, why did he wait 5 months to turn himself in?

Friday, March 26, 2004
AP

SAVANNAH, Ga. — A National Guardsman who criticized the "oil-driven war" in Iraq was charged with desertion for refusing to rejoin his unit after a two-week furlough.

Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia of the Florida National Guard was charged after traveling to Fort Stewart from his home in Miami Beach, Fla., Fort Stewart spokesman Richard Olson said Friday.

"He's taking it in stride," said Mejia's attorney, Louis Font. "He is strong and intelligent and will defend against these charges."

Army officials said Mejia, 28, left Iraq in October on a two-week leave from the 1st Battalion, 124th Infantry Regiment and did not return.

Mejia has said he believes the war is unjust because it is about control of oil supplies and has also said he is upset over the death of civilians.

Mejia has applied for conscientious objector status, but the Army pressed on with prosecution because he was gone so long — five months.

However, Mejia will face a special court-martial rather than a general court-martial, Fort Stewart commander Maj. Gen. William G. Webster said. That means Mejia faces up to a year in prison and a bad conduct discharge rather than up to five years and a dishonorable discharge.

Mejia has been barred from leaving Fort Stewart without special permission since he arrived last week, said Font. He was denied a request to attend an anti-war rally last weekend at Fort Bragg, N.C.

No date has been set for Mejia's trial.

My thoughts on it.....It is not his job to judge whether a war is just or not; his job is to fight. If a soldier wants to pick and choose his fights, he shouldn't be in the service.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Lock his ass up.

 

[5stringJeff]

I have heard about this from a couple of different sources. It sounds like the guy had a change of heart about his morals, as it applied to Iraq. If that's the case, then he should have declared himself a conscientous (sp?) objector and informed his chain of command about that choice, instead of going AWOL.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
I have heard about this from a couple of different sources. It sounds like the guy had a change of heart about his morals, as it applied to Iraq. If that's the case, then he should have declared himself a conscientous (sp?) objector and informed his chain of command about that choice, instead of going AWOL.

Last I checked, when you sign on the line, you don't have the luxury of independent choice. You are government property. He should have thought of that before joining. If you have a problem being told to kill on command and for any reason against any enemy, you shouldn't be there.

History is quite clear on that.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Last I checked, when you sign on the line, you don't have the luxury of independent choice. You are government property. He should have thought of that before joining. If you have a problem being told to kill on command and for any reason against any enemy, you shouldn't be there.

History is quite clear on that.

Being a former Army officer, I have seen my fair share of AWOL's, and even a desertion. And yes, I wanted to flog that little piece of crap around my office until he was unrecognizable for deserting.
However, the Army (and other services, I believe) do allow for a conscientous objector to file for status as such. People who choose to join the Army as C.O.'s are allowed to serve in positions where they aren't expected to fight (i.e. garrison/in the rear). Alternately, the soldier can ask to leave the service altogether under C.O. status.
Regardless, this soldier's actions were incorrect, and he should be punished for deserting. He should not, however, be punished for his decision to be a C.O.

 

[Said1]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
B People who choose to join the Army as C.O.'s are allowed to serve in positions where they aren't expected to fight (i.e. garrison/in the rear).

Why is that allowed? To me, that doesn't even make sense.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Said1
Why is that allowed? To me, that doesn't even make sense.

I don't make the policy, I just follow it!

Honestly, though, some people want to serve their country but feel strongly that they shouldn't kill others. I personally would recommend a civilian job for those people, but I'm not the policy maker.

 

[Said1]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
I don't make the policy, I just follow it!

Honestly, though, some people want to serve their country but feel strongly that they shouldn't kill others. I personally would recommend a civilian job for those people, but I'm not the policy maker.

Thanks, for answering. After I posted the question, I came up with a few reasons (serving as doctor etc) including the one you gave. It makes sense looking at it that way.

 

[kcmcdonald]

when you sign up they even have a line on the paper that asks if you are a consious objector, hell it's even on the OSS(?) forms you sign at the age of 18.

The guy deserted his unit and that's that. If he doesn't want to kill Iraqi's he could ahve taken a rear job, he is in the gaurd and they let some people stay behind during deployment.

 

[MadMax]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Being a former Army officer, I have seen my fair share of AWOL's, and even a desertion. And yes, I wanted to flog that little piece of crap around my office until he was unrecognizable for deserting.
However, the Army (and other services, I believe) do allow for a conscientous objector to file for status as such. People who choose to join the Army as C.O.'s are allowed to serve in positions where they aren't expected to fight (i.e. garrison/in the rear). Alternately, the soldier can ask to leave the service altogether under C.O. status.
Regardless, this soldier's actions were incorrect, and he should be punished for deserting. He should not, however, be punished for his decision to be a C.O.

Ummm excuse me but I believe a SSG is an NCO and doesn't have the same rights.

 

[Johnney]

Originally posted by MadMax
Ummm excuse me but I believe a SSG is an NCO and doesn't have the same rights.

IMO i dont think you should be given any rank past specialist. NCO's and officers are leadership positions and you cant lead your troops from the rear.

 

[pegwinn]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Last I checked, when you sign on the line, you don't have the luxury of independent choice. You are government property. He should have thought of that before joining. If you have a problem being told to kill on command and for any reason against any enemy, you shouldn't be there. History is quite clear on that.

The only exception to that is refusal to obey unlawfull orders.

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Being a former Army officer, I have seen my fair share of AWOL's, and even a desertion. And yes, I wanted to flog that little piece of crap around my office until he was unrecognizable for deserting.
However, the Army (and other services, I believe) do allow for a conscientous objector to file for status as such. People who choose to join the Army as C.O.'s are allowed to serve in positions where they aren't expected to fight (i.e. garrison/in the rear). Alternately, the soldier can ask to leave the service altogether under C.O. status.
Regardless, this soldier's actions were incorrect, and he should be punished for deserting. He should not, however, be punished for his decision to be a C.O.

With all due respect, NOT!!!!!!!
As an NCO he shoulda figgered out his orientation years ago. Then he shouldn't have reenlisted.

Marines process C.O.'s for discharge.
By the way, C.O. stands for "Cowardly Offenders" appropriate no?

 

[Annie]

Have to agree with most that has gone before. Seems the military needs to post a disclaimer along the lines of: 'We will pay for your schooling, low interest mortgage, great life insurance premiums, AFTER you provide the services which you've volunteered for, IF they become necessary.' Duh!!!

 

[eric]

He should not, however, be punished for his decision to be a C.O.

Jeff I have to take exception with you here. I just do not see a place for a C.O. in the military, other than using it as psudo-welfare system.

There is just too much potential for abuse of the status. We can not have our fighting men and women pick and choice their conflicts, IMHO, of course.

It seems pretty clear cut to me; if you object to war, don't join the military, period !

 

[Merlin1047]

"It seems pretty clear cut to me; if you object to war, don't join the military, period !"

Eric, your view is a little too simplistic. You cannot imagine the horrors of combat until you have personally confronted them. In 1968, I returned from a mission with my co-pilots brains spattered all over my flight suit. It took me a couple of days to get my act together again.

Perhaps some people, once confronted with the realities of war, find that they just can't deal with it. Others might just have been cowards to begin with. I'm not prepared to make a judgement on this particular NCO. Are you?

 

[Annie]

On this particular person, well no. But on NCO's or CO's for that matter, yes. Do not enlist unless you are willing to give what it takes. Too many seemed to have signed up for the education/retirement benefits, thinking that the US military was for improving one's socio-economic status. Whoops.

 

[eric]

Perhaps some people, once confronted with the realities of war, find that they just can't deal with it. Others might just have been cowards to begin with. I'm not prepared to make a judgement on this particular NCO. Are you?

This is a very different circumstance. If someone has seen combat and is unable to continue, then yes I do understand. To join the military for its benefits (education, etc) and then not be willing to fight, well that does not go in my book, and it is my tax dollars at stake here, so yes I will make judgements !

 

[Merlin1047]

"To join the military for its benefits (education, etc) and then not be willing to fight, well that does not go in my book, and it is my tax dollars at stake here, so yes I will make judgements !"

If I read the original post correctly, it seems that the individual in question DID, in fact, serve in Iraq as indicated by the following excerpt:

"Army officials said Mejia, 28, left Iraq in October on a two-week leave from the 1st Battalion, 124th Infantry Regiment and did not return."

I don't condone or agree with his actions and I feel that disciplinary action is appropriate. But I rather resent your smarmy attitude. Your tax dollars? You think that gives you the right to sit in judgement of someone who has been in combat? Not in my book. Talk to me when you've had the opportunity to see tracers coming at you. Talk to me when you've seen the blood of your comrades. Talk to me when you've looked down the barrel of a gun.

As long as you sit comfortably behind your PC, never missing a single cycle of the airconditioner, you are not qualified to criticize or pass judgement on those who have risked their lives for this country.

Your tax dollars be damned.

 

[eric]

You know Merlin, you attacked someone with very little knowledge. Do yourself a favor and read back thru months of posts I have made. I have over and over praised and defended our servicemen and women for providing us the blanket of freedom under which we all sleep. I have defended and fought on behalf of these people. Not to mention I employ vets and have given quite a bit of money in their behalf.

As much as you don't like to hear it, YES my enormous tax dollars do allow me to have an input in this situation. Just because someone served in combat does NOT make them immune to judgement regardless of what you think.

My families safety is a risk here and yes I will speak my mind as I see fit !

 

[Annie]

Merlin seems an anomoly to me, most vets I've met and spoken with, not to mention been related to and spoken with, (a whole different kettle of fish), have been more than tolerant of civilians speaking their minds. Makes one wonder...