Go to war have your credit ruined

[The Man @ Lunch]

Yeah I like that philosophy.

I'm betting you also like their philosophy in such cases that the guilt of the accused is a foregone conclusion. The only difference is in the leniency of the sentence if the accused pleads guilty.

"You are one piece of work." (As are your buddies on this thread.)

 

[Edward]

Here is the original news story for this thread:

http://wcbstv.com/local/local_story_204222600.html

Here are other examples of this idiotic policy:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,87399,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5074904

Congress should take up legislation to deal with this insane policy and to show that America isn't going to allow anyone (including other members of the military and former members of the military) to undermine our soldiers in this way. The example of Lt. Rebrook is enough to shock the mind and make one wonder at how our soldiers are being treated. It is time for Congress to exercise oversight and to pass legislation on this policy.

 

[Edward]

I'm betting you also like their philosophy in such cases that the guilt of the accused is a foregone conclusion. The only difference is in the leniency of the sentence if the accused pleads guilty.

"You are one piece of work." (As are your buddies on this thread.)

He's nuts and has demonstrated that time and again by his posts. I agree with you that he and people like him are real pieces of work. That someone would support an idiotic policy that charges soldiers for lost or damaged equipment that they used in the course of their regular duties only proves there are evil people and it is incumbent on the rest of us to protect our soldiers from the harm they would do to them.

 

[Edward]

I'm an idiot because you don't agree with me? Dude, I don't need a lesson from you on why people join the military. I'm retired from it.

Your being in the military has nothing to do with this issue since the people who are being charged and who are pointing out the error of this policy have also served (or are serving) in the military. I never said you were an idiot because you don't agree with me. There is a distinct difference here that you cannot seem to grasp. The reason you are an idiot is because of what you have said and done and not because you disagree with me. To charge our soldiers for equipment that was lost or damaged in the regular performance of their duties is idiotic.

How dare you try to make this an issue other than what it is? Accountability for one's actions. Don't give me that slanted, feigned indignation bullshit.

Tell that to Lt. Rebrook who was charged for body armor that was damaged as a result of him being wounded in Iraq. He should have kept track of that body armor himself and been accountable for it. His bleeding and wounded body should have made sure to hold on to the armor for dear life so he would not be charged for it later. A soldier being fired upon by insurgents should make sure to grab every piece of his uniform so he won't be charged later and he shouldn't be concerned that doing so would result in a bullet in his head.

When I was charged for lost equipment I paid the bill without whining about it. Where were YOU to politicize it for me?

I am not the one who is trying to politicize this instead I am trying to make it a legislative issue. It is time for Congress to do something about this and to deal with this insane policy. When the Army tells a Specialist to contact his Congressman than it becomes a political issue. That is what happened in this news story. They told him and investigative reporters to contact their Congressman and they contacted Senator Schumer who is now dealing with the problem and I hope that he and other Congressman who have had to deal with this idiocy in the past will sponsor legislation on this matter.

The fact is, you've just done another exemplary job of proving yourself a fool. Go get som regs and read up on the topic and get back to me. There is nothing political about the issue, nor statement. The only ones trying to politicize it are you and that imbecile left-wingnut truthDOESN'Tmatter.

Actually, it was the Army who did that when they told this man to contact his Congressman because they weren't going to do anything. Had they done something about this problem and addressed it themselves than members of Congress wouldn't have to deal with the problem and to express their outrage for having to act as an intermediary between the Army and one of their constituents. Now you are trying to make this political and partisand when it isn't partisan at all. For all we know this soldier is a Republican but that does not change the fact that the policy which would charge him for an un-identified piece of equipment that was lost or stolen while he was in Iraq is idiotic. To place the burden on the soldier and their families to prove that the lost or damage was not due to negligence or misuse on their part is moronic. That is something that Army should prove because the Army administration should be ACCOUNTABLE for their equipment. You seem quick to talk about accountability and yet you don't mention that the Army wasn't acting in a responsible manner. To send a bill to a soldier without knowing what he is being billed for is irresponsible. As the current policy stands the individual soldier and his family shouldn't have to prove a negative. They shouldn't have to prove they weren't negligent and didn't misuse the equipement instead the Army should prove that they were negligent and misused the equipment. Yet, the policy itself needs to be addressed since it undermines our soldiers and is immoral.

 

[Gunny]

Your being in the military has nothing to do with this issue since the people who are being charged and who are pointing out the error of this policy have also served (or are serving) in the military. I never said you were an idiot because you don't agree with me. There is a distinct difference here that you cannot seem to grasp. The reason you are an idiot is because of what you have said and done and not because you disagree with me. To charge our soldiers for equipment that was lost or damaged in the regular performance of their duties is idiotic.



Tell that to Lt. Rebrook who was charged for body armor that was damaged as a result of him being wounded in Iraq. He should have kept track of that body armor himself and been accountable for it. His bleeding and wounded body should have made sure to hold on to the armor for dear life so he would not be charged for it later. A soldier being fired upon by insurgents should make sure to grab every piece of his uniform so he won't be charged later and he shouldn't be concerned that doing so would result in a bullet in his head.



I am not the one who is trying to politicize this instead I am trying to make it a legislative issue. It is time for Congress to do something about this and to deal with this insane policy. When the Army tells a Specialist to contact his Congressman than it becomes a political issue. That is what happened in this news story. They told him and investigative reporters to contact their Congressman and they contacted Senator Schumer who is now dealing with the problem and I hope that he and other Congressman who have had to deal with this idiocy in the past will sponsor legislation on this matter.



Actually, it was the Army who did that when they told this man to contact his Congressman because they weren't going to do anything. Had they done something about this problem and addressed it themselves than members of Congress wouldn't have to deal with the problem and to express their outrage for having to act as an intermediary between the Army and one of their constituents. Now you are trying to make this political and partisand when it isn't partisan at all. For all we know this soldier is a Republican but that does not change the fact that the policy which would charge him for an un-identified piece of equipment that was lost or stolen while he was in Iraq is idiotic. To place the burden on the soldier and their families to prove that the lost or damage was not due to negligence or misuse on their part is moronic. That is something that Army should prove because the Army administration should be ACCOUNTABLE for their equipment. You seem quick to talk about accountability and yet you don't mention that the Army wasn't acting in a responsible manner. To send a bill to a soldier without knowing what he is being billed for is irresponsible. As the current policy stands the individual soldier and his family shouldn't have to prove a negative. They shouldn't have to prove they weren't negligent and didn't misuse the equipement instead the Army should prove that they were negligent and misused the equipment. Yet, the policy itself needs to be addressed since it undermines our soldiers and is immoral.

Y'know, I could almost agree with you with except for one minor problem ... you immediately take the word of someone accusing the military of wrongdoing rather than take the time to understand the procedure.

There's a line of duty investigation that determines whether or not the equipment was destroyed as result of accident or usual wear and tear in the line of duty, or if it is due to personal mishandling/negligence, or some other form of destruction not in the line of duty.

Believe it or not, personal injuries are treated in the exact same manner.

I'm not advocating charging anyone for normal wear-n-tear, accident in the line of duty, nor anythign like that. But when LCpl Schmuckatelli needs drinking money and half his deuce gear ends up in the pawn shop, he should be held accountable for replacing it.

 

[Edward]

Y'know, I could almost agree with you with except for one minor problem ... you immediately take the word of someone accusing the military of wrongdoing rather than take the time to understand the procedure.

I understand the procedures and so did the people who covered this story yet you "immediately dis-believe someone accusing the military of charging them for gear that they did not lose or damage." In the first instance the investigative reporters are the ones who determined that the military could not provide any information on the piece of equipment that was allegedly lost or damaged. In other words they sent this soldier a bill for $700 for a piece of equipment that they had no knowledge of. Also, the second story about Lt. Rebrook being charged for body armor that was damaged in battle was true and it was proven to be true only after a bitter fight on his part. Time and again the people who make these allegations have demonstrated their love for their country and willingness to serve it and to fight for it. They aren't merely making allegations about Army wrong-doing instead they are pointing out that they are the ones who are forced to carry the burden of proof and to prove a negative and that this is wrong. IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR A SOLDIER TO PROVE THAT HE DID NOT LOSE OR DAMAGE EQUIPMENT AS A RESULT OF NEGLIGENCE OR MISUSE ON HIS PART. This is why the military must carry the burden of proof. If he stole the equipment they need to prove it and if they can prove it than they should prosecute him for theft of government property.

There's a line of duty investigation that determines whether or not the equipment was destroyed as result of accident or usual wear and tear in the line of duty, or if it is due to personal mishandling/negligence, or some other form of destruction not in the line of duty.

It's great to know there is a line of investigation except the only problem is THAT THE LINE OF INVESTIGATION DOES NOT KNOW WHICH PIECE OF EQUIPMENT WAS LOST OR DAMAGED. It also requires soldiers to fill out paperwork and to receive approval from their commanding officer. It places the burden of proof on the soldier and not on the military and that isn't how things should operate. To force someone to prove a negative is idiotic. If the Army believes that the equipment was destroyed as a result of mishandling or negligence than they should prove it but they aren't required to do so under the current policy instead the soldier must submit a letter to his commanding officer asking him to sign a "statement of normal wear and tear" and prove that it was a result of normal wear and tear.

I'm not advocating charging anyone for normal wear-n-tear, accident in the line of duty, nor anythign like that. But when LCpl Schmuckatelli needs drinking money and half his deuce gear ends up in the pawn shop, he should be held accountable for replacing it.

It's obvious you don't know enough about Military regulations or you would know that soldiers aren't supposed to be charged for the "normal wear and tear" of equipment Tell me Mr. Soldier that you knew that. Also, if the government suspects LCpl Schmuckatelli sold government property then they should charge hime with theft of government property but they don't do that instead they charge all soldiers for lost or damaged equipment and expect them to prove that they weren't negligent and didn't misuse the equipment and that places the burden of proof on the defendant and not on the person making the allegation. That is wrong. Assuming that they lost or damaged it as a result of misue or negligence without proof that they did so deliberately is idiotic. When soldiers are fighting they should never receive a bill for BODY ARMOR or UN-SPECIFIED PIECES OF EQUIPMENT. Who in their ******* right mind would assume that a soldier who is wounded and is in a Military Hospital stole a piece of body armor? Who in their ******* right mind would charge that soldier for the body armor? You talk about how there is a line of investigation and yet a soldier is charged for body armor that was damaged as a result of combat. Is it standard operating procedure to charge someone after a brief investigation? That when it is made public is easily proven to be false. Did they ask Lt. Rebrook how the body armor was lost? Did they believe him when he told them how it was lost or did they look at a wounded soldier and think "he is a lying scumbag and it was his fault the body armor was lost as a result of a road-side bomb."

Your posts make you look foolish. Everyone here knows that soldiers aren't supposed to be charged for normal wear and tear of equipment and yet you don't Mr. Soldier. It shows that your service in the military wasn't in JAG.

 

[Gunny]

I understand the procedures and so did the people who covered this story yet you "immediately dis-believe someone accusing the military of charging them for gear that they did not lose or damage." In the first instance the investigative reporters are the ones who determined that the military could not provide any information on the piece of equipment that was allegedly lost or damaged. In other words they sent this soldier a bill for $700 for a piece of equipment that they had no knowledge of. Also, the second story about Lt. Rebrook being charged for body armor that was damaged in battle was true and it was proven to be true only after a bitter fight on his part. Time and again the people who make these allegations have demonstrated their love for their country and willingness to serve it and to fight for it. They aren't merely making allegations about Army wrong-doing instead they are pointing out that they are the ones who are forced to carry the burden of proof and to prove a negative and that this is wrong. IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR A SOLDIER TO PROVE THAT HE DID NOT LOSE OR DAMAGE EQUIPMENT AS A RESULT OF NEGLIGENCE OR MISUSE ON HIS PART. This is why the military must carry the burden of proof. If he stole the equipment they need to prove it and if they can prove it than they should prosecute him for theft of government property.



It's great to know there is a line of investigation except the only problem is THAT THE LINE OF INVESTIGATION DOES NOT KNOW WHICH PIECE OF EQUIPMENT WAS LOST OR DAMAGED. It also requires soldiers to fill out paperwork and to receive approval from their commanding officer. It places the burden of proof on the soldier and not on the military and that isn't how things should operate. To force someone to prove a negative is idiotic. If the Army believes that the equipment was destroyed as a result of mishandling or negligence than they should prove it but they aren't required to do so under the current policy instead the soldier must submit a letter to his commanding officer asking him to sign a "statement of normal wear and tear" and prove that it was a result of normal wear and tear.



It's obvious you don't know enough about Military regulations or you would know that soldiers aren't supposed to be charged for the "normal wear and tear" of equipment Tell me Mr. Soldier that you knew that. Also, if the government suspects LCpl Schmuckatelli sold government property then they should charge hime with theft of government property but they don't do that instead they charge all soldiers for lost or damaged equipment and expect them to prove that they weren't negligent and didn't misuse the equipment and that places the burden of proof on the defendant and not on the person making the allegation. That is wrong. Assuming that they lost or damaged it as a result of misue or negligence without proof that they did so deliberately is idiotic. When soldiers are fighting they should never receive a bill for BODY ARMOR or UN-SPECIFIED PIECES OF EQUIPMENT. Who in their ******* right mind would assume that a soldier who is wounded and is in a Military Hospital stole a piece of body armor? Who in their ******* right mind would charge that soldier for the body armor? You talk about how there is a line of investigation and yet a soldier is charged for body armor that was damaged as a result of combat. Is it standard operating procedure to charge someone after a brief investigation? That when it is made public is easily proven to be false. Did they ask Lt. Rebrook how the body armor was lost? Did they believe him when he told them how it was lost or did they look at a wounded soldier and think "he is a lying scumbag and it was his fault the body armor was lost as a result of a road-side bomb."

Your posts make you look foolish. Everyone here knows that soldiers aren't supposed to be charged for normal wear and tear of equipment and yet you don't Mr. Soldier. It shows that your service in the military wasn't in JAG.

Acutally, my posts make YOU look foolish. I at least know what I'm talking about while you are just jumping on some anti-military, anti-gov't bandwagon.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I understand the procedures and so did the people who covered this story yet you "immediately dis-believe someone accusing the military of charging them for gear that they did not lose or damage." In the first instance the investigative reporters are the ones who determined that the military could not provide any information on the piece of equipment that was allegedly lost or damaged. In other words they sent this soldier a bill for $700 for a piece of equipment that they had no knowledge of. Also, the second story about Lt. Rebrook being charged for body armor that was damaged in battle was true and it was proven to be true only after a bitter fight on his part. Time and again the people who make these allegations have demonstrated their love for their country and willingness to serve it and to fight for it. They aren't merely making allegations about Army wrong-doing instead they are pointing out that they are the ones who are forced to carry the burden of proof and to prove a negative and that this is wrong. IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR A SOLDIER TO PROVE THAT HE DID NOT LOSE OR DAMAGE EQUIPMENT AS A RESULT OF NEGLIGENCE OR MISUSE ON HIS PART. This is why the military must carry the burden of proof. If he stole the equipment they need to prove it and if they can prove it than they should prosecute him for theft of government property.



It's great to know there is a line of investigation except the only problem is THAT THE LINE OF INVESTIGATION DOES NOT KNOW WHICH PIECE OF EQUIPMENT WAS LOST OR DAMAGED. It also requires soldiers to fill out paperwork and to receive approval from their commanding officer. It places the burden of proof on the soldier and not on the military and that isn't how things should operate. To force someone to prove a negative is idiotic. If the Army believes that the equipment was destroyed as a result of mishandling or negligence than they should prove it but they aren't required to do so under the current policy instead the soldier must submit a letter to his commanding officer asking him to sign a "statement of normal wear and tear" and prove that it was a result of normal wear and tear.



It's obvious you don't know enough about Military regulations or you would know that soldiers aren't supposed to be charged for the "normal wear and tear" of equipment Tell me Mr. Soldier that you knew that. Also, if the government suspects LCpl Schmuckatelli sold government property then they should charge hime with theft of government property but they don't do that instead they charge all soldiers for lost or damaged equipment and expect them to prove that they weren't negligent and didn't misuse the equipment and that places the burden of proof on the defendant and not on the person making the allegation. That is wrong. Assuming that they lost or damaged it as a result of misue or negligence without proof that they did so deliberately is idiotic. When soldiers are fighting they should never receive a bill for BODY ARMOR or UN-SPECIFIED PIECES OF EQUIPMENT. Who in their ******* right mind would assume that a soldier who is wounded and is in a Military Hospital stole a piece of body armor? Who in their ******* right mind would charge that soldier for the body armor? You talk about how there is a line of investigation and yet a soldier is charged for body armor that was damaged as a result of combat. Is it standard operating procedure to charge someone after a brief investigation? That when it is made public is easily proven to be false. Did they ask Lt. Rebrook how the body armor was lost? Did they believe him when he told them how it was lost or did they look at a wounded soldier and think "he is a lying scumbag and it was his fault the body armor was lost as a result of a road-side bomb."

Your posts make you look foolish. Everyone here knows that soldiers aren't supposed to be charged for normal wear and tear of equipment and yet you don't Mr. Soldier. It shows that your service in the military wasn't in JAG.

The only idiot and moron here is you. Your total lack of knowledge is appalling. Your insistance you know things you prove not to know in your rants is insane.

 

[Mr. P]

...They shouldn't have to prove they weren't negligent and didn't misuse the equipement instead the Army should prove that they were negligent and misused the equipment. Yet, the policy itself needs to be addressed since it undermines our soldiers and is immoral.

This is not just policy, it's an Army Regulation (735-5). 196 pages of it on my pdf reader. It specifies everything, including the conduct of the investigation, exclusions, actions that may and may not be taken. Yes, investigations, these charges are not just arbitrarily made.

I have conducted a few of these investigations myself. Check it out, AR 735-5, you may learn something.

 

[CSM]

This is not just policy, it's an Army Regulation (735-5). 196 pages of it on my pdf reader. It specifies everything, including the conduct of the investigation, exclusions, actions that may and may not be taken. Yes, investigations, these charges are not just arbitrarily made.

I have conducted a few of these investigations myself. Check it out, AR 735-5, you may learn something.

Oh great, now your going to throw FACTS into the discussion.

 

[Mr. P]

Oh great, now your going to throw FACTS into the discussion.

I was hoping no one would notice!

 

[The Man @ Lunch]

But when LCpl Schmuckatelli needs drinking money and half his deuce gear ends up in the pawn shop, he should be held accountable for replacing it.

Oh great, now he's going to throw family stories into the discussion.

 

[Edward]

Acutally, my posts make YOU look foolish. I at least know what I'm talking about while you are just jumping on some anti-military, anti-gov't bandwagon.

Accepting the news reports and what they say isn't jumping on an anti-military or anti-government bandwagon. In fact, I am supporting the troops by saying that this policy is wrong and that what has happened is not right. These soldiers aren't anti-military or anti-government and neither are the reporters who are reporting how soldiers are being charged for damaged and lost equipment. That I believe this policy is wrong doesn't mean I am anti-military or anti-government. Disagreeing with something that either of them does doesn't make me anti-military or anti-government but keep suggesting otherwise because it makes you look foolish.