Revised Army Regulation on Conscientious Objection! 21 Aug 2006

[acmejack]

U.S. Army policy for dealing with military personnel who assert a
conscientious objection to military combat is set forth in a newly
updated Army regulation.

Criteria for likely approval or rejection of a conscientious
objection claim are described. Claims that are insincere or "based
on objection to a certain war" will "not be favorably considered."

The Regulation accepts the reality of conscientious objection with
due respect.

"Care must be exercised not to deny the existence of beliefs simply
because those beliefs are incompatible with one's own," it states.

In any case, "The burden of establishing a claim of conscientious
objection as grounds for separation or assignment to noncombatant
training and service is on the applicant."

See "Conscientious Objection," Army Regulation 600-43, 21 August
2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar600-43.pdf

[Pierre.Suave]

1. Interesting

I will read this and get back with my comments.

[acmejack]

8. Great I will be intereste d to hear what has changed.

Thanks.

[obreaslan]

2. Why update the policy, if there isn't a DRAFT in the works? n/t

[TexasProgresive]

4. This is not for civilians facing a draft

it is for military personel.

[Dems Will Win]

7. That's correct. When DoD issues the Skills

Competency Mail-In Card for the new Skills Draft you will now they are totally ready. We have never seen that yet.

[meldroc]

3. Why is it bad to object to certain wars?

I'll admit it - I'm not a total pacifist. Why is it bad to say "Yes, I'll fight for my country if it's being invaded, but no, I won't fight a war of aggression against an enemy that poses only a slight threat to us?" Why do you have to claim complete pacifism to get CO status?

[aceman2373]

5. I am probably going to be slapped, but the problem is this...

We have an all volunteer army here in the US. People volunteer for this. If this goes against any beliefs that the person has, they should not enlist.

[meegbear]

9. I agree with you all the way ...

and :party: WELCOME ABOARD! :party:

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. People change

Or do you still hold on to the exact same values and beliefs you held when you were 17?

[aceman2373]

12. No.... But...

At 17, I knew what I was doing. My values were primarily the same as they are now. If your values and beliefs are not in place by 17 or 18, you got problems down the road...

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. Have you ever actually tried to explore a "violence against humans" value?

I dare say that the men and women who have been trained to kill, who have gone through the experience of war and have seen first hand the horrors of a battlefield are more than competent to evaluate their core values on whether or not killing people is wrong. Until and unless one's values are directly challenged, how can you know what they really are?

[aceman2373]

14. Unfortunately I have...

I was in the first gulf war. Let me say this, as a soldier, it was either kill or be killed. Did I like that feeling, no, but it was part of the job that I knew about when I enlisted voluntarily into the army. I knew that it was wrong to kill another human being, but it was either him or me. The soldiers in the army now know this, and do their duty and do it without hatred, it is just part of the job that once again, we VOLUNTARILY enlisted for.

For you to say that I do not know the horrors of battle and being on the battlefield, is wrong. Unfortunately, I do know those horrors, and hope to never live them again.

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. Some people come out of that experience differently than you did

Just as there are some people who find that they like the power that comes with a gun -- witness the military personnel that gleefully took pictures of the people they tortured at Abu Graib or who have raped and murdered the civilian non-comms they were supposed to be protecting -- there are some people who are so revulsed at what they are ordered to do that they would do anything than face it again. Would you rather have an option for such people to leave the service, or would you rather have them go AWOL, commit suicide (like these people or possibly be responsible for providing cover fire to keep you alive?

And I never said that you specifically did not know that experience; I was speaking generally.

[HardRocker05]

16. Well, since you signed a contract, i guess you better go ahead and murder

whoever the chimp-in-chief tells you to. I mean, what's important is the contract, right? Jeezus Fucking Christ, they really fucked up your head while you were in there, didn't they? Maybe it was him or you when you got there, but you shouldn't have been there if it wasn't a just war. In the final analysis, the responsibility for every person's actions is their's and their's alone; neither Uncle Sam nor any piece of paper can absolve someone of the unjust, unnecessary taking of a life. A person should be able to sign up to serve their country, without being forced to commit murder. If refusing to commit murder isn't a conscientious objection, then what-the-fuck is???

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. This is about conscientious objection, not objection to certain wars

The United States Supreme Court has made a very specific distinction between the two.

Conscientious objection is a moral stand, based on core values, against harming other people. By "core value", the court means that is takes a central role in one's moral and ethical principles. If it is a core value, then it can not be conditional; ie it is not a core value if you are willing to commit harm in some situations but not in others.

You might find the references below to be of interest. While there is no longer a draft, these ruling remain in force with regards to military service in general.

GILLETTE v. UNITED STATES, 401 U.S. 437 (1971) - Established that the beliefs that shape one's conscientious objection may not be selective

UNITED STATES v. SEEGER, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) - Established that the expression, "religious training and belief" included any belief, including non-religious beliefs, which occupies an equivalent role as religious belief.

WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970) - Established that moral or philosophical beliefs carry the same weight as religious beliefs with regard to conscientious objection.

[helderheid]

6. thanks - sent this on to my Quaker group