Marine Reservists Refuses to be deployed

[papabear]

The individual in this article has claimed conscientious objector status. Has anyone come across his arguments for his claim?


Marine Corps reservist Stephen Funk, center, reads a statement before turning himself in at his reserve unit in San Jose, Calif., Tuesday April 1, 2003. Behind Funk is his sister Caitlin Funk, left, and his mother, Gloria Pacis, right. The 20-year-old Marine reservist, called to active duty, refuses to serve in the Iraqi conflict, claiming conscientous objector status. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030401/capt.1049222513.conscientous_objector_caer103.jpg

Please, no premature comments about this individual being unpatriotic, etc. etc. until his case has been fully laid out.[/img]

[papabear]

An excerpt from the San Jose Mercury:


Marine reservist says he can't kill
Sun Mar 30, 8:13 AM ET Add Local - San Jose Mercury News to My Yahoo!

By Brandon Bailey, Mercury News

After joining the Marines and going through boot camp last year, Lance Cpl. Stephen Funk realized he was an expert marksman who didn't want to kill.

And when his San Jose-based Marine reserve company received orders to deploy for possible war last month, Funk decided he wasn't going to go.

The soft-spoken 20-year-old, who has been AWOL since mid-February, plans to turn himself in and apply for conscientious objector status Tuesday -- one of the first members of the U.S. armed forces to seek a discharge on those grounds since the war with Iraq (news - web sites) began.

[dweebie]

http://www.msnbc.com/local/kntv/a1557182.asp


"Ultimately, it's my fault for joining in the first place," said Funk. "It wasn't as well thought out as it should've been. It was about me being depressed and wanting direction in life."
I'm so sick of people not taking responsibility for their own actions because of their "vulnerability" being taken advantage of. BULL****!

"I saw the valuable things you can learn like teamwork, leadership -- things you can learn in Boy Scouts," he said. "I saw it as a way to learn new things and meet new people. It was a way to get what I thought was missing in my life."
I'm thinking he didn't pay attention when they were speaking of TEAMWORK, cus he's not with his team.

"They don't really advertise that they kill people," Funk said. "I didn't really realize the full implications of what I was doing and what it really meant to be in the service as a reservist."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? THEY DON'T ADVERTISE THAT THEY KILL PEOPLE?

"I would be applying for this anyway," he said. "I believe a lot of those people going over there are going to have psychological problems and guilt. I can serve time for being a conscientious objector ... or I can go along and do something that I know is wrong and live with that forever."
It looks like to me, and I may be reading it wrong .... but he's not opposing going because he doesn't believe we have a place over there (and I think if you don't believe we should be over there you shouldn't be over there, it would be risking the soldiers that are over there i.e. the grenade attack from the muslim soldier of our own in 101st), but it sounds more like he's protesting war period. He joined the marines but doesn't believe in fighting a war? This just doesn't make sense to me. I realize the service is a great way to start out a career and go to school, but you know if a war breaks out during enlistment that you will have to go....... it just doesn't make sense to me at all where he's coming from.
I would just like to say that his father served in the Navy during Vietnam, he's a great dad for standing by his son.

Funk told NBC11 News, "I don't think is it moral to kill someone just because the president thinks it's OK."
Last I checked, that IS how it works, he still is the Commander and Chief correct? *thats a retoracle question btw ;) *.

Looks like to me he's enjoyed what the military has to offer him as long as he doesn't have to give anything in return.

[Ratamacue]

Why do you join the Marine Corps (of all branches!) if you're an ultra-moral pacifist?

[96B]

That makes me utterly discusted. I pray to God that once I get into the Marines I never have to kill anyone, but if in wartime I am ordered to go then I will, if I am ordered to kill, I will, as long as it is for good reason in the sense of either self defense or just straight up the enemy that is not surrenduring. Once you join the military in ANY branch, you dont gotta like it, you just gotta do it, and to the best of your abilities. I can rant and rave all day about how he is a discrace to the Corps but I am actually glad that he isnt over there because we dont need people like him fighting for our country, and I am not worried about his life as much as the other devil dogs he will be relied upon to do his part by. It does sound like to me that he just joined simply because he had nothing else going for him in life and wanted a way out of working at McDonalds but when he is called upon to earn his pay as a Marine he isnt willing to put out. The military certainly isnt for everybody, and people shouldnt assume that they can just rely off of it to pay them and not expect to have to use their training under fire.

[Zoomie]

The same thing happened near me. A Marine refuses to go to his base and go out. He says he's a against the war and his president. He said that the only reason he joined the Marines was for the money, he said he never thought about the possibility of going to war.

[Cpl Stumps]

In contrast to this Marine, did anyone see the interview with the wounded Marines brought back to the states.

There was this Cpl wearging a red shirt with Texas Longhorns on it and a purple heart pinned to his chest. He stepped on a land mine and was evac. He told reporters that the doctors told him he wouldn't be going back. A female reporter said something like are you glad your not going back and he said "NO!" He said that his troops were still out there, his squad that he led was still out there, he made a promise to bring them all back alive and now he wasn't going to be there to fulfill that promise. Damn, that makes me proud! I just had to let out a motivate OOORRRAAAAHHH, scared my wife half to death, but wow what a comment. The kid seemed really heartfelt in his response, no B.S. Bravado, just stating facts. That's what this reservist doesn't get you get ordered there but in the end you defend your fellow Marines. At least he has the balls to stand up and face the consequences of his actions instead of fleeing to Canada.

Semper Fi
Cpl Stumps

[hood]

"Looks like to me he's enjoyed what the military has to offer him as long as he doesn't have to give anything in return."

I agree with the above statement. There are special benefits given to people because you're potentially giving so much to them. This guy is not fulfilling his contract. I have 2 friends in the Marines who are both stateside at this point because they're specialty is in computers. Every Marine's a rifleman though, so if called, they'd go in a heartbeat. What they should do, is make him pay back all of the money that was spent on his training and administrative costs. All of us paid for it, and I want a refund.

[papabear]

Some of us who are more realistic or less ignorant may understand the implications of joining the military, but is this true of a lot of America's youth? We are dealing with the tail-end of the "MTV" generation--many are confused, some are in an even worse situation and have been severely corrupted.

Some commentators have placed part of the blame on the military itself--since it is an all-volunteer force, the military has had to resort to attractive recruiting packages in order to bring enough enlistments. So is it really surprising that many of our youth, who would have no other means to go to college or to a professional job, are turning to the military precisely for this opportunity, and not for the chance to serve their country?

The moral and spiritual problems affecting our youth cannot be solved by the military, and should be a cause of concern for us all.

[Merik]

Take this guy out back and shoot him.He should be labeled as a traitor,same as Peter Arnett.

[Trigger]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? THEY DON'T ADVERTISE THAT THEY KILL PEOPLE?

Yeah, I guess bayonet practice on a bag shaped like a man just went right over his head.

"Hello, Dr. Laura..." "I joined the Marines because I thought it would be like the Boy Scouts and they had some hella cool ads during the super bowl...But now they're telling me I have to put real bullets in my rifle, and people may shoot at me...(sob)...and...and I just think it's wrong!"

"Well, Mr. Punk, let me just say YOU MAKE ME SICK, YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A GRABASTIC PIECE OF AMPHIBIAN S**T!! HOW TALL ARE YOU?!?"

"uh, 5' 7"

"5' 7" I DIDN'T KNOW THEY STACKED S**T THAT HIGH" "I'M GOING TO GOUGE OUT YOUR EYES AND SKULL F**K YOU!!" "THE FIRST AND LAST WORDS OUT OF YOUR FILTHY SEWER WILL BE SIR OR MA'AM, DO YOU READ ME?!?"

"uh..."

SLAP SLAP SLAP

Now, go do the right thing...

[David]

Man, i didn't know Dr. Laura cussed that much..
I wonder what his punishment will be for claiming to be a conscientous objector now, since he is breaking a contract that he signed that said we wasn't one when he joined.

[96B]

On the subject of the Selective Service, an all volunteer military is 100x better because with the draft you get people in there that dont want to be in there in the first place. With all volunteer, its usually motivated young men and women eager to serve their country and repay it for all the provided freedoms we enjoy everyday.

[dweebie]

Some of us who are more realistic or less ignorant may understand the implications of joining the military, but is this true of a lot of America's youth? We are dealing with the tail-end of the "MTV" generation--many are confused, some are in an even worse situation and have been severely corrupted.

I understand what you are saying and I agree to a degree. But I do want to point out that we have 100,000 that bucked up and are there doing their job. 45 of them have died for it, I think it's the majority that understand that going to war is apart of being in the service, and while I agree with you to a degree of my generation, I think the majority of us aren't of the "I was vulnerable and was taken advantage of" type of attitude, and maintain a realistic point of view on things.

[Vance]

http://www.dodstudios.net/uploads/uploads/fruitsachance.jpg

Sorry, I had to

[hood]

So what was the reason for him going to the media about this and using himself as a human war protest symbol?

[Ratamacue]

Probably just wants to be famous and seem like he's some sort of revolutionary.

[papabear]

Last I checked, that IS how it works, he still is the Commander and Chief correct? *thats a retoracle question btw ;) *.

Looks like to me he's enjoyed what the military has to offer him as long as he doesn't have to give anything in return.

Sorry, I know you meant it as a rhetorical question, but the answer is no. That's why there is such a thing as "conscientious objector" status in the first place.

;)

[Fargin]

Take this guy out back and shoot him.He should be labeled as a traitor,same as Peter Arnett.

I was wondering if that's the kind of democracy you want to promote in Iraq?

I kind of have a similar story, as Funk. I was not a volunteer though. I was drafted and pretty unhappy about it, but i followed orders and behaved. It was a good experience for me and i got alot of new friends, but i could never imagine killing another human being.

I guess it was poetic justice that i qualified advanced marksman and got issued a scoped rifle.

When i got dismissed to civilian status i was asked to sign up for a tour to Ex-Yugoslavia. I said no thanks, i served my time.

[96B]

Its not, but if so, it would be actually a step up from what the Iraqi people have experienced for the last 30 years being that gassings, executions, acid baths, torture etc was a common occurance to those who spoke out or did anything that the regime didnt like. Although some may actually feel that way, I believe its safe to say most here are responding because we are simply angry at this individuals actions and do not literally intend on shooting him. Thanks for your concern.

[Merik]

Look,under these conditions Peter Arnett for a fact CAN be tries as a traitor.Maybe not this kid but defienatly Arnett.If the work he published for Iraq gets Coalition troops killed,thats ground for treason under times of war.

[papabear]

Look,under these conditions Peter Arnett for a fact CAN be tries as a traitor.Maybe not this kid but defienatly Arnett.If the work he published for Iraq gets Coalition troops killed,thats ground for treason under times of war.

To what work are you referring?

[yellowking]

http://www.littleleadheroes.com/local/images/co.jpg

[yellowking]

By the way, here's an article on why Peter Arnett wouldn't be found guilty of treason (the main point is in the last paragraph): http://isthatlegal.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_isthatlegal_archive.html#200074098


By the way, I think the short answer to the question of whether Arnett is guilty of treason is "no"--but not because he lent the enemy no aid and comfort. It's because the crime of treason also requires proof of an intent to betray the United States, and I can't see any evidence of that here, let alone enough to get to a jury.

From http://www.henrymarkholzer.com/talibanjohn.info/essential_elements.htm , similarly:


In these three cases, the Supreme Court interpreted the "adhering to their enemies, giving aid and comfort" language of Article III as requiring a treason prosecutor to prove four elements in order to get a conviction: (1) the defendant's intention to betray the United States, (2) manifested in an overt act, (3) testified to by two witnesses, (4) which gave aid and comfort to the enemy. (A declaration of war is unnecessary; mere hostilities are enough). These are all jury questions. This means that if there is reason to believe the accused's conduct may have satisfied these four proof requirements, he can be indicted, and if a jury agrees that his conduct did satisfy them, he can be convicted.

He's still "TRAITOR" Arnett to me.

[Mike Lee]

This too, sickens me. Because I have freinds from all walks of the military, including one who served a tour of duty in Vietnam, The one thing I must say is that if you're gonna join, you better furfil your part. There's a reason why the military is voluntary, afterall, and one NEEDS to know all the implications of his or her choice. I'll be enlisting in the Army , and shipping out in the Fall, and I am fully aware that if this war is going to be long, then there's a chance that I'll be out there, shooting and getting shot at.

[rafaelcb]

Take this guy out back and shoot him.He should be labeled as a traitor.

Do you realize that this is EXACTLY what Hitler did to the first german objector?

Don't interpret this comment as support for that cheeky coward.

[Bala ya khumak]

The individual in this article has claimed conscientious objector status. Has anyone come across his arguments for his claim?


Marine Corps reservist Stephen Funk, center, reads a statement before turning himself in at his reserve unit in San Jose, Calif., Tuesday April 1, 2003. Behind Funk is his sister Caitlin Funk, left, and his mother, Gloria Pacis, right. The 20-year-old Marine reservist, called to active duty, refuses to serve in the Iraqi conflict, claiming conscientous objector status. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030401/capt.1049222513.conscientous_objector_caer103.jpg

Please, no premature comments about this individual being unpatriotic, etc. etc. until his case has been fully laid out.[/img]

Maybe the chap didn't want to fight in an illegal war.

[papabear]

I'm assuming that you meant that he thinks it's an "illegal war", rather than arguing the point that objectively, it's illegal?

[Bala ya khumak]

[quote]I'm assuming that you meant that he thinks it's an "illegal war"

I was theorising, hence the "maybe"


rather than arguing the point that objectively, it's illegal?

It is illegal.

[papabear]

rather than arguing the point that objectively, it's illegal?

It is illegal.

What criterion are you using to deem it illegal?

[Bala ya khumak]

rather than arguing the point that objectively, it's illegal?

It is illegal.

What criterion are you using to deem it illegal?

International Law, there is no immediate threat posed by Iraq to the U.S. that necessitates self-defense by way of military invasion and occupation.

[papabear]

Could you please cite an authoritative text on International Law, which most countries or nations adhere to as the standard?

[hood]

there is no immediate threat posed by Iraq to the U.S. that necessitates self-defense

What constitutes an immediate threat changes from person to person. This isn't something that can be decided by any country other than yours alone. The US government and more than 50 other countries decided that it was a threat, and took action. Making opinionated statements out to be fact will get you zero credibility.

[Bala ya khumak]

Could you please cite an authoritative text on International Law, which most countries or nations adhere to as the standard?


Conventional international law - UN Charter.

For one.

[Bala ya khumak]

there is no immediate threat posed by Iraq to the U.S. that necessitates self-defense

What constitutes an immediate threat changes from person to person. This isn't something that can be decided by any country other than yours alone. The US government and more than 50 other countries decided that it was a threat, and took action. Making opinionated statements out to be fact will get you zero credibility.


You said it.

[Smoothie104]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/ilaw-m26.shtml

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/liberties/2003/0325pows.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0321question.htm


Some Liberal Opinions

[Smoothie104]

Those 50 other nations who support it are also on our payroll. BTW why are we giving foriegn aid to oil rich countries?

[papabear]

Could you please cite an authoritative text on International Law, which most countries or nations adhere to as the standard?


Conventional international law - UN Charter.

For one.

The UN Charter may be an agreement between nations, but it is not "law" in the same way civil law is. The UN has no authority over member nations--it is not a supranational authority, and anything that comes out from the UN is not binding like civil law is with respect to the citizens of a political community.

The point is, international law is not a form of civil law--at best it is a part of Natural Law. So, the war may be "illegal" in the sense that it is "unjust" but not because it does not adhere to the stantards legislated by some competent authority set over national authorities.

In just war, self-defense is one just reason for waging war, but it hasn't been ruled out that there aren't other just reasons for waging war as well. You're invited to make an argument that the only just reason for waging war is self-defense.

[hood]

France, China, Germany, and Russia feel very strongly that this war is illegal. I'm wondering why they haven't done anything to stop the military action. Can you explain that one? Or does this fall into their continuous view that literally nothing is worth fighting for.

[papabear]

France, China, Germany, and Russia feel very strongly that this war is illegal. I'm wondering why they haven't done anything to stop the military action. Can you explain that one? Or does this fall into their continuous view that literally nothing is worth fighting for.

Actually, under just law theory--even if the cause, stopping foreign aggression in another country, were just, the war itself may not be just, if the other conditions are not satisfied--e.g. the chance for success is small, or what would result from such intervention would be a greater evil that is not warranted by the cause itself-namely, a conflict increased in scope and extent of damage.

Remember in just war theory that there are other conditions besides the cause itself. One historical case in which these conditions came into play would be the surrender of Belgium in WW2--since the Belgians had no reasonable chance of defeating the Germans, the resistance they would offer, even though they were being unjustly attacked, would in itself be unjustified.

[papabear]

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm
http://www.nfcym.org/2001/resources/just_war/

[Bing]

a guy like him would probably get his own people killed...oh wait excuse me, i meant a guy like him would get real Marines killed...

[Scrim]

What a sad bastard. I wouldnt waste my piss on him if he was on fire. He gave up his right to be an objector when he signed that contract. On the bright side he's facing brig time(hopefully the rest of his 8 year contract), and a dishonourable discharge(try getting a job with that on your record.)Then again someone like Saint would hire him, to be his little bitch dancing alien.

[Trigger]

rofl