Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
Great analogy, I've been toying with it myself.
So we all agree that lying is wrong. Great, how please tell me how you plan to enforce it. I pointed out two pages ago that it boils down to hearsay. Would you be willing to end a person's career on hearsay, mercy to whether or not the person likes the service they entered?
We both know through our military service there is always those people who complain about everything. Give them enough time to complain and the Recruiter always comes up. Whether he actually lied or not, it's a common method of pushing the blame. It's similar to those who blame their parents for acts they do when they're 40, it's just an easy buck to pass. For those people whom we both know, would you be willing to take them on their word and end their career?
|
Not sure you understand what exactly amounts to hearsay for the purposes of evidence.
"most evidentiary codes defining hearsay adopt verbatim the rule as laid out in the Federal Rules of Evidence [1], which generally defines hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Rule 801, 28 U.S.C. App. See Rule for Courts-Martial 801, Manual for Court Martial, United States (2005 ed.)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay...ted_States_law
So, in very basic terms, hearsay means the person giving the evidence is not the person who directly witnesses something.
From what I've read here that's not what we're discussing. Most examples I've read here consist of people stating, effectively, I was present when the recruiter lied regarding this issue or that. I.E. I was there when the recruiter lied to my daughter. Or the recruiter told me ____ and it turned out to be a lie.
These not examples of hearsay they're examples of eye witness testimony, completely separate legal terms.
I believe you're talking about the credibility of the eye witness testimony. Feel free to correct me if I'm missing the intent of your comments.
All that side, if we agree that lying is wrong and that, in some cases, recruiters are being dishonest with perspective recruits. Then it comes down to, as you put it-
how you plan to enforce it. I would start with the UCMJ.
If you really wanted total accountability you could incorporate some type of independent oversight. I have a feeling there's a whole lot of groups and individuals out there willing to sit in on these recruitment efforts and insure there's no misinformation being spread. With a simple administrative rule you could allow interested parties attend, possibly even record, any and all recruitment efforts. These interested parties, by rule, would not be allowed any input during the recruitment effort but would be able to provide oversight. If the recruiters are being honest then there's no problem, if not then there's a record of who said what to whom.
And for the record- no, I wouldn't be interested in ending a good career based on the word of someone if that word is highly questionable. I would be interested in ensuring the youth of the US are not being lied to in an attempt to get them join the military. All the recruiters I've ever known have been Non-Coms. As you well know anyone in the service is sworn to uphold the laws of the US and conduct themselves in an ethical manner. If you've made the rank of E-4 or above you should certainly be held accountable if you're engaging in legal or unethical behavior.