'Why I Fled George Bush's War' - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pai mei · 03-11-2007, 04:29 PM

A soldier tells of his experience in Iraq :

http://www.fourwinds10.com/NewsServe...rticleID=13937

Quote:

Joshua Key, 28, was a poor, uneducated Oklahoma country boy who saw the U.S. army and its promised benefits -- from free health care to career training -- as the ticket to a better life. In 2002, not yet 24 but already married and the father of two , Key enlisted. He says his recruiting officer promised he'd never be deployed abroad, but a year later he was in Iraq. Only 24 hours after arriving, as Key recounts in The Deserter's Tale (Anansi), he experienced his first doubts about what he and his fellow soldiers were doing there:

Quote:

I was awakened at 3 a.m. that first night and told to get my ass up quickly because in one hour we were going to raid a house full of terrorists. Capt. Conde and some sergeants showed me and my squad mates a satellite photo of a house and a drawing of the layout of the inside. Our assignment was to blow off the door, burst into the house, raid it fast and raid it good -- looking for contraband, caches of weapons, signs of terrorists or terrorist activity, then rounding up the men and getting out damn fast. The longer we stayed in any one location, the longer somebody would have to put us in the sights of a rocket-propelled grenade or lob mortars at us

Quote:

I hadn't been in Iraq more than 24 hours and already I was having strange feelings. First, I was vulnerable, and I didn't like it. Even with all these soldiers and all this equipment, I knew that anywhere, at any time, any Iraqi with a gun, a wall to hide behind, and one decent eye could pick me off faster than a hawk nabs a mouse. Second, with hardly one foot into the war, I was also uneasy about what we were doing there. Something was amiss. We hadn't found anything in this girl's house, but we had busted it up pretty well in 30 minutes and had taken away her brothers. Inside, another squad was still ransacking the house. I didn't enjoy being stuck guarding this girl under the carport, in the cool April air before dawn in Ramadi. Her questions haunted me, and I didn't like not being able to answer them -- even to myself.

Quote:

Busting into and ransacking homes remained one of my most common duties in Iraq. Before my time was up, I took part in about 200 raids. We never found weapons or indications of terrorism. I never found a thing that seemed to justify the terror we inflicted every time we blasted through the door of a civilian home, broke everything in sight, punched and zipcuffed the men, and sent them away. One raid was far worse.

Quote:

Then something happened that haunts my dreams to this day. All the women were led back inside the house and our entire platoon was ordered to stand guard outside it. Four U.S. military men entered the house with the women. They closed the doors. We couldn't see anything through the windows. I don't know who the military men were, or what unit they were from, but I can only conclude that they outranked us and were at least at the level of first lieutenant or above. That's because our own second lieutenant Joyce was there, and his presence did not deter them.

Quote:

It struck me then that we, the American soldiers, were the terrorists. We were terrorizing Iraqis. Intimidating them. Beating them. Destroying their homes. Probably raping them. The ones we didn't kill had all the reasons in the world to become terrorists themselves. Given what we were doing to them, who could blame them for wanting to kill us, and all Americans? A sick realization lodged like a cancer in my gut. It grew and festered, and troubled me more with every passing day. We, the Americans, had become the terrorists in Iraq.

Joshua Key deserted the US Army in 2003 :
http://www.cbcunlocked.com/artman/pu...icle_243.shtml

Willravel · 03-11-2007, 04:39 PM

Poor kid. I hope he and his family are okay. It took a great deal of courage to stand up for what was and is right. It's important to recount his tale.

Seaver · 03-11-2007, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Poor kid. I hope he and his family are okay. It took a great deal of courage to stand up for what was and is right. It's important to recount his tale.

Poor remainder of the Armed Services, takes a great deal more courage to serve your obligations in the face of adversity and danger.

Why is it that every one of these stories is the "But the recruiter told me...!"? No where in the contract he signed did it say he'd never be deployed. Not one recruiter has ever said (and I've talked to at least a dozen since pre-9/11) to me that I'd never be deployed. That's what the military does, they fight wars. You only need to look at the Clinton Administration and see how many deployments they had, and they had plenty (LONG before Bush or 9/11).

I thank him for the time he did serve, but I have no sympathy for an abandoner. If he was so troubled with what happened, with no evidence given it actually did occur, he should have reported it immediately. Instead he goes to the comfort of home, and decides he does not want to go back.

reconmike · 03-11-2007, 05:25 PM

He signed the papers, it also states on the contract, that first and foremost your are a basic infantryman.
If his tale is true he should have reported it through his chain of command, and refused to take part in it right there and then.
He needs to spend a few yours in prison now for being a deserter, and be lucky he is not shot by firing squad.

Willravel · 03-11-2007, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Poor remainder of the Armed Services, takes a great deal more courage to serve your obligations in the face of adversity and danger.

How does it take more courage to go with the flow? As was made clear by the what the soldier witnessed, the remainder of the forces aren't to brave raiding homes of innocent people. I've had similar stories from friends of mine who are currently serving. "I'm constantly ordered to raid, but we never find anything."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Why is it that every one of these stories is the "But the recruiter told me...!"? No where in the contract he signed did it say he'd never be deployed. Not one recruiter has ever said (and I've talked to at least a dozen since pre-9/11) to me that I'd never be deployed. That's what the military does, they fight wars. You only need to look at the Clinton Administration and see how many deployments they had, and they had plenty (LONG before Bush or 9/11).

The thing is, no one is there to explain to these kids that recruiters are allowed to lie, and do so to fill a quota. I'm sure that you know recruiters will stretch the truth and on occasion outright lie quite often, and that behavior is not monitored.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I thank him for the time he did serve, but I have no sympathy for an abandoner. If he was so troubled with what happened, with no evidence given it actually did occur, he should have reported it immediately. Instead he goes to the comfort of home, and decides he does not want to go back.

What do you say?
Infantry soldier: "None of the places we raided in the past 6 months had evidence of insurgency or terrorism. I, in the 200+ raids I've done, have never found a weapon of any kind, bomb making tools or parts or fuel, or even a knife. Can we stop scaring the shit out of these poor people?"
Commanding Officer: "No."
Infantry soldier: "What evidence do we have that these people are a danger?"
Commanding Officer: "None."
Infantry soldier: *leaves, never to terrorize an Iraqi again*

host · 03-11-2007, 05:35 PM

Even a US administration, staffed and headed by morons, would have known of the consequences of suddenly breaking the power balance in Iraq, and in the region around Iraq, that Saddam maintained. He had it figured out, checking the shi'a ambitions in his own country, and in Iran.

Cheney was involved in the decision as to whether to "take out" Saddam, twice in a dozen years. What was he thinking? What did he think that the US would gain, besides either strengthening Iran, or strengthening Iran to the point that it would be necessary to fight a war with Iran, as a means of withdrawing US troops with the US in a better strategic position than before March, 2003.

Cheney knew what he was doing, and this "fallout" is on him, and on Bush:

Quote:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...mily_Lost.html
MIDDLE EAST
Friday, March 2, 2007 · Last updated 10:57 a.m. PT

Family's tragedy tells of Iraq's divide

By BRIAN MURPHY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

BAGHDAD, Iraq --

....The Sunni-Shiite rivalries reach back to a fight for leadership after the Prophet Muhammad's death in the 7th century. Saddam Hussein turned it into a modern blood feud. He favored his fellow Sunnis and kept the majority Shiites under a tight lid - which grew even tighter after the last failed Shiite uprising following the 1991 Gulf War. The result was a Potemkin peace that collapsed along with Saddam.

Iraq's sectarian divorce appears to be reaching a kind of institutional permanence. Each group is building its own separate structures right up to clinics and hospitals. No one trusts the other will let them come out alive.

"And there's nothing to suggest this trend is reversing," said Dana Graber, who follows Iraq for the International Office for Migration - a Geneva-based group whose latest report on Iraq estimated up to 1 million people could flee violence and intimidation this year alone.

<h3>Already about 4 million Iraqis are displaced within the country or are refugees abroad, mostly Sunnis who fled to neighboring Syria or Jordan, international agencies estimate.</h3>

The new epicenter is a place once hailed as the "little Iraq" for its overlap of the country's three main groups: Sunnis, Shiites and the northern Kurds. But that's ending. Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad, has been increasingly overrun by Sunni insurgents. It's part of a strategic retrenching to avoid a new U.S.-led security crackdown in Baghdad, military officials say.

Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, the U.S. military official in northern Iraq, said the fight for Diyala is "as important to Sunnis as control of Baghdad." Added Capt. Paul Carlock - with a touch of understatement - after a series of bold daylight barrages on his 1st Cavalry Division: "It's been pretty violent."

---

Families like the al-Sihaili clan are caught helplessly in the middle.

They sped away from home with whatever they could cram in a three-vehicle convoy. The first car was filled with all five al-Sihaili brothers. Behind them: two minibuses with their wives and 13 children.

The left Balad Ruz and drove south through the night. Just before dawn, the convoy was nearing Suwayrah, about 25 miles southeast of Baghdad. The Tigris River was to their right and the green plains leading to ancient Babylon. The family's relatives were preparing breakfast for their expected arrival in a few minutes.

Just then, a roadside bomb blew the brothers' Toyota into three smoking pieces. They were all dead, said Maamoun Ajil al-Robaiei, a director at the morgue in nearby Kut.

A hail of metal shrapnel peppered the trailing minibuses, wounding most of the wives and children, said officials at Suwayrah's hospital.

---

Back in Diyala province, a Shiite imam wondered about his orange trees and the home taken over by a Sunni family.

Ahmed Hamad al-Tamimi said he was forced out of the mixed village of Quba two years ago after insurgents blew up his mosque. He hasn't set foot in a Sunni-held area since.

"There's another (Sunni) family living in my house. They took over my groves," he said in the Shiite town of Huwayder near Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad. "I don't know who they are."

He claimed Sunni groups have "kicked out 100 percent of the Shiite families in some areas" of the province. His village is moving in that direction, too, he said, shrugging.

"It's engraved in my heart that I'll go back one day," he said. "But conditions must change."

Agencies monitoring the population shifts are not optimistic....

Cheney, in 1992:

Quote:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation..._cheney29.html
Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Cheney changed his view on Iraq
He said in '92 Saddam not worth U.S. casualties

By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON -- In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience:

Quote:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connel...28_joel29.html

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

In the Northwest: Bush-Cheney flip-flops cost America in blood

The words of our future vice president -- defending the decision to end Gulf War I without occupying Iraq -- eerily foretell today's morass. Here is what Cheney said in '92:

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

"And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.".........

....and Reconmike, why can't you support the troops, vicitmized by the most corrupt politicians ever to send US troops into another sovereign nation, instead of demanding prison terms for the ones who "say no". Is your "way" really the "American way", are you sure, Reconmike?

shakran · 03-11-2007, 05:36 PM

I smell BS. A poor uneducated kid writes things like "something was amiss" and "I never found a thing that seemed to justify the terror we inflicted every time we blasted through the door of a civilian home" and "A sick realization lodged like a cancer in my gut. It grew and festered, and troubled me more with every passing day." . . . I think not. Sorry, but generally uneducated people do not write that well. That added to the small source issue - namely it's from some website that looks like it was slapped together by a document freak on an acid trip, which itself cites the source for more info on the letter as a website dedicated to email forwards, and I'm gonna say I don't believe this for a second until I see further proof.

Not that the sentiment isn't largely correct, but I don't think this letter is all it claims to be.

host · 03-11-2007, 06:32 PM

shakran, I think Joshua Key's co-author, Lawrence Hill, most likely had a hand in upgrading Key's writing, if Key and his "saga" are the "real deal":

http://www.amazon.ca/Deserters-Tale-...ion/0887842089

Since I'm still not sure about the veracity of Foxnews/Oilver North/Michelle Malkin "creation" Joshua Sparling, I'll try to be equally skeptical about this guy...

pai mei · 03-11-2007, 10:52 PM

Joshua Keys leaving the war does not mean the war is just.
Imagine foreign troops in your country doing what he did. No way you would become a "terrorist" ?
Yes maybe he had someone edit his story to look good, but the truth of what he wanted to say is there
http://www.ivaw.org/

scout · 03-12-2007, 01:39 AM

I believe deserting his post in a time of war speaks volumes of his inner character. That being said and while there may be some truth in his story I don't think anyone can believe a damn thing he says happened.

Jinn · 03-12-2007, 01:47 AM

I hate Bush, his war, and his policies.

But if you sign up to join the military you don't just decide you want to leave. You signed up to fight and kill people, here or elsewhere. It's the same bloody thing. War is never pretty, and you AGREE to kill people for your country when you sign up.

If you don't like it, don't sign up. The "better life blah blah blah" sounded like a sob story for sympathy.

I spent an afternoon in a prison with a man being sent to Leavenworth for 20+ years for war crimes against Iraqi civilians, so I know the chain of command works. Report violations, don't just run away from your duty.

The_Jazz · 03-12-2007, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

I hate Bush, his war, and his policies.

But if you sign up to join the military you don't just decide you want to leave. You signed up to fight and kill people, here or elsewhere. It's the same bloody thing. War is never pretty, and you AGREE to kill people for your country when you sign up.

If you don't like it, don't sign up. The "better life blah blah blah" sounded like a sob story for sympathy.

Other than the "hatred" aspect mentioned here, I completely agree. I dislike the Bush administration, but I don't hate them. It's too strong a sentiment for me.

That said, anyone in the military today knows full well that they could be going to war. The draft ended a long time ago, and we've had an all-volunteer military for a generation. While I feel sorry for Mr. Keys, he did know what he was getting into when he signed up. Simply not showing up is a grave disservice to his comrades and the country, and he deserves to be punished.

shakran · 03-12-2007, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

While I feel sorry for Mr. Keys, he did know what he was getting into when he signed up. Simply not showing up is a grave disservice to his comrades and the country, and he deserves to be punished.

Well, assuming this ghost-written letter is 100% true (I still have my doubts) his recruiter DID promise him he wouldn't be deployed abroad. So there is an argument that he did not, in fact, "know what he was getting into."

mixedmedia · 03-12-2007, 05:58 AM

I'm always skeptical of stories like this. Stories with an agenda...either in support or against the war, and I think it's important not to get caught up in the emotional aspect of them. Because the reality of something as big and complicated as our presence in Iraq cannot be summed up in a simple position...for or against. As much as we might want it to be that way. Bad things and good things happen everywhere in all kinds of situations. They don't necessarily on their own adjudge something as being right or wrong.

The_Jazz · 03-12-2007, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Well, assuming this ghost-written letter is 100% true (I still have my doubts) his recruiter DID promise him he wouldn't be deployed abroad. So there is an argument that he did not, in fact, "know what he was getting into."

I find it impossible to believe that any recruiter would ever promise something like that. Recruiters are all salesmen, and one of the first rule of sales is to never promise something that you can't deliver. From my understanding, recruiters have been specifically barred from making that kind of practice since the very beginning of the all-volunteer army concept.

If the recruiter did violate his training (something that I'm only willing to conceed for arguement's sake), Mr. Keys was either naive or an idiot, neither of which are grounds for an immediate discharge. As anyone who's ever talked to a recruiter knows, combat is always a possibility.

shakran · 03-12-2007, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I find it impossible to believe that any recruiter would ever promise something like that.

There we firmly disagree. I've gotten recruiters on tape saying stuff like that.

Quote:

Recruiters are all salesmen, and one of the first rule of sales is to never promise something that you can't deliver.

And one of the immutable laws of salesmen is that many of them are quick to break that rule.

One of the problems is that recruiters have quotas to fill, and they're finding it hard to fill those quotas now that the country's embroiled in a conflict that has nothing at all to do with the military's purpose. Many are completely willing to step up and defend the country - but that does not mean they're willing to become hired guns set to kill randomly at the president's whim.

They've already adjusted the quotas downward so they could report to the media that they were meeting their quotas, but that backfired both because they couldn't meet the new quotas, and because we found out about the quota adjustment.

If the recruiter doesn't meet his quota, he gets in hot water with his superior officers. That's enough to push some of them to make BS promises that they know they can't keep, but that won't hurt them - -- after all, once you're in the military, as you pointed out, you don't get to just leave simply because it's not everything the recruiter told you it would be.

One of the reasons for the "don't promise what you can't deliver" rule is that 1) it will give the customer grounds to negate the current sale and 2) it will lose you a repeat customer. Military recruiters can't lose the current sale because once the "customer" signs the contract, he belongs to the military. Period. And they don't have to worry about repeat customers because that won't effect their bottom line either way - - whether this guy re-enlists or not, the recruiter won't get credit for it. He's still got to go find new recruits.

Quote:

If the recruiter did violate his training (something that I'm only willing to conceed for arguement's sake), Mr. Keys was either naive or an idiot, neither of which are grounds for an immediate discharge.

Agreed that he's either naive or an idiot - in fact he admits as much in the intro: "poor uneducated. . . "

Willravel · 03-12-2007, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I find it impossible to believe that any recruiter would ever promise something like that. Recruiters are all salesmen, and one of the first rule of sales is to never promise something that you can't deliver. From my understanding, recruiters have been specifically barred from making that kind of practice since the very beginning of the all-volunteer army concept.

Why don't people understand how much recruiters lie? Haven't you ever been approached? They make politicians look like saints.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in692361.shtml

I not only beleive it's possible, but probable that many recruiters make promises like "you won't be deployed overseas" or "you won't have to go to Iraq" all the time. It's what they do.

Seaver · 03-12-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Well, assuming this ghost-written letter is 100% true (I still have my doubts) his recruiter DID promise him he wouldn't be deployed abroad. So there is an argument that he did not, in fact, "know what he was getting into."

Quote:

I not only beleive it's possible, but probable that many recruiters make promises like "you won't be deployed overseas" or "you won't have to go to Iraq" all the time. It's what they do.

Maybe he should read the contract before he signs it. It does not matter what the recruiter says, any 3 year old knows that verbal contracts are not contracts, because both sides can easily change their story on what was told.

The Military MUST comply with every sentence of a signed contract. No where in his contract did it say he wouldn't be deployed. He signed it AFTER 9/11 where Bush had already said we would go where the terrorists are, to then claim he thought he wouldn't be deployed after signing up for an Army in a time of war smells like a dead whale on the beach.

I don't feel sorry for people who put adjustable rates on their houses and end up paying a lot more when the Fed changes rates. I don't feel bad for people who buy cars with credit cards and end up getting the BIG shaft. I don't feel bad for people who constantly overdraft their accounts and get charged $32 each time. I don't feel sorry for people who don't bother reading a contract before they sign it. It doesn't take very much time and it can (and does) affect the rest of your life.

So all of a sudden after fighting the war, and returning to the comfort of the US, he has a problem with the recruiter? How about when he was receiving the signing bonus, or when he was being offered the $40k for college, or full health/dental/etc benefits? Sorry does he think the Military offers these things because they're generous? No, they offer them because it is the DUTY of the Military to fight wars. Why would they allow their soldiers to pick and choose, or even allow them to never leave the US? He claims he's uneducated, but to make a claim like this you have to be certifiably retarded.

roachboy · 03-12-2007, 10:09 AM

seaver: do you then oppose the notion of the conscientious objector?
why?

Willravel · 03-12-2007, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Maybe he should read the contract before he signs it. It does not matter what the recruiter says, any 3 year old knows that verbal contracts are not contracts, because both sides can easily change their story on what was told.

Would reading his contract have stopped his military recruiter from lying? No. That's a separate issue. Also, in many instances, verbal contracts are enforceable by law. The suggested contract between the recruiter and Enlistee Key included an offer, acceptance, and consideration, and is thus a valid verbal contract. The question is, was this a situation where the verbal contract could be enforced? A lot of that would, theoretically, boil down to a he said, she said type situation. I would suggest that anyone going to see a military recruiter write down his information and sign it. If nothing else, it'll keep them honest.

Key was lied to, and recruiters found to be misrepresenting the truth should be deported as traitors for tricking civilians into risking their lives by the use of misinformation. Had the recruiter not lied, it's entirely possible that Key might not be in this situation (and that situation is almost certainly going on elsewhere, where the recruiter tricks someone into enlisting).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

The Military MUST comply with every sentence of a signed contract. No where in his contract did it say he wouldn't be deployed. He signed it AFTER 9/11 where Bush had already said we would go where the terrorists are, to then claim he thought he wouldn't be deployed after signing up for an Army in a time of war smells like a dead whale on the beach.

I've personally heard tall tails that would put that to shame from recruiters. My favorite is the 'free ride to West Point' assertion made by an Air Force recruiter my sophomore year. Idiot. Some of my friends have heard things like 'we'll buy you a house', 'we won't go to war', and 'it's perfectly safe'.

Neither the police nor recruiters should have quotas. It's just begging them to be dishonest in order to meet their goals.

Bill O'Rights · 03-12-2007, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Also, in many instances, verbal contracts are enforceable by law. The suggested contract between the recruiter and Officer Key included an offer, acceptance, and consideration, and is thus a valid verbal contract.

No...it is not. There is no verbal contract. There is only the enlistment documents. Which, by the way, is also key here. Enlistment. Key is not, was not, and now never will be a military "officer". Do not address him as such. Officer's are commisioned. Not all military members are officers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

My favorite is the 'free ride to West Point' assertion made by an Air Force recruiter my sophomore year.

What in the hell does West Point have to do with the Air Force?
No offense intended, Will...so don't take it that way. But, you attract a pretty bizare element, based on this and other posts. My recruiter didn't lie to me. Neither did anyone else's that I know. Sure, they exagerate. Who in a sales capacity doesn't? "Buy them a house"? I'm more likely to believe that your friends misheard the recruiter when he told them that housing was free. "Free house"? I dunno, man.

As for Private Key? Shoot him.

scout · 03-12-2007, 12:26 PM

While reading his contract may not have prevented his recruiter from lying it really doesn't matter what the recruiter says because everyone that volunteers in today's military is bound by the written contract they sign not by the bullshit the recruiter may or may not have told them.

I realize it was 20+ years ago but I doubt it's changed much. When I volunteered to serve I signed a bunch of crap at the recruiters office but the real contract wasn't until I went to Indy and had my physical. Another person took me in a room and asked me a bunch of questions which included going over the written contract in a brief summary, gave me a few minutes to read it and ask any questions then he asked me perhaps the most important question related to this thread, "has your recruiter made any promises or told you anything different that what is included here in this contract?". It may not have been in those exact words but it was pretty damn close. When I stated no he asked me to sign. So while this bullshit about what so and sos recruiter may or may not have said may fly with someone that hasn't served I sure as heck don't buy it and I have little sympathy or patience with it and I suspect most other vets have little also. Every single person that has ever served has put up with more bullshit and has had to do a lot of crap they sure as hell didn't want to or plan on doing when they signed that contract.

I personally feel this whole story is politically motivated and filled with bullshit. That's my opinion for what it's worth. And since I lean more right than left I doubt it's worth much on this board lol.

The_Jazz · 03-12-2007, 12:32 PM

When I was a candidate for the Naval Academy, I had to deal with the recruiter on a fairly regular basis since it was the easiest way for the Navy coach to keep up to date on my training and the progression of my application while it was still in my hands. I dealt with a series of Navy and Marine recruiters for over a year (one of whom recruited a teammate into the Marines, which was quite a big deal at the time), and I heard all of their pitches since they wanted me if Annapolis wouldn't take me. This was the late 80's, and most of them made it a point to tell me that they could not promise me specific assignments or that I'd never be transfered into a war zone (a la Beruit, which was my concern at the time since I figured I'd opt for the Marines after graduation at the time).

Will, the written contract superceded any verbal contract immediately. That's true in every state. It's a basic part of contract law. There was a written offer, acceptance and contract, and it frankly doesn't matter what the recruiter said leading up to that point. It was Key's responsibility to make sure that any promises made were put in writing. It's always been that way and is one of the reasons that written contracts exist in the first place.

As far as the West Point reference made by an Air Force recruiter, either you were suddenly teleported back to 1947 to deal with an Army Air Force recruiter or the guy was confused. I find it hard to believe that any recruiter would mix up the service academies like that, but I also know how many times I've inadvertantly mispoken myself.

Private Key deserves a dishonorable discharge after his stint in Leavenworth.

Bill O'Rights · 03-12-2007, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

"has your recruiter made any promises or told you anything different that what is included here in this contract?"

Bingo!
I heard those exact same words, some 26 years ago. I doubt that that much has changed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

So while this bullshit about what so and sos recruiter may or may not have said may fly with someone that hasn't served I sure as heck don't buy it and I have little sympathy or patience with it and I suspect most other vets have little also..

You would suspect correctly.

And Will? This is not soley directed at you. It is a generalization, so read it as such.
I grow increasingly weary of self proclaimed experts, in all manner of things of a military nature, be it contracts, tactics, strategy, to uniform button placement, that never so much as put on a Boy Scout uniform. Just because you put together a model plane, watched Full Metal Jacket, or you read some BS in someone's "blog", does not make you a military expert. Defer to experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Private Key deserves a dishonorable discharge after his stint in Leavenworth.

Then shoot him.

Willravel · 03-12-2007, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

No...it is not. There is no verbal contract. There is only the enlistment documents. Which, by the way, is also key here. Enlistment. Key is not, was not, and now never will be a military "officer". Do not address him as such. Officer's are commisioned. Not all military members are officers.

I'm afraid you're wrong. When someone is recruiting, they are making an offer. This consists of both verbal and written in the case above. While the written contract was not breached, the verbal contract was. As such, the enlistment officer should be penalized, and Key should be allowed to work within the promises of the verbal and written contract. In other words, the military should legally be required to follow both agreements. If they can't do that, they should shut their recruiters up.

'Officer' has many meanings. I was using it to mean 'an agent of' the military. I was not suggesting a position of rank or authority. He was probably a Private, and I don't know his specific current status.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

What in the hell does West Point have to do with the Air Force?

So you understand why it has always stuck out in my mind. My grandfather almost got into West Point (and told me stories about it), and my Uncle was a recruiter that has gotten a few very talented kids into West Point. I'm well aware that recruiting walk ups at a high school makes for West Point makes no sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

No offense intended, Will...so don't take it that way. But, you attract a pretty bizare element, based on this and other posts. My recruiter didn't lie to me. Neither did anyone else's that I know. Sure, they exagerate. Who in a sales capacity doesn't? "Buy them a house"? I'm more likely to believe that your friends misheard the recruiter when he told them that housing was free. "Free house"? I dunno, man.

That's why I linked thisarticle above. They are dishonest, a lot, and it seems they are not held accountable. If it's that easy to catch a recruiter saying things like 'create a fake diploma' and 'Just take this detox' to hide drugs. Where is the honor and duty in that? I call it dishonorable, and if the military can't keep track of their own recruiters, then they shouldn't be allowed to recruit. Maybe they should just have pamphlets available online. It's harder for a pamphlet to lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

As for Private Key? Shoot him.

If you insist, but not until they shoot his recruiter, his commanding officer, and any officer to raid a home of innocent people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

I grow increasingly weary of self proclaimed experts, in all manner of things of a military nature, be it contracts, tactics, strategy, to uniform button placement, that never so much as put on a Boy Scout uniform. Just because you put together a model plane, watched Full Metal Jacket, or you read some BS in someone's "blog", does not make you a military expert. Defer to experience.

I don't remember anyone say they were an expert, myself included. If someone is wrong, then you can refute the facts they've presented, citing evidence. If you can't, the ad hominem fallacy won't make a bit of difference.

I've never served in the military. I would have been in the Army for 4 years already had I not been born with a severe heart condition, but such is life. I don't need 26 years of military service under my belt to know recruiters lie. I don't need 26 years of military service to know that innocent people are victimized in Iraq, be they soldiers forced to do things they think are wrong or Iraqi civilians being mistreated. I don't need any military experience to understand what a verbal contract is, and what it means.

Seaver · 03-12-2007, 02:09 PM

Quote:

I'm afraid you're wrong. When someone is recruiting, they are making an offer. This consists of both verbal and written in the case above. While the written contract was not breached, the verbal contract was. As such, the enlistment officer should be penalized, and Key should be allowed to work within the promises of the verbal and written contract. In other words, the military should legally be required to follow both agreements. If they can't do that, they should shut their recruiters up.

Guess what, that'd hold weight if the recruitment office actually had the right to make deals. They don't, all they can do is filter the chaff and single out the people who can and want to make it through. They set you up for how to apply to the jobs you want, that's it.

They can't promise you the bonus, they can't promise you the job, they can't even promise you can enlist. That's all done during the physical where it goes up the chain of command. This was explained to me by all 11 recruiters I've seen since 2000.

Quote:

seaver: do you then oppose the notion of the conscientious objector?
why?

Yes. Why? Because it is an ALL volunteer force. If one does not wish to fight a war that's fine, don't enlist. That's like a firefighter being paid, gone through training, then deciding he doesn't like the heat during a downtown blaze.

Willravel · 03-12-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Guess what, that'd hold weight if the recruitment office actually had the right to make deals. They don't, all they can do is filter the chaff and single out the people who can and want to make it through. They set you up for how to apply to the jobs you want, that's it.

They can't promise you the bonus, they can't promise you the job, they can't even promise you can enlist. That's all done during the physical where it goes up the chain of command. This was explained to me by all 11 recruiters I've seen since 2000.

Let's say, hypothetically, I work for the Dallas Cowboys as a recruiter. My job is to find the best kids coming out of college and offer them stupidly amazing deals to play football. I find a great QB from San Diego and offer him $4.5m a year, plus a mansion and 3 car fleet provided by Mercedes (with several witnesses). He agrees. Without reading, he signs a deal that promises $4.3m, a house, and a Ford Mondeo. He'd have legal standing to press charges against me.

Jinn · 03-12-2007, 02:23 PM

As horrible as it sounds;

I'd rather have people who aren't intelligent enough to read a contract dying in Iraq than our country's greatest minds. If Key can't understand the difference between a legal, written contract and a verbal one, he's more expendable, as far as I'm concerned.

I'd be very upset if this were an intelligent person who was honestly mislead, pursued it through the chain-of-command, but fulfilled his duty. By all indications, none of these things happened for Key.

Just becuase you disagree with something in a contract after-the-fact doesn't invalidate the contract.

And will; you're mistaking the theoretical legality of verbal contracts with the practical legality. A verbal contract IS a valid contract in most jurisdictions, and thus enforceable.

However, proving agreement on a certain set of things is nigh impossible in a he-said she-said situation. Unfortunately for Keys, your crediblity in court while claiming a verbal contract existed is severely diminished when you're a deserter and criminal.

Willravel · 03-12-2007, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

And will; you're mistaking the theoretical legality of verbal contracts with the practical legality. A verbal contract IS a valid contract in most jurisdictions, and thus enforceable.

However, proving agreement on a certain set of things is nigh impossible in a he-said she-said situation. Unfortunately for Keys, your crediblity in court while claiming a verbal contract existed is severely diminished when you're a deserter and criminal.

Nope, you missed some of what I wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel, the Merciful

A lot of that would, theoretically, boil down to a he said, she said type situation. I would suggest that anyone going to see a military recruiter write down his information and sign it. If nothing else, it'll keep them honest.

DaveOrion · 03-12-2007, 03:11 PM

A miltary and civil contract and completely different. After signing on the dotted line when joining the service, you are no longer subject to the laws of civilians. You are then under The Uniform Code Of Military Justice. You are not a citizen, you are a governmental asset to be used or abused in whatever way they see fit, and can never file suit in a civil court against them. Well, you can...lotsaluck.....

Depends on the recruiter....recruiters with high recruitment stats, are often promoted sooner, can recieve sitations for their glorious service, and can be sent to the assignment of their choice......hmmmm....would you use dishonest means to recruit????

Willravel · 03-12-2007, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMatrix

A miltary and civil contract and completely different. After signing on the dotted line when joining the service, you are no longer subject to the laws of civilians. You are then under The Uniform Code Of Military Justice. You are not a citizen, you are a governmental asset to be used or abused in whatever way they see fit, and can never file suit in a civil court against them. Well, you can...lotsaluck.....

Depends on the recruiter....recruiters with high recruitment stats, are often promoted sooner, can recieve sitations for their glorious service, and can be sent to the assignment of their choice......hmmmm....would you use dishonest means to recruit????

Enlisting isn't retroactive. If the person lies to you before you sign, they still lied to you before you sign. Also, the UCMJ is pretty specific about raping prisoners.

matthew330 · 03-12-2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

What in the hell does West Point have to do with the Air Force?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

So you understand why it has always stuck out in my mind. My grandfather almost got into West Point (and told me stories about it), and my Uncle was a recruiter that has gotten a few very talented kids into West Point. I'm well aware that recruiting walk ups at a high school makes for West Point makes no sense.

Military Academies DO recruit kids at the high school level...heavily. If that is why this stuck out in your mind, that is hilarious.

I personally find your story that an Air Force recruiter promised you a 'free ride' to West Point (Army Academy) somewhat duuuuubious. Hmmmmmm. The Air Force Academy is in Colorado, not West Point.

Willravel · 03-12-2007, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

Military Academies DO recruit kids at the high school level...heavily. If that is why this stuck out in your mind, that is hilarious.

West point had the time to send recruiters to my high school? And they were in the Air Force? Why do you think it stuck out in my mind?

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

I personally find your story that an Air Force recruiter promised you a 'free ride' to West Point (Army Academy) somewhat duuuuubious. Hmmmmmm. The Air Force Academy is in Colorado, not West Point.

It was a recounting, not a story.

If you were a military recruiter that has a quota to fill and aren't held accountable for what you say....wouldn't you be tempted to say anything you need to get kids signed up? Why the heck would this misinformation from recruiters surprise you? If this surprises you, you might also be surprised to know that Keith Richards has done drugs or the Iraqi war wasn't really over 3 years ago.

The_Jazz · 03-12-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Let's say, hypothetically, I work for the Dallas Cowboys as a recruiter. My job is to find the best kids coming out of college and offer them stupidly amazing deals to play football. I find a great QB from San Diego and offer him $4.5m a year, plus a mansion and 3 car fleet provided by Mercedes (with several witnesses). He agrees. Without reading, he signs a deal that promises $4.3m, a house, and a Ford Mondeo. He'd have legal standing to press charges against me.

Will, I think you've missed what I posted before so I'm going to say it again, this time in all caps with bold lettering and underlined:

A WRITTEN CONTRACT SUPERCEDES A VERBAL CONTRACT IN ALMOST EVERY VENUE AND INSTANCE.

Period.

Then in the above, you're confusing the criminal and civil justice systems. One cannot "press charges" in a civil court. "Charges" is a term used in the criminal justice system.

Finally, and to address the scenario posed above, you're plain old, flat out wrong. The football player would not have grounds to file a legitimate suit. You can promise him whatever you want, but what will be upheld in civil court will be the the written contract. If, in your scenario, the football player is illiterate and doesn't have an agent (one possible, the other so unlikely as to be impossible), then you (as the "recruiter") could be brought up on criminal fraud charges and potentially be civilly liabile. However, there are damn good reasons that football players have agents, one of which is that they're paid to read the fine print and make sure that the Mercedes are actually Mercedes and not souped up Mondeos. The same is true of military recruiters - you as the enlistee are bound by the written contract and not the verbal contract EVERY SINGLE TIME.

What you're saying runs counter to every real life application of contract law that I've ever encountered. I know you're a smart guy, but you are wrong here. There's no room for error; you're just wrong.

Willravel · 03-12-2007, 04:13 PM

If I'm wrong (not an admission), shouldn't the recruiters still be held accountable for deceiving potential soldiers?

The_Jazz · 03-12-2007, 04:23 PM

Absolutely they should be held accountable, but that's not what you've been saying. You've been saying that the verbal contract is binding when it absolutely isn't. As you've also seen from folks that went farther along in the process than I did, there's a point to make sure they are held accountable. Mr. Keys is either lying (the most probably IMO) or he's much more of a moron than he's let on to being.

Willravel · 03-12-2007, 04:52 PM

If a verbal and written contract are in conflict, then one must investigate proper law. No such investigation was done, so neither contract is void. One contract cannot automatically supersede another. There are legal protocols. So, as I said, he is still covered under the verbal contract as well as the written contract.

Jinn · 03-12-2007, 06:39 PM

Quote:

If a verbal and written contract are in conflict, then one must investigate proper law. No such investigation was done, so neither contract is void. One contract cannot automatically supersede another.

Three lines from the first page of the "Armed Forces of the United States Enlistment Contract":

The provisions of this contract supercede any prior representations, agreements or undertakings between the parties. The agreements in this section and attached annex(es) are all the promises made to me by the Government. ANYTHING ELSE ANYONE HAS PROMISED ME IS NOT VALID AND WILL NOT BE HONORED.

Yes, that second part is actually in bold in the contract.

It supercedes a verbal agreement. Don't fight a battle you can't win.

Willravel · 03-12-2007, 06:45 PM

So if I sign a legal contract that says I cannot fight in the war, and I later enlist, the first contract goes away? Nope. That's not how contracts work. Again, if the contracts are in conflict, a ruling must be made. As no such ruling has been made, the contracts are still both in a state of valid conflict.

Carno · 03-12-2007, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If I'm wrong (not an admission), shouldn't the recruiters still be held accountable for deceiving potential soldiers?

Didn't you even read the article that you posted? The commanding officer said the recruiters' behavior was unacceptable and an investigation was launched.

Also, don't call enlisted people officers. You may have meant "an agent of", but you just sounded stupid.

---------------------------------------------------

As for the story of Key, I think it was total emotional bullshit. Last I checked being 24 years old meant you were a man, not a boy. Like Bill O Rights said, he should be shot.

Also, just because some deserter scumbag "thinks" that women are being raped doesn't make it so.

03-11-2007, 05:25 PM	#4 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	He signed the papers, it also states on the contract, that first and foremost your are a basic infantryman. If his tale is true he should have reported it through his chain of command, and refused to take part in it right there and then. He needs to spend a few yours in prison now for being a deserter, and be lucky he is not shot by firing squad. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

03-11-2007, 10:52 PM	#9 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	Joshua Keys leaving the war does not mean the war is just. Imagine foreign troops in your country doing what he did. No way you would become a "terrorist" ? Yes maybe he had someone edit his story to look good, but the truth of what he wanted to say is there http://www.ivaw.org/ __________________ Blog One day there will be so many houses, that people will be bored and will go live in tents. "Why are you living in tents ? Are there not enough houses ?" "Yes there are, but we play this Economy game" Last edited by pai mei; 03-11-2007 at 11:12 PM..

03-12-2007, 01:47 AM	#11 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	I hate Bush, his war, and his policies. But if you sign up to join the military you don't just decide you want to leave. You signed up to fight and kill people, here or elsewhere. It's the same bloody thing. War is never pretty, and you AGREE to kill people for your country when you sign up. If you don't like it, don't sign up. The "better life blah blah blah" sounded like a sob story for sympathy. I spent an afternoon in a prison with a man being sent to Leavenworth for 20+ years for war crimes against Iraqi civilians, so I know the chain of command works. Report violations, don't just run away from your duty. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel Last edited by Jinn; 03-12-2007 at 01:59 AM..

03-12-2007, 05:58 AM	#14 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I'm always skeptical of stories like this. Stories with an agenda...either in support or against the war, and I think it's important not to get caught up in the emotional aspect of them. Because the reality of something as big and complicated as our presence in Iraq cannot be summed up in a simple position...for or against. As much as we might want it to be that way. Bad things and good things happen everywhere in all kinds of situations. They don't necessarily on their own adjudge something as being right or wrong. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

03-12-2007, 10:09 AM	#19 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	seaver: do you then oppose the notion of the conscientious objector? why? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-11-2007, 04:39 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Poor kid. I hope he and his family are okay. It took a great deal of courage to stand up for what was and is right. It's important to recount his tale.

03-11-2007, 05:36 PM	#7 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	I smell BS. A poor uneducated kid writes things like "something was amiss" and "I never found a thing that seemed to justify the terror we inflicted every time we blasted through the door of a civilian home" and "A sick realization lodged like a cancer in my gut. It grew and festered, and troubled me more with every passing day." . . . I think not. Sorry, but generally uneducated people do not write that well. That added to the small source issue - namely it's from some website that looks like it was slapped together by a document freak on an acid trip, which itself cites the source for more info on the letter as a website dedicated to email forwards, and I'm gonna say I don't believe this for a second until I see further proof. Not that the sentiment isn't largely correct, but I don't think this letter is all it claims to be.

03-11-2007, 06:32 PM	#8 (permalink)
host Banned	shakran, I think Joshua Key's co-author, Lawrence Hill, most likely had a hand in upgrading Key's writing, if Key and his "saga" are the "real deal": http://www.amazon.ca/Deserters-Tale-...ion/0887842089 Since I'm still not sure about the veracity of Foxnews/Oilver North/Michelle Malkin "creation" Joshua Sparling, I'll try to be equally skeptical about this guy...

03-12-2007, 01:39 AM	#10 (permalink)
scout Psycho	I believe deserting his post in a time of war speaks volumes of his inner character. That being said and while there may be some truth in his story I don't think anyone can believe a damn thing he says happened.

03-12-2007, 12:26 PM	#22 (permalink)
scout Psycho	While reading his contract may not have prevented his recruiter from lying it really doesn't matter what the recruiter says because everyone that volunteers in today's military is bound by the written contract they sign not by the bullshit the recruiter may or may not have told them. I realize it was 20+ years ago but I doubt it's changed much. When I volunteered to serve I signed a bunch of crap at the recruiters office but the real contract wasn't until I went to Indy and had my physical. Another person took me in a room and asked me a bunch of questions which included going over the written contract in a brief summary, gave me a few minutes to read it and ask any questions then he asked me perhaps the most important question related to this thread, "has your recruiter made any promises or told you anything different that what is included here in this contract?". It may not have been in those exact words but it was pretty damn close. When I stated no he asked me to sign. So while this bullshit about what so and sos recruiter may or may not have said may fly with someone that hasn't served I sure as heck don't buy it and I have little sympathy or patience with it and I suspect most other vets have little also. Every single person that has ever served has put up with more bullshit and has had to do a lot of crap they sure as hell didn't want to or plan on doing when they signed that contract. I personally feel this whole story is politically motivated and filled with bullshit. That's my opinion for what it's worth. And since I lean more right than left I doubt it's worth much on this board lol.

03-12-2007, 12:32 PM	#23 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	When I was a candidate for the Naval Academy, I had to deal with the recruiter on a fairly regular basis since it was the easiest way for the Navy coach to keep up to date on my training and the progression of my application while it was still in my hands. I dealt with a series of Navy and Marine recruiters for over a year (one of whom recruited a teammate into the Marines, which was quite a big deal at the time), and I heard all of their pitches since they wanted me if Annapolis wouldn't take me. This was the late 80's, and most of them made it a point to tell me that they could not promise me specific assignments or that I'd never be transfered into a war zone (a la Beruit, which was my concern at the time since I figured I'd opt for the Marines after graduation at the time). Will, the written contract superceded any verbal contract immediately. That's true in every state. It's a basic part of contract law. There was a written offer, acceptance and contract, and it frankly doesn't matter what the recruiter said leading up to that point. It was Key's responsibility to make sure that any promises made were put in writing. It's always been that way and is one of the reasons that written contracts exist in the first place. As far as the West Point reference made by an Air Force recruiter, either you were suddenly teleported back to 1947 to deal with an Army Air Force recruiter or the guy was confused. I find it hard to believe that any recruiter would mix up the service academies like that, but I also know how many times I've inadvertantly mispoken myself. Private Key deserves a dishonorable discharge after his stint in Leavenworth. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

03-12-2007, 02:23 PM	#28 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	As horrible as it sounds; I'd rather have people who aren't intelligent enough to read a contract dying in Iraq than our country's greatest minds. If Key can't understand the difference between a legal, written contract and a verbal one, he's more expendable, as far as I'm concerned. I'd be very upset if this were an intelligent person who was honestly mislead, pursued it through the chain-of-command, but fulfilled his duty. By all indications, none of these things happened for Key. Just becuase you disagree with something in a contract after-the-fact doesn't invalidate the contract. And will; you're mistaking the theoretical legality of verbal contracts with the practical legality. A verbal contract IS a valid contract in most jurisdictions, and thus enforceable. However, proving agreement on a certain set of things is nigh impossible in a he-said she-said situation. Unfortunately for Keys, your crediblity in court while claiming a verbal contract existed is severely diminished when you're a deserter and criminal. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

03-12-2007, 03:11 PM	#30 (permalink)
DaveOrion Playing With Fire Location: Disaster Area	A miltary and civil contract and completely different. After signing on the dotted line when joining the service, you are no longer subject to the laws of civilians. You are then under The Uniform Code Of Military Justice. You are not a citizen, you are a governmental asset to be used or abused in whatever way they see fit, and can never file suit in a civil court against them. Well, you can...lotsaluck..... Depends on the recruiter....recruiters with high recruitment stats, are often promoted sooner, can recieve sitations for their glorious service, and can be sent to the assignment of their choice......hmmmm....would you use dishonest means to recruit???? __________________ *Syriana*...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

03-12-2007, 04:13 PM	#35 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	If I'm wrong (not an admission), shouldn't the recruiters still be held accountable for deceiving potential soldiers?

03-12-2007, 04:23 PM	#36 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Absolutely they should be held accountable, but that's not what you've been saying. You've been saying that the verbal contract is binding when it absolutely isn't. As you've also seen from folks that went farther along in the process than I did, there's a point to make sure they are held accountable. Mr. Keys is either lying (the most probably IMO) or he's much more of a moron than he's let on to being. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

03-12-2007, 04:52 PM	#37 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	If a verbal and written contract are in conflict, then one must investigate proper law. No such investigation was done, so neither contract is void. One contract cannot automatically supersede another. There are legal protocols. So, as I said, he is still covered under the verbal contract as well as the written contract.

03-12-2007, 06:45 PM	#39 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	So if I sign a legal contract that says I cannot fight in the war, and I later enlist, the first contract goes away? Nope. That's not how contracts work. Again, if the contracts are in conflict, a ruling must be made. As no such ruling has been made, the contracts are still both in a state of valid conflict.