shakran

Actually many people don't know that. A consistent problem on this forum is that everyone here is pretty sharp, and they tend to assume that everyone else is that sharp. The average person is a C or below student - and this guy is "uneducated," remember? Hey a military guy, a guy in authority, is telling me this, and I'm supposed to assume he's lying?

Yes, we'll all admit he was stupid to believe he wouldn't be deployed. I wouldn't have bought it. But then the question arises - should military recruiters be allowed to prey on stupid people?


Well that's what the recruiters say. And you're right in what you said - only an idiot would fall for that crap, and most everyone, including the recruiter, knows that. So logically that means the recruiter is making those promises because he is hoping that an idiot will show up and fall for it. Is this acceptable? As I said above, should recruiters be allowed to prey on idiots?

Willravel

You mean when he was caught they did something about that specific case?! You sure put me in my place!
I'll tell you what, I'll stop calling him an officer when you stop accusing me of sounding stupid. Deal?

Yes, this kid was dumber than a post, but since when do we simply let people become victims because they are stupid?

shakran

Oh come on Will! They LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION! Why, if that isn't taking decisive and immediate action to ensure this never happens again I don't know what is! This proves hands down that the Army would never say anything that isn't true. Ever!

Willravel

you've got me there~!

Carno

I never said they took "decisive and immediate action," and my point was that the behavior of the recruiters' was not something that was sanctioned.

shakran

It may not be *officially* sanctioned, and if the public finds out about one individual recruiter, sure, he'll become the fall guy, but the military as an institution is doing as little as they can to stop their recruiters from getting warm bodies enlisted using any method that works.

Carno

Well, that's a pretty bold claim. Any proof to back that one up?

What I see is the Army offering up to $40,000 as an enlistment bonus for certain individuals, and up to $10,000 to pretty much anyone, enticing people to join. I also see tons of commercials on TV highliting the more positive aspects of enlisting. I also see recruiters getting busted for doing shit they shouldn't be doing and saying shit they shouldn't be saying.

But it's not like recruiters are gonna tell their command every time they lie to a kid or stretch the truth or talk about only the good things about military life, so recruits are even asked if anyone has promised them anything other than what is in the contract, and there is a line in the very beginning of the contract saying that anything not in the contract is void. If people refuse to read their contract or speak up when asked about their contract and what it means, what else should be done for them? I mean Christ, these are legal adults.

Seer666

If he was dumb enough to believe a recruiter, he should be punished just for being stupid. Sorry, but I have to echo previous sentiments. he signed on the line, of his own free will. then he ran, leaving people that were depending on him being where he was supposed to be hanging. I have no sympathy for him, no matter what his politics are. If he really thinks what he is doing is wrong, there are ways to take it up the chain. If that didn't work, then keep submitting chits to be transfered to another job where you are doing work that is less likely to leave you feeling wrong. Barring that, suck it, do what you signed on to do, and get out when your tour is over.

__________________
Bad spellers of the world untie!!!

I am the one you warned me of

I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.

Seaver

Um... forever? How about these Payday Loans? You get to loan $400 some dollars so in 5 days you can owe them $600.

How about adjustable loans only offered during times of low percentages, where only an idiot would volunteer to pay more interest than he has to.

I don't buy the "he's dumb, leave him alone" approach. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing before he went, he knew the risk and enlisted anyways. Show me ONE person who signs up for the military in a time of war and honestly has 0 belief that he/she will be deployed. No one, I don't care how smooth the recruiter was. There is no doubt in my mind he was told multiple times he was in all likelyhood going to deploy, because we were in a time of war.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

pan6467

I am against the war and I am not a big fan of W.... that said...... I didn't know this was just Bush's war, Fuck, and here I thought we were losing kids from my neighborhood and city. Man, I have egg on my face now.

Have we told our troops and the men and women over there that are risking everything to do something they may or may not feel is right but they want to honor the promise they gave to follow orders.

How respectful to them this thread is or at least the title.

You want to argue the merits of the war great I'm all for it and may even join. But titles like this and "letters" written by faceless anonymous people are very disrespectful to the men and women who are over there.

Like it or not WE are all at war and WE are all losing and sacrificing something while our men and women are there. WE owe our men and women better than this propaganda bullshit.

Like I said I want our troops home as much as anybody but this is truly distasteful and disrespectful.

And oh by the way..... if it comes out this was a "faked" letter but "could have been true" those of you who rally around it..... how will you react then?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

hiredgun

I have only secondhand experience with the issue at hand (I've never been in the military myself) but on the issue of the contract that Key signed, I'm pretty certain the law is crystal clear. The only thing that counts is what's on the page - not what a recruiter might have said (and the idea that anyone enlisting in the last six years could so fully expect not to deploy is difficult to swallow). Just thought I'd chime in on that.

I have mixed thoughts about Private Key, but I have to say I'm very surprised to hear support for shooting him, which would never have entered my mind as within the range of possible punishments for any kind of desertion. BOR, I understand that you have served, and perhaps that gives you a very different perspective from mine on the situation; would you mind clarifying your feelings for me?

scout

According to some article of the UCMJ {sorry it's been to long for me to recall the exact one} the penalty for deserting your post in a time of war is death. Historically this was carried out by dragging you in front of all your comrades that was depending on you to help cover their collective asses and shot to dissuade any more people that might have those thoughts in the back of their mind from doing the same thing.

smooth

I googled around to try and find a single documented case of battlefield executions, but I couldn't find one. So maybe in Hollywood this happens, but I doubt it's something done in real life...unless the UCMJ also calls for executions without trials?

@seaver, "verbal" contracts are very much contracts. look it up.

I also have no idea why people are thinking that *oral* contracts are not viable contracts, or that they are superceded by written ones...other than the obvious flaw that it's difficult to prove the terms of an oral contract in a courtroom. but that doesn't mean they are less "legal" than a written contract.

test the hypothesis
go anywhere and take delivery of any service
refuse to pay
argue in court that you never "signed" a contract
report back here with your results

there isn't much to say about when someone asks if anyone else has promised anything for your signature. it's an empty question, no is going to answer in the negative. recruits intend to sign, that's the point of them sitting in the chair. just like a defendant standing before the judge, and (s)he asks if anyone, the police or prosecutor, have offered anything for the defendant's plea of "no contest" or "guilty." The defendant can be a dumbass and say, yeah, there's a whole list of promises before Your Honor right now...I didn't make them up. and go back to his cage and wait for a trial. or he can play the game and state, no, I never received a promise of a shorter sentence or any other kind. I willingly and knowingly offer my plea

it's admirable that people read their contracts so carefully, but I doubt that's as true as it's being made out to be here.
how many of you have walked away from a rental because you read through the rental agreement?
or walked away from a loan?
a new house purchase?
a rental car?
your plane tickets?
what about canceling your credit cards whenever they send you those cute notices that the terms have changed?

I don't have much to say about Keys, but it's certainly something weird to get worked up over in the politics forum. and definately odd to call a longtime member stupid over.

anyway, I wanted to read more about the story and googled Joshua Keys and came up with a number of hits. most simply describe his book and offer it for sale. this one actually presents pieces of it: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/19/15268/6181
it is what it is. a source. I don't derive any legitimacy or lack of from it.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Bill O'Rights

No. I'm afraid I'm right. Read this verrrry carefully. When you enlist...in the United States Armed Forces...there...is...NO...verbal...contract. Period. Contrary to what you may or may not believe.

What are you talking about? There is no "first contract". There are the enlistment papers, which are the contract. Pure and simple. And no enlistment document is going to have, anywhere on it, a provision that states that you cannot fight in a war.

The maximum penalty, for desertion, is death by firing squad. This has not been done since WWII. And I only suggested that he be shot, somewhat tounge in cheek. That is a military euphamism for the maximum penalty. It was my way of saying that Key does not deserve sympathy. In reality, he will probably do some time in Leavenworth, and be given a Dishonorable Discharge.

Google Eddie Slovak. As memory serves, he was the last man put to death, by firing squad, following a courtmartial, for desertion. That was during WWII.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

shakran

Well let's have some links to those stories, because I haven't seen many of 'em. My evidence was just the opposite, but if I've somehow missed something I'd like to know. ..

No one's saying these people aren't stupid to sign the contract actually believing they'll avoid combat. What we're saying is that it's immoral and unethical to prey on the stupid. I would go farther and say it's a bad strategic move. I don't want an idiot sitting next to me in a foxhole. His stupidity might just get me killed.

Well. . .there might be. If a recruiter says "if you enlist, I guarantee you won't go to Iraq" and then you enlist, there IS a verbal contract. Trouble is it's not an *enforceable* verbal contract because there's no proof it exists, and the written contract will override it anyway.

The_Jazz

smooth, I never said that verbal contracts aren't binding or not viable. They certainly are. However, a written contract replaces a verbal contract in almost every single instance - and the enlistment contract is NOT an exception.

In other words, a verbal contract standing alone is potentially completely viable (depending on the agreement and terms themselves), but the moment that a written document is signed, it replaces the verbal contract. A judge is always going to be directed by what the terms of that contract unless it's illegal for some reason. Enlistment contracts aren't going to be found illegal very often, although I suppose it's possible.



Ok, now I have to use my scarey mod voice: there's been some personal sniping in this thread between several people. Since it's more than just a couple, I'm issuing a blanket warning rather than PM the offenders.

Start chosing your words carefully or I will shut this thread down. This is the only warning you're going to get, so if you want to continue this discussion, do it in a mature, respectful manner.

__________________
"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

Seaver

Look at the bottom of the first page.

Now, it is actually in bold and capital letters. He is required to sign directly under this statement. For anyone to claim what they were "promised" by the recruiter is either flat out lying or should be certifiably retarded.

Now look at 13a.

Once again this is in bold and all capital letters. Once again he is required to sign directly below it.

So... how can you still defend this? Binding or not the oral agreement that he would not deploy can never be proven, this contract is living and concrete.

Hope he enjoys Leavenworth.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

smooth

Seaver, I agree with you that private Keys has no effin chance.
I agreed before, but I was pointing out that it's quite possible that the recruiter tell him something and of course he's going to sign under that bold statement...if he doesn't he might as well not be there.

The_Jazz. Your assessment is wrong.
"Verbal" contracts DO NOT fall subordinate to written contracts.
I didn't say this before, but for one thing, written contracts ARE verbal contracts.
For another, oral contracts do not fall subordinate to written contracts either.
I would expect, if you are going to make such a claim, that you provide me a list of authorities demonstrating your claim to be true. The fact that you keep mistating the situation with "verbal" contracts leads me to believ that you haven't read up on the relevant case law. If that's not true, show me the money...

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

pan6467

BOR and Seaver are actually very correct.

I served and what I was told by everyone including my recruiter, read the contract and know that no oral or implied agreements are binding.

In other words, if it ain't in the papers you sign..... it doesn't exist.

I see this as being 1 of a couple things and I don't see any validity to this in any of my possibilities.

1) Someone being creative to get more anti-war sentiment going.

2) Someone being creative to set the anti war people up by later proving this letter a fake.

3) Someone being creative to make some money, gain some fame, whatever.

4) Someone being creative to divide this country even more and lower morale on the lines.

I'm sure you can see what they all have in common.

Look, let's try to find a way to get our troops home without lowering morale or making them sound like cold blooded killers and evil people.

We did that in 'Nam and it took us years to recover....if in fact we ever have.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

roachboy

the clauses in the written contract that seaver bit above are the conditions of possibility for recruiters saying whatever they think will work to get someone to sign. it is the explicit erasure of any verbal agreements.

given that these erasure clauses are in the contract that you would sign in order to hand control over your life away for x years in exchange for whatever motivates you in terms of rewards/benefits, the question of recruiter tactics becomes a purely ethical matter.

to demonstrate systematic ethical violations, you would have to assemble the case that such violations were in fact systematic. which would mean that you or your lawyer would have to (a) get access to this information and (b) get it admitted as evidence. the information exists---but it is mostly from organizations like the american friends service committee--as part of a larger analysis of contemporary recruitment patterns that argues they are an element in the regulation of social reproduction incoherences. so there is data, but it is situated in particular ways, and is organized on the basis of particular political assumptions. which is fine. the real problem is that i assume this kind would be tried in a military court. i wonder what chance that would leave him in terms of getting this kind of information admitted. i would assume that these chances tend toward zero, but that's just an assumption.

i dont see the courage that folk above have claimed it requires for a kid who signed on for military service, whose understanding of the contract that he signed has NOT been demonstrated, who arrives in iraq and realizes that what the americans are doing there has nothing to do with the illusions he had been under, and so he decides to object first then desert--i dont see the courage that folk would claim is required to swallow your ethical objections and carry on. i would see in this swallowing of your ethical objections as FUNDAMENTAL capitulation. the courage would come in refusing to continue and accepting the consequences. the courage would come in refusing to continue and in trying to link this refusal to systematic problems--like patterns of recruiters lying to recruits---like the justifications of american policy in iraq at all.

if you are within a particular rationality and you decide that rationality is pathological, there is no courage whatsoever in deciding "o well, i am fucked so i might as well carry on. allow me to heroically dismiss my ethics. allow me to continue doing as i am told." i dont see anything remotely like courage in that IF you come to the conclusion that the rationality is pathological. not all do. not all would.

so this isn't to say "therefore anything" with reference to military service as a whole. this isn't about military service as a whole: this is about moral objections to a conflict and what is required to act on those objections.
it is obvious that not everyone has such objections--but that not everyone has these objections means NOTHING about the objections themselves---it only means that they are not universally shared--which makes sense, given that the commonality is military service and that within that, the neutralizing of ethical objections to "the mission" is part of what enables the military to operate. so there are no general statements about the character of those who serve without ethical objections to what they are doing that can be made here.

there may be a case concerning recruitment tactics, but that is different and like i said would require particular information and so forth.

folk seem to be getting in a twist above because they conflate situations like that outlined in the op with general criticisms of the military.
seems kinda paranoid to me.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

The_Jazz

smooth, you're right that I confused "verbal" and "written" contracts. Unfortunately (for me), I do that all the time. I'm not a lawyer, nor have I ever been to law school, so I'm not an expert. All I am is a guy that reviews contract language on a daily basis.

That said, here are the relevent cases that I turned up in my quick search in my field guide:

Ross v. Times Mirror, Inc., 164 Vt. 13, 18, 665 A.2d 580 (1995)
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)
Gibson v. ITT Hartford Ins. Co., 621 N.W.2d 388, 400 (Iowa 2001)

I haven't checked those cases, and they're all annotated under written vs. oral in my guide so if those are wrong, sorry. I really don't have the time right now for non-revenue generating research.

As I was typing this, it also occurred to me that almost all written contracts that replace oral ones expressly negate any previous oral agreements as a matter of course. That's certainly the case with the contractors that I deal with.

__________________
"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

Willravel

I guess that makes sense, but is it really possible to erase any liable responsibility from a verbal contract by simply signing another contract that says, "Yeah, what we said before doesn't count"? It's baffling that there is purposeful wording to allow the recruiter's lies in the contract. Not only is that turning a blind eye, but it seems to almost support the poor behavior.

Ethically, it's simple. Recruiters are soldiers, right? And (ethical, not legal) conduct becoming of an officer (*gasp*, I called them all officers again!) includes not misrepresenting the future of potential fellow soldiers. The problem is that most people are only as ethical as they have to be. Without a system in place to monitor and penalize, many recruiters will go on doing what they've been doing.

shakran

Yes. In order for a contract to be dissolved (assuming no fraud/breach/etc by either party) both parties must agree to dissolve it. The written contract that says all verbal contracts are null and void proposes the government's agreement to dissolve the contract, and when you sign it, you, the other party, are also agreeing to it.

Now, in my mind, that doesn't make it OK for the recruiters to lie - it just clears the way for them to do so without jeopardizing the soldier's continued forced enlistment.

djtestudo

BOR gave one, and here's a particularly interesting one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Patricios

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

smooth

The_Jazz, thanks for that information. I had a hunch you were recalling something in your line of work since I remembered that you deal with insurance liability. I came back to edit my post to remind you of those clauses, but you had already recalled them There are, of course, some situations where even those exclusions shedding responsibility for previous said or unsaid statements don't completely dissolve the oral agreement.

I googled Eddie Slovik. According to an article written by one of the judges at his court martial on AmericanHeritage.com, "he became the only American put to death for desertion since Lincoln was President" when he was put to death by firing squad.

Given that this was WW2 and that djtestudo's reference stretches all the way back to the Mexican-American war in 1848, I'm going to have to conclude that scout's point that "historically" our military routinely shoots deserters in front of their squad is myth--whether it be Hollywood or boot camp originated I have no idea. While technically these executions have occurred "on the battlefield," neither accounts are of the image presented by saying that our military drags soldiers around and shoots them in front of their buddies when they try to run away. In fact, both articles are clear in stating that far from historical practice, both scenarios were historical anomalies.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

djtestudo

Well, you could say that's because American soldiers don't run

Actual executions are a historical anomaly, but they HAVE occurred, usually to make a point.

This guy probably shouldn't be executed, unless someone wants to argue that what these letters are meant to do, if they are real, is to incite more desertion and morale problems in the military.

But, desertion is a crime. He should be punished.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Seaver

I don't want him shot, but I DO want him to get to know Leavenworth intimately.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

smooth

Wait, do you guys know who this is? He's the soldier who fled to Canada and applied for asylum. These aren't letters, he wrote a book about his experience. It's available for purchase.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman