'Why I Fled George Bush's War'
 

A soldier tells of his experience in Iraq :

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

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

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.

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.

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."
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.
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*

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:
Cheney, in 1992:
....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?

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.

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...

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/

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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

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.


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

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.

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.

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

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).
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Then shoot him.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nope, you missed some of what I wrote:

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.

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.

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?
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

You mean when he was caught they did something about that specific case?! You sure put me in my place! :eek:
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?

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! ;)

:lol: you've got me there~!

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/sc...smiley-009.gif

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.