Willravel

A recruiting commander isn't DoD and he isn't following policy. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

debaser

So accoding to the high minds (and horses) of Berkeley the only thing standing in the way of world peace is the United States military?

Will, I'll put it to you point blank: You are an ingrate. All that crap you spew in other threads about respecting veterans goes by the wayside in light of the whopper above.

Believe me, most of the military would be glad to be done with Berkeley, I'd venture a guess that we don't get a lot of quality recruits out of there anyway. Luckily for you, we conduct ourselves in as unbiassed a way as is possible, according to law and regulation. Pity not everyone can...

So a US Army captain who is the O&T of a recruiting company is not under the perview or executing the policy of the DoD?

Wow, perhaps I need a lesson in government.

__________________

Willravel

Not even close to what I said, but w/e.
I'm grateful for people who fought in WW2. I can't really say that I'm grateful for anything after that, though, so I suppose I'd fall under the catagory of "ingrate". I'm an ingrate for good reason, though, so it's not necessarily negative. I'm also an ingrate when it comes to our president, but I don't see people getting pissy about that. Ingrate is in the eye of the beholder. I take it as a compliment.

As for veterans? I don't have to agree with someone's vocation to want them not to be shit on. Our veterans are quite often treated like absolute shit and they may benefit from my help just like any of the other causes I champion.
I don't have to be unbiassed, so asking it of me can get a "No, thanks" without me breaking any rules. It's a shame that more military officers aren't allowed to speak their minds. I've seen plenty of troops say how the war is wrong. Generals, even.
You know that's not what I said. He, himself, made a reasonable decision. It had nothing to do with policy.

debaser

Many people would consider their profession being called irrelevant or useless akin to being shit on...
So you admit that you hold the military to a higher standard than you do yourself, how quaint.

Officers are allowed to speak their mind freely, as long as it is not in an official context. I do regularly.
You know Steve? Small world...

__________________

Willravel

I guess you missed the massive expose on Walter Reed? Or do you think me saying "I don't agree with your profession" to hospitals with infestations and lower than third world care?
First off, you were using a "biased" in an odd way. What you call bias, I call free thinking. So in actuality I don't hold anyone to a higher standard.
I'll tell you what, then. Write a scathing editorial on the presidency of George W. Bush and have it published in a newspaper. Oh, and google Ehren Watada for a military officer I do respect.
Apparently I know about what "Steve" was doing better than you do.

debaser

I don't know what the hell you are saying here.
Cool, from now on I will refer to prejudice against gays, blacks, women, and jews as "free thinking". Thank you will, for opening my eyes...
No. That is where my freedom of speech is curtailed in respect to yours. I gave up that right when I volunteered my time and health to serve the will of this country. If I call the POTUS a fuckhead, I will at the very least lose my job, but then again if you published an editorial calling your boss a fuckhead, you would most likely be fired as well, just like your pretty-boy Watada. I can refuse orders that are illegal under the UCMJ, not policies that I find personally objectionable.

Question: If your little unicorn herder becomes president, and I disagree with his policies, would you support my right to do whatever the fuck I wanted rather than following orders?
Aren't you precious. And a psychic to boot. How can I compete with that? Actually if left to his devices he would much rather have let it ride, as a dismissal creates hundreds of hours of paperwork, hard feeling among the other recruiters, and a general pain in the ass. But there's that damn UCMJ, stateing in black and white what we are to do in such an event. And we do it, whether we want to or not. That is what being in the military entails, you wouldn't understand.

__________________

Willravel

You said that "shitting" on the troops is the same as the things I'm defending the veterans from. Either you were knowingly exaggerating or you aren't aware of how poorly veterans are treated.
I disagree with actions, not being. Being something and doing something are vastly different. For example: I don't care if you're a soldier, but I do care what you do as a soldier. Case in point: Ehren Watada.
You're not serving the will of the country, you're serving your CO, who is serving under his who eventually serves the President or Congress who are serving special interests. Don't try to embellish military service with "we serve the people". If you served the will of the people, you would have withdrawn from Iraq over a year ago.

You not just can but are legally obligated to disobey illegal orders. Like breaching the UN Charter, which is a US treaty and thus US law, for example.
If the 6'1" black guy who could probably wipe the floor with 71 year old McCain gets elected and you disobey orders that start with him you had better have US law or the UCMJ on you side. Like Watada.
Just because Tully Mars actually managed to find the letter of the law doesn't mean it's DoD policy and more importantly it doesn't mean it's common practice. I remember posting several links about this pages ago, making it clear that the military doesn't really do anything about it (unless they're caught). Should I google to find them again?

Tully Mars

The UCMJ is just like any other legal written legal code- it's only valid if upheld and enforced. I suspect and I believe you stated in an earlier post that it's not being adhered to 100% of the time. I think you stated "he isn't following DoD policy." I think you're right but do you have any proof of said policy?

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Willravel

I apologize, I should have been more clear. By "policy", I was referring to common practice that's generally accepted and covertly defended or even promoted.

debaser

Will, I am one. That gives me a pretty good idea. What are your credentials again?
Soon to be ex-1LT Watada disobeyed a direct lawful order and tried to dictate policy, neither of which are permitted whilst in the military. He claimed that he would be party to war crimes if deployed, but countries do not commit war crimes, individuals do. He said he is willing to serve jail time for his beliefs, indulge him.
No, will. We follow orders, period. Those orders come from the CiC, who is elected by the people of the United States. I have said this again and again, you do not want the military making its own descisions what to do. Really, you don't. We don't go by opinion polls, we don't listen to who yells the loudest. If you don't like what the military is doing, look in the mirror and blame yourself: you didn't work hard enough in 2004.
I suggest you spend your time petitioning the Supreme Court then. It is my duty to refuse a clearly illegal order, not try to interpret the UN charter. I am not qualified to do that, and if memory of your previous attempts to do so serves, neither are you.
Obama couldn't bust a grape in a food fight, and wiping the floor with a warmed over corpse isn't that impressive. But I digress. Watada did not have the UCMJ on his side, that's why he is history.
The letter of the law is policy. We don't just strap on our sandals, smoke some pot, and make this up as we go. The policy is codified in the UCMJ, it's just that simple. It is DoD policy to prosecute recruiter who are found to have lied to recruits, why can't you understand that?

That's not policy, will. Thats culture. If thats what you meant I wish you had said so up front, it would have saved a lot of time.

__________________

Willravel

You're a veteran, yes. So in line with my beliefs, you should not be mistreated by the government, and they should not go back on their word to you. You sacrificed for the government, so if the government turns it's back on you you'll have 100% of my support. It's about fairness. Walter Reed was a travesty and was clearly unjust, I found that it was a cause worth championing. Likewise, I champion that the military should not make it so difficult to get all of the perks they promise, such as scholarships. This ties directly into this thread, though, because many military recruiters are knowingly promising things that the military will not or cannot provide.

This whole thing is about fairness, at it's core. At least for me.

So yes, I can dump on people for fighting a political war that has nothing to do with honor or justice, but at the same time I can champion fair treatment of said people.
His orders were in direct violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter. As he was actively disobeying what he understood to be illegal orders, what should have happened was an investigation to determine whether said orders were illegal or not. They skipped that. They assumed the orders were legal and even at the trial the judge ordered that the case not include arguments for his actions.
You don't want the president to make his own decisions on what to do either, apparently, but that's moot. You follow the president and the president doesn't follow the people, therefore you're not serving the people. Being elected by the people is not the same as serving the people.

BTW, he lost in 2004.
The Supreme Court is stacked. I stand a better chance of opening up the mind of a military officer than an old idiot hand picked by a member of the Bush family.
He's not history, though. In fact, the military judge is in deep shit for ignoring double jeopardy and breaking several other laws. Google U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle for more details.
As Tully said, policy is only valid if enforced. It's useless if you can just break the UCMJ and get away with it. Kinda like the UN Charter.

debaser

And we have yet to see examples of this. What exactly does the military promise that it can't or won't provide? Certainly not college money, they give that away like it was air. Promise of non-deployablity, it's put into hundreds of contracts a day. What again was your point? Btw, the coast Guard does not fall under the DoD unless directed by the POTUS.
Pardon my ignorance, but I see nothing above that makes his individual orders a violation of the charter (which binds nations, not individuals).
That is your problem as much as mine.
Apparently not.
Because we are so close minded and simple in the military, right? And assuming you sweep me out of my servile, ignorant fog, what would you, willravel, have me do? Plant rainbows, sprinkle fairy dust on recruiting offices, or conduct a hasty attack on Crawford, Texas?
Legalese wins again. OJ was not guilty, too. He is history as far as the Army is concerned, and good riddance. We really don't need any more non-hackers, especially now.
You will find no arguments from me regarding how useless the UN charter is. As I stated before, the UCMJ is enforced, that's why those recruiters were removed.

__________________

Tully Mars

Actually during war time the USCG falls under the Dept. of the Navy and unless directed otherwise by the POTUS during peace time it's under The Department Homeland Security.


http://www.uscg.mil/history/

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

debaser

I believe it is currently under the DHS, despite the "war" we are engaged in.

__________________

Tully Mars

Yes currently DHS. Are we at war with someone?

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

debaser

"terrists"

__________________

Tully Mars

Hmm, and this means?

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Willravel

I guess you're not familiar with the extent to which the veterans health care program is broken. Apparently you're unaware of forms that go unprocessed for years. You're probably also unaware that many disabled veterans don't get military retirement and VA compensation. Jeez, don't even get me started on wounded veterans.

Why aren't you familiar with any of this? It seems odd to me.
I'll clarify. Under the UN Charter there are two circumstances in which the use of military force by a signatory is allowable:
1) If they are in danger of an imminent armed attack
2) When the Security Council has specifically allowed said force

We were in no danger, imminent or otherwise from Iraq and the US has to drop our proposal to the UN because it was clear the Security Council was going to vote no. If you want further information on that proposal (which was called either "eighteenth resolution" or "second resolution"), I'm sure the information is readily available.

And before you go on about how the current Iraq War is covered under the resolutions (such as 1441, 660, etc.) that were applicable for the Gulf War, don't bother. First off, the US wouldn't have proposed new resolutions for the invasion if the old ones applied and second the UN officially condemned the invasion. For each individual military action there must legally be UN Security Council approval. There was none for "Iraq Freedom" or "Enduring Freedom".
It's not my problem that I proved your statement wrong. It's simply what happened.
I'll let this go in the interest of avoiding further threadjack.
Do what you're legally obliged to do if you want. Combine the information above about the UN Charter with the fact that you are legally obliged to disobey illegal orders and you've got.... well Watada, actually.
And I suppose soldiers who refuse to open fire on unarmed civilians are non-hackers, too? How about soldiers that are asked to torture and refuse? More non-hackers? Do you really want a standing army of non-thinkers? Robots who simply do what they're told no matter what their conscience tells them?

BTW, the military judge is in deep shit because his courtroom was a fucking joke. He fucked up. It has nothing to do with legalese and everything to do with justice.
Read the following article carefully.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2626032

Are you really going to tell me this is uncommon?

dc_dux

Following this thread through 6 pages now, IMO, there are two common themes among the "pro-military" contributors:

* if someone opposes military policies, they are against the troops

* the right of assembly, speech and the redress of grievances ate "stupid" or worse, "treasonous", if such actions dont conform with their views

The citizens of Berkeley have every right to express their legitimate concerns about:

* a war they believe is illegal

* recruitment irregularities where from 1 ouf of 20 to 1 out of 5 recruiters engage in some type of illegal or unethical conduct and DoD does not have the mechanism in place to properly oversee the recruitment process

* the US military as the largest organization in the country to engage in discriminatory hiring (recruitment) practices

I would ask such "defenders of freedom".....if you are not fighting for the basic Constitutional rights of citizens to express these concern (or any concerns regarding the actions and policies of the government)......what the hell are you fighting for when you put on the uniform and take the oath of enlistment:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States......

You dont have to agree with every protest...I certainly dont.

But when you are disdainful of every citizens right to engage in such lawful exercises of speech....you are disdainful of the very Constitution to which you swore your oath of service.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

debaser

Apparently you have completely misconstrued my posts.

__________________

dc_dux

debaser...my post was not directed at just one person....but perhaps I should have added "high minds (and horses) and ingrates to "stupid" and treasonous"
You conduct yourself "according to law and regulation" and willravel and the citizens of Berkeley conduct themselves according to their Constitution right of speech, assembly and expression.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Tully Mars

A lot of truth in that.

I remember being in Navy "A" school back in the early 1980's. On Veterans Day we got the privilege of marching in a parade in down town San Fransisco. We're marching and people are throwing garbage at us and calling us names. Friend of mine got clocked with a coke bottle, this back when they were made of glass. I didn't mind the name calling but the physical shit was outline, IMO. Did think they were morons. I mean it was 1984, I kept thinking "exactly who's killing babies and where are they doing this? I clean toilets and garbage cans for a living."

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

debaser

Those are functions of the VA, not the DoD. Do you hold recruiters responsible for the failings of another cabinet level authority?
There are no such stipulations in the UN charter.
Irrelevant since your initial premise is incorrect.
Again, see above.
I have dealt with the issue of unlawful direct orders ad naseum.
Justice would be fullfilling the oath you took rather than playing shithouse lawyer because you were scared to do what you had committed to.
Failure to adapt discharges (Chapter 7) are the most common IET discharge, they do not go on any permanent record and have no effect on your life unless you try to join the military again.

I think the telling issue is that even back then the policy was to deal with the problem, for example the hiatus to retrain recruiters.

If this thread had been called "Is this reasonable if recruiters use blatantly deceptive methods to recruit youths?" I wouldn't have even bothered to respond, except perhaps to note that "blatantly deceptive" is an oxymoron...


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



I suggest you watch the video posted on the previous page, sir. I would not (nor did I) say treasonous, but stupid definitely applies. As to the rest:

High mind, high horse, ingrate.

I assure you I speak as freely as the next man, just not in an official capacity. My presence in this thread was for the purpose of letting you know how the military works, knowlege some people are woefully lacking in apparently.

Don't think for a second I am trampling your rights, quite the opposite is true.

__________________

Willravel

They're two separate failures stemming from two different parts of the military/government.
It's a shame you make people do all the legwork for you.
Self defense:
According to precedence (that's legalese for "shit that's officially happened before that relates to this directly from a legal standpoint") this means that a member nation may use force to use anticipatory self-defense (or self defense in case of an impending attack). Please reference "Caroline affair of 1837" (Letter from Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, to Lord Ashburton, August 6, 1842, reprinted in 2 John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law 409, 412 (1906)) or more recently Oppenheim’s International Law: Ninth Edition, 1991, p. 412:
Authorization:
Nowhere else in the UN Charter is military force allowed by any members.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it incorrect.
Speaking of scared, someone is scared of standing up to the ape in the White House. Who might you ask? Everyone in the military but Watada and a few others.
You mean clean up the mess when they're caught? Yes, that's very responsible of them.
Name calling is against TFP rules. I can take it on the chin once, but cut it out.
Ah yes, the right to lie to 18 year olds who love playing SOCOM. Which amendment is that again?

host

Can you recall if your thought process operated as it does in the above example, BEFORE you served in the military?

I read that excerpt of your post, several times, and I am wondering where your way of thinking would position you in these two sets of circumstances. Would you be contributing to influences lessening the ordeal that these two men were put through, or increasing it?

debaser

It is exclusive of the use of force outside that context.
This act authorises the UN to take military action, it does not prohibit anyone else from doing so.
Nor is it prohibited. The UN charter merely lays down the proceedures that the UN acts under when said conditions are met. The only relevent Article would be 33, which we indulged well beyond its scope in the ten years previous to the current war.
Quoted for truth, try not to be so trite when you are wrong.
I routinely stand up against the president, just not in an official capacity. That's because it would be the wrong thing to do in my position.
What would you prefer they do, not clean it up?
Earlier you said it was a compliment, wtf?
You would call it the first amendment, but we have already discussed that that is not always an option for those serving. So we do our best to police the actions of individuals who stray from DoD policy.



__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________




Pretty much, the military has certainly changed me, but my basic thoughts are fairly similar to those before I joined.

I cannot say how honored I am to serve in the same Army as the men in the vignettes you provided. They had the moral courage to not only refuse an unlawful order, but also to put their personal safety at risk to try to rectify the situation. That is true courage. I would do my best to mitigate the lambasting they recieved if it was in my power to do so.

Just so you know, my comment about the oxymoron was linguistic not philosophical.

__________________

Willravel

It's not that you can't understand, it's that you won't.

debaser

You can rest assured that you are right, backed up firmly by your convictions.

I will rest assured that I am right, backed up firmly by reality.

__________________

florida0214

While I have to admit that I dod not bother to read all six pages of replies, I am a kind of expert i this particular area. I have little doubt that this conversation is going somewhat like this: They do this.... no they dont...recruiters are satan spawn... no their not.

So Maybe I can add my 2 cents. I was a military recruiter. I loved the job. I felt that I worked to make the US military a better place. I never lied to anybody. If the youth of America think that they are joining the military to run through flowery meadows kissing deer, then they have no place in the military anyway.
Also I feel you are insulting these young people if you believe for a second they are incapable of gathering their own information. Recruiters are becoming less and less salesman and more and more informants. There are too many resources available to young people for them to be completely suckered in by anything a recruiter may or may not tell them. Everything can be verified through on reputable source or another. People naive enough to sign on the dotted line without reading or properly informing themselves, again should not be in the military. The military does not need mindless drones. We need people who can think and problem solve under incredible amounts of stress. The kind of stress that few people will ever experience.
Not a single person I put in uniform has been killed. Some, however, have gotten their citizenship, gotten a college education, seen the world, and made a lot of life-long friendships.

To be fair there are bad recruiters out there. They are not limited to any branch and they give the majority a bad name. Its the 80-20 effect. Lets say for a moment that recruiters are banned from all schools (illegal to disallow access to public or government funded schools) or from recruiting at all. What would become of our all-volunteer force? The military would consist of whatever kind of person manages to venture into an entrance site. 9 out of 10 walk-ins are disqualified. If numbers could not be reached, then what? A draft? mandatory service? Would you welcome recruiters then? at least at that point your children would have a choice. I guess I feel that you can't always have your cake and eat it too. There are certain things that have to be accepted no matter what country you live in if you choose to live there. People always have the option to live somewhere else.
As far the schools allowing recruiters in. If the school receives government money then the school has to allow even access. What this means is that if the school allows any post-secondary schools access to the school they have to allow recruiters the same amount of access.
I try to be fair and i understand everybody here has the right to their opinion and the right to protest, but when you complain about something provide a reasonable alternative. I mean to completely do away with something does not always work. Please inform us as to how things can work better maybe somebody here has the power to actually put those ideas into practice. I am curious to see how people would deal with some situations.

I don't expect anybody to actually fully read this but in case you do thanks for listening and being at least that open-minded.

__________________
"Two men: one thinks he can. One thinks he cannot. They are Both Right."

sprocket

This was just too funny not to post

<embed FlashVars='videoId=163653' src='http://www.thedailyshow.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#cccccc' width='332' height='316' name='comedy_central_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Tully Mars

Oh am I happy the Daily Show writers are back.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

genuinegirly

Perhaps a little off from what others are saying...

I see that Host started this debate with events that are currently unraveling in Berkeley. I'd like to mention these events, from the perspective of someone who observes the protest daily.

- A group that labels themselves as "Women for Peace" who have a very large hastily-painted pink truck park daily in front of a storefront in the downtown, one block from campus. They chant at the top of their lungs and wave signs, requesting peace. Occasionally a larger group of people forms, and they chant as well. More people join their cause during rush hour. A couple to several police officers are stationed across the street from the protesters, ready to deal with any problems as they arise. These folks are protesting the recruitment of marines. No other branch of the military is mentioned.

- One day we heard that the US Gov't had enough with these pesky protesters. Said they were going to cut funding to various worthwhile organizations located in the city limits, including the university. The Berkeley city counsel and the chancellor of the university quickly responded that they have nothing to do with the protest.

- Every once in a while, during lunch and at rush hour, Berkeley's streets are flooded with unarmed uniformed military, walking calmly down the sidewalks. They walk with impeccable posture and glare at everyone they pass, as if to assert their dominance.

__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

Tully Mars

That's interesting.

I recently saw something that either read or said (can't remember, maybe I dreamed it?) that the office in question is solely for the recruitment of Marine Corps officers. Officers only, no enlisted- is this correct or do you know?

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

sprocket

The actions of the city council is what has drawn the ire of the politicians in Washington... not the protestors. Maybe they quickly said they had nothing to do with the protest... but they had been supporting and encouraging it since the whole thing started and then try and pretend like they had nothing to do with it.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

QuasiMondo

Perhaps a review of the original resolution the City Council passed on Jan 29 is in order if you think they had nothing to do with the protests:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=re...ELiohLiKRrcqyw
They can't say they had nothing to do with these protests when they tried to use a municipal law to kick them out of the city.

__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer.

-From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

genuinegirly

I do not know.

I did not indicate that I thought.

Giving you the passive perceptions of a casual observer, nothing more.

__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

echo5delta

Tully, I posted that upthread a bit, but as a n00b in the politics forum, I'm sure it got overlooked by many.

Yeah, this is strictly an Officer Selection Office. You've got to have your undergrad work done or be damn close to it for them to even talk to you for more than one friendly visit.

I'm also rather surprised (or not, I haven't decided) that, as genuinegirly pointed out, uniformed servicemembers are making a point to walk the streets. The thought had definitely crossed my mind a time or two. Hopefully those who do so will continue showing civility and discipline.

I'm fully not at ALL surprised that the Mayor and Council have disavowed the actions of these groups after taking so much heat for specifically providing special influence and privileges for these groups initially.

Could be the brainwashed fascist in me, but right or wrong I try to admit and deal with whatever the hell mistakes I make in my personal life. God knows there've been many.

ETA: Now that I think about it, really, you could be just very close to completing your sophomore year for them to take you seriously. You can sign a "letter of intent" (for lack of the official technical term) and attend Platoon Leaders Course and Officer Candidate School between your Soph/Jr. and Jr./Senior years, so that you'll be sent directly to The Basic School and MOS training right after your senior year. In this way, you spend less of your obligated active-duty time in a training status and more as a working officer in the Fleet.

__________________
"Peace" is when nobody's shooting. A "Just Peace" is when we get what we want. - Bill Mauldin

itlain

I just started reading through here and since I am an Army recruiter, this sort of struck home. From AR 601-210 (Which covers enlistment into the Army) Paragraph 1-7

"Military personnel who violate or fail to comply with this regulation are subject to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for violation of Article 92(1). Also, military members may be subject to punishment under the UCMJ for violation of Article 92(3) or Article 84. Particular attention should be given to UCMJ, Article 84, which states: “Any person subject to this chapter who effects an enlistment in or a separation from the armed forces of
any person who is known to him to be ineligible for enlistment, or separation because it is prohibited by law, regulation, or order shall be punished as court-martial may direct.”

__________________
Support the troops, if not the war.