Innovation = Treason?
 

http://www.10tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2682931

Okay, am I the only one who sees something wrong here? The guy did what he needed to get the job done & now he gets punished for it?

SWK

With all the recent news about soldiers not following orders, complaining about not enough armor on vehicles and poorly defended convoys, it's possible the Army needed someone to make an example of. Don't get me wrong, I applaude his ingenuity and hold great respect for him and all soldiers, but if he violated Army protocol, then he should be punished. A court martial does seem a little excessive, though we don't have all the facts either. As the article finished out, it said he and the other troops didn't return the vehicles and allegedly destroyed the evidence of where they came from. It sounds to me like they knew what they were doing wasn't right and did it anyway. I can't be sure if that was Army or media spin, and I am hesitant to make a call on that.

In order to really understand what happened, I'd like to get hold of the proceedings from the court martial. Does anyone know if they are sealed for National Security or if they are public record?

His former battalion commander, Lt. Col. Christopher Wicker, said Sunday the troops should at least have returned the vehicles to their original units.

"Instead of taking the trucks back to their rightful owners, the first thing was erasing the identity marks and dumping them off at bases," Wicker said. "They destroyed it. They did the enemy's job. ... Those trucks could be used for other units."


and he made a plea, he didnt put up a fight. he obviously knew he did wrong.

It's not the misdemeanor that gets you in trouble, it's the cover up. Once you lose your integrity, you lose everything.

It sounds like he did what he needed to do and then panicked. At that point he should have told his C.O. and asked what to do. His CO probably would have cleared everything up, returned the trucks, etc.. It's a shame.

You people do know that you dont have the same right if you are a solider, dont you?
This means no lawyer no cuel or unusual, none of that. If you look at a supirior the wrong way they can through you away for life, they probly wont, but it is in there power. I personally think the army is crap and gets to much money and power but thats not the point. just remember that if it sounds like it should be allowed in a normal court, dosnt mean that in the army it isnt. They have total power, there is no jury of peers or anything like that. just so ya know

PSR,
You are grossly mistaken. I'm a Marine, and I still have all the basic humanitarian rights. I am also given an enormous responsibility to command men and take orders and carry and discharge a weapon. Therefore, I'm held to stricter standards of conduct. If I forget to salute an officer, he may remind me about the importance of the salute (and it is important). If I tell a superior to "fuck off." I'm going to get into trouble. I'll get a terrible performance eval and my career will be severly hurt. Disobeying an order can get people killed for no reason other than someone's negligence. That's why disobeying an order is a crime. You were given this responsibility, you disobeyed it, and you endangered people. Disobeying a just order is like willingly putting someone else, or yourself, in danger that they don't have to be in. Lying or withholding the complete truth from a superior is just as bad. It gets people hurt.

There is also something called Non-Judicial Punishment. For minor offenses, a CO can give you some form of punishment be it extra duties up to a few nights of bread and water. You only get this if you do something you know you shouldn't have that endangers others. You can always appeal to a trial and so on and so on. I still have the right to an attorney. Watch a movie like A Few Good Men or An Officer and A Gentlemen. We get lawyers. If I do something illegal on the field, they are not going to fly an attorney to me. They are going to take care of me on the field and ship me to a fair court martial.

I don't know what mental image you have of the military, but we are not orcs roaming around middle-earth beheading each other for no good reason. The environment is completely professional. A leader can’t disrespect his/her men and still expect to be a good leader. Someone down the chain of command can’t lie or circumvent his orders or try to cover up his actions. No one can break the law- including people in the military.

You can have your opinion about the necessity of the military, but I am glad the army is there. I'm glad the Marines are there. I'm glad the whole armed forces are there. And I will be glad to continue to serve and protect you.

Thanks SNAFU. I may need that service and protection someday. It may be after you're discharged, but, who knows.... (BTW, I'm a US citizen, so I'm pretty sure that I fall in the category of those whom you serve and protect: If residing in Ecuador would get me off this list, then thanks for all of the people you DO serve and protect.)

As far as this, well, I hope he get's out of the mess alright. And, I wonder why he covered up his actions. OK, so you innovated and came up with an idea to get your job done. That would normally get you promoted, right? At least you'd get that little "Smart on his feet" box checked off on your evaluation sheet (or whatever system the army uses to evauate it's personel(sp) on the field.) Right? But, instead of telling your CO that you got the job done, but had to comandeer some old equipment to do so, you cover it up, and leave the stuff for the enemy. Heck, I'm sure that the army could at least have found some use for the scrap metal, if the trucks were useless. He decided to cover it up, gaining the enemy an extra few trucks, and him and his group a court marshall. It was a bit extreme, but had he covered up something bigger, the results could have been far worse. And, it's the cover-up he's paying for.

This entire article seems very biased in favor of the soldier in question-->

The writer uses colorfol adjectives and language that are not needed when simply recounting an incident: For instance, instead of saying fuel, the writer says "precious fuel", instead of simply saying "he was discharged and lost his job" it says "Darrell was dishonorably discharged and lost his civilian job."

All these comments generally seems to lean in favor of Derrel, as well as the writer's way of verbalizing his facts: "A local soldier made a battlefield decision in order to complete his mission." - why can't he just say "U.S. soldier takes two of other unit's vehicles, afterward claimed that they were needed to transport oil to soldiers in Baghdad."?

And finally "His mission was absolutely critical: get fuel and supplies -- at any cost -- to soldiers fighting on the front lines in Iraq."
Why was getting fuel to these soldiers critical? What life-saving function was this fuel going to serve? This statement just serves to reflect the writer's biased outlook...

I mean, even the title is filled with unecessarily oppinionated language: "Soldier Punished In Effort To Supply Troops" This makes it sounds like the military is the bad guy here...

The entire article is in favor of the soldier under judgement, except for one little quote they include at the end. If this was an editorial I might understand the obvious bias, but this is supposed to be a news article for Pete's sake!

you may serve and protect me, buy against my will. i am a us citazin and i will fight the military tooth and nail. and if you think the military dosnt break laws you live in la la land, cause the self apointed "world police" break a lot of international laws