Starfleet Jedi

Jedi Master Spock wrote: To offer a pre-emptive olive branch towards any disagreement there, the answers to those questions are very different depending on what country you're in - and for a country with a large military, which branch you're talking about.

And then, regarding the first question, still vary fairly substantially.

People join the military for any number of reasons. But to suggest that someone would actually join to expose the shitty aspect is pretty out there. There's alot easier ways to do it, the US media seems to do a fine job of it aided by whistleblowers. You'd have to be pretty dedicated to go through all the various modes of bullshit the military puts you through just so you could wait for something unsavory to happen to you that you could report. You'd then risk a dishounarable discharge for your actions and wind up working menial jos for the rest of your life thanks to your actions.

Cpl Kendall wrote:But to suggest that someone would actually join to expose the shitty aspect is pretty out there.

Well, no one's quite said that. Narsil's talking about joining to fabricate shit. I'm talking about Beauchamp.

Scott Thomas Beauchamp "hates the army. The only reason he joined was because he wanted to have more experience to write about.”

It was only later, I presume, that he and his new wife and whoever else concocted the idea of Beauchamp's faux non-fiction regarding his claimed activities in Iraq.

I suppose you could make the claim that he was just biding his time from the day he joined, expecting to see US atrocities that he could make a mint off of via writing about them, but that's a little far-fetched.

You'd have to be pretty dedicated to go through all the various modes of reasonable the military puts you through just so you could wait for something unsavory to happen to you that you could report.

Exactly, which is why Beauchamp didn't bother to wait.

You'd then risk a dishounarable discharge for your actions

Why would the person care?

and wind up working menial jos for the rest of your life thanks to your actions.

How? It's not like all employers blacklist people who get a dishonorable discharge.

I'd say it rather depends on the company . . . I'd wager some journalistic entities would jump at the idea.

You might want to see what PVT Beauchamp had to say about this whole deal;
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=128957

2046 wrote:
Well, no one's quite said that. Narsil's talking about joining to fabricate shit. I'm talking about Beauchamp.

Scott Thomas Beauchamp "hates the army. The only reason he joined was because he wanted to have more experience to write about.”

It was only later, I presume, that he and his new wife and whoever else concocted the idea of Beauchamp's faux non-fiction regarding his claimed activities in Iraq.

I suppose you could make the claim that he was just biding his time from the day he joined, expecting to see US atrocities that he could make a mint off of via writing about them, but that's a little far-fetched.

Pajama's Media, you got anything more repuable than that? Why don't you just post a blog?

Exactly, which is why Beauchamp didn't bother to wait.

Umm, ok.....

Why would the person care?

Because you'd never be able to hold a decent job ever again, you couldn't even be bonded. You do know what happens when you get a dishonourable discharge right?

How? It's not like all employers blacklist people who get a dishonorable discharge.

I'd say it rather depends on the company . . . I'd wager some journalistic entities would jump at the idea.

A dishonourable discharge is a blacklist, practically no one will touch you after that, and it's a pretty serious no-no not to disclose it upon hiring. It shows that you are a very unreliable person.

Cpl Kendall wrote: A dishonourable discharge is a blacklist, practically no one will touch you after that, and it's a pretty serious no-no not to disclose it upon hiring. It shows that you are a very unreliable person.

Any proof of that? With the amount of people who don't give a shit about the army, and those who downright hate it, even such a bold move would find fans.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Any proof of that? With the amount of people who don't give a shit about the army, and those who downright hate it, even such a bold move would find fans.

The whole point of a dishonourable discharge is that it fraks you over for life. Sure there's people that will take you but I wouldn't expect to go far. Hell you can't even be bonded.

*Edit: Here's something from Wikipedia which specificaly mention that it makes finding employment difficult. Frankly I'm not sure what you want because this is such a basic concept that it shouldn't be hard to grasp.

What do you mean with "Hell you can't even be bonded."?

Who is like God arbour wrote:What do you mean with "Hell you can't even be bonded."?

You don't know what it means to be "bonded"?

The meanings I think to know, don't make sense in that context - or at least I don't think, that they would make sense.

Who is like God arbour wrote:The meanings I think to know, don't make sense in that context - or at least I don't think, that they would make sense.

Bonding is a clearance prcedure that security guards go through to determine their fitness for their job, IE: reliability. With a dishonourable discharge on your record you cannot be bonded. So you can't even get a job as a Brinks guard and they only pay 13$ an hour.

Thank you.

Such a meaning is not listed in my dictionary.

I have thought, it may have something to do with betrothal or marriage. But it would go a little bit far, if you can't marry because of a dishonourable discharge.

Merriam Webster Online wrote:Main Entry: bond·ing
Pronunciation: \ˈbän-diŋ\
Function: noun
Date: 1969

1 : the formation of a close relationship (as between a mother and child or between a person and an animal) especially through frequent or constant association
2 : the attaching of a material (as porcelain) to a tooth surface especially for cosmetic purposes

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Any proof of that? With the amount of people who don't give a shit about the army, and those who downright hate it, even such a bold move would find fans.

The whole point of a dishonourable discharge is that it fraks you over for life. Sure there's people that will take you but I wouldn't expect to go far. Hell you can't even be bonded.

*Edit: Here's something from Wikipedia which specificaly mention that it makes finding employment difficult. Frankly I'm not sure what you want because this is such a basic concept that it shouldn't be hard to grasp.

It lists desertion. Sometimes, this just strikes me as people coming to their senses, or going through some kind of breakdown.

Kendall is correct on the severity of being the recipient of a dishonorable discharge, at least where the U.S. and Canadian militaries are concerned. In fact, I've heard some people say that it is better to be regular civilian convicted felon than an ex-soldier with a dishonorable discharge.

Hell, there was this one guy I knew who had received merely a general discharge (neither honorable or dishonorable), which lead to employment related issues for him.

So it's not much of an exaggeration to say that anyone who actively goes into the military and does something that will probably net them a dishonorable discharge needs to be willing to be a true martyr.
-Mike

Is there a list of what can be held against one for dishonourable discharge?

watchdog wrote:You might want to see what PVT Beauchamp had to say about this whole deal;
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=128957

Funny, that . . . he apparently offered to recant his claims the very same day that self-defense posted on TNR, reportedly signing an affadavit to that effect. (TNR claims this is not so, though they also seem to leave out the fact that the Army's investigated and found nothing to support Beauchamp's claims.)

Meanwhile, the Army's investigation has concluded that "the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims."

Furthermore, even if you put on your conspiracist thinking cap and presume that he was pressured into making the offer, isn't it odd that no independent sources can be found to corroborate his tales? Why can no one matching the description of the melted-faced woman he and his buddies supposedly made fun of be found, either in Iraq or Kuwait at locations he's been? (Iraq, Kuwait . . . take your pick, since even TNR expressed doubt as to the location, despite his standing by all his claims while recanting them.)