Troops: Skipping Christian concert got us punished

[seriously curious (imported)]

Actually this kind of stuff goes on quite a bit. I have never been forced to go to a religious concert, the yearly company picnic was quite another thing if you didn't make an appearence you'd catch hell the next day. your last name would become shit, and you'd be put on every detail that started with you new name ergo the term SHIT DETAIL.

As far as who's truly at fault I'd look right at the Commanding General. He may not have ever said that these events were manditory. I can promise you this though if this idea was his and it appeares that it is, if it comes from the top you can assume that there is an implied order that says all will attend or else. The Seargent was following orders that the Captain gave him the Catpain was following the implied orders of the General do the math who's truly at fault.

[seriously curious (imported)]

Mac, I give up!

[seriously curious (imported)]

Mac, I'll give this one more shot. The way you used the term non believer is, well to be truthful insensitive at best. You make the assumption that because these troops did not want to attend that they were NON BELIEVERS.

you claim that because they did not want to hear the message that this Christian group was saying or singing in this case (Since they are a Christian group I'll go out on a limb here and say their message was about GOD) that they are non believers It's completely understandable why Muslims might not want to attend such a concert it's also understandable if Jews, or hindi's, Buddhist and so on might not want to attend. All they were doing was practicing their respective religious freedoms not to attend, and

were punished for not attending

to boot. All I'm saying is that you make certain implications in that statement, it's not only unfair to those who opted not to attend. the statement is unequivocally biased. I'm not attacking you. That's the last thing I want to do all I'm trying to say is think before you write something so incendiary.

This is how I see it if others think I'm wrong please tell me:)

[Mac (imported)]

You apparently do not understand the military system which does not always appear to be fair or just. It demands unquestionable compliance to orders whether you agree or not.

The rationale behind that policy is that the superior and more experienced people have more knowledge of battle situations and are more capable of being able to assess the situation. It is not your place to question their orders but only to obey or DIE. In combat there is not time to question an order given by a superior.

Fair or not - that is the system.

My first introduction to basic training in 1962 was my training instructor's initial statement: "for the next 8 weeks I am your mother and your father and if you f~ck up your ass is mine". He meant it and the military system supported him.

Military and civilian justice are totally different animals. There can even be double jeopardy for civilian crimes: the civil authorities have initial juristiction and after they finish the military has a second chance to convict and discipline you. Your ass is truely theirs! Civilian courts do not have any juristiction over the military courts.

[Dave (imported)]

And being forced to attend a different religious service with the intent of proselytizing you is called ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION and that, as a function of any government agency is unconstitutional.

[Mac (imported)]

And being forced to attend a different religious service with the intent of proselytizing you is called ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION and that, as a function of any government agency is unconstitutional.

Not when it comes to the military! The "Uniform Code of Military Justice" contains it's own laws and code of conduct. It is not your's to question the orders of a superior but only to do or die! That is the first thing you are taught in basic training.

[Slammr (imported)]

Not when it comes to the military! The "Uniform Code of Military Justice" contains it's own laws and code of conduct. It is not your's to question the orders of a superior but only to do or die!

Obviously then, they got it wrong at the Nuremberg trials. After all, those convicted were just following orders.

[DeaconBlues (imported)]

This reminds me of a GREAT BOOK that I read a few years back:

"The Arnheiter Affair" by Niel Sheehan.

Back in the Viet Nam War, the U.S. Navy committed one of it many horrible blunders when they put Commander Marcus Aurelius Arnheiter in command of the U.S.S. Vance. Commander Arnheiter was truly a mentally ill man, it was a case of "life imitating art" when Arnheiter ran his ship the same way as the ficticious "Captain Philip Francis Queeg" did in "The Caine Mutiny" by Herman Wouk. Only Arnheiter was NOT ficticious, he was real.

Shortly after taking command of the USS Vance, Arnheiter started holding religious service which he himself lead, even though Arnheiter was a "line" officer and NOT a "Chaplin Corps" officer. Every Sunday, Arnheiter would order his crew to all assemble on the large deck area on the rear of the ship, calling "all hands aft" and ordering ALL crewmembers not absolutely needed to control the ship to stay there, and listen to him offer his own moral guidance to the sailors.

One Catholic officer always would volunteer to take the helm while the rest of the crew was at this gathering of the "Church of the (ass)Holy Marcus Aurelius" service. The Catholic officer selected other Catholics to be his bridge crew so that they also did not have to violate the tenets of their faith and attend a non-Catholic service.

I believe that Arnheiter was in command of the USS Vance for about 110 days before the navy brass realized just how badly they had f---ed up when they gave Arnheiter a ship.

All that said... I have to offer my own take on this.

Simply put, a U.S. Army captain fouled up. Maybe others also fouled up, but at the least, the captain did. A U.S. Army sargeant also fouled up, and maybe a few higher ups in the chain of command fouled up. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME A U.S. ARMY CAPTAIN HAS GOOFED! It will not be the last time.

IF, investigation shows that the captain or anyone else was really attempting to proselytize soldiers, I hope they "throw the book at him" and hang him out to dry. If, on the other hand, investigation shows that it was a case of the officer just doing what all officers typically do (i.e. "keep the troops busy so they don't think about stuff...") and the orders to clean up the barracks were not as a punishment for the soldiers who did not go to a religious service, well then I think the captain deserves a serious talking to, emphasize the need to be fair, appear fair, and be fair, etc. etc...

I myself served 21 dreadful years in the navy, and I can tell you I had to work for some seriously insane officers, some who really needed professional help. But honestly, the worst and most morale destroying people I ever had to work around had to be the evangelical christians, the bible thumpers, the LDS zealots. Even though I try try try to not let the bad acts of one member of a group color my judgement or prejudice me in respects to other members of that group... the christian zealots are very very difficult for me to deal with.

Whenever I would find anyone discussing how bitter they were at the idea of the "gay ban" being lifted and they would say something like "soon we're gonna have to take fags in the military...." I would always point out that I had personally worked with several sailors who were lated discharged for homosexuality, and they were good people, good to work with, but that whenever I had to work anywhere around a "bible thumper" I would have nothing but trouble. I would be happy to see this rediculous "gay ban" tossed out, that is long overdue, but if I were to "ban" any group, it would probably be the religious zealots - of any faith.

[seriously curious (imported)]

Mac I have served this nation on two separate occasions. I don't know if you were a Marine where mine is to do or die. I was in the Army and I was told to question orders if they appeared to be illegal. Actually it is every soldiers right to question order. The only thing is if and when he does question those orders he or she better be ready to back them up. Unlike the Nazi regeime we are permited to question orders wereas they were not, less they come face to face with a bullet generally aimed at their head.

You may have seen combat due to the time frame you were in, whether you did or not can you tell me that you never recieved orders that made no earthly sense or were in fact questionable I know I have. Generals are generally so far removed from the battle they have no idea what the situation is. Granted they may have planned the op but in the feild things change and they change quick. In many cases the original orders given can become invalid due to circumstances. Anyone who blindly follows orders is an idiot.

All I was suggesting was that when a Commanding General has a pet project like this one obviously did. The simple fact that it was his Implies that there was an implied order that all attend. If he had said as much outloud that would have been an illegal order. If theres one thing I know I would have marched into his office and said as much to him Damn the rank because at that point I would have been in the right. There would have been no way I could have been convicted of insabordination or any thing If he gave the order out loud.

[DeaconBlues (imported)]

Obviously then, they got it wrong at the Nuremberg trials. After all, those convicted were just following orders.

RIGHT ON SLAMMER!

I so agree, our military and ALL military forces everywhere should be on notice that "I was just following orders" NEVER excuses what is obviously criminal behavior.

This is one area in our military training that seems to be overlooked, or at the very least under emphasized, and that is the OBLIGATION AND DUTY OF ANYONE TO BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE AN UNLAWFUL ORDER AND REFUSE TO OBEY OR COMMUNICATE IT.

IF, if that had been taught correctly, the U.S. military would not have to deal with nightmares like the "Abu Gareeb" prison in Iraq, and the whole "rendition" program would have never happened because when some sick pervert in the Pentagon gave such orders, they would be handed right back to him.... Our military and intelligence services need to learn how to say something OTHER than "Yes sir! Yes sir! Three bags full!" We need to teach everyone from the new recruit to the DOD higher ups that criminal activity is criminal, no matter what some lawyer says, no matter what euphamistic terms you use, criminal acts are just that, criminal.