Conscientious Objection for an Atheist Soldier

[breathilizer]

About a month and a laf ago I came to the conclusion that I do not support war. Because I came to the conclusion by participating on iidb.org, I figured it would be a good idea to get some advice from anyone who has any knowledge on the subject.

I know that CO is generally a status obtained by religious persons who have decided that the won't get into Hevan if they participate in war, or something to that effect. Clearly, this is not my stance.

My stance is basically as such:

I do not believe in Free Will.
I do believe in responsibility.
I do not believe in punishment.
I do believe in reform.
I do believe in self defense.

Clearly, I have not used the word "believe" with consistancy, but I think you get the basic idea, even if you don't see the concept as a whole.

I have begun writing my application letter to my Commander so that it will be prepared when the deployment is over. (I'd apply right now if I thought for a minute they'd take me seriously. More likely is the possibility that they will think I am just afraid of fighting.)

Here is the beginning of my letter...

Can someone tell me what they might suggest?

Not withholding relevant information, yet keeping my testament concise and accurate, I do hereby state that I object to supporting the United States’ military or any other military due to moral and ethical objection to unsolicited and unprovoked violence based on conclusions to which I have reached only after enlisting as a service member in the United States Army.

My purpose is to explain the nature of my conclusions; how they have changed since the time I enlisted, when I came to those them, and how they have influenced my behavior. My conclusions are based on beliefs which, although controversial, I hold to be true to the best of my knowledge.

The foundation of my disagreement is my knowledge derived from the sciences of psychology, sociology, biology, and physics. Through independently studying these subjects, I have concluded that not only is punishment unnecessary, but also insufficient for the attainment of the desired goal: to prevent further infractions.

[Toto]

I think that CO status is based on a moral (whether religious or otherwise) objection to killling other people. I don't think that "punishment" is a relevant concept and I don't understand where it comes in. You have to show that you are a pacifist.

There appears to be a resource for people like you here:

http://girights.objector.org/

[breathilizer]

Killing = punishment

[Padre Bear]

Killing = punishment

Killing = punishment of who? If so, explain how you see this applicable to the elements of war doctrine in Iraq. I haven't heard any one speak of it as the motivation or process. Motivation is the ill-conceived democratization of the Middle East and methodology seems to be presented as suppression not punishment. I'm not disageeing give us more or your connections in the particulars.

[breathilizer]

Basically, I feel as though we've given up on non-violent methods of reformation of the middle east. We have let our own frustrations cloud our judgement and, like a father beating his child, have moved in to try a violent means to accomplish our goals.

[Seeker630]

Before you do anything else do your homework-----this may help:

http://www.objector.org/advice/contents.html

Also, there was a case in the last year or so involving a very young Marine who was in the same situation--made quite a splash in the media at the time--latino kid as I recall--maybe 19 or 20 years old. I guess the Corps made his life a living hell. I can't remember where he was posted at the time. I don't know what the final outcome was. But you'd better be worried about what kind of discharge you might get by going this route------be careful because that thing will follow you around the rest of your life.

[breathilizer]

I've been to both sites given to me so far (they're actually the same site), and I have sent emails to the people who can help. However, I have yet to find advice for my situation. Most of the information I have been given have been of a religious nature.

[Seeker630]

I've been to both sites given to me so far (they're actually the same site), and I have sent emails to the people who can help. However, I have yet to find advice for my situation. Most of the information I have been given have been of a religious nature.

Just be very, VERY careful with this soldier. This can have some long-term effects on your future life as a veteran. How old are you and how long before your enlistment is up? Give us some information here so we can try to help you.

[breathilizer]

I'm almost 22, and I'm supposed to ETS in Apr2009, but I'm scheduled to go to a unit which has a life-cycle until 2010. I've been in since Nov2004.

I think what I'm going to do is go for CO, and wait for them to cut me a deal. I'd rather not support the military at all, but I could settle for non-combatant status until my time is up.

One important note is that I am not afraid of war. I've been having a blast out on the road, but I don't feel comfortable being a part of the problem. That is why I am going to wait until the deployment is over until I mention anything. I don't want them to think that I'm just scared. If they think that, they'll just ignore me. I know. I saw it happen to a battle buddy of mine.

[Colorado Infidel]

CO status typically was invoked when there was involuntary conscription. Harder case, I would imagine, once you've willingly enlisted.

[Seeker630]

I'm almost 22, and I'm supposed to ETS in Apr2009, but I'm scheduled to go to a unit which has a life-cycle until 2010. I've been in since Nov2004.

For those of us who are not in the military--could you please explain what ETS and life-cycle means?

[J842P]

Good luck man.

[unrealist42]

The only people who can get out on co status are Quakers bhuddists and atheists. Since Quakers and Bhuddists dont sign up only an atheist with a clear consistent moral argument can get out on co.

What you have to do is make a very clear and concise statement about how you reached the conclusion that further participation in the proceedings in Iraq would put you in an impossible moral situation.

You must explain your moral view of the situation when you signed up, your moral beliefs and how they were irrevocably denied by your experience. You must convince them that you are willing to accept any punishment they threaten you with to uphold your convictions.

It is a battle of wills, if you will not cave to their threats and hold a consistent postition they will let you go. You cannot waver in your conviction, You cannot tell them that you would go the limit for your buddies anymore even though you would. They will call you a coward in front of your platoon, your company, your regiment, but those who fought beside you know the truth, and so do you.

Nothing takes more courage than walking away for your convictions, nothing.

[rickP]

You're not going to be able to claim CO status because you don't agree with the policies in Iraq. That's just a political position and you gave up that right when you signed up. You'll have to define your moral beliefs indepently of any particular conflict.

Personally, I think you just need to hold your breath and wait until you ETS. You're only 22. 2 1/2 years may seem like alot, but it's a drop in the bucket of your life and, like someone said, this will likely follow you everywhere for the rest of your life. You better be ready to make a lifetime commitment to this. I'm sorry, but I don't think a month and a half is long enough to reflect on this decision. You better give it at least 6 months to be sure you're making the right decision.

[LeeVegas]

Have you heard about LT. Watada refusing deployment? He states his case here (http://thankyoult.live.radicaldesigns.org/mmedia/msg-13jun06.html)

(AVI file flash req.) The man has balls, but he's facing court-martial.

from http://thankyoult.live.radicaldesigns.org/content/view/182/

On Thursday, August 24, Investigating Officer Lieutenant Colonel Mark Keith recommended that the Army pursue its case against First Lieutenant Ehren Watada on all pending charges: missing movement, two counts of contempt toward officials (specifically President G. W. Bush), and three counts of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.

However, Ltc. Keith also stated that he thinks "[Lt.] Watada is sincere in his beliefs," adding that "this is relevant in determining whether this case should go forward to General Court Martial and should mitigate any future punishment."



I'm not suggesting you take such extreme measures, but he may have some points you can use in your argument. You do seem sincere in your position.

Proceed with caution and best of 'luck.'

LV

[breathilizer]

You're not going to be able to claim CO status because you don't agree with the policies in Iraq. That's just a political position and you gave up that right when you signed up. You'll have to define your moral beliefs indepently of any particular conflict.
Yeah I know that. I have to explain how my beliefs translate to life outside of the military, and for that I have a few good examples and multiple witnesses.

Here's the updated version of my potential Co application... Still not compelte, but I'm working on it.


Introduction to My Objection

Not withholding relevant information, yet keeping my testament concise and accurate, I do hereby state that I object to supporting the United States’ military or any other military due to moral and ethical objection to unsolicited and unprovoked violence based on conclusions to which I have reached only after enlisting as a service member in the United States Army.

My purpose is to explain the nature of my conclusions; how they have changed since the time I enlisted, when I came to them, and how they have influenced my behavior. My conclusions are based on beliefs which, although controversial, I hold to be true to the best of my knowledge.

The Nature of My Objection

The foundation of my disagreement is my knowledge derived from the sciences of psychology, sociology, biology, and physics. Through independently studying these subjects, I have concluded that not only is punishment unnecessary, but also insufficient for the attainment of the desired goal: to prevent further infractions.

Action Reaction

I do not believe in Free Will. I believe that all matter, including that of which our brains are consisted, is governed by the laws of physics. Any system, no matter its origin or complexity, will produce the same results given that the stimuli remain consistent. A calculator will give you the same answer twice if you plug in the same equation twice. An arrow will hit the same target twice if you shoot it at the same speed and trajectory twice, given that all external conditions such as wind and gravity are equal. Robots are becoming increasingly complex, and they are beginning to mimic what we might consider to be Free Will, but we do not label them with such a characteristic because we propose ourselves to be somehow different. I fail to see the difference.

Robots and Humans, Responsibility and Value

Many who shun the idea that there is no Free Will often claim that the lack of Free Will entails the subsequent lack of responsibility and morals. I disagree, and can explain why in a very simple analogy.

If a robot came into your home with a knife and began attacking you, you would hold the robot, and probably the person who built it, responsible. When I say that you would hold the robot responsible, I mean that you would try to find a way to stop it. You would probably attempt one of three methods.

1. Destroy it.
2. Detain it.
3. Reprogram it.

The analogous actions with a human (arbitrarily assumed to be male) are as follows.

1. Execute him
2. Confine him.
3. Reform him.

Because the methods of deterrence are essentially the same for a robot and a human, we can now leave the robot example behind. It has served its purpose. Now, let us examine the three options from an economical point of view.

A person, like a robot, has value. People contribute to the economy, care for families and entertain friends. These are positive values. There are also negative values. People steal, neglect families and commit acts of disloyalty to their friends. For simplicity’s sake, we will look at the value of any particular human being as being the total of all their positive values minus their negative values.

[scapegoat]

During WW1, the British were having problems motivating sufficient numbers of volunteers into recruitment offices. (The average Briton has the nature of not meddling in other people's affairs.) The BBC broadcasted the story that German solders were going into Belgium Villages, dragging babies out of the huts, throwing them in the air, and catching them on their bayonets. The next day and for a period afterwards, long lines of young men would gather at recruitment offices awaiting enlistment. Furthermore, some German soldiers defected to fight against their own countrymen as a result of the BBC propaganda.

Back somewhere around 1990, Iraq had a border and oil drilling dispute with Kuwait. An Iraqi diplomat went to see the President for feedback on the situation. The President stated that he did not meddle in Mid-Eastern affairs. The statement more or less gave Iraq the green light to settle the situation themselves. However, once Iraq invaded Kuwait, the President and his minions acted shocked and upset. But there was a strong undercurrent in the US opposing any action by our government. Then the story was broadcasted that Iraqi solders were going into Kuwaiti hospitals and dragging babies out of incubators and slinging them on the floor. Need I tell you the reaction in this country?--especially since Congress had just previously passed a bill to allow the Media to provide "live reenactments" of reported events.

A month or so later, I found a tiny article buried in the back of the paper. The article claimed that the King of Kuwait's son-in-law had reported the rumor about the Iraqi solders to the American Press--a rumor that turned out to be false. Nevertheless, by the time the truth was known, all resistance to US intervention had been squashed.

I'm a Viet Nam Vet. And I've never seen acts of mass patriotism like I did in this country after the 911 incident. Strolling through neighborhoods was like being trapped in perpetual 4th of July celebration, with nearly every house displaying patriotic paraphernalia. And the vehicles driving down the street look like escorts for a Presidential Motorcade, with no less than two flags decorating each vehicle. And even pickup trucks, that once bore the emblem of Old Dixie, bore the Red, White, and Blue.

I don't watch TV, read the popular press, or listen to the radio. So I was unsure what was stimulating the mass patriotism into existence. But since I am a naturalist, I knew the folks were not freely choosing to be patriotic. I knew some causal factor, or a network of causal factors were acting on the "will" of my friends, family, and neighbors to make them patriotic.

You probably got caught up in that same tide of patriotism and ended up being swept into the military.

When the President of this country gives a speech, I know he is not discussing matters that he previously discussed behind closed doors. He is only telling the public what he has been advised is necessary for them to hear. Therefore, I'm really not interested in his propaganda. However, he is my President. And as a consequence, I probably give him the benefit of doubt a bit more often than I should.

I don't think I can offer you anything constructive in regard to your Conscientious Objector Status. I see you have already been offered the same advice I would have offered you. One thing I'd like to add though:

The military has staff that have been trained on what to expect out of soldiers in given situations. They too know that there is no such thing as free will. The behavioral science books in the military probably far exceed the behavioral management books used by corporate executives. Not only do they know generally what to expect out of you, they have a pretty good understanding on how to treat you so that others will not want to follow in your footsteps. Plus, the military would want to stop any domino effect that may have started with Lt. Watada. Beware!

Facts4U.com (http://www.facts4u.com/)

[Autonemesis]

But you'd better be worried about what kind of discharge you might get by going this route------be careful because that thing will follow you around the rest of your life.

No employer has ever asked to see my discharge papers. My General Discharge has never been an issue, ever.

[scapegoat]

But you'd better be worried about what kind of discharge you might get by going this route------be careful because that thing will follow you around the rest of your life.No employer has ever asked to see my discharge papers. My General Discharge has never been an issue, ever.
No employer has ever asked for my discharge papers either. But I don't ever remember filling out an employment application that didn't ask if I had been in the military and what my discharge was.

I also know of a case in which a maintenance man at a large corporation had a falling out with his superiors. The first thing they did was verify the information on his employment application--even though he had worked for the plant for over 10 years--and he was fired for lying on his application. No union arbitrator can help you in such a case. And I'm not even sure you would qualify for unemployment compensation.

In regard to the robot analogy you gave: I understand the Land-Rover on Mars learns from its mistakes. It may be "hardwired" to avoid pitfalls like humans, kittens and other animals, but it learns to go around rocks that block its path. Therefore, a robot learning to adapt to environmental circumstances isn't far fetched. And such robots are closer akin to humans than the robots that could only be programmed to function in one manner.

After watching the trailer (preview), I thought the movie I, Robot might express ideas that are uncommon. But, in the movie, Will Smith spewed the nonsense about how humans are different because they have free will. And as a result of such propaganda being spewed a thousand time over and a thousand different ways, no wonder the average person rejects the idea of causality in regard to human behavior.

Anyway, the military has acquired an AI robot we shall refer to as breathilizer. And after acquiring breathilizer, certain environmental circumstances have resulted in breathilizer's thought behavior changing. He still processes information in much the same way as all the other robots, but the weight values given to military objectives are different than the weight values given by the other robots. And these value changes have breathilizer seeking an environment less hostile to his existing value system.

However, the military have a shortage of AI robots. And they don't want breathilizer to affect the existing value systems of the other robots. Therefore, your question should be, "what will the military programmers do to make sure the programming of the other robots doesn't change or is possibly reinforced?"

Maybe if breathilizer starts changing (or attempting to change) the value systems of the other robots the military would try to get rid of him. Maybe breathilizer can effect the programmers with an eloquent CO document. Maybe breathilizer cannot affect the military programmers because of a self-defense mechanism against such affects.

If the attempt to change, from an environment hostile to breathilizer's values to a less hostile environment, puts breathilizer in danger, I imagine breathilizer will seek the less dangerous solution.

What about something called "Compassionate Reassignment?" Can you check into that to see if you qualify in any way?

Again, good luck. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Facts4U.com (http://www.facts4u.com/)

[breathilizer]

scapegoat, thanks for the advice. My biggest challenge, I think, will be to convince my highers that I really do not believe in Free Will.

It doesn't seem as though Compassionate Reassignment is for me. It seems to be oriented towards soldiers with family issues.

I happen to agree with your critique of I, Robot, by the way.