View Full Version : Vet treatment in the Bush era
03-02-04, 07:29 PM
Nice. Soldiers who fail drug tests still get sent to Iraq
to risk their lives; then they get dishonorably discharged
after their tour.
Along comes our resident ray of sunshine full of hope and promise, nary a doomy thought!
03-02-04, 08:03 PM
A moment in thier shoes...
"I signed up in the military to get the GI Bill for college, none of this war @#%$. I'm going to smoke a joint and get out before they can send me."
HAHAHAHA Sorry I feel no sympathy. Want to punish drug users? Send them to war. The ones who live through it can get thier discharge and treatment after. Damn the luck.
Will wonders never cease?
03-02-04, 09:00 PM
What a bitch thing to do. "Hey, thanks for serving our country and keeping us safe. By the way @#%$ you."
03-03-04, 01:24 AM
Yes lets all feel sorry for those drug users.
Those poor opressed drug users. Edited by: Mrens at: 3/3/04 1:59 am
And see the nice way that Bush gets blamed for it, although more than likely the same sort of rules have been in place for multiple administrations. That sort of implcation of guilt takes a lot of class, doesn't it?
03-03-04, 05:30 AM
Keeping the thread of logic in most of the replies, we should just use inmates for soldiers, I mean, if they die, who cares, right? They're inmates! Yea, @#%$ them, those stupid criminals.
It's still using people like tools which is wrong. If you cant feel empathy towards them for being in that situation, that's your own problem, but it doesn't mean it's ok.
But yea, I doubt this is something that is new with Bush, it sounds like a practice that the government would have taken to a long while ago and it just stayed there. I mean, I dislike Bush, but I do think he should only be criticized for things that are umm...his fault, maybe? =p "Without power, knowledge is useless. Without knowledge, faith is tyranny. Without understanding, humanity is blind, and without all four, it is doomed."--Eco-Tech Dialogues
[b]"Give us gods. Oh give them us!
Give us Gods.
We are so tired of men
And not to mention the fact that drugs are illegal. I'd get @#%$ canned if I tested positive for drugs.
03-03-04, 06:49 AM
If you're in the military you willing give up your rights, you might go to war, and you can't do drugs!
03-03-04, 07:33 AM
Yeah, really. As much as I despise Bush, this is not his doing. More than likely, it was the call of the Base Commander backed by input from (at the highest) the SoD. At the lowest, it was the (gah, my military jargon is failing me at the moment, so I will substitute Zoomie-speak) Wing Commander's decision backed by input from the Base Commander.
Bush has things to answer for, but this is not one of them. It was, however, stupid to send them anyway. Put them straight into a military prison for drug offenses, and conduct unbecoming. If they can actually prove they tried to sidestep the deployment via the drugs, then also get them for dereliction of duty.
03-03-04, 08:46 AM
03-03-04, 09:42 AM
I'm not exactly disagreeing with the policy, but I do think it would be a @#%$ up PR situation of one of those soldiers were to do something especially heroic and then get the discharge.
03-03-04, 12:08 PM
Dr. Samuel Beckett?
I suppose it could have been worse... Splendora could have accused Bush of being responsible for trying to deny soldiers the right to vote, or falsely accusing US soldiers of comitting war crimes and atrocities, or maybe even ignoring terrorist attacks against US servicemen.
Where was the left in standing up for the plight of the men and women in the US military then?
03-03-04, 12:54 PM
Sigh. I'm gonna have to go with the crowd here. I'll pin everything I think I can on Bush, but I don't think he can take the fall for this.
Now, I'll agree that sending someone overseas knowing that they'll get dishonerably discharged when their tour of duty is up sucks, I'm not going to go to bat for those guys either. It's just one of those "@#%$ happens" things. It was kind of dumb on their part, and while it sucks and you can feel bad for them...
Just to set the record clear. There are a lot of documented cases of war crime activites by US soldiers in Vietnam. They were all delt with according to the code of military justice. I'm not personally aware of any cases that were described in that article, most of it was stuff like a commanding officer getting sick of VC attacks coming from a vilage they were protecting and just machinegunning the whole village. War crime, hell yes, but you gotta feel something for the guy when his troops are dieing and there's not a damn thing he can do about it. Anyway, not sticking up for Kerry. He's a jackass.
03-03-04, 03:38 PM
I'll agree Bush likely isn't to blame for this one.
03-03-04, 03:43 PM
If these soldiers who failed the drug tests went on to fail at their duties in the military, if they performed badly because of the drugs then they deserve the dishonorable discharge. However, if they showed no evidence of their drug use while in the military, why should they be punished afterward? They served their country honorably regardless of what they did in their personal time before being accepted. And I don't believe them for a second when they say that they didn't tell the soldiers because they didn't have time before deployment.
Things may have changed, but when I was still on active duty typically you recieved either an other than honorable or bad conduct discharge when you tested positive for drug use, dpending on circumstances. It was not unheard of for someone to be deployed before test results from urinalysis came back, meaning that they had to finish out their deployment before their case was heard and a recommendation was made. - Nymm
Prexus, Deceiver, 1 ea.
03-03-04, 04:42 PM
They did "fail at thier duties in the military" strictly by not passing the drug tests. Like it or not, part of your duties in the military include following certain rules. Becoming a soldier changes your rights from those of a civilian to those of a soldier. In the military certain standards are imposed that are higher than those standards of civilian society.
Processing someone out of the military for a drug discharge can take anywhere from 3 to 6 months or even longer. I promise you, just because you are in the process of being discharged, does not stop you from having to perform your duties. If one of those duties happens to be a deployment, guess where you are going.
The fastest discharge from the military happens to be medical, I'vs seen people get medical discharges, and the processing only take a months time.
03-03-04, 04:43 PM
Vet treatment in the Bush era
I'll agree Bush likely isn't to blame for this one.
Thats called trolling...
Book mark this thread so you can refer back on it when you are confused about what trolling is..
03-03-04, 09:59 PM
Not a troll...
Since, for example, John Ashcroft (part of Bush's team)
had instructed the DEA to arrest medical pot users in
california (where it is legal)...which has including handcuffing geriatric parapalegics to their beds....you'll have to forgive me if I put some blame on Bush's policies for how the feds treat those who may use other drugs than alcohol. But I wasn't
trying to implicate Bush as much as comment on the absurdity of a) sending soldiers you think are "risky"
to a combat zone and b) letting them risk their lives and then
treat them like crap when their tour is done.
Edited by: Splendora at: 3/3/04 10:37 pm
03-03-04, 10:34 PM
very good, very good and the point?
"I'm going to torment you until you're translucent!!!"
If something is Illegal at the federal level, it can't be legal at the state level. *bonk* You know that Splendora.
USA != CANADA!!!!
We don't want illicit drugs legal! Get over it! Stop peddling over our borders!
03-04-04, 09:18 AM
Quote:which has including handcuffing geriatric parapalegics to their beds....
03-04-04, 09:26 AM
Quote:If something is Illegal at the federal level, it can't be legal at the state level. *bonk* You know that Splendora.
Unless things have changed, possession of narcotics is a violation of state law, not federal law. It only breaks federal law to transport controlled substances over state lines. If California legalizes medical marijuana, then the it doesn't conflict with national law if the marijuana is grown in-state.
03-04-04, 12:42 PM
It is illegal on a federal level and there have been recent court rulings stating that medicinal uses are still illegal. The feds can nail you for intent to distribute, not just moving it over the state lines.
*edit* Found this on a website dealing with Texas state law, not sure how accurate the federal information is.
Manufacture, distribution or dispensing drugs; includes marijuana Minimum: A term of imprisonment not more than one year, and a minimum fine of 41,000
Maximum: A term of imprisonment without release (no eligibility for parole) and a fine not to exceed $8,000,000 for an individual) or $20,000,000 (if other than an individual)
Possession of drugs; including marijuana Minimum: Civil penalty in amount not to exceed $10,000
Maximum: Imprisonment for not more than 20 years or not less than 5 years, a fine of not less than $5,000, plus the costs of investigation and prosecution
Edited by: Sillis Spineslicer at: 3/4/04 12:56 pm
03-04-04, 01:06 PM
Isn't there some weird ruling on the issue that the feds have in regards to drug use?
Something about how even if you grow your own, and only plan to use it by yourself, that it still impacts the cross-state line trade in the substance?
Argh, I know that sounds stupidly vague, but that's all I'm recalling at this point.
03-04-04, 02:46 PM
Quote:HAHAHAHA Sorry I feel no sympathy. Want to punish drug users? Send them to war. The ones who live through it can get thier discharge and treatment after. Damn the luck.
I just gotta say this. And no, I am not a user. What sucks about drug use is that the social stigma that follows it even for casual use. There are so many people in prominent positions who use drugs of many types and nothing is done, but if the "average joe" is caught with or using a small portion of marijuana a large portion of their life is screwed up in one way or another. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, bus drivers, politicians; I would not be at all surprised to hear that large numbers of these are drug users. I've been very surprised to hear that some people I know are/were users. These have been workmates, parents of some of my friends, and business contacts and others.
I don't agree with legalization, or with social use of drugs, but what I do have a problem with is the law being harsher on others because of their circumstances outside of the drug use. In the military, it is somewhat hard to avoid, since they are under the orders of a higher authority. But still, deliberately (if it is deliberate) asking someone to risk their lives for nothing just because of a slight wrong they committed is wrong. Especially when other "exemplaries" in society are often just as guilty.
I dont think that legalization is the key, but rather, more compassion with our lawmaking entities. Perhaps to realise that laws DO affect different people in very different ways. And please don't anyone give me the "your vote counts" crap, or "write a congressman." Some laws hurt a certain demographys more than others, especially drug laws.
Not saying that this is the case here, but it's something to think about. I just can name too many "responsible" people I've heard say something along the lines of "I just like to go smoke a joint every now and then..." Man that makes me sick to hear when I know other people are getting busted for the same thing. Ooohh.. so shiney!
03-04-04, 02:56 PM
Woohoo for outlash from Meddik!
Quote:deny soldiers the right to vote
Disregarding the fact that it's all about politics and voter fraud is massive on both sides of the issues, I figure it's more understandable to throw out votes that were put in incorrectly, rather than using pushpolling or fliers to confuse and outright misinform voters so that their votes aren't pushed in right. Even less so than taking voters off the rolls simply because of the color of their skin.
Quote: accusing US soldiers of comitting war crimes and atrocities
If you read the article, it says Kerry relied on the Winter Soldier Investigation. But when was that proven false? All you really have him guilty of is using something once thought accurate, but much later proven inaccurate. At the time, was it known to be inaccurate? And maybe he had seen war crimes himself but didn't feel right in ratting on fellow soldiers. Also, the other part that article talks about, gets into what you believe the war on communism was about. To me, it was about continuing economic slavery to the U.S. and repressing democracy in countries where their democracy doesn't agree with us. But that's a different debate.
Quote:ignoring terrorist attacks against US servicemen.
Where in that site does it indicate Clinton ignored the attacks? All I see is he didn't bomb everyone. Although, if you remember, Clinton did have a plan formulated to destroy al-Qaeda, passing it on to the Bush administration and warning them of the dangers of al-Qaeda, Clinton just didn't have the resources to do it (it takes time to plan offensives, something Bush has hopefully learned in Iraq). If anyone ignored those attacks, it was Bush, because they happened so late in Clinton's administration, and it took time to find out who was responsible. It was Bush who had the opportunity and evidence required to respond to that. It was Bush who completely ignored the danger.
03-04-04, 04:28 PM
" USA != CANADA!!!!
We don't want illicit drugs legal! Get over it! Stop peddling over our borders!"
So who is this message supposed to reach ? Canadian drug
traffickers reading safehouse ? Yeaokay.
Perhaps I shall hijack your remarks and direct them south
" USA != CANADA!!!!
We don't want (guns, cocaine, rap) ! Get over it! Stop peddling over our borders!
03-04-04, 07:36 PM
So then I guess all the people who run stop signs or red lights, drive over the speed limit, j - walk, drink under the age of 21, or commit any crimes against our beloved and holiest of countries (please note that my tender words drip with the juicy sarcasm of a thousand standup comedy routines on SNL) deserve to fight in foreign territory for your country, risk disfigurement and death, and if they are lucky enough to survive, they are dishonorably discharged, since they broke the law. And breaking the law is unforgivable in any and all situations. If you don't want to follow every single law to the T, move the @#%$ out or die in some god forsaken hellhole.
03-04-04, 08:21 PM
There's a difference between just and unjust laws.
In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
03-04-04, 10:41 PM
Quote:So then I guess all the people who run stop signs or red lights, drive over the speed limit, j - walk, drink under the age of 21, or commit any crimes against our beloved and holiest of countries (please note that my tender words drip with the juicy sarcasm of a thousand standup comedy routines on SNL) deserve to fight in foreign territory for your country, risk disfigurement and death, and if they are lucky enough to survive, they are dishonorably discharged, since they broke the law. And breaking the law is unforgivable in any and all situations. If you don't want to follow every single law to the T, move the @#%$ out or die in some god forsaken hellhole.
So close, but you forgot some key wording.
Add this after your "All the people", and you can almost leave the rest in tact.
All the people...
who are in the military and have agreed to follow said rules, with the express understanding that should they not follow them, they will be discharged in some other than Honorable fashion,
...who run stop signs or red lights, drive over the speed limit, j - walk, drink under the age of 21, or commit any crimes against our beloved and holiest of countries, etc...
By signing up for service in the military, you express your willingness to follow those rules, and express your willingness to fight for this country no matter whether you believe the fight is correct or not.
Just because you break the rules you agreed to when you signed up for the military, does not excuse you from your duties in the military, so yes, "Sorry, you broke the rules, as soon as you return from your duties in Iraq, you'll be out of here."
03-05-04, 06:47 AM
Whether you think they should still be sent or not, from what I have read, everyone has missed one crucial issue.
Other people in Iraq are depending on those malingerers to help protect their lives. Their fellow soldiers. The Iraqi citizens. Would you really want a disgruntled drug user who knew he faced borderline criminal action when the tour was over protecting your back?
I know I sure in the hell wouldn't.
Would you want him doing maintenance on your F-16? Packing your parachute?
Doing night sentry duty? Searching people for weapons? Be responsible for stopping potential suicide bombers?
No @#%$ way.
Daton is right. When you join the military you voluntarily suppress a large set of your rights. One example is when you accept the privilege of the ability to enter a base, you give up all rights to refuse the search of your vehicle. If you sneeze at the gate, or you pull down the sun visor while driving, you can be stopped and have your car searched.
However, the interdependence of soldiers in a combat zone on each other for protection should have been considered. The idea that the deployment schedule didn't allow it is total BS. They drop last minute notice on you all the time saying your deployment has been lengthened, sometimes by the original amount.
This seems like pure retribution to me, and will do nothing for the already low morale most of the military body has right now. Hey, your new SF/crew member/recon troop is already lined up for a dishonorable discharge when they get home. But don't worry, he will still do the job!
Normally they do not throw you in jail for a drug test failure, but in this case a jail term of the length of the deployment would have been a better idea.
Just to let you know my wife is USAF (she just listed on the Major boards yesterday, /grats wifey ), so I am not just completely talking out of my ass here. Just a little bit
Would I want someone like that responsible for the care and protection of my wife? Do I even need to answer that?
Im changing Noctes title to "US Arms Dealer Extrordinaire"
I am shocked at how many of you took Splendoras bait. It makes it tuff to enforce "No Trolling" rules when you all engage in it...
DONT FEED THE BEARS!!!
Oh, all right... zippin' it.
03-05-04, 03:58 PM
Waaaaay back in the day of Gulf War One, we had similar things happening. Kids would suddenly become pacifists who joined for college money and had no idea being a soldier meant they might be put in harms way.
I watched over a dozen people escape service in a combat zone by suddenly coming "out" and saying they were gay or by magically failing a drug test. It was a joke. People took the easy way out.
So while I wouldn't want a drug user watching my back in a combat zone; I'm not so sure many of these folks are drug addicts. Then again, I wouldn't want a coward watching my back either.
How about failing the urine test before deployment is considered missing a movement for hazardous duty? Then you could lock the twits up for 20 years and make sure folks knew it wasn't an easy escape from service.
65th lvl Rogue/Enchanter
Co-Leader, Recruiting Officer
Veterans have been getting the shaft as long as we have been giving them benefits or treating them. Don't matter which party is in power, they all sweep the problems under the rug. I figure we got about 15 or so more years before they let everthing out about Agent Orange. Some accountant will decide that the remaining possible claimants for damages is low enough to let the truth out.
Till then they will let out dribs and drabs, deny Gulf War Syndrome, ect.
Err, wouldn't it be simpler and help moral if if they performed well over there and didn't break any more military (or civil) laws they could have the drug test go away and walk away without a dishonorable discharge? Do you really want the service men and women having to depend on someone who's going to be @#%$ after his tour no matter what he does as opposed to someone who knows if he does well he can get out with less losses?
03-05-04, 10:13 PM
Yeah I'd agree it should be one of two choices:
a) discharge them right away; or
b) if they serve without problems in Iraq, at least give them an honorable discharge or just forget about it if they test clean from now on.
ps. meddik, yeah i know about federal vs state law; I did
not comment on the fed / california thing because I was surprised by it; but because I thought it was lame.
* Caowyth: Here's your link
Edited by: Splendora at: 3/5/04 10:26 pm