A Lance Corporal being charged with desertion

[Thedelldays]

A Lance Corporal is gong to be charged with desertion and could face up to 10 years in jail (with other offenses)..

 

He deserted the Army (Royal Logistics Corp) after he disagreed on the war in afghan after already serving one tour over there..

 

he has been a bit of a figure head for the anti war demos etc etc

 

should he be charged..? should he go down for desertion or should he be held as a symbol of free speech..?

 

As a serving member of the forces, I think he should be sent down for desertion...Seeing that he is only a Lance Corporal is suggests that he has not been serving that long and knew what he would be potentionally getting himself in for...when signing on the dotted line for Queen and country you sign away certain rights to "free speech" and "free expression".....he should have simply left and THEN used his position from being over there to be against the war.

 

 

would be interested to know especially what those who have served or are serving think..

Edited 18 November, 2009 by Thedelldays

[Give it to Ron]

As I have never served HM forces being the coward that I am its difficult to criticise him.

Without knowing the conditions he was asked to work in either BUT there are many soldiers especially in the 1st WW that served in far worse conditions who didnt run.

 

He did sign up knowing full well what a ****e place the world is and us being the lapdog of the US getting drawn into their wars that there was a huge possibility he would face action.

As you say when you sign up you sign away all freedom of speech.

When I left school a few mates joined up..I didn't as I didn't want to go to N Ireland to be shot at or blown up was NI far worse than Afghanistan?

This war is far more political than any other I have known and everyday you hear stories of under equipped soldiers fighting a war that many feel we should not be involved in and to that the reason those groups are all too willing to use him as a hero for desertion to get one back at Brown.

 

I have nothing but admiration for the forces that are serving, however it was their choice to sign up and should carry out whatever is being asked.

Charged for desertion is where I come down on here.

[thesaint sfc]

When you sign up to the army you agree to serve your country and do whatever they ask of you (I think) thus yes, he should. Don't join the army if you disagree with wars your country starts. It's not like America attacking other countries for oil is anything new

[Hatch]

A Lance Corporal is gong to be charged with desertion and could face up to 10 years in jail (with other offenses)..

 

..

 

he should have just gone out and got drunk, then run over and killed child outside a school.

 

Would have been sacked from the army and only given 2 years in jail.

[littleoldladysaint]

He could quite simply have bought himself out and then campaigned against the war if he chose to.

[sotonjoe]

He obviously has some sense, not too much though seeing as he signed up in the first place.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Do the services appraise candidates for their likelihood to desert?

[View From The Top]

He obviously has some sense, not too much though seeing as he signed up in the first place.

 

You really are a p***k.

[Thedelldays]

Do the services appraise candidates for their likelihood to desert?

I guess it is all part of the recruitment and training process...obviously some (not many) will get through....

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Does 'concientious (sp?) objection' still exist/have legal grounding in this type of case?

[View From The Top]

Does 'concientious (sp?) objection' still exist/have legal grounding in this type of case?

 

Not when you're in, no.

 

Concies are only relevant when conscription is enforced.

[aintforever]

Agree with his stance so feel sorry for him. But I suppose if you join up you should not be able to pick and choose and there has to be a deterrent.

 

A few years in the clink is better than being blown up or being forced to kill people you don't want tho.

[Wilko]

Why didn't he just resign/leave the army, or whatever you do when you decide bashing the hell out of people isn't the answer?

[badgerx16]

If you don't want to be sent to hot & dusty foreign parts to be blown up by the locals that never invited you, don't take the Queen's shilling. He knew what he was in for when he joined up, he knew the consequences of what he was doing when he 'chose' not to return. Once you put your name at the bottom of their form, you become the Government's pawn. ( No disrespect to TDD and the others on here in the forces, you are all doing a job most of us would run a million miles to avoid ).

 

If the armed forces get to pick and choose what they want to do, you may as well disband the lot.

[Ponty]

He should be court-martialled, without doubt. Signing up to the army (I assume there's still no conscription in the UK) removes your right to protest about war. You sign up to be a soldier, a greased-wheel in the war-machine, not a broken sprocket.

 

To be honest, "Will a war be horrible?" would be a question I asked before I signed up, not afterwards.

[saintwarwick]

He obviously has some sense, not too much though seeing as he signed up in the first place.

 

Certainly more sense than you, you clearly haven't got a clue, senseless would be kind to you.

[saintwarwick]

When you sign up to the army you agree to serve your country and do whatever they ask of you (I think) thus yes, he should. Don't join the army if you disagree with wars your country starts. It's not like America attacking other countries for oil is anything new

 

Your first two sentences are absolutely correct, I'll disregard the third as I see no relevence to the thread.

[Micky]

Personally I do have some sympathy for Joe Glenton, but he should face disciplinary proceedings. All of you that are running with the 'he knew what he was doing when he signed up' theory are technically correct, but totally incorrect at the same time.

 

Most people see wars, conflict and terrorist activities through the tube in your living room which unfortunately rarely actully shows anywhere near the full extent of hardships of war. The fact that often these wars are in far flung places also detaches you from actually thinking too much about them - you are detached, these are events that are not directly affecting you.

 

The same would have been true for Joe Glenton even though he was a serving soldier, he would have had no idea of the real situation on the ground. In every theatre I have been I've initially been overwhelmed by the real situation. I have seen the aftermath of terrorist activities, ethnic cleansing, devastated cities and towns and the suffering of people and children.

 

Don't forget - this soldier did not refuse to deploy to Afghanistan. As I understand it he went, conducted his duties properly, but then went AWOL during his R & R - thus refusing to return. Therefore one can only assume that having actually seen at first hand the situation in Afghanistan - his views changed radically. That is his perogative and one can only give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

However, perhaps had he not gone AWOL and actually declared his misgivings to his seniors, things could have been concluded more appropriately. Did he desert - I'm not sure, whether lesser charges would have been more appropriate remains to be seen.

 

The problem now for the MOD is that he has become newsworthy and obviously lends weight to the anti war campaign, so a lower profile charge would have been easier and quicker to deal with.

 

For my money Joe Glenton is in the wrong - but there are (I believe) mitigating circumstances - will be interesting to see how this one pans out.

[benjii]

He obviously has some sense, not too much though seeing as he signed up in the first place.

 

Agreed.

[Under Weststand]

Yes I agree with TDD he certainly should be Court martialled, He was not conscripted & made his own mind to join the forces, & new the full consequences of that decision. And knows full-well the consequences of making the stand he is now making.

My Son is in the RAF his duties included flying in & out of Iraq during the hight of the conflict there, & has a few hair raising stories.

He new full well when he signed up what he was signing up to, so I've no sympathy for this person, there are ways out of the service, but you have to do it the right way.

[pilsburydoughboy]

he should have just gone out and got drunk, then run over and killed child outside a school.

 

Would have been sacked from the army and only given 2 years in jail.

 

Or beaten the living day lights out of a couple of old biddies and got a free trip to Disney.

[swannymere]

If you join the services you should join with the expectation you may be asked to do things you don't want to do. The lad should be court-martialled without doubt, he let down himself and the people he served with. It's also been reported (i can't now find the article) that the lad had a 'crisis' and he's been hijacked by some anti-war groups to help their propaganda, if it's true then the lad needs some help whilst serving his time.

[Trader]

He obviously has some sense, not too much though seeing as he signed up in the first place.

 

Agreed

[Arizona]

Should be court martialled IMO. If you sign up for the armed forces, you agree to serve your country, regardless of whether you agree to the war or not. People are well within their right to protest war, but you can't join the army and then protest. That's hypocrisy of the highest order.

 

Similarly, we cannot now pull out of Afghanistan without finishing the job. Yes, many of our troops will be killed. That's a tragic yet inevitable part of war. They knew that when they signed up to the forces and the politicians knew that when they decided to go to warm. Now we all have to live with the consequences. Unfortunately those who made the biggest mistakes will suffer the least. Again that, is part of war.

[Verbal]

Similarly, we cannot now pull out of Afghanistan without finishing the job. Yes, many of our troops will be killed. That's a tragic yet inevitable part of war. They knew that when they signed up to the forces and the politicians knew that when they decided to go to warm. Now we all have to live with the consequences. Unfortunately those who made the biggest mistakes will suffer the least. Again that, is part of war.

 

And what is 'the job' exactly? Too many of the troops on the ground have little or no idea what that is - unless it's to offer themselves up as target practice for the Taliban.

 

The Taliban - essentially militant Pashtun clansmen - will never be defeated by conventional armies, as centuries of military history in the region have brutally illustrated. Sadly, there's even a case for arguing that the presence of Western troops in Afghanistan actually prolongs the war and the growing list of casualties among troops and civilians.

 

Which is I think the corporal's point, regardless of the merits of his actions.

[thesaint sfc]

And what is 'the job' exactly? Too many of the troops on the ground have little or no idea what that is - unless it's to offer themselves up as target practice for the Taliban.

 

The Taliban - essentially militant Pashtun clansmen - will never be defeated by conventional armies, as centuries of military history in the region have brutally illustrated. Sadly, there's even a case for arguing that the presence of Western troops in Afghanistan actually prolongs the war and the growing list of casualties among troops and civilians.

 

Which is I think the corporal's point, regardless of the merits of his actions.

 

Totally agree - I struggle to understand why we are there. Iraq was supposedly due to nuclear weapons, which subsequently we never found but the war went ahead anyway.

 

Afgan is even more of a confusing one. If we can't beat the Taliban, then what other purpose have we got being there? Surely all we can do is overthrow the current government and have another Iraq all over again?

[Thedelldays]

Totally agree - I struggle to understand why we are there. Iraq was supposedly due to nuclear weapons, which subsequently we never found but the war went ahead anyway.

 

Afgan is even more of a confusing one. If we can't beat the Taliban, then what other purpose have we got being there? Surely all we can do is overthrow the current government and have another Iraq all over again?

 

 

who says we cant beat them..? I bet the UK was happy people with your attitude were not around in london suring 1941...

 

we are there as it is a FACT that the Taliban harboured al qeada terrorist training camps..the people that caused the single biggest act of terrorism to bristish people..

 

you notice the biggest cry for us to pull out is because the troops dont have enough equipment...not really because of the merits of being there in the first place..

 

Even Barack Obama (you know, the next greatest thing ever) will probably sign off and send EVEN MORE troops into the place..

 

Iraq and afghan are two completely different things..hence why one got NO support from the international community and the other has

[Thedelldays]

And what is 'the job' exactly? Too many of the troops on the ground have little or no idea what that is -

and you know this because..........

[mickn]

who says we cant beat them..? I bet the UK was happy people with your attitude were not around in london suring 1941...

 

we are there as it is a FACT that the Taliban harboured al qeada terrorist training camps..the people that caused the single biggest act of terrorism to bristish people..

 

you notice the biggest cry for us to pull out is because the troops dont have enough equipment...not really because of the merits of being there in the first place..

 

Even Barack Obama (you know, the next greatest thing ever) will probably sign off and send EVEN MORE troops into the place..

 

Iraq and afghan are two completely different things..hence why one got NO support from the international community and the other has

 

I certainly don't believe we will ever beat them either, don't forget the Russians left with their tails between their legs as well.....even if we come out of this with people claiming we have beaten them do you seriously believe that they will cease to exist...not in a million years

[aintforever]

All this stuff about terrorist training camps is just nonsense, the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, used knives to hijack the planes (no training needed) and learned to fly in the US.

 

If you want know how to blow up a tube train or bus you just need to look on line, you don't need to go to a training camp in some **** hole in the middle east.

[Draino76]

That's treason in my book; hence he should be hanged.

[Thedelldays]

I certainly don't believe we will ever beat them either, don't forget the Russians left with their tails between their legs as well.....even if we come out of this with people claiming we have beaten them do you seriously believe that they will cease to exist...not in a million years

 

 

the russians were against a whole nation..we are not..

 

if I am not mistaken, we have already won over more of the country (something which the ruskies never did)..we are also not fighting a super power in the background (like the russians)..

 

are the taliban in power now..?

[Thedelldays]

All this stuff about terrorist training camps is just nonsense, the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, used knives to hijack the planes (no training needed) and learned to fly in the US.

 

If you want know how to blow up a tube train or bus you just need to look on line, you don't need to go to a training camp in some **** hole in the middle east.

 

 

it matters not where the hijackers came from..it is/was a FACT that the training camps were there.....call it nonsense as much as you like..does not change the fact that such terrorist training camps, where those who killed more british people in a single act of terror were based..

[Baj]

I dont agree with the war, but for gods sake, he joined the army in the first place... throw the book at him.

[mickn]

the russians were against a whole nation..we are not..

 

if I am not mistaken, we have already won over more of the country (something which the ruskies never did)..we are also not fighting a super power in the background (like the russians)..

 

are the taliban in power now..?

 

So when we win this 'war' then the Taliban will cease to exist and there will be no more terroism from the Taliban or Al Quaida (sp)?

[Thedelldays]

So when we win this 'war' then the Taliban will cease to exist and there will be no more terroism from the Taliban or Al Quaida (sp)?

cant answer that question.....sorry

 

like saying, when we beat germany in 1945 would there have been peace and harmony in europe..?

[Verbal]

and you know this because..........

 

It's quite simple really. If the MOD could find anyone on the ground who had a clue they'd be rushed in front of the cameras in no time. The reason? To counteract the corrosive PR effect of an endless procession of returning soldiers complaining about not understanding why they're there.

 

The modus operandum of the MOD press office in these matters was well illustrated with its reaction to the death of Andrew Fentiman, who'd blogged about the lack of up-to-date body armour. A uniform was wheeled out double-quick to say that the new armour probably wouldn't have saved him.

[Thedelldays]

It's quite simple really. If the MOD could find anyone on the ground who had a clue they'd be rushed in front of the cameras in no time. The reason? To counteract the corrosive PR effect of an endless procession of returning soldiers complaining about not understanding why they're there.

 

The modus operandum of the MOD press office in these matters was well illustrated with its reaction to the death of Andrew Fentiman, who'd blogged about the lack of up-to-date body armour. A uniform was wheeled out double-quick to say that the new armour probably wouldn't have saved him.

 

 

yes that is right...get any old squaddie who is serving out there on combat ops to give an interview for the BBC..

 

nice one..

 

is this where you are the "subject expert" again...like the old submarine issue..

 

 

lol

 

oh, and show me the

endless procession of returning soldiers complaining about not understanding why they're there.

thanks

[Verbal]

it matters not where the hijackers came from..it is/was a FACT that the training camps were there.....call it nonsense as much as you like..does not change the fact that such terrorist training camps, where those who killed more british people in a single act of terror were based..

 

aintforever has a point though. Even Khaled Sheikh Mohammad, the architect of the 9/11 attacks, thought the training camps were a waste of space. When Clinton attacked the camps with missiles, and in the subsequent ground assault by Afghan warlords, the camps were all but abandoned.

 

Those who carried out the attacks were from Saudi Arabia, aside from Mohammad Atta, the leader, who was Egyptian. All of the serious preparation for those attacks was carried out in Hamburg and the US (on flight-training courses), not Afghanistan.

 

The camps were symbolic, and little else. The real training was not in jumping over puddles of water and under barbed wire carrying a toy AK47. The 9/11 attackers needed to drive planes into buildings - not something easily mastered in the blasted desert plains of Afghanistan.

 

The real problem was the alliance that had been forged between the Taliban and Al Qaeda - an alliance that is now shattered, and that long ago moved on to the wild margins of Pakistan.

[Verbal]

yes that is right...get any old squaddie who is serving out there on combat ops to give an interview for the BBC..

 

nice one..

 

is this where you are the "subject expert" again...like the old submarine issue..

 

 

lol

 

oh, and show me the

thanks

 

You should save up for a telly. and what's the deal with you, exactly, deciding that you're the only one with a valid opinion?

[Arizona]

And what is 'the job' exactly? Too many of the troops on the ground have little or no idea what that is - unless it's to offer themselves up as target practice for the Taliban.

 

The Taliban - essentially militant Pashtun clansmen - will never be defeated by conventional armies, as centuries of military history in the region have brutally illustrated. Sadly, there's even a case for arguing that the presence of Western troops in Afghanistan actually prolongs the war and the growing list of casualties among troops and civilians.

 

Which is I think the corporal's point, regardless of the merits of his actions.

 

The job exactly is to try and contain and defeat Taliban militants who are still at large in Afghanistan and to train the local Police and armed forced to maintain peace after we have left.

 

You claim they will never be defeated. Yes you are right. Same as you will never stop a determined nutter from getting onto an airliner and blowing it up. Does that mean we should just do away with airport security and let anybody on with whatever they want in their suitcase?

 

It's about minimalising the risk. If we can control neutralise the talliban as much as possible, then in the future they may be limited to isolated, localised bombings.

 

If on the other hand we up sticks and leave now, we will create absolute anarchy. The Afghan Police and army will be unable to maintain peace and we will be left with a very violent civil way. This would then spill over into Pakistan, who have nukes, and suddenly the whole of the middle east would make the current situation look like a teddy bear's picnic.

[Verbal]

The job exactly is to try and contain and defeat Taliban militants who are still at large in Afghanistan and to train the local Police and armed forced to maintain peace after we have left.

 

You claim they will never be defeated. Yes you are right. Same as you will never stop a determined nutter from getting onto an airliner and blowing it up. Does that mean we should just do away with airport security and let anybody on with whatever they want in their suitcase?

 

It's about minimalising the risk. If we can control neutralise the talliban as much as possible, then in the future they may be limited to isolated, localised bombings.

 

If on the other hand we up sticks and leave now, we will create absolute anarchy. The Afghan Police and army will be unable to maintain peace and we will be left with a very violent civil way. This would then spill over into Pakistan, who have nukes, and suddenly the whole of the middle east would make the current situation look like a teddy bear's picnic.

 

You've got it the wrong way around. The 'spill over' to Pakistan that you're worried about actually happened years ago - and the problem now rolls in from Pakistan to Afghanistan. I know this all too painfully well, having had my Karachi-based 'fixer' kidnapped by the Taliban last year and held in South Waziristan for six months. Much of the threat in Helmand actually comes from the notionally Pakistani tribal areas - that's where the 'real' battle is taking place. And it's taking place right now between Pakistani military forces and the Taliban.

 

To equate the Taliban with some random plane-bombing nutter is to misunderstand the nature of the beast. What they do, and why they do it, is so ingrained that it pre-dates Islam. They live by an ancient warrior code and have always fought any and all invaders. They have never been defeated, in the sense that the invaders have always left. They don't need to be in power to gain advantage over outsiders - and it seems they're better off when exiled to the mountains, as they are now.

 

The best way to minimise risk, in my opinion, is to support and encourage the Pakistani army to see through the assault on the Taliban in their tribal strongholds in the Waziristans. Cut off the head rather than nip at the tail.

 

That won't in itself 'defeat' the Taliban, but it will cut out a supply route for assaults in Afghanistan.

 

Western support for and pressure on the Pakistani army also serves to protect the nuclear warheads...hopefully.

Edited 19 November, 2009 by Verbal

[Viking Warrior]

Okay as someone that has had a considerable time in the forces

 

Yes he should be court martialled for dessertion

He signed up and and should obey Military Law and Queens regs.

 

Like all servicement who desert or go awol they have to face military justice.

 

This particular individual is milking the media frenzie and the looney left wing and liberals of our society to help justify his desertion.

 

He was warned not to go on the anti war marches while awaiting trial, but being the knob he is he disobeyed that orderas well

 

If he didnt like the military that much he could have purchased his discharge

but no the coward ran away.

 

I have no sympathy for him and he deserves the punishment that is comming his way, but I suspect he will get off with it due to his new found liberals and anti war bods.

[StuRomseySaint]

I went AWOL once when I was refused reasonable leave to spend time with my son who was ill at birth... I took my 60 days in the Glasshouse on the chin.

 

If you are gonna do the crime then do the time, he should thank his lucky stars, desertion still carries the death penalty in military law ( or at least it did when I was in )

[Arizona]

You've got it the wrong way around. The 'spill over' to Pakistan that you're worried about actually happened years ago - and the problem now rolls in from Pakistan to Afghanistan. I know this all too painfully well, having had my Karachi-based 'fixer' kidnapped by the Taliban last year and held in South Waziristan for six months. Much of the threat in Helmand actually comes from the notionally Pakistani tribal areas - that's where the 'real' battle is taking place. And it's taking place right now between Pakistani military forces and the Taliban.

 

To equate the Taliban with some random plane-bombing nutter is to misunderstand the nature of the beast. What they do, and why they do it, is so ingrained that it pre-dates Islam. They live by an ancient warrior code and have always fought any and all invaders. They have never been defeated, in the sense that the invaders have always left. They don't need to be in power to gain advantage over outsiders - and it seems they're better off when exiled to the mountains, as they are now.

 

The best way to minimise risk, in my opinion, is to support and encourage the Pakistani army to see through the assault on the Taliban in their tribal strongholds in the Waziristans. Cut off the head rather than nip at the tail.

 

That won't in itself 'defeat' the Taliban, but it will cut out a supply route for assaults in Afghanistan.

 

Western support for and pressure on the Pakistani army also serves to protect the nuclear warheads...hopefully.

 

I am aware that there are many problems in Pakistan and that many militants actually come from Pakistan into Afghanistan. At the moment though, that's all it is. Small bands of militants crossing the border.

 

My point is that if we were to pull out of Afghanistan now, these militants would be roaming through Afghanistan unchecked and it wouldn't be long before anarchy and full scale civil war we at the fore. That could then potentially spill over into Pakistan.

[Verbal]

I am aware that there are many problems in Pakistan and that many militants actually come from Pakistan into Afghanistan. At the moment though, that's all it is. Small bands of militants crossing the border.

 

My point is that if we were to pull out of Afghanistan now, these militants would be roaming through Afghanistan unchecked and it wouldn't be long before anarchy and full scale civil war we at the fore. That could then potentially spill over into Pakistan.

 

If that were true, things might be slightly easier. Unfortunately, the Afghan campaign, particularly in Helmand, is directed and orchestrated from South Waziristan, and you'll even find 'mainland' Pakistanis in among the Taliban fighters. And it's far, far more than a few 'small bands'.

 

This is why the Americans spend so much time and effort hitting the Taliban leadership with drone aircraft (and with a fair amount of success). Almost all of these attacks are in notionally Pakistani territory - either the Tribal Areas or Baluchistan.

 

Furthermore, none of the al Qaeda leadership is in Afghanistan - all of the big players are in the Pakistani Tribal Areas or on the Pakistani mainland. (Many al Qaeda arrests, like bin Alshibh, were in Karachi.)

 

My point is that if you pull the troops out now, or soon, the effect would be pretty much what we have already. The majority of Afghanistan is 'pacified'. although under the control of fairly reprehensible warlords. That which isn't is subject to attacks that are planned and executed from the Pakistani Tribal Areas.

 

It would hardly be perfect, but it wouldn't be the vacuum you may imagine - and may even improve, if the real problem of militancy is sorted out in the Tribal Areas.

Edited 19 November, 2009 by Verbal

[View From The Top]

The ideas of borders, in the sense that we understand them, are a folly in this instance as the tribal lands span both.

 

In addition, the Western idea of central government solving the issue is far fetch and naive in the extreme.

[sotonjoe]

It is completely pointless debating anything to do with war or the military on TSW. This is for two main reasons...

 

1) Delldays screams "YOU DON'T KNOW MAN" and claims first hand knowledge of everything to do with war ever in a bid counter anything said by any 'civvie'.

 

2) Any anti-war or anti-military point is apparently indicative of "disrespecting our boys", which is apparently a sin akin to paedophilia on a grand scale, and we shouldn't be doing it because we should see point 1.

[Thedelldays]

It is completely pointless debating anything to do with war or the military on TSW. This is for two main reasons...

 

1) Delldays screams "YOU DON'T KNOW MAN" and claims first hand knowledge of everything to do with war ever in a bid counter anything said by any 'civvie'.

 

2) Any anti-war or anti-military point is apparently indicative of "disrespecting our boys", which is apparently a sin akin to paedophilia on a grand scale, and we shouldn't be doing it because we should see point 1.

you are wrong on both counts...

[sotonjoe]

you are wrong on both counts...

 

It's because I have never fired a rifle in anger Delldays.

 

I will officically retract the statement the first time I see you defending your point of view on the subject without simply claiming 'first hand experience' as evidence beyond any doubt.