[shmerek]

from here

PACE, Florida --_Two Florida National Guard soldiers who married Iraqi women against their commander's wishes are being investigated for allegedly defying an order, their families said.

The men, both Christians who converted to Islam so they could be married under Iraqi law, had expected to return to Florida this month, but a new army policy that requires troops to remain in Iraq for 12 continuous months may keep them there until April.

In the meantime, Sgt. Sean Blackwell, 27, of Pace, and Cpl. Brett Dagen, 37, of Walnut Hill, want to send their wives to the United States because of threats from anti-American Iraqis.

Vickie McKee, Blackwell's mother, said yesterday her daughter-in-law has asked that the women not be identified for that reason. Both women are physicians.

"She's being threatened over there on almost a daily basis," McKee said. "He just wants to know that she's safe."

McKee, who said the army is trying to prevent the women from coming to the United States, has delivered letters from her son and his wife to the district office of Representative Jeff Miller. Dan McFaul, a spokesman for Miller, said the congressman can do nothing until the women request visas.

Blackwell's wife, now working as an interpreter for an American firm in Baghdad, wrote that the army has prevented him from contacting her since the double wedding on Aug. 17.

"Is this freedom in U.S.?" she wrote. "Where is the human right? Where is justice?"

McKee said the soldiers have been barred from using e-mail. For a time they also were prohibited from calling home, she said.

An army spokesman at the Pentagon referred questions to officials in Iraq, who declined comment.

Lt.-Col. Ron Tittle, spokesman for the Florida National Guard in St. Augustine, said he did not know whether disciplinary action had been taken or is contemplated, but that the soldiers' battalion commander, Lt.-Col. Thad Hill, had said he was worried the marriages might distract his troops from their mission and compromise their safety.

In his letter to Miller, Blackwell said the Army Inspector General's Office has told him he cannot be punished for getting married, but that he could be disciplined for disobeying an order.

discuss...

[MacGorilla]

Their not under fire for having Iraqi wives, they are under fire for disobeying a direct order, which is a serious offense. Discipline is critical in any chain of command.

So, while I am not against them marrying Iraqis, The fact they disobeyed orders, whether they agree with them or not, warrants no sympathy and should be punished.

[shmerek]

My question is what was the exact order? Was it do not marry and Iraqi?

[nonhuman]

I don't think their commander should be able to issue such an order. There should be no penalty for disobeying and unjust order. If anything, the commander should be disciplined.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I don't think their commander should be able to issue such an order. There should be no penalty for disobeying and unjust order. If anything, the commander should be disciplined.

Maybe it has to do eith the fact that our forces are in Iraq to do a job, not run around and pick up Iraqi women.

Regardless, they appropriately contacted their representative, who should be able to facilitate resolution of the issue.

[BlackGriffen]

The commanders were stupid if they thought they could prevent this. One of the major results of sending single men overseas: many come back with wives from where they were. A lot of immigration happened this way (Koreans during the Korean war, Vietnamese during that conflict, etc).

I grant that discipline is important, but I don't think that the army owns the soldiers body and soul. They have the right to marry whomever they chose, end of story.

I say, bring them over. If the wife of a soldier doesn't deserve to be an American citizen, and thus receive America's protection, I don't know who does.

BlackGriffen

[shmerek]

It seems to me that the order was not to marry but who has the right to give that order? Seems a bit excessive to me.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Maybe it has to do eith the fact that our forces are in Iraq to do a job, not run around and pick up Iraqi women.

As was the case when, during times of war, the US had troops in France, Germany, England, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, &c. The men found wives in those places in those wars, the same is going to happen in Iraq.

Regardless, that was not an order that the commander should have had the authority to give.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by shmerek:
It seems to me that the order was not to marry but who has the right to give that order? Seems a bit excessive to me.

Excessive has nothing to do with it. The only question is, was the order lawful? It probably was.

[fireside]

while i normally really hate the army's way of doing things, this really sticks out in my mind as extremely lame. not letting a soldier marry an iraqi because she could be a terrorist or some crap? how lame is that. america is turning more and more into a freedomless place.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by fireside:
while i normally really hate the army's way of doing things, this really sticks out in my mind as extremely lame. not letting a soldier marry an iraqi because she could be a terrorist or some crap? how lame is that. america is turning more and more into a freedomless place.

You seem to miss the point. The point is the soldiers disobeyed a direct order from a superior officer. That is a serious offense that could land them in Levinworth breaking rocks for the next 25 years.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
You seem to miss the point. The point is the soldiers disobeyed a direct order from a superior officer. That is a serious offense that could land them in Levinworth breaking rocks for the next 25 years.

that's one point. The other point is whether the command was legitimate. Personally, I think its not. But, Regardless, even a protest of an illegitimate command needs to go through channels.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Regardless, that was not an order that the commander should have had the authority to give.

And in what capacity are you qualified to determine what authority a military commander has?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I don't think their commander should be able to issue such an order. There should be no penalty for disobeying and unjust order. If anything, the commander should be disciplined.

The military isn't a democracy, you do what you're told. Under circumstances regarding a violation of Military law or the Geneva convention a soldier can go to a superior officer and file a complaint, this follows the chain of command and then whoever issued the order causing the violation is in deep sh#t. Ordering people not to fraternize with the locals isn't a violation of military law OR the Geneva convention and should be followed to the letter. The two gents in question should be court marshalled. You see, when you join the military you become PROPERTY of the military, and under military jurisdiction and have no civilian rights. You sign those rights away when you join. For most intents and purposes, they OWN you.

The only way to circumvent this is to seek federal intervention in reinstating your civilian rights (which gets you a General discharge, which can be rather unattractive on your work record). FWIW, civilian reinstatement doesn't typically happen, and neither should it. The military by that time has a rather sizeable financial investment in that person's training and breaching the contract can make the person culpable to repay the government's investment, though this doesn't usually happen.

On the other side of the coin. This is why people who are in the military who commit murder or other state crimes can't be indicted until they are reviewed by a military court and discharged. In which case, if they're discharged it's either a Dishonorable or Conditional discharge. If it's a Dishonorable discharge the person is out of the military regardless of what the civilian court finds, this is usually when the military court finds a preponderance of evidence and are likely to send the person to trial themselves. In the case of a Conditional discharge, the military court is basically saying, "if the civilian court finds you guilty we're cutting you loose (Dishonorably). If they find you innocent, we may take you back".

This all can seem rather confusing, but it does keep things running in their proper channels. In contrast to civilian courts, military courts move very quickly; no Meranda, no such thing as illegal search and seizure, they WILL lean on you heavily during questioning, and you don't have the right to have your attorney present at all times.

The bottom line is, forget what you know about civilian law and civil rights in regard to the military. It's a very different world.

[fireside]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
For most intents and purposes, they OWN you.

thats my freaking point. this is the army of the united states, not of China or some sh�t. you should have you're civilian rights and they shouldnt own you. i mean, seriously, you're being drafted (not on your own will mind you) robbed of your freedoms (not on your own will) and the only way you can get out of it is by screwing up really bad? what bullsh�t is this?

[Sandbaggins]

Originally posted by fireside:
thats my freaking point. this is the army of the united states, not of China or some sh�t. you should have you're civilian rights and they shouldnt own you. i mean, seriously, you're being drafted (not on your own will mind you) robbed of your freedoms (not on your own will) and the only way you can get out of it is by screwing up really bad? what bullsh�t is this?

A person who volunteers in our fine military knows that they are giving up certain "freedoms" we take for granted. When you are in the military your freedom to choose thinhs becomes very limited. Especially during times of conflict/war. Our military would not be effective if every Joe did what they wanted to. If an order is given and you feel its "unlawful" (barring shooting yourself or some other crazy order) you take it up the chain of command. You do not break the order and then complain.

[私]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And in what capacity are you qualified to determine what authority a military commander has?

One need only be a human being to determine if an act is just or unjust, right or wrong. Obviously a civilian who is not in the government has no power to dictate how the military works, but everyone has the power, ability, and duty to proclaim wrongs where they see them.

-私

[私]

Originally posted by Sandbaggins:
A person who volunteers in our fine military knows that they are giving up certain "freedoms" we take for granted. When you are in the military your freedom to choose thinhs becomes very limited. Especially during times of conflict/war. Our military would not be effective if every Joe did what they wanted to. If an order is given and you feel its "unlawful" (barring shooting yourself or some other crazy order) you take it up the chain of command. You do not break the order and then complain.

Militaries that follow unjust, immoral orders are the militaries that build dictatorships and perpetrate genocides. You can't swear away the boundary between right and wrong.

-私

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And in what capacity are you qualified to determine what authority a military commander has?

The capacity of having a sense of morality which tells me that a soldier is responsible for his own actions, even if acting under orders.

If a soldier was ordered to gun down a young child who was bound and gagged, do you think he should obey that order?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
The military isn't a democracy, you do what you're told. Under circumstances regarding a violation of Military law or the Geneva convention a soldier can go to a superior officer and file a complaint, this follows the chain of command and then whoever issued the order causing the violation is in deep sh#t. Ordering people not to fraternize with the locals isn't a violation of military law OR the Geneva convention and should be followed to the letter. The two gents in question should be court marshalled. You see, when you join the military you become PROPERTY of the military, and under military jurisdiction and have no civilian rights. You sign those rights away when you join. For most intents and purposes, they OWN you.

The only way to circumvent this is to seek federal intervention in reinstating your civilian rights (which gets you a General discharge, which can be rather unattractive on your work record). FWIW, civilian reinstatement doesn't typically happen, and neither should it. The military by that time has a rather sizeable financial investment in that person's training and breaching the contract can make the person culpable to repay the government's investment, though this doesn't usually happen.

On the other side of the coin. This is why people who are in the military who commit murder or other state crimes can't be indicted until they are reviewed by a military court and discharged. In which case, if they're discharged it's either a Dishonorable or Conditional discharge. If it's a Dishonorable discharge the person is out of the military regardless of what the civilian court finds, this is usually when the military court finds a preponderance of evidence and are likely to send the person to trial themselves. In the case of a Conditional discharge, the military court is basically saying, "if the civilian court finds you guilty we're cutting you loose (Dishonorably). If they find you innocent, we may take you back".

This all can seem rather confusing, but it does keep things running in their proper channels. In contrast to civilian courts, military courts move very quickly; no Meranda, no such thing as illegal search and seizure, they WILL lean on you heavily during questioning, and you don't have the right to have your attorney present at all times.

The bottom line is, forget what you know about civilian law and civil rights in regard to the military. It's a very different world.

I understand all that. However, that does not change the fact that there has to be some flexibility to allow soldiers to do the right thing. I do not want a military of mindless machines that do exactly what they are told, nothing more, nothing less. I want a military of well-trained, thinking men that are able to evaluate a situation and act appropriately with or without guidance from higher up on the chain. They may ...damnit my girlfriend just stopped by and I completely lost my train of though. Argh. More later.

[Sandbaggins]

Originally posted by 私:
Militaries that follow unjust, immoral orders are the militaries that build dictatorships and perpetrate genocides. You can't swear away the boundary between right and wrong.

-私

You are completely correct (sniff) how unfair of our unjust military (sniff) to perpetuate the very ideas that cause genocide. I say we let the whole 4th Infantry go get hitched and spread some love!

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
If a soldier was ordered to gun down a young child who was bound and gagged, do you think he should obey that order?

Your comparing of an order to not romance Iraqi women with an order to gun down a child is ridiculous.

The fact is, you're not in Iraq, and you're not responsible for the lives of a battalion under your command.

Troops of ours being killed because they are ambushed while sneaking away to play Romeo - that's what the commander is trying to prevent. Furthermore, if the commander lets one or two troops get away with sneaking away, then they all may as well sneak away.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
They may ...damnit my girlfriend just stopped by and I completely lost my train of though. Argh.

Exactly my point.

Losing one's train of thought, or focus, in a hostile environment could very well be the difference between life and death.

[nonhuman]

I wasn't trying to compare the acts, merely that soldiers who will follow all orders unquestioningly are not good soldiers. See: nazis.

If the commander wasn't issuing ridiculous orders, they wouldn't have to sneak off and then they'd be less likely to get killed in ambushes since their commanding officers would know where they were.

Also, allowing the soldiers to socialize and have relationships with the Iraqis is a good thing. It helps break down the barriers and makes the U.S. soldiers seem less likely an inhuman occupying force.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Exactly my point.

Losing one's train of thought, or focus, in a hostile environment could very well be the difference between life and death.

Point taken.

However, allowing the soldiers to form bonds with the Iraqis will make them more effective at helping the Iraqis as they will have a personal stake in it. As helping the Iraqis is supposed to be their mission this seems as though it would be a good idea. It will make both sides less willing to throw away the lives of the other.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Also, allowing the soldiers to socialize and have relationships with the Iraqis is a good thing. It helps break down the barriers and makes the U.S. soldiers seem less likely an inhuman occupying force.

Agreed. But at the moment, it's a fine line between outright socialization, and putting one's butt in harm's way.

Insurgents in civilian clothes - that's what I'm worried about. If only the insurgents could wear some sort of uniform.....

Whatever...it sounds as if the incidents are being discussed in the appropriate channels. Once resolved, hopefully all parties will be satisfied.

Get back to your girlfriend. I'm sure she's more exciting than this thread.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Agreed. But at the moment, it's a fine line between outright socialization, and putting one's butt in harm's way.

Insurgents in civilian clothes - that's what I'm worried about. If only the insurgents could wear some sort of uniform.....

Whatever...it sounds as if the incidents are being discussed in the appropriate channels. Once resolved, hopefully all parties will be satisfied.

Get back to your girlfriend. I'm sure she's more exciting than this thread.

She was just stopping by to say 'Hi' because she's been away since Friday and is really tired from traveling.

[christ]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
The military isn't a democracy, ... Ordering people not to fraternize with the locals isn't a violation of military law OR the Geneva convention and should be followed to the letter. The two gents in question should be court marshalled. ... The bottom line is, forget what you know about civilian law and civil rights in regard to the military. It's a very different world.

etc. etc.

What about this bit of the report:

...the army is trying to prevent the women from coming to the United States.

Why? What has this to do with the army? are the wives 'property' too? The soldiers committed the 'offence', not the wives.

This is the bit of the report that leads me to the conclusion that some pompous xenophobe with a lot of gold braid on his uniform has decided that the Iraqi women should not be allowed to pollute good American bloodstock, and is dressing up his racism in 'orders'.

The US are fighting to 'liberate' the Iraqis, and this incident demonstrates that this 'liberation' is stuff and nonsense.

[Edit: Darn speelchucker]

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by fireside:
thats my freaking point. this is the army of the united states, not of China or some sh�t. you should have you're civilian rights and they shouldnt own you. i mean, seriously, you're being drafted (not on your own will mind you) robbed of your freedoms (not on your own will) and the only way you can get out of it is by screwing up really bad? what bullsh�t is this?

who says they were drafted, there's no drafting going on here dude they volunteered. Everything is outlined in their service papers that they signed. If a person doesn't like it, they shouldn't join.

[MacGorilla]

No soldier would be ordered to gun down a child who was bound and gagged. If they were, they could refuse it because it would be an unlawful order. That's the difference here.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
who says they were drafted, there's no drafting going on here dude they volunteered. Everything is outlined in their service papers that they signed. If a person doesn't like it, they shouldn't join.

Is it outlined in the services papers that your superior officer can order you not to marry someone?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Is it outlined in the services papers that your superior officer can order you not to marry someone?

someone correct me if wrong, but I don't believe there was any such prohibition in WWII or the Korean War or Vietnam. There are many servicemen who fell in love and married on their overseas assignment.
I know of several. As far as I know, they had red tape to go through to bring them home, but they were never outright ordered not to.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
No soldier would be ordered to gun down a child who was bound and gagged. If they were, they could refuse it because it would be an unlawful order. That's the difference here.

Right, so it is up to the individual soldiers to determine if an order is valid or not. These soldiers obviously came to the conclusion that the order not to marry Iraqi women was invalid. I agree with them.

[fireside]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
who says they were drafted, there's no drafting going on here dude they volunteered. Everything is outlined in their service papers that they signed. If a person doesn't like it, they shouldn't join.

hi i wasnt takling about now. lets say the draft opens. and people you know, HAVE to join the army. or else. they're being forced to sign their life away for something they didnt want to do? read between the lines people.

[fireside]

Originally posted by Sandbaggins:
Our military would not be effective if every Joe did what they wanted to. If an order is given and you feel its "unlawful" (barring shooting yourself or some other crazy order) you take it up the chain of command. You do not break the order and then complain.

well thats just stupid. lets say you cant complain to someone up the chain of command. and you have to do it or else you're breaking the order. oh look we're in the middle of the jungle away from the person in command higher up than my Lt., and he just gave me the order to shoot an innocent person. well it looks like i have to do it or else id be breaking the order. i hate the military and the way they do things. i hate how they turn creative, compassionate, thinking people into mindless order-takers. its horrible.

[ThinkInsane]

While I absolutely agree that it may be heavy handed to order these guys not to marry, and it's inexcusable to try and deny their lawfully wedded wives entry into the country, there may be extenuating circumstances that we don't know about.

Non-fraternization orders aren't uncommon since Viet Nam, for a very practical reason. Have you ever heard about all those half American kids that got left behind? They were, and probably still are, treated like lepers. Most ended up in orphanages. The moral questions of abandoning your kid aside, it is a PR nightmare for the military when these kind of stories come out. There are valid reasons for such an oder, if they come from Command and applied uniformly al troops in-country. If it was some butter bar that decided his platoon wasn't going to be getting busy with the Iraqi chicks, well then **** him and the horse he rode in on.

On the other half of this conversation, you are expected to disobey any order that would generally be considered immoral (like shooting the bound and gagged child). You run into problems when you may very well consider an order immoral, and the military doesn't agree. You may still be court marshaled, and it's up to the soldier in question to convince them that the order was unquestionably wrong and grievous.

Personally, I would consider an order not to marry ridiculous, but not immoral. These guys are going to have a tough time convincing Uncle Sam that they were obligated to disobey a direct order because it was immoral. This is more something that should have been grieved to the Command level, and a ruling issued.

[Spliffdaddy]

Contrary to widely held belief, being the spouse of a US citizen (incl. US military) does not automatically grant you the privilege of living in the United States.

That being said, I disagree with the notion that these Iraqi wives of American GIs should be treated differently than any foreign-born spouse of any American citizen.

And furthermore, the 'order' to not marry Iraqi women was complete BS. A better alternative would be to restrict non-essential interaction with ALL civilian women. Then, it could be argued that this order was not followed if a intimate personal relationship (or marriage) later developed.

[Sandbaggins]

Originally posted by fireside:
well thats just stupid. lets say you cant complain to someone up the chain of command. and you have to do it or else you're breaking the order. oh look we're in the middle of the jungle away from the person in command higher up than my Lt., and he just gave me the order to shoot an innocent person. well it looks like i have to do it or else id be breaking the order. i hate the military and the way they do things. i hate how they turn creative, compassionate, thinking people into mindless order-takers. its horrible.

Hey guy...read what I wrote between the parentheses: (barring shooting yourself or some other crazy order).

Shooting some innocent soul just might squeeze in as being a :drumroll: "crazy order".

You can disobey those. Under the UCMJ.

-First, the military teaches almost unquestioning obedience to military orders and enforces its disciplinary requirements through its military justice system. Conversely, that same justice system stands ready to punish soldiers for following clearly illegal orders, expecting them to be rational, reasoning individuals.- Lieutenant Colonel Michael J. Davidson, US Army

Happy?

You hate what you don't know.

[things]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Is it outlined in the services papers that your superior officer can order you not to marry someone?

They are not in Iraq to meet women! These soldiers disobeyed an order and should be punished accordingly. let's move on.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Contrary to widely held belief, being the spouse of a US citizen (incl. US military) does not automatically grant you the privilege of living in the United States.

I know that's true for ordinary citizens, but isn't it different for the Military? I thought that during WWII the foreign wives that GIs picked up overseas were granted citizenship due to some law to that effect. Has it since been changed or am I just misremembering things?

[fireside]

Originally posted by Sandbaggins:
First, the military teaches almost unquestioning obedience to military orders and enforces its disciplinary requirements through its military justice system. Conversely, that same justice system stands ready to punish soldiers for following clearly illegal orders, expecting them to be rational, reasoning individuals.- Lieutenant Colonel Michael J. Davidson, US Army

you expect me to believe something a military spokesperson said? yeah, and let me guess. you believed Enron when they said they were doing anything illegal?

[Sandbaggins]

Originally posted by fireside:
you expect me to believe something a military spokesperson said? yeah, and let me guess. you believed Enron when they said they were doing anything illegal?

I don't expect you to believe anything. Its the UCMJ. Read it yourself. Educate yourself.

[thunderous_funker]

Sure hope they don't issue an edict banning masterbation or they might have to court marshall boatloads of GI's.

[Sandbaggins]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I know that's true for ordinary citizens, but isn't it different for the Military? I thought that during WWII the foreign wives that GIs picked up overseas were granted citizenship due to some law to that effect. Has it since been changed or am I just misremembering things?

Over the years the INA has changed. As it is right now, a military spouse would have to apply for an immigrant visa or possibly be paroled into the US. But technically speaking a military wife would be no different from any other "alien". Now things get a bit complicated when politicians, congressmen get involved. They can "push" things along and make things happen for "special" situations.

[finboy]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
You seem to miss the point. The point is the soldiers disobeyed a direct order from a superior officer. That is a serious offense that could land them in Levinworth breaking rocks for the next 25 years.

Not if the order isn't lawful. That's the determination that has to take place.

The "direct order" was probably nonfraternization -- do not associate with the indigs. That's a lawful order. Getting married presupposes violation of that order.

[christ]

Originally posted by finboy:
...do not associate with the indigs...

"The indigs".

These are the people that you were supposed to be 'liberating'.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by finboy:
Not if the order isn't lawful. That's the determination that has to take place.

The "direct order" was probably nonfraternization -- do not associate with the indigs. That's a lawful order. Getting married presupposes violation of that order.

If they felt the order banning marriage to the Iraqi women was unlawful, they should have appealed up the chain of command first. Its standard millitary protocol. If they choose not to, then no millitary judge will have sympathy for them.

[ThinkInsane]

Sorry to drudge up an old thread, but I saw an update to this story in the paper today.

One of the soldiers charged has been discharged from the army because he gave the time and location of his patrol to his bride-to-be, her family, and to the judge that performed the ceremony, violating the rules of operational security and putting his unit in undue risk. It was found that he did not disobey a lawful order, and was not court-martialed.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Sorry to drudge up an old thread, but I saw an update to this story in the paper today.

One of the soldiers charged has been discharged from the army because he gave the time and location of his patrol to his bride-to-be, her family, and to the judge that performed the ceremony, violating the rules of operational security and putting his unit in undue risk. It was found that he did not disobey a lawful order, and was not court-martialed.

Well, that was stupid of him. For doing that $hit, he deserved a discharge.

I'm glad the army found the order in question unlawful, though.

BG

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Sorry to drudge up an old thread, but I saw an update to this story in the paper today.

One of the soldiers charged has been discharged from the army because he gave the time and location of his patrol to his bride-to-be, her family, and to the judge that performed the ceremony, violating the rules of operational security and putting his unit in undue risk. It was found that he did not disobey a lawful order, and was not court-martialed.

Yeesh. Maybe he can get a job as an "embedded" journalist?