9,000 US soldiers killed so far in Iraq?

[s1m0n]

The fact that recruitment is done with a "try one" offer is irrelevant. Nothing with the military is ever certain. If that thought bothers you, you should enlist to begin with.

No, the fact that the try one offer would not be honoured by the military *is* certain. The only one uncertain in the entire affair was the soldier who signed on to a lying inducement. He's the only party to the deal who didn't know what he was going to (not) get.

The army knew in advance that they would not be fulfilling the the major terms of the commitment they had just made, and the recruiter knew who he made the offer that the deal he was promising was false.

Again, if "everyone knows" the realities of military life, then the try one come-on would not exist. It's only in place because it fools people.

The cotract says "try before you commit". The reality is "you're now committed until we decide to let you go."

That's fraud, and there isn't any onther way to spin it.

[rasp]

all advertising is fraud, no matter who does it. "new and improved", "free", "on sale", "try one" ect. so what is new? not a darn thing.
like it has been said read the contract! if one does not then, to bad. it is the fault of the buyer for not being informed, not the one offering the product. there never has been truth in advertising, from the government nor the business community.

read your spam, click on the popups, get a life.

never bitch about getting hung with an old rope, tis well worn and not scratchy on the neck.

[Lambchop]

The army knew in advance that they would not be fulfilling the the major terms of the commitment they had just made, and the recruiter knew who he made the offer that the deal he was promising was false.

1. Your statement assumes the impossible--that of getting more than two people in that huge, impersonal organization to agree on something. And you cannot blame an entire impersonal organization for a failing on the part of a less-than-ethical recruiter (if, in fact, that's what it was).

2. You don't know the details of the offer because you didn't see it. The contract is in writing, but you haven't seen it. You've only heard rumors.

Again, if "everyone knows" the realities of military life, then the try one come-on would not exist. It's only in place because it fools people.

The cotract says "try before you commit". The reality is "you're now committed until we decide to let you go."

No. It is not in place because it fools people. People just aren't that stupid. It wouldn't fool me and it's not fooling too many others.

It's in place because it WAS in place and a valid offer, and is presumably still a valid offer, or would be if it were not for the fact that discharges have been suspended due to the existence of an armed conflict. That's not saying the offer shouldn't be taken down, but . . . all military members should be aware that this can occur during armed conflicts. Training is provided in this concept. It's far from being a secret.

I'm still subject to recall. My only way out of it would be to resign my commission. And if I'm recalled without having done that, I won't be getting out until my ass has been shot off or the stop-loss has been lifted.

So, how do you think I know this? Nothing special at all about me, but I know this. And if I know it, then all those other folks should know it, too. Not only is it common knowledge, it's in their contract.

[jGilder]

The question then becomes, if this boy was in fact lied to, what should be done about it? Allow anybody who wants to, to quit from the service? Discipline the recruiters? Or something else entirely?

This is indeed the question, but how has it been answered?

IF the recruiter lied, of course he should be brought up on charges. But - look at this kids "record". I would need a whole lot more proof than his word to believe he was "lied" to. Until proven otherwise, this kid was just looking for another easy out (which he's evidently done for at least the last three or four years of his life) which he decided to jump when the going got rough. Sorry - no sympathy from me.

Interesting how the recruiter is innocent until proven guilty and should receive a fair trial, but the boy is not only already presumed guilty, but is unworthy of any justice as well.

I thought we were talking about America; innocent until proven guilty and all that craic. I wonder what country Missy lives in…

like it has been said read the contract! if one does not then, to bad. it is the fault of the buyer for not being informed, not the one offering the product. there never has been truth in advertising, from the government nor the business community.

So it's ok to lie if you're the government, but not ok if you're a civilian. (Assuming the boy DID lie) And even though civilians can be found guilty of having fraudulent contracts, the government remains above the law.

No. It is not in place because it fools people. People just aren't that stupid. It wouldn't fool me and it's not fooling too many others.

Of course everyone should be like Lambchop. If they aren't then they get whatever's coming to them. I must be great when you think everyone should behave according to your own self-standards.

[missy]

only responding to a personally directed statement

jGilder wrote:
"I thought we were talking about America; innocent until proven guilty and all that craic. I wonder what country Missy lives in"

Common, jGilder - I know you know I'm from Ohio - you know, that "red" state that had such crooked elections and somehow put Mr. Bush back into the White House all by ourselves (even though I didn't vote for him). I know you already think Ohio is another country - you don't have to restate it.........
And yes, American's ARE innocent until proven guilty* - and that goes for the recruiter, too. I didn't say the recruit was guilty - I said he was naive.


*Unless you are brought up on drug charges - then it's guilty until you prove your innocence - which very rarely happens.

[jGilder]

And yes, American's ARE innocent until proven guilty* - and that goes for the recruiter, too. I didn't say the recruit was guilty - I said he was naive.

I know you didn't say the recruiter was guilty, but you obviously have assumed the boy to be -- read your quote.

*Unless you are brought up on drug charges - then it's guilty until you prove your innocence - which very rarely happens.

I never heard that there's a reversal of assumptions regading guilt or innocence when it's a case involving drugs. Is this true?

[missy]

jGilder wrote:
"I never heard that there's a reversal of assumptions regading guilt or innocence when it's a case involving drugs"

It's been awhile, but I remember several 20/20, 60 minutes type of expose' on people that had property (boats, homes, cars) confiscated because of suspicion of being used in drug crimes, and the owner had to prove they were NOT used in such - not that the government had to prove they were. In several cases, the individuals never got their property back, even though there was never any charges, jail time, etc. served.

I'll do some searching and see if I can find any concrete links...........

[rasp]

like it has been said read the contract! if one does not then, to bad. it is the fault of the buyer for not being informed, not the one offering the product. there never has been truth in advertising, from the government nor the business community.

So it's ok to lie if you're the government, but not ok if you're a civilian. (Assuming the boy DID lie) And even though civilians can be found guilty of having fraudulent contracts, the government remains above the law.

gee, i sure would like to know where you got that thought. :roll:
responsiblity for reading the contract is the signer. you know, if it isn't in writing then it is not so.

besides, the kid did it for the money and is now trying to get out of it, by claiming he was lied too. how clear a case do you want? gee, everyone knows the scam.

[NicoMoreno]

And yes, American's ARE innocent until proven guilty* - and that goes for the recruiter, too. I didn't say the recruit was guilty - I said he was naive.

I know you didn't say the recruiter was guilty, but you obviously have assumed the boy to be -- read your quote.

I don't get this. Missy is saying that the recruiter is innocent, not that the recruitee (the boy) is guilty.

I would need a whole lot more proof than his word to believe he was "lied" to.

In other words, his word is not enough to prove that the recruiter was in fact lying. This does not mean the kid is guilty (as far as I know, there isn't anything for him to be guilty of). But it does mean you need to stop assuming the boy is telling the truth about the recruiter lying.

NicoMoreno wrote:
The question then becomes, if this boy was in fact lied to, what should be done about it? Allow anybody who wants to, to quit from the service? Discipline the recruiters? Or something else entirely?

This is indeed the question, but how has it been answered?

So, should I do what you did to IRTrad4U and haunt you on multiple threads until you answer this?

This is a question for you. Go to it.

[missy]

jGilder - here's an article off of an ACLU website:
(I have some problems with some of the things the ACLU has stood up for - but on the whole, I think they serve a useful purpose)


Asset Seizure Laws: A Civil Liberties Casualty of the War on Drugs
By Alan Schlosser, ACLU-NC Managing Attorney
Date Posted: 10/27/2000

While recognizing the complexities of developing a national drug policy, the American Civil Liberties Union has consistently maintained that civil liberties and civil rights have been a primary casualty of the so-called War on Drugs. One of the principal weapons employed in this war has been the expansive and zealous use of civil asset forfeiture to administer swift and substantial punishment on those accused of criminal activity, without affording defendants and property owners the procedural protections and safeguards that are integral to our criminal justice system. The ACLU has not been alone in recognizing the abuses and excess associated with asset forfeiture. A bipartisan coalition in Congress recently enacted the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, which narrowed the scope of federal forfeiture laws and provided property owners with procedural protections and defenses. The bill's author, conservative Congressman Henry Hyde, made clear the basis for this legislative action: "Enlisted 25 years ago as a legitimate auxiliary tool in the so-called war on drugs, the legal doctrines of civil asset forfeiture have since been perverted to serve an entirely improper function in our democratic system of government -official confiscation from innocent citizens of their money and property with little or no due process of law or judicial protection."

find the rest of the article here:
http://www.aclunc.org/opinion/001027-seizure.html

[jGilder]

besides, the kid did it for the money and is now trying to get out of it, by claiming he was lied too. how clear a case do you want? gee, everyone knows the scam.

If the government is free to scam the boy -- what's wrong with the boy scamming the government. (Assuming that the boy is doing that... which I doubt)

All's fair in love & war.

[jGilder]

The question then becomes, if this boy was in fact lied to, what should be done about it? Allow anybody who wants to, to quit from the service? Discipline the recruiters? Or something else entirely?

This is indeed the question, but how has it been answered?

So, should I do what you did to IRTrad4U and haunt you on multiple threads until you answer this?

This is a question for you. Go to it.

I did answer it. Please don't make me repeat it. :roll:

[NicoMoreno]

Go ahead, repeat it. You asked me if I was joking when I summarized what I thought your conclusion was.

[rasp]

besides, the kid did it for the money and is now trying to get out of it, by claiming he was lied too. how clear a case do you want? gee, everyone knows the scam.

If the government is free to scam the boy -- what's wrong with the boy scamming the government. (Assuming that the boy is doing that... which I doubt)

All's fair in love & war.

enlistment policy has not changed, except for length of enlistment and obligation. changing the 2 year to a one year does not change anything. it just says that with nothing going on that one would only be in a year. there just happens to be something going on right now and that is where "read the contract" is really a must.
i would consider it no more missleading than someone trying to give me something for free or new and improved. nothing is free and nothing is new nor improved.

i know for a fact the kid is scamming.

[jGilder]

So, should I do what you did to IRTrad4U and haunt you on multiple threads until you answer this?

TradR made a statement that Amnesty International was hypocritical. I asked him to explain why and provide evidence and documentation. This is very different from answering a question about what should be done concerning US military recruiters who lie use bait & switch tactics to fool people into signing up. But unlike TradR failing to back up his statement -- I did answer this question.

Go ahead, repeat it. You asked me if I was joking when I summarized what I thought your conclusion was.

My answer was actually in response to something you said.

Yes, recruiters need to be held accountable, but possible recruitees also need to be thinking. It doesn't sound like this boy was thinking all that well. Also, it is his word that the recruiter lied to him. I am not saying I don't believe him, merely that there is a reasonable doubt that he was lied to.

Well then perhaps the whole thing should be investigated and the recruiter should be held accountable. Do you think that's going to happen? And even if it does, these cases where the US military investigates itself always seem to come up empty anyway. Personally, I think justice would be served if the recruiter was tried by an independent court, and if found guilty, the boys application declared null and void and he be allowed to return home.