Sgt. Matthis Chiroux Refuses to be Deployed to Iraq
tags:
Stumble Thisfrom youtube -Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, who served in the Army until being honorably discharged last summer after over four years of service in Afghanistan, Japan, Europe and the Phillipines, today publicly announced his intention to refuse orders to deploy to Iraq.
Sgt. Chiroux made made his announcement in the Cannon House Office Building Rotunda after members of Iraq Veterans Against the War testified before the Congressional Progressive Caucus during 'Winter Soldier on the Hill' on Thursday, May 15th, 2008.
More about Sgt. Matthis Chiroux:
http://ivaw.org/node/3484
Sgt. Chiroux made made his announcement in the Cannon House Office Building Rotunda after members of Iraq Veterans Against the War testified before the Congressional Progressive Caucus during 'Winter Soldier on the Hill' on Thursday, May 15th, 2008.
More about Sgt. Matthis Chiroux:
http://ivaw.org/node/3484
The guy calls it for what it is, an occupation, an illegal and total invasion of an entire nation for oil.
If it's such a "lawful" refusal, then why the hell would you be fearing charges?
If it's such a 'lawful' war then they would already have him in court.
>> ^Lurch:
MG, something else I noticed as a common thread with most of these videos is that it's almost always the non-combat related MOS's that get the most vocal. A photojournalist refuses to participate in war crimes? Yes... I'm sure he was burning villages with his camera. If he never spoke out before about all these stomach churning crimes, why not expose them now since he has people's attention? Smells like bullshit and cowardice to me.
People like you make MY stomach churn.
If it's such a "lawful" refusal, then why the hell would you be fearing charges?
Because he will almost certainly be embroiled in a legal battle.
Based on the summary saying he's been honorably discharged, my guess is that he got hit with a "stop loss" letter, telling him that even though he's fulfilled his commitment to the Army, they're extending his contract because they need him.
Technically, refusal to serve would make you AWOL, and I don't know if there's still an opportunity for him to get some sort of conscientious objector status. The Wikipedia article on the topic suggests he won't qualify since he's already served at least 1 tour, therefore he's not opposed to war in general.
I hope he gets and holds the press's attention with this, since it's his only shot of winning this dispute.
Bush is a CIC yes, a terrible one at that, all he sacrifices is a few show biz tears and gives away a folded flag to a devastated family. Oh wait he doesn't even do that... can't think of a single funeral he went to...
Reminds me of Black Adder.
Then we are supposed to stay the course because pulling out would mean the sacrifices of the soldiers were for nothing. WTF kind of logic is that?
> If it's such a "lawful" refusal, then why the hell would you be fearing charges?
he's basically making a case that he considers it an illegal order. like if you were ordered to shoot a medic. a higher authority precludes you from carrying it out.
he considers the US presence there illegal, so he's not going back.
>> ^RhesusMonk:
> Awesome dude. But wtf is with haircut on the right?
i was gonna' reply with "lenny always has squiggy around!", but ^shuac got here first.
>> ^MarineGunrock:
If it's such a "lawful" refusal, then why the hell would you be fearing charges?
Because he will almost certainly be embroiled in a legal battle.
Based on the summary saying he's been honorably discharged, my guess is that he got hit with a "stop loss" letter, telling him that even though he's fulfilled his commitment to the Army, they're extending his contract because they need him.
Technically, refusal to serve would make you AWOL, and I don't know if there's still an opportunity for him to get some sort of conscientious objector status. The Wikipedia article on the topic suggests he won't qualify since he's already served at least 1 tour, therefore he's not opposed to war in general.
I hope he gets and holds the press's attention with this, since it's his only shot of winning this dispute.
No. He has NOT filled his commitment. I guess most civillians don't understand that. When you enlist in the military - any branch - you owe then 8 years. Whether you spend those all active or 4 active/4 inactive doesn't matter.
The only thing he's fulfilled is the four year part of his contract. He's still got 4 to go, which yes, is a stop loss, but he's not yet completed his end of the contract, which is why the entire movie "Stop Loss" is an utter crock of shit.
Lurch, you pretty much nailed it on the head.
Irishman, get ready for the classic youtube favorite: STFU.
15Minutes: Its not an illegal order. Sure, its an illegal occupation, but just because hes been called back in to support the Iraqi War on Terror, doesn't necessarily mean he will be going back to Iraq.
MG: Your awesome.
I don't understand the US Military, you guys seem rather willing to enter the meat grinder without really questioning Why? in lieu of idealism formulated around duty and honor that mean nothing to the politicians who push you around like pawns.
Try telling that to a pawn who has been pushed around the board for his entire career, what they will end up doing is defending their masters as they have been trained to do.
Whether you signed for 8 years or 2 years or whatever. They got rid of you, terminated your service.
However if your discharge papers say you can be reactivated then that is your problem.
Military nowadays is based on contracts and weasel wording. Get a good lawyer and you wont have to go to go to war.
This guy chose to fight his reactivation, that is his choice. None us in here have any right to say he can't follow what he thinks is right.
Contracts are fought in court every day, and some are upheld, as well as rescinded.
On a side note this guy is a military journalist, most of these types can and will think for themselves, thats what they were hired to do. If you do not agree with the order would you still carry it out? - to paraphrase GTA's Niko Bellic
After they discharge you from service, that is it. The contract is completed they cannot reactivate you. Whether you signed for 8 years or 2 years or whatever. They got rid of you, terminated your service.
Wow, you're all kinds of wrong. You've obviously never served. They make it very clear to you when you sign up that they own your ass for at least 8 years. Whether or not you serve them all active or not is your choice.
However if your discharge papers say you can be reactivated then that is your problem.
Again, wrong. Discharge papers say nothing about that.
Military nowadays is based on contracts and weasel wording.
There's nothing weasel about it. The contracts are only a few pages long, and quite easy to understand.
Get a good lawyer and you wont have to go to go to war.
Again, wrong. They own your ass. There's nothing you can do about it, unless you can prove that it's an illegal order - and seeming how there's thousands of other troops following those same orders, there's nothing illegal about the order.
>> ^NordlichReiter:
After they discharge you from service, that is it. The contract is completed they cannot reactivate you. Whether you signed for 8 years or 2 years or whatever. They got rid of you, terminated your service.
Wow, you're all kinds of wrong. You've obviously never served. They make it very clear to you when you sign up that they own your ass for at least 8 years. Whether or not you serve them all active or not is your choice.
However if your discharge papers say you can be reactivated then that is your problem.
Again, wrong. Discharge papers say nothing about that.
Military nowadays is based on contracts and weasel wording.
There's nothing weasel about it. The contracts are only a few pages long, and quite easy to understand.
Get a good lawyer and you wont have to go to go to war.
Again, wrong. They own your ass. There's nothing you can do about it, unless you can prove that it's an illegal order - and seeming how there's thousands of other troops following those same orders, there's nothing illegal about the order.
Nope I have never served. Nor do I wish that I will ever have to. I'm more concerned with the state of the home front than the broad rationalities of a theater of war. I support this soldiers decision to not return to a war that he does not wish to be in. They do not own you, just because you signed a paper, no one can be owned, but they do hold legal right to prosecute you for going back on a contract. Your life is your own and no on can take it away, Unalienable Rights cannot be knowingly or unknowingly signed away.
This whole situation could have been avoided if the military wasn't in such a hurt for staff.
My question to you, MG rather than our differences here: would you like a soldier that is rebellious as this one in with troops that are upholding their contracts? He is liable to create a stir. If I were a senior staffer I would not want him my troop, the same way I don't want a noodles with my hamburger.
I also think that since he does not uphold his contract he does not have the right to use his rank.
Through discourse common ground can be found in even the most staunch opinions.
As far as him using his rank, no, I don't believe he should be using it either.
>> ^MarineGunrock:
If it's such a "lawful" refusal, then why the hell would you be fearing charges?
Because he will almost certainly be embroiled in a legal battle.
Based on the summary saying he's been honorably discharged, my guess is that he got hit with a "stop loss" letter, telling him that even though he's fulfilled his commitment to the Army, they're extending his contract because they need him.
Technically, refusal to serve would make you AWOL, and I don't know if there's still an opportunity for him to get some sort of conscientious objector status. The Wikipedia article on the topic suggests he won't qualify since he's already served at least 1 tour, therefore he's not opposed to war in general.
I hope he gets and holds the press's attention with this, since it's his only shot of winning this dispute.
Here's a little update on this guy from July. The Army commented on his refusal to redeploy.
"As he put his studies on hold to spend several months speaking to members of Congress in Washington about his plight, Chiroux's second deployment date came and went. Technically, he said, he's not AWOL because he feels he's essentially a civilian, and he's heard nothing from the Army since he failed to report.
The Army sees it differently, though. "The way he's going about it by not showing up puts him as a deserter and someone who is AWOL," Army spokesperson Major Nathan Banks said. "We won't go after him, but if he applies for a federal grant or school loans, certain jobs or gets a traffic ticket, he will be arrested and processed for being a deserter, and he will probably get a dishonorable discharge. He's digging his own hole." Banks said Chiroux's best bet is to file as a conscientious objector and explain his reasons for not wanting to serve. Quon added that if a soldier wishes to claim conscientious objector status, they must first report to their mobilization site and submit an application, which is then reviewed by a General Court Martial."
This came from the article http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1590339/20080702/id_0.jhtml which was linked through Iraq vets against the war. So, the ultimate outcome of this is that one day it will catch up to him and he will receive a dishonorable discharge (which he can have removed after a specified time limit). He essentially just disqualified himself from veteran's benefits. Thats it. The Army doesn't waste resources chasing after everyone that reneges on their obligations. When he looks for government assistance in the future he will be declined.