Two key points:

If someone asks you to jump off a bridge, you never should have to...

Also, if you stick your ass in a fire voluntarily you better expect to get burned.

Either an unreasonable request was made, or somebody didn't want to commit when it became unpleasant to do so.

One way or another, something bad is going down.

How many times was this kind of news reported in WW2?

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
It didn't happen a lot in WW II and when it did, it was dealt with very severely. When you signup for Military service, you swear to do your duty and follow orders. As for this incident..it is noted that OTHER members of the same platoon carried out the mission with the same equipment on the same route...and amazingly survived what the 18 insurectionists said was a Suicide run or death trap....funny how it wasn't suicidal or a death trap for others to perform it. Their case is insupportable in the light of the facts...and they should be glad that this is the 21st century because during WW II they would very easily find them selves facing the death penalty.


Err, I am talking about US troops here, not sure about the numbers of troops from other nations that pulled mutinous moves. I do know the vast majority of troops for the Allies and the Axis were on the very loyal and dedicated isde...the Italians had some problems and the French...but most other nations were do or die types.
</font>

</font>

[ 10-20-2004, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

A "Deadline" deficiency is a problem with a piece of equipment that renders it non-mission capable or operates at a reduced capacity. This has to be verified by the appropriate personnel (ie. mechanic/maintenance, armorer, etc.). Eqipment in this state is considered a top priority to fix ASAP. If it is to be used anyway due to mission requirements, the commander has to sign off the maintenance form. This means that he understands the equipments condition and vouches that there is no other way he can perform his mission but to use it. If someone is hurt, killed, or equipment is lost because of the deficiency and it is found that another option was available, it's the commanders rear end!

<font color=lime> Thankyou for the explanation guys [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

If (and this is still a big IF) these guys are found guilty of desertion / coward ness. What will and what should their punishment be? </font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Wellard, as of right now, I believe the penalty for what they did, can range from the Death Penalty because their actions were during armed conflict....to NJP (Non-Judicial Punishment) NJP being things like going on KP duty or being confined to quarters when not working to loosing some pay. But since this brought national attention they have pretty much gaurenteed that they will not get off as lightly as they could have. So NJP is out and Courts Martial will be the most likely venue ending probably in BCD's (Bad Conduct Discharges) along with some jail time....this is my guess.</font>

Magik, their actions are not subject to Article 15 hearings (Non Judicial Punishment). They must be sorted out by Article 32 proceedings (Courts Martial).

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Which is what I said Nightstalker [img]smile.gif[/img]

However, the unit commander could have kept the whole thing private and held NJP proceedings had they not drawn so much attention, they they gaurenteed their own tougher penalties.

I have seen Unit commanders handle matters nearly as serious in NJP before.
</font>

[ 10-21-2004, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

I imagine they will be lucky to just get hit with the usual non-incarcerative punishment under courts marshall and have the incarceration time suspended pending any further misconduct. Reduction in rank and forfeiture of pay is certainly a given.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Reports about this I have been reading today....make me think they might get off scott free....will be interesting to watch what message is sent.
</font>

Update, as *cough* 'borrowed' from the internet. In my experience this ex-commander has sealed her military career as a failure. Not sure why it was requested, but hey, a staff officer is always needed somewhere, and at times, to remain in theather after the unit departure to conduct the close-out mission.

Charlotte Observer
October 22, 2004

Convoy Chief Removed

Rock Hill-based reservist commanded group that didn't go

The officer in charge of the Rock Hill-based Army reservists who refused to deliver a convoy of fuel in Iraq has been relieved of command.

Army officials Thursday said the officer, who they refuse to identify because of privacy concerns, asked to be relieved of command. The action is effective immediately, and she will be "reassigned commensurate with her rank and experience."

When asked if the action was related to poor leadership, Army Lt. Col. Steve Boylan said no.

"Her being relieved of command is not a disciplinary action and had nothing to do with the soldiers refusing to drive the convoy," said Boylan, a spokesman for Multinational Forces in Iraq. "If she had not made this request, she'd still be in command of that company."

Boylan said he did not know if her request had been made before or after Oct. 13, when the incident occurred.

In an e-mailed statement, the Army said, "The outgoing commander is not suspected of misconduct, and the move has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of anyone involved."

Soldiers and family members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company have identified the officer as Capt. Nancy Daniels.

Army Reserve Sgt. Richard Hoffman of Charlotte, a member of the 343rd, identified Daniels as his commander and said she took command when the company was deployed in December. A soldier's relative also identified Daniels as the company's commander.

Spc. Major Coates of Mount Holly is one of 18 soldiers involved in the incident. Stephanie Parks, fiancee of Major Coates' father, Johnny, said news of the reassignment surprised the couple.

"It didn't have to go that far," she said, adding that families had only wanted to see that soldiers are properly equipped and treated fairly.

Parks said the fact that a leadership change occurred was comforting. "They don't need to fight Iraqis and the government, too," she said.

Some military experts say an Army company commander being relieved of command is anything but routine.

"It's a career ender. I hope she has a day job," said Jeffrey Addicott, a former Army lawyer and director for the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University. "I'd say that in 99.9 percent of the instances in which an officer is relieved of command, they'll never again be promoted."

Addicott said the change in command could indicate how the Army may be handling the soldiers who disobeyed orders.

"The military has to take this situation seriously," said Addicott, a former Green Beret. "You can't be in command and have 18 of your soldiers refuse a direct order in combat. ... This thing is a political pinata; I can't imagine there not being courts-martial."