Maybe he should try another defence...
 

I think he'll probably end up in a military prison using the defence that the war is unprovoked and illegal (despite the validity of the argument).
However, what if he instructed his defence lawyer that he was not prepared to serve in Iraq because his own forces were pesently operating in a 'lawless' or 'anarchic' manner? By this I mean they are assassinating, kidnapping, torturing, murdering civilians and generally applying force which is massively disproportionate to the task - in contavention of military and civil law and probably the Geneva convention too? The Marines (alleged) recent re-run of Mai Lai and the introduction of ethics instruction for their troops would seem to support such a defence.
He's on a hiding to nothing arguing that the war itself is illegal, but an SAS trooper recently escaped criminal charges when he refused to serve alongside the Americans for much the same reasons as I've described above.
Will be interesting to watch....

He went to OCS in mid-'03 after graduation from college, well after OIF kicked off. His DOR of 1LT is June '05. He hasn't exactly been liking his "paycheck until he was told he would have to actually earn it...", he's been trying to resign since January. Not that that makes him any less of a :mad:!

Only in America, eh?

29 May 2006
EXCLUSIVE: DESERTER STORM
EXCLUSIVE 932 soldiers missing in 3yrs Iraq & bullies 'shatter morale'
By Bob Edwards And Nick Sommerlad

Hold West, wasn't the point being made that he enlisted after the war kicked off, and then decided he didn't want to go. The report on the UK forces doesn't state how many of those signed up after the war started, and then decided to desert.

Maple,

While the weapons may have been found, there's been no confirmed evidence (offered to us mere mortals) that they actually contained anything. When found, it was suspected that they may have done, and then it went quiet.

And while Saddam's posession of Al Samoud and Al Fatah missiles (even though these were not operationally deployed) was a breach of UNSC resolutions, and was thus a good excuse to go in, but that was not the reason that our politicians gave for our intervention. The democratic legitimacy of the war as we fought it was founded on the supposed fact that Iraq presented a clear and present danger to us, with WMD that were deployed and ready for use.

Moreover, with the CIA circumventing international law and the norms of civilised behaviour by kidnapping and torturing suspects, the USA is leaving itself open to some of its servicemen deciding that this was not what they joined up to serve and protect.

Maybe the Guy is an Anti-War Protester who enlisted to set this up?
 

A third possibility is not out of the question. Perhaps he is an anti-war protester who enlisted to set up this opportunity to protest the war. After all, it is very effective in gathering the media to listen to his protest message.

I find it hard to believe he is so stupid as to not understand he would be called upon to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan since he enlisted after the war kicked off.

To answer the original question:

Coward.

The war is legal. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to review the UN resolutions with a lawyer.

Self important prat milking his 15 minutes of fame.

Yes, of course - but I'll bet out of nearly a thousand, more than a few did.

A little sensitive eh Holdwest, take a breath and chill fella:p

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...ight=desertion

Alternatively hop over to ARRSE and read the thread on the mythical '1000 Deserters' talel - seems the BBC don't know the difference between AWOL and deserting and contradict themselves, actually the highest number of desertion/AWOL happened before GW2 as they now freely admit - pity they didn't make the retraction as big a splash as the inital story........

Bolleaux, my dear boy.

Exactly which of Saddam's weapons systems came from the US? Please tell me.

Aircraft? Mostly Soviet, some French (Mirage).
Tanks and APC? Soviet
Small arms? Soviet
Artillery? Mostly Soviet, some South African
SAMS? Soviet and French

The US did not arm Saddam and you know it.

As for Lt. Ehren Watada, there's nothing wrong with him that couldn't be fixed with 10 years in Leavenworth busting rocks.

Bit of a conundrum. Which would you rather fight against? Crapped out Soviet kit? French or Swiss kit, or your own that you know how it works and have trained with and against?

Rumour, many, many years ago was the French built all their kit with a national command override. Get one of your own in the sights and switch off their kit.

Ditto British training. Arab country flying Hunters. QFI tells all stude pilots, 'when you get into this situation pull up and roll to the right'. That way he knew which way the guy would go if he had to fight him in the future.

"The report on the UK forces doesn't state how many of those signed up after the war started, and then decided to desert"


I don't see any moral high ground held by someone who deserts prior to the kickoff of hostilities and one who does it after. When you sign on the dotted line you should know you then become an instrument of your governments policy makers.

Quite so!

NC43

I certainly knew what I was signing up for - am I an Instrument or a tool though?:}

Blunties are clearly instruments.

Geddit?

Therefore aircrew must be tools....

Oh bol.locks.

I'll get me coat.

Hero or coward?

Possible neither, however, I'd lean more towards the latter.

A). He volunteered, took Uncle's training, commission and money. All with his informed consent.
B). Waiting until his unit recieves deployment notification to decide the conflict is illegal looks like a case of 'white feather' presentation.

Either way, he hasn't deserted, but failing to make a movement will get him a nice room in Leavenworth. Deservedly so.

I think out American cousins might like an explanation of the term PLONKER. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as n. course slang 1 derog. a foolish or inept person. 2 The Penis. I believe that in the days of old, early forms of Condoms were also classed as PLONKERS. I am sure Tony Draper would be able to confirm this!