Another Conscientious Objector case

[SEATUX]

OBITUARIES

Dale E. Noyd, 73; Air Force captain became conscientious objector
during Vietnam War

From the Associated Press

January 30, 2007

Dale E. Noyd, a decorated Air Force captain and fighter pilot who
during the Vietnam War became the first conscientious objector to
oppose a specific conflict, has died. He was 73.

Noyd died Jan. 11 in Seattle of complications of emphysema, his son
Erik told the New York Times.

Noyd was given a medal for successfully landing a badly damaged
nuclear-armed F-100 fighter at an English airfield. He also taught
psychology at the Air Force Academy.

But in 1966, after 11 years in the Air Force, Noyd asked that he
either be allowed to resign his commission or be classified as a
conscientious objector because of his feelings about the Vietnam War.
His request was denied and Noyd took his case to federal court in
Denver in March 1967.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented him, said it
was the first lawsuit claiming conscientious objector status because
of an opposition to a specific war. In December 1967, the Supreme
Court refused to hear the case, saying the military had jurisdiction.

Then the Air Force ordered Noyd to train a pilot who was likely on
the path toward Vietnam. Noyd refused and was court-martialed for
disobeying orders.

During his military trial, the captain's belief that the war was
immoral and illegal was not addressed. The panel of 10 officers, who
were all Vietnam veterans, also did not allow discussion of Noyd's
humanist beliefs.

Noyd, a native of Wenatchee, Wash., was sentenced March 9, 1968, to a
year in prison. He was also given a dishonorable discharge and
stripped of his pension and benefits.

After completing his sentence, he spent much of the next two decades
teaching at Earlham College in Richmond, Ind. He later built a boat
and sailed to Tahiti.

In addition to his son, he is survived by a daughter, a brother and
five grandchildren.

[SEATUX]

For those of you that have never served let me explain something. An enlisted man has a date of discharge assigned him the day he enlists, an officer has to apply for a discharge. It may have changed since I served, but it used to be all men (between ages something and something) were “obligated to 6 years military service” (I wonder if woman have gained equal rights on this front) This man served more than that (11 years) and they refused to accept his request for discharge, instead ended up sentencing him to jail. If you know anything about court marshals, they are more of a kangaroo court than anything else, your defense lawyers (military officers) are committing career suicide trying to actually get you acquitted.

[mcjaret]

Sorry, Seatux, but I have to waive the bullshit flag on that one. Military defense counsel are assigned to an entirely separate reporting chain to give them the independence to do their jobs and commit career suicide if they DON'T try their utmost to win an acquital. Having prosecuted and defended cases in Military Courts, US Federal District courts and State Courts, the best lawyering I ever saw came from those military defense counsel you just falsely smeared.

Military courts are also some of the fairest proceedings around. Many of the protections afforded civilian defendants today, placed there by the US Supreme Court to protect their constitutional rights, were modeled after protections the military had adopted previously to be fair to military members accused of an offense.

F. Lee Bailey, who, before the liquor took over, was a damn good lawyer and a former Marine fighter pilot, once said that were he innocent he'd prefer to be tried by a military court as they would be far more likely to uncover the truth. If he were guilty, he'd prefer a civilian court as those juries are easier to fool.

Regular officers serve at the pleasure of the President. After going through some training or after they've paid to transfer you across the country, often there is a payback period before you can resign.

Political or humanistic beliefs are not a defense to disobeying orders and are therefore not relevant as evidence. After 11 years, he knew what he was getting into, chose that path, and got what he should have expected.

[ANGERCON]

Political or humanistic beliefs are not a defense to disobeying orders and are therefore not relevant as evidence. After 11 years, he knew what he was getting into, chose that path, and got what he should have expected.:thumps: i could not have said it better myself. people need to realize that when you sign up for the millitary that you are entering an organization that was created and maintained to fight wars. if that is against your beliefs, than go join the peace corps.

[mrfish87]

Bet the objectors dont object to the paycheck they get twice a month

[SEATUX]

Sorry, Seatux, but I have to waive the bullshit flag on that one.
Regular officers serve at the pleasure of the President. After going through some training or after they've paid to transfer you across the country, often there is a payback period before you can resign.



Oh....I get it now... He can retire and receive a full pension and full medical benefits after 20 years of service, but they wouldn’t let him out after serving only 11 years 'cause he may still owe them something for training or a transfer across the country?! So what do you think, maybe he would have paid the debt off after 12 years of active duty and they would have honored his request for discharge (with no pension and no health benefits etc AND having serve TWICE the 6 years obligated by law)? I'm sure you’re right, they weren’t trying to make and example of him or anything. Just think though, the first 12 years are just paying off a training debt, so the last 8 years is when he earns all the retirement and medical benefits? WOW!
PS
Just how do you suppose this officer was able to "Pay off his debt" when the last year was spent in the slammer?

[mulefeathers]

Why should they have let him out? He requested to resign his commission at a time when people were being drafted. He was denied that right then refused a direct order to train a pilot because he did not believe in the war.

This would not be much difference then me asking my boss if I could leave early him saying no. It seems that it was his job and if doesn't do his job he should be ready to face whatever consequences come from him disobeying direct orders.

They probably did make an example of him but if they don't them everybody just says I don't think this is right and the discipline and the order of the service breaks down.

[SEATUX]

Why should they have let him out? He requested to resign his commission at a time when people were being drafted.

Because he served more than the 6 years obligated by law!
Because draft or not other service men were being discharged, honerably, after spending 2 years of being drafted or 4 years of enlistment service!

[mulefeathers]

I will agree with that but if someone with more knowledge than I could explain the enlistment terms.

If he served the first 6 years and at that time enlisted for another 6 this incident took place with him having 1 year left to serve. Although I don't know how air force officers terms work. But that doesn't take away the fact he still disobeyed direct orders.

[SEATUX]

Like I said before, an enlisted man has a date of discharge on his military ID card, it can be two years if he was drafted, it can be 4 years if he enlisted, sometimes you can get an "early” discharge on paper and then re-up for a duty assignment that would have outlasted your DOD, thus ending up with close to a 6 year enlistment. But officers don’t have a term, they have to resign there commission, he tried to do that, after he had already spent more than the 6 year MAXIMUM term required by law. They refused his request, only to make an example of him.

[mulefeathers]

They refused his request, only to make an example of him.
Or perhaps they just needed him. Perhaps he was the best pilot and the best teacher they had. I don't know but I do know that when you sign up to serve in the military yo give up a lot of freedoms that others have. One of those freedoms is the ability to quit when you get ready. I am fairly certain that he was informed at the time of enlistment that as a commissioned officer you have to request the ability to resign and there is always the chance you could be turned down.

By the way nice boat.

[SEATUX]

Re; being made and example of,
Say you enlisted for 4 years, completed your enlistment and got out. By law you had 2 theoretical years of service left and thus had to register with the draft and be on inactive reserve for the next two years. There have been individuals that failed (for what ever reason, ignorance of the law or defiance of it) to register for the draft and actually did get drafted and had to spend 2 more years in the Army after already serving 4 in the Air Force or Navy. But that’s someone not following the law, this guy spent his 11 years in the service.

[SeaAggie]

Officers dont enlist. Before this new CAC ID came out, the expiration date on your card said indefinate.

As an officer that recently resigned after 8 years of service, I can give some insite. When you submit your resignation from a regular commission, you must justify why you want to leave the service. The smart thing to do is to just say "to pursue another career". If you use your resignation to get up on a soap box you should expect some negative attention.

Every tour has a minimum obligation. For example my last assignment in the Navy was a 2 year tour and since the navy moved me they required me to serve all 2 years before considering a resignation.

I still love the Navy and the military and knew was I was getting into when I raised my right hand and took the oath.

In an all volunteer military there is no such thing as a Conscientious Objector!!!!!!!

[SEATUX]

Or perhaps they just needed him. Perhaps he was the best pilot and the best teacher they had. I don't know but I do know that when you sign up to serve in the military yo give up a lot of freedoms that others have.

If he was the best pilot / teacher they had it didnt do them any good with him in jail. And you are sooooo right about giving up alot of freedoms when your in the military.

[mulefeathers]

If he was the best pilot / teacher they had it didnt do them any good with him in jail. And you are sooooo right about giving up alot of freedoms when your in the military.

Well I will agree that he was not doing them any good in jail but they knew where he was.

[SEATUX]

Officers dont enlist. Before this new CAC ID came out, the expiration date on your card said indefinate.

As an officer that recently resigned after 8 years of service, I can give some insite. When you submit your resignation from a regular commission, you must justify why you want to leave the service. The smart thing to do is to just say "to pursue another career". If you use your resignation to get up on a soap box you should expect some negative attention.



Indefinate, like I said. (He was in before the new CAC ID came out), You got out after 8 years, (you did the "smart thing") he served more than 30% longer than you did ,when they let you resign your commission. But he didnt do the "smart thing", so he did the 1 year in jail thing.

[ANGERCON]

very simply, he knew what he was doing when he passed his six year mark, and his eight year mark, and his ten year mark yet he decided to remain in the service. also like seaaggie said, The smart thing to do is to just say "i want out to pursue another career". but no he had to turn the whole situation into a pitty party, and say it was against his beliefs. if you ask my this whiney b!tch got what he deserved.

[mcjaret]

Most officers, with the exception of academy grads, come in as reserve officers and have a contract date to leave active service. During that period, you compete to obtain a regular commission. Regular officers have no contract date to leave the service. They have sold their souls. They stay till they retire, get passed over twice and are forced out, or are allowed to resign. They serve at the pleasure of the president. People in critical MOS's (like pilots who are costly to train and take a long time to be operational) may not be released whenever they want in times of conflict. If you accept certain training mid-stream (like perhaps training to fly a new plane), you agree to give up the right to resign for some period. On transfer to a new duty station, that's normally 2 years. If you accept a promotion, again 2 years. If they send you to school, 2 years of obligation for every year in school. I have no idea, this many years later, why he was denied resignation. It doesn't matter. He knowingly disobeyed orders to train. That is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Commanders cannot just overlook wilfull disobedience otherwise chaos would result. An 11 year officer knows that and knows that if he does this, he will be court-martialed and probably cashiered out.

Its like sticking your finger in a light socket and then crying to the world because it shocked you. This isn't all that uncommon except for the rank. Lots of immature kids decide they don't like the military in the middle of their initial contracts. Some of them decide to get out no matter what and either disobey orders or just go UA repeatedly (unauthorized absence). Eventually, after some disciplinary action, they are discharged with bad paper. Life's tough, and its tougher when you're stupid.

Why are you sympathetic to someone who made an informed choice knowing the end result? He got exactly what he expected. He decided it was worth it to him. If someone blows off their computer, stays way over no stop limits, and shoots to the surface, he's probably going to get bent. I may feel sorry for his family who has to deal with the mess, but I don't feel sorry for the idiot who knew better, but did it anyway.

[Kevin Casey]

Having prosecuted and defended cases in Military Courts, US Federal District courts and State Courts, the best lawyering I ever saw came from those military defense counsel...

Have you ever been in a position to give private counsel to an individual prior to them having made their own decision that was eventually found to have been unlawful?

If so, what was their mental state like at that point?

The reason I ask is because their mental state has to be an issue. I have always believed that a person's intent prior to their decisions is a contributing factor in both their decisions as well as the effects of their decision. If a person is terribly confused, misinformed or emotionally distraught, that could be a mitigating factor in not only their prosecution and/or their defense, but in their penality as well.

Flat out saying "NO, I won't do this any more..." is something different altogether.

What if someone who was so distraught with anxiety simply couldn't function any longer mentally and made mistakes?

I realize that their emotional state may not be admissable as evidence, but what about their mental state?

[SeaAggie]

Have you ever been in a position to give private counsel to an individual prior to them having made their own decision that was eventually found to have been unlawful?

If so, what was their mental state like at that point?

The reason I ask is because their mental state has to be an issue. I have always believed that a person's intent prior to their decisions is a contributing factor in both their decisions as well as the effects of their decision. If a person is terribly confused, misinformed or emotionally distraught, that could be a mitigating factor in not only their prosecution and/or their defense, but in their penality as well.

Flat out saying "NO, I won't do this any more..." is something different altogether.

What if someone who was so distraught with anxiety simply couldn't function any longer mentally and made mistakes?

I realize that their emotional state may not be admissable as evidence, but what about their mental state?

LMAO :lol:

So now he is disloyal and crazy?

Something that bleeding heart liberals forget.... EVERYONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS!!!!!!

[mcjaret]

I've lost count of the times I've told people to do something or not to do something who ignored my advice and wound up in big trouble later.

I think you are getting several legal concepts mixed up. There is such a thing as "mens Rea" or guilty mind. Some crimes don't require any bad intent at all. Some are general intent crimes which means you just have to intended to do what you did and not the specific outcome of your actions. Some crimes are specific intent meaning you must intend the actual consequences of your action.

Being emotinally confused could be presented in extenuation and mitigation before sentencing. Unless you're actually certifiable, its not a defense -- it just made what you did "less" bad.

Even in the Air Force, an 11 year officer who was denied resignation, who fought it through the courts and lost, knew exactly what was coming when he disobeyed orders to train. You don't get confused about that. Confused is when you're half in the bag and meet a girl in the bar who looks and claims to be 24 but turns out to be 15. But, that's not a defense either.

[Kevin Casey]

mcjaret, You're correct, I know nothing about the law. I find it very interesting though, from an academic sense. My question about it to you was just about that, and nothing more. I am not really opinionated one way or another regarding the individual in question. Thank you for your answer.

seaaggie, you're a douche bag.

[SeaAggie]

seaaggie, you're a douche bag.

Is that your opinion...."from an academic sense"?

Or are you "someone who was so distraught with anxiety simply couldn't function any longer mentally and made mistakes?"

[Got Ya]

He is a joke. He knows what he is doing. He is an Officer and en has been in the military long enough. What is a shame, is that he ihas been paid to do a job under contract. Regardless. The war is not "illegal" The president and congress voted it in. Congress is now saying that it was a mistake. Well, decissions are made with the information available. They need to tough it out or fix it. Not to cut and run.
It is My opinion is that we should lock him in Federal prision. For at least his remaining years in the military with out pay to him or his family. He should loose all government retirement and benefits. He owes it to the American people for all his training/pay and not fullfilling his side of the contract to us.

[Kevin Casey]

Is that your opinion...."from an academic sense"?

YES, that is my opinion!

That is my interest in this discussion.

Are you sensitive because I called you a douche bag?

I realize that my interest is only just slightly off from the general theme of the topic of this thread, which is about the guy who was found derelict from his military duties.

mcjaret has an insight into this from the inside. I am very interested in what he had to say, from a legal sense.

The civilian law is one thing, and military law is something else. He knows both.

FWIW, my opinion about this guy, if you need to know, is....

So what?

I never had an opportunity to decide on military service. The draft ended before I graduated from high school, and I went off to college. I was a freshman in college at 16 years old in 1976. I was too young to join then, too broke to think, and too stupid to function... I fit perfectly in that weird time frame in our history where everything was all screwed up.

Now, I believe that the military provides an opportunity to achieve for those who have the fire for it. If an officer loses the drive to achieve, or if anybody looses their drive to achieve, there is always someone moving up to take their place. You have to stay hungry.

If it matters to you, I really feel like I missed out.

So this guy lost it. Ok, well get him outa there. He got himself out, or a little bit of both. Do whatever to him....so what?

But from a legal sense, it sounds like there was a violation of a military contract thing at the basis of the dispute between this guy and his employer. He just refused his work. Thats a civil thing in my uninformed mind. The military put him in jail for a civil violation? Jail is the consequence of a criminal thing.

So there is a big difference in the military court and its laws and civilian courts and our laws. Yes, the topic is interesting!

No one grows up in a closet, so we all have learned what is right and what is wrong. The law is based on a combination of logic and historical presidence and fundamental justice and who knows what else, like psychology and maybe mental and emotional stuff.....?

mcjaret said that everyone tries their best at all levels there, and it was the best stuff he had ever seen.

So what, seaAggie, I can't ask a question?

If you were in the Army and your Commanding Officer told you to get your sorry ass in court and defend someone, could you do your level best and be good at it?

sea rock!

[SEATUX]

He is a joke. He knows what he is doing. He is an Officer and en has been in the military long enough. What is a shame, is that he ihas been paid to do a job under contract. Regardless. The war is not "illegal" The president and congress voted it in. Congress is now saying that it was a mistake. Well, decissions are made with the information available. They need to tough it out or fix it. Not to cut and run.
It is My opinion is that we should lock him in Federal prision. For at least his remaining years in the military with out pay to him or his family. He should loose all government retirement and benefits. He owes it to the American people for all his training/pay and not fullfilling his side of the contract to us.

Too bad you don’t know what this thread is about, (and thus what your talking about) had you read it from the top maybe you would know it’s not about this war, but the Viet Nam POLICE ACTION (NEVER WAS DECLARED A WAR).

[mcjaret]

The "police action" was what Truman called Korea. He almost never lived it down. To my knowledge, Viet Nam was never officially referred to as a police action. It may not have been declared but it was a war.

Military service members do sacrifice various civil rights while on active duty. In the civilian world you can quit work anytime you want. There may be financial consequences for breaking your contract, but its not a crime. In the military, it is a crime. Not doing what your boss tells you or being late for work or giving the boss a piece of your mind isn't criminal for a civilian but is in the service. Military members sacrifice those rights so the rest of you can enjoy them. Effective combat organizations cannot exist where everyone in the landing craft has a vote about what to do next. As George Orwell said, "freedom exists because rough men stand ready to do violence in its defense."

[Got Ya]

SeaTux- You are right. I thought you were talking about this newest officer officer not to go to war. My appologies to this Thread.

[SeaAggie]

Sea rock?

Casey, unlike you, I do have insite from the inside. Although I dont have the legal knowledge that mcjaret has, I have the basic knowledge that every officer that took the oath should have about his commitments and duty.

Am I offended at being called a douchebag? Yes, but not as offended as I am when I read about officers disgracing the rest of the military officer corps and the having press taking up their cause.

I really love it when the press tries to explain military justice. They really freak out when they hear about non-judicial punishment.

Casey,

In my response to your first post, I was asking a rhetorical question. Many people that are not familiar with the military try to apply things they have learned in the civilian world. One of the things I liked in the military was that there was very little interpretation of the rules. For the most part things were black and white.

Society for the most part today seems to feel there must be a special reason to blame if someone does something wrong.

[Kevin Casey]

OK, well listen, no problem with any of what you just said.

This is what ticked me off;

[QUOTE=SeaAggie]LMAO :lol:

Something that bleeding heart liberals forget.... QUOTE]

I thought you laughed at me and labeled me for asking a question.

I make every effort to make informed, intelligent choices when I vote, and intelligent questions when I'm curious or interested in a topic.

I think the phrase; "...bleeding heart liberal..." is just another media rhetoric things that is intended to aggrivate. I try to look past those things when I'm into the news and get to the facts about issues. It sounds like you may feel the same way about the media regarding when they try to explain military justice.

OK, so now what?

I'm a general enlisted punk and I just got into my first fist fight with an officer.

Am I screwed?

[SEATUX]

OK, well listen, no problem with any of what you just said.

This is what ticked me off;

[QUOTE=SeaAggie]

OK, so now what?

I'm a general enlisted punk and I just got into my first fist fight with an officer.

Am I screwed?

Your Screwed

[stickitfishy]

LMAO :lol:

So now he is disloyal and crazy?

Something that bleeding heart liberals forget.... EVERYONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS!!!!!!


Bush and Cheney are in some deep shit then, huh?

[mcjaret]

How much money ya got?

Generally, striking an officer is one of those things you JUST DON'T DO if you like to see the sunshine. In most cases it doesn't matter how or why it happened, but there are a few ways around it. (e.g. you were both drunk in town, in civilian clothes, and didn't know each other. He never identified himself as an officer. He then walked up, grabbed your wife by the breasts and swung a beer bottle at you.) If the Col was sitting at the end of the bar and saw the whole thing, maybe you've got a chance. Otherwise, you're screwed.

[Kevin Casey]

OK, so I screwed up.

Big time!

Lets just say, for the sake of the arguement, that I've been a great soldier by anyone's account prior to this point. I've got all the physical tools and smarts and loyality and everything else that the military wants to have in someone.

I'm just a little too cocky though, and tend to get myself in jams like this.

Basically, because I'm a risk taker, and a little on the edge.

All of this is purely hypothetical....

So, would the general consensus be to go for punishment and all that entails, or stick me in some high risk special ops unit where my skills would be utilized, and I would be challenged to my level of ability?

There is a big difference between someone that looses their drive and wants out, like the original guy at the begining of this story, and this hypothetical in my opinion.

I'm not saying its appropriate to disrespect authority and try to get away with anything, but it just seems that the intense prosecution and intense punishment that is associated with both of these types of cases, although totally different, may be overlooking the potential these individuals still have.

[Kevin Casey]

OK, so I screwed up.

Big time!

Lets just say, for the sake of the arguement, that I've been a great soldier by anyone's account prior to this point. I've got all the physical tools and smarts and loyality and everything else that the military wants to have in someone.

I'm just a little too cocky though, and tend to get myself in jams like this.

Basically, because I'm a risk taker, and a little on the edge.

All of this is purely hypothetical....

So, would the general consensus be to go for punishment and all that entails, or stick me in some high risk special ops unit where my skills would be utilized, and I would be challenged to my level of ability?

There is a big difference between someone that looses their drive and wants out, like the original guy at the begining of this story, and this hypothetical in my opinion.

I'm not saying its appropriate to disrespect authority and try to get away with anything, but it just seems that the intense prosecution and intense punishment that is associated with both of these types of cases, although totally different, may be overlooking the potential these individuals still have.

[Wayward Son]

Your individual potential doesn't amount to a fart in a whirlwind, if you can't control yourself enough to keep order in the ranks.

Striking a superior officer, you leave them little choice but to hammer your ass. It's not about you, it's about the big picture.

[Bill McIntyre]

I gotta agree with Wayward Son on this one.

In the first place, I doubt that you have a choice between being punished or going to a Special Ops unit.

In the second place, Special Ops missions require a lot of discipline and impulse control.

[Erasmus]

As a former enlisted man I can say that the young boot looks to the officers for leadership. If they object and get out on moral grounds why cant I?

Leadership by example; and on that note he was a pilot, dangerous job but if a bunch of drafted grunt in the jungle had noticed that he got off, a lot more people would suddenly have "moral objections".

He signed on, had a commitment and made his decision, I am sure he was fine with it. If you really want to look where military courts did screw up look at the history of the USS Indianopolis during WWII and their Capt. Or the Commander in Chief of Pearl Harbor, they were scapegoats, but this guy made his own bed.

Overall I agree that the Military Courts are fair and I had charges brought against for me for assaulting an NCO. Yes, I hit him so yes I was guilty, the reasons why are not important, I broke a law and I made that bed. I dont regret it either and I doubt your man does either.

[mcjaret]

My best friend was a grunt with the 173rd in Nam - 1970. He thumped a 90 day wonder Sgt. As he was a great field soldier, his Capt didn't court-martial him. He did, however, make him walk point for the next 9 months. Despite this virtual death sentence, he lived to tell about it. As I said, he was a great field soldier.

That being said, assault on a superior is generally an automatic disqualifier for any elite force and a straight ticket to the brig. If you can't handle the stress of the rear, why would anyone trust you to handle to stress of high intensity combat? Besides if they don't hammer you, the rest of the men see that as a free pass to thump the officers. Military discipline is about what's best for the group to make it combat effective. The individual isn't really important in the great scheme of things.

Patton once said that every commander should be allowed 3 unexplained rounds a quarter. If he can be trusted to make decisions that he knows will send hundreds or thousands to their deaths, he ought be be able to decide to get rid of the occasional shitbird.