Posted on 03/07/2006 6:20:50 PM PST by Former Military Chick
A judge in San Antonio has denied the request of a former Fort Sam Houston soldier to force the Army to release her as a conscientious objector.
U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled Friday that Pfc. Katherine Jashinski, 23, did not prove she has a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participating in war.
The judge previously refused to block orders that shipped her to Fort Benning, Ga.
There, Jashinski has refused to participate in weapons training in preparation for deployment to Afghanistan. She has been charged with "missing movement" and faces a court-martial, said J.E. McNeil, executive director of the Center on Conscience & War, a Washington-based group that has supported the rights of conscientious objectors for decades.
Jashinski, of Wisconsin, enlisted in 2002 in the Texas Army National Guard for six years. She says her beliefs evolved and that she later took the position that she did not support killing or war.
The Army denied her request for conscientious objector status, saying she wasn't sincere and that she declared only after learning her unit was activated.
Frankly, anyone who does not want to serve heart and sole, well, do not put them along side my beloved. I just wouldn't feel as though they would have his six.
imho
bttt
Part of being a grown-up is accepting consequences. She should serve her time in the lock-up with her head up.
Its a volunteer service. If they volunteer, they can't later claim they didn't mean it, just when their unit is about to deploy. But if their change of heart is sincere, they should plead guilty to whatever is the charge and do their time.
PING!!!
Exactly.
They need to stop wasting time on this puke.
6 + 6 and a kick.
I sure don't see her functioning in any capacity anywhere in the military.
Joining any military service with the idea of not being required to fight is a very stupid idea.
Yes, it is ... she volunteered I just do not get it.
She should spend some time in Leavenworth. This is essentially desertion in time of war. I think five years would be about right. That's how much time I spent in the ROK.
So this CO deserves what she get's eh?
I don't consider the folks on the lamb in Canada to be bonified COs. True COs still find a way to serve. They can serve as corp medics or apply for other services that will accomodate their wish not to be involved in the taking of a life. Those services are honorable.
Countless COs served in Vietnam. I have a family member that served at Fort Detrick, Maryland by submitting to medical testing under a program approved for COs.
Some people have the mistaken idea that all COs are simply trying to avoid serving in a combat zone. Many COs have served there. As I understand it, some of them did so without a weapon. That's not a shirker in my book.
As for this woman, I'm not impressed.
This is the accounting of one such individual. When it comes to COs and those who seek to tranish their service, I have to step in and explain that COs are NOT what some people try to make them out to be, by using that status for cover.
COs have served with incredible distinction. Most are never recognized for that special service.
http://www.historynet.com/vn/bltombennett/
Totally rocking point that had escaped me. If she took the money for education than for darn sure she needs to either pay it back or pay it back and go to jail.
imho
The problem that I see is that she might just get separated with a bad discharge. Once upon a time that would keep you from getting a job. Now a lot of places would hire a dishonorably discharged CO over a decorated Vet.
Ping
At least 70% of Army jobs do not involve pointing a gun at anyone. She could cross train to become a cook or a medic.. or a recruiter!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.