James Branum; lawyer to malcontents
You’ve probably been wondering who is defending these “resisters” who are being prosecuted by the military during their court cases. For Victor Agosto, Travis Bishop, Robin Long, Cliff Cornell, and pot smoking deserter Ryan Jackson, it’s been James M. Branum, who calls himself the GI Rights Lawyer. He’s also a co-chair of the Military Law Task Force branch of the communist National Lawyer’s Guild.
So who is James Branum? In his own words;
If I had to describe myself, I would say that I’m an old style (as in cir. 1912) Oklahoma Agrarian Socialist. My primary political influenced has been the Jesus. I believe his way of radical peace, love and sharing could change the world. I also draw a great deal from the writings of Wendell Berry, Thomas Jefferson, Thoreau, Buddha and even Marx (but mostly second-hand when it comes to Marx). In modern terms, I guess I fit best in the Green Party, but I don’t really dig the way the Green Party (at least nationally does things), and in many ways fit better with the anarchist approach of the Catholic Worker Movement and the Wobblies.I believe strongly in both the sanctity of life, but take it further than many do. True peace includes both a spiritual element and an economic element, because true peace can only come when everybody had enough and no one goes hungry.
Yeah, that’s why Osama bin Laden attacked us – he was hungry. That’s why Saddam Hussein attacked Iran and Kuwait and his own people – he was hungry. That’s why the Serbs attacked the Kosovars – Milosevic was hungry. It all seems so simple, doesn’t it?
So, here’s Branum giving advice to the YouTube audience last year on “resisting”. He talks about people who didn’t do any jail time – unfortunately for his clients, none of the people who didn’t go to jail were Branum’s clients. He also discusses how liberating Thoreau claims he found prison – Branum’s clients will more than likely get that same feeling Thoreau felt;
Anyway, what has this lawyer, James Branum, done for his clients? So far, he’s had a 100% success rate getting them all imprisoned. In fact, he’s managed to get all of them max sentences. When I wrote about Branum last month, before the Victor Agosto court martial, he’d already had four clients get the max sentences. Since then, Agosto got 30 days, and now Travis Bishop got a year in prison.
Here’s one of the statements Branum posted after Bishop was convicted;
To everyone who still cares:
I can not say that a year in prison doesn’t scare me: I am terrified. I just cried in the bathroom so no one could see.
But still, though I am terrified, it would be scarier still to know that my fellow soldiers who feel as we feel would never find out what we are trying to accomplish had I not gone to prison.
Everyone who hears or reads this should know that I love you all, and my life is forever changed because of you.
Victor and myself are starting something big . . . and it is now up to all of you to continue on.
With all of my heart,
Travis [Bishop]
So, ya know, ya hafta wonder why these clowns are hiring an incompetent doofus lawyer that gets them the max sentence every single time. Why pay someone to do the exact same thing an Army lawyer would do for free?
I guess it’s because they ain’t all that bright – like Branum;
If all of Branum clients are in jail, it just makes it easier to visit them;
And in a movement that doesn’t require success, intentions are all that matter;
Category: Antiwar crowd, Liberals suck, Military issues, Phony soldiers, Usual Suspects
I’m not much on name calling and character assassination. I’ll leave that to honorable people who hide behind fake names. It’s not good that the people deployed don’t get relieved but you volunteered, right? That’s what Cheney said. What GOOD does it do to put someone in military prison who doesn’t want to volunteer? I say it doesn’t do any good. It’s vindictive and you still don’t get relieved and then the Army is saddled with the burden of storing these people and more detractors are created. If we were really defending our country everyone would be required to go conquer the Middle East. I say your contracts should be at-will. Just like working at Mickey-D’s. I say you should get rid of the CO process. That reminds me of an inquisition and think of all the lawyers we could free up. I don’t think people should be stop-lossed either. Maybe the declining economy will force more people into the “voluntary” military in another year or two. You can hope we go bankrupt and you will be relieved. I don’t like the fact that these wars are taking place and I think our occupation of the Middle East is going to make things worse. Edward Gibbon, author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, described the Gothic persecution of the Jews in Spain where over ninety thousand Jews were forced to receive the sacrament of baptism, against their will. As Christianity began to flourish (305-712 AD) good Christians thought it would be a good idea to force their religion on a Jewish minority and “The Gothic kings and bishops” Gibbon recorded “at length discovered that injuries will produce hatred, and that hatred will find the opportunity of revenge” (Gibbon, 2:382). Forcing people to conform to a particular religion is no different than forcing a particular form of government on a foreign people and the injuries we inflict in our conquests will produce hatred and revenge. Things get worse. Not better. The Bush Doctrine aka freedom marching and preventive war is the stupidest mantra I’ve ever heard. The war… Read more »
David Hughey,
I think the sad truth is that the vast majority of AWOL and deserters are chaptered out without any court martial convictions. It’s common practice for competent JAG and civilian lawyers to push for a chapter 10 (separation in lieu of court martial) or other means for separation.
It’s when a civilian lawyer with no tangible military knowledge, an ax to grind, or both gets involved… even when the soldier goes and does something particularly goofy… that the AWOL goes through the court martial. Otherwise, it’s a clean break and the fight is focused on characterization of service.
OMG!!!! You are impossible to discuss this with. If you cannot get past the lie concerning the Constituionality of President Bush’s order, then there is no need to discuss this any further. You don’t agree with the military and how it operates (yeah, it’s been around a few years doing what it does, if you want to look at history), you don’t want to accept the current reality, you don’t like the wars, as I had stated previously and you confirmed; so, no one here likes war, since we are the ones that pay the price for it. You don’t and that’s fine.
Your analysis of what is and isn’t defense is a discussion better suited for folks that agree with you, because what I think is far different from what you think.
Yeah, you want to bellow on about the Constituion and we used to be a republican system of government. If you have such a fixation on that, go bitch to the current holders of the power, since having all these “Czars” is a flagrant workaround the Constitution.
You confuse democracy. Democracy is a tool, not the end. Allowing people to choose their form of government is democracy. We are a democratic republic and in so, we choose who will represent us. Is it perfect in current circumstances? Nope, but it’s the best solution out there. If you are soo upset with our government, then run for office. Change the game.
That you still don’t understand the concept of volunteering for military service makes any further discussion on it, moot. That you think it should be “at will” shows your ignorance of the military and its missions and objectives.
Stick to teaching history and getting it wrong.
That you think we are in “conquest mode” is laughable at it’s core.
Interesting that David references character assassination considering he’s loading the breach and essentially handing the weapon over to do the deed.
But to distill this down to the core; the military’s role is clear…they break shit and kill people at the direction of the civil authority. If someone has enlisted in the military within the last 175+ years, and didn’t think that they had a significant chance of being tasked to perform those functions, they have no one to blame but themselves. The military isn’t a public works program or a place to land if you have the worst fucking life-planning skills on the planet and can’t seem to score a job dropping fries at Mickey D’s. It’s not the place to engage in the politics of social change…it’s not the place to test out public engineering policies…or force special interest agendas into the mainstream. All of your amazingly interesting (sarcasm alert) Constitutional dissertation notwithstanding, the military isn’t a debate club, and your time to object to participating in its reindeer games was about 10 seconds before the ink dried on your enlistment papers. Boo-fucking-hoo.
Thanks Bob
Rock on old trooper…
Mr. Hughey has referenced the Founding Fathers’ intentions and inspirations several times in his posts. So I propose, his views on AWOL and desertion should be in line with that era if the views of the Founding Fathers are one of the keystones of his arguement. So thus, Mr. Hughey needs to support whipping with a lash or cat-o-nine tails for AWOL and to hung by the neck until dead for desertion.
In addition, Mr. Hughey your entire post numbered 51 is invalid in that all the arguements made are what you think (you say several times “I think…”). I believe it was mentioned that you are a teacher of some sort. That leads me to the question, did you fail Freshman Composition? That covers rhetoric and one of the main points they teach is that a valid arguement does express your opinion. A valid arguement is an objective statement supported by fact. In all honesty, no really cares what YOU want. Very few will ever be swayed by what you think, yet if you can make a statement and prove it then you will win over supporters. I could go on with teaching you basic writing but I tire of it. I suggest you enroll in a class at the nearest college or university and take whatever entry levels writing classes they offer.
Correction to the above “..a vaild arguement does…” should read “…does not…”. And please forgive my grammatical errors. I am a Mechanical Engineering student (3.75 GPA by the way) not an English major.
SGT Gary Walters(ret)
LA Army National Guard
“Scouts Out”
I bow to the logic of Claymore. Thanks for putting that into a shortened version of what I’ve been trying to tell him.
Thanks Gary… I never said I was a teacher. I think that is soemthing you all made up. And I forgot to ask Bob, what’s your last name?
I’ll go stand with Kevin Tillman for awhile and maybe I’ll be back. We still have a lot to discuss and if I get something wrong you can tell me what it is that I got wrong and I’ll correct it. Maybe some of you know Kevin personally. Kevin Tillman was one of your comrades in arms, remember. Pat Tillman’s brother. Surely you remember him. Kevin Tillman wrote a letter and it should by posted on all the military blogs. So in case you missed it you can read the entire letter here: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601019_after_pats_birthday/
Kevin Tillman wrote:
Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.
Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.
Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.
Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.
Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.
Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.
Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.
I’m sorry if my factual argument on the AWOL legal process was somewhow diminished because I do not properly identify myself. Like anything else you find on the Internet, you are free to choose whether to take my comments with a grain of salt or to be blinded by your online knowledge that James Branum must be the greatest military law practitioner on Earth as opposed to other lawyers who will take the same cases but handle it under the guise of military experience, knowledge and tact.
In regard to Kevin Tillman, yeah it is a shame his brother, like any of our fallen military, had to lose their lives, but what it comes down to is that you are citing one higher-profile man’s opinion. You are in essence using the death of his brother and the name recognition as a means of supporting your arguments.
Although I am choosing to remain anonymous as much as one can on the Internet, I am content with my level of military experience and professional ability in terms of my job and ability to see through garbage.
“:Anyone with a moral compass knows that the U.S. has violated international law without having to mention this.”
Except that you fail to acknowledge that the Gulf War ended on a cease fire not a declaration of peace. Treaty. Iraq did not follow those rules, and there fore we acted accordingly. Why do you think we had US fighters flying over Iraq for the better part of the 90s?
Also consider what the role the UN has played in the past and also why only a few nations have the veto power.
“It’s not good that the people deployed don’t get relieved but you volunteered, right? That’s what Cheney said. What GOOD does it do to put someone in military prison who doesn’t want to volunteer?”
Like I said above;The reason is that by trying to dodge a deployment that you accepted you would be willing to do by joining forces someone else to be away from their family. Because the military does not allow open slots in a deploying unit to remain empty. That is why they are getting punished because they are robbing someone else of a year from those they loved.
If your concerned about people getting stop lossed, why not join to allow then to leave the military or not have to deploy? That is one of the reason why I joined.
Holy leftard confusion, Batman…forgive me if I’m mistaken, but didn’t Tillman perish in A’stan? You know, the only Democrat Approved Theater Of War®? The one that the Teleprompter-in-Chief is pimping like the ShamWow tv guy?
Does no one read the “or per the needs of the Army” clause in their contract? I remember reading that and asking what exactly it meant and it was explained to me quite well. You know when I went to the recruiter and ASKED to join the military. (Don’t remember the actual wording of the clause but that is a general synopsis)
And to compare a military enlistment contract to a car sale is not a valid comparison. That is apples and oranges. And even running with the sales contract analogy, there are penalties for deciding you no longer want to fulfill your obligations under the contract. Obviously the penalties are more severe for not fulfilling your enlistment obligations as the nature of the contract is more of a much higher degree.
As to the arguement that these people feel the war or wars are illegal, wrong, immoral, etc, most of these individuals entered service AFTER these enagagements initiated. Then after enjoing the benefits of being in the armed service decided they didn’t want to participate in the very reason the armed services exist? I call bull on that.
I can go on and on about the multitude of reasons these people are wrong for their actions, but it is a waste of time. Those that support them do so out of their own beliefs and do not look at the facts of the situation.
And Mr. Hughey I expect an apology from you. If I was mistaken about your profession, you should have said that. The comment that “it is something you all made up” insinuates a deliberate attempt at falsehood. I simply misinterpretated something I had read in an earlier post. And who is “you all”, I have never had any interaction with any member of this forum outside of reading the blog and posts. By this criteria you yourself are in the group that makes up “you all”. So you helped make up the “lie” about you profession?
Sporkmaster… “The reason is that by trying to dodge a deployment that you accepted you would be willing to do by joining forces someone else to be away from their family. Because the military does not allow open slots in a deploying unit to remain empty. That is why they are getting punished because they are robbing someone else of a year from those they loved.” I copy that. I hear it. I’ve got a Roman story for you but it’s a little too long for this post. I don’t agree with what our government has done and I think it’s screwed things up royally-my opinion. And as someone pointed out I think too much. As for my contribution, the government has taken its tax money from me to pay your salaries. I hope everyone gets to come home—soon. I’d like to see everyone home by next week but that’s way out of control now. Bob… I was being asinine on your identity. Career military can’t speak out until after they retire or their careers suffer-my impression. They take their complaints to Senators, just like I do, and we see what good that does. PUBLIUS was a pen name Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison used and your factual presentation shows your experience…thx. I wasn’t trying to use Tillman’s death. I was citing his brother’s letter as an example of people changing their positions and you can point out that Kevin Tillman saw his contract through. We all make mistakes. If only all kids were as strong as the Tillman brothers…but not all kids enticed into the military are that strong or that mature. If they were we would be Spartans but we are Americans. I cite Vattel because he was an authority on international law that Madison, Jefferson, and Hamilton referenced constantly. Someone to be respected. I cite James Madison because I was taught that he is the father of our Constitution and the authority on it. Someone to be respected. I cited Kevin Tillman because he wrote a powerful letter and because he is someone to be respected. He believes… Read more »
John Lilyea, This is the first time I’ve ever actually seen or read this blog. I must say, some interesting dialogue. The characterization you have made of James Branum through this blog is obviously very bias and does not present or properly address the actual moral and ethical issues the soldiers deal with and experience. The basis of this blog is to belittle a man that is doing the best he can to help people that have made difficult transitions in their lives, overcome insurmountable obstacles, and many who have stood toe to toe with the military presenting a 100% logical belief set that carries the essence of morality and ethics to a new found plateau. There can be no logical defense in debate to the believer in nonviolence, especially in the anti-war facet of the belief. Nonetheless,I felt as though I should address a statement you’ve made multiple times on this blog. This is one of them: “Like I said, James, you’ve represented six members of the military over the last year or so and all six of them have been convicted with the maximum penalties.” My name is Ryan Jackson. I am a conscientious objector and was a client of James Branum. James is an outstanding man, he’s not perfect by any means but he means well and is providing a service and comfort to soldiers in a situation where there are few out there willing to do so. I was sentenced to 4 months in jail at a special court martial where the max sentence is 12 months in jail. I actually did 100 days as I had a pretrial agreement ahead of time which guaranteed a sentence very low in comparison to the results of other similar cases. I am completely in support of free speech and your right to say whatever you will but please tell the truth and don’t say things just so they sound good. Like I said, this is the first time I’ve read this blog and I’ve already discredited you as you’ve said something multiple times that is blatantly false. In… Read more »
You do realize that just about everyone who goes AWOL ends up getting at worst a Chapter 10 with an other than honorable discharge. This means the majority of AWOL/deserters don’t even get a court martial or spend any time in jail. So you basically just proved everyone’s point. Branum was your lawyer and you served a quarter of the maximum sentence while nearly all others in what I imgaine are similar or worse circumstances are administratively discharged. Branum may go on to “advance the moral movement we’ve begun to embrace,” but he’s a crappy lawyer.
Oops… You served a third of the maximum sentence, not 1/4. Most others don’t serve any sentence… Good job.
“There can be no logical defense in debate to the believer in nonviolence, especially in the anti-war facet of the belief”. So, care to enlighten the heathens why one who is a “believer in nonviolence” would enlist in the military?
And, if you had a pre-trial agreement on the amount of time you would serve, and you served that amount of time, wouldn’t you have served the maximum sentence available? Just askin’?
Meant to add, the maximum amount of time, minus good behavior. Posted too quick, my bad.
Bob, I’m not critiquing James Branum’s legal skills either way. I’m simply saying that regardless of whether you believe he has skill or not, the effort he puts in for the cause he believes in is undeniable. Most of the war resistor cases that may equate to AWOL/deserter charges on paper are brought to court-martial due to the hassle brought upon the unit due to media attention, letter writing campaigns, protests, and so on. You sound level-headed enough to understand this concept and how it correlates with the stiffer sentencing and punishment given to these types of cases. You also are exactly right, that 80% of standard awol cases are just chapter 10 OTH discharges. The statement said by the author of this blog was that the clients of Branum and distinctly the six cases he mentioned, received the maximum sentence. That is not true and I don’t think it’s too much or inconsiderate of me to point that out. The truth should always be the ultimate factor to any debate. UpNorth, When you have a pretrial agreement, the judge is unaware of what this agreement is and therefore, when sentencing takes place, he imposes a sentence he sees fit with the maximum being 12 months. He chose 4 months. Then the agreement is revealed and I get the lesser of the 2. Either which way you look at it, I did not receive the maximum sentencing from the judge which represents the courts and the U.S. Army. To answer your question as to how a person that is a believer in nonviolence enlists in the military, well it’s quite simple yet complex. It all depends on how you look at it and how understanding you are of evolutionary processes. This belief evolved over time while I was in the Army. I began to read books, watch documentaries, research history, and came in to a set of moral beliefs through time. It no longer made sense to me to wage war for the rich, to take another human being’s life that I have no problems with at all. It’s illogical… Read more »
In addition:
Once it reached the point that I realized it was inevitable that I would be deployed and I would refuse to go, I had to make an effort to separate from the Army. I no longer in good conscience could support an organization that I believed to be of a malicious nature. A man’s conscience is truly all he’s accountable to. I hold no regrets for my decisions and actions during the taxing process of seeking to separate from the Army.
So, in the process of your “evolvement”, you’d have no problem letting the military let you go on their terms? Seems you did, otherwise, why not just walk in, tell the court you did, indeed, refuse deployment and accept the punishment? Or, did you have your eye on benefits after separation?
As to your statement about the pre-trial agreement, that may be so in the military. Been a long time since I was there, and I finished my enlistment. But, I spent 27 years in law enforcement, and the judge was ALWAYS aware of any pre-trial agreement as to sentencing.
UpNorth,
What you’re saying in the first paragraph does not really make sense. I did walk in and admit guilt, hence why I received a pretrial agreement. If you were in the military, how could you honestly ask if I had my eye on benefits by going AWOL and becoming a deserter? With my discharge, I’m not going to receive benefits. I was a conscientious objector but did not subject myself to the entirely immoral and unethical conscientious objector process the military has available. Hate to tell you this but Military courts and regulations are a completely different animal than civilian courts. There’s a 98% conviction rate. Real justice is served there, haha.
Ryan,
Here is the long and the short of the problem. Mr. Branum has a “cause.” That’s great so long as it is on his own time. When you are a person’s attorney, you have an ethical obligation to put your “causes” aside and put their best interest first. I have heard a disturbing number of stories of cases where Mr. Branum has taken matters to trial that could have been handled more advantageously for his client without the hype and fanfare Mr. Branum’s cause needs. You yourself said that the “hype” is the reason many of these AWOL guys get long sentances. There is a reason that lawyers are supposed to be “disinterested,” and Mr. Branum and his “cause” are Exhibit “A.”
Also, Mr. Branum should conform his behaviour to that which is most likely to benefit his client in court. In a military court – where proper uniform is important – that means a clean suit (no jeans, no sport coats) a pressed, clean shirt, and a real tie. His need to make “statements” is about him rather than his client and is inappropriate.
As to your particular case, it seems that you decided you did not believe in the military after choosing to enlist. You had options (i.e. the “entirely immoral and unethical conscientious objector process the military has avilable”) but chose to break the law rather than avail yourself of those options. You paid the price for your choice. However, I wonder if you would have paid the price you did if your attorney cared less about his “cause” and more about your best interest?
If he is working for a client he needs to be concerned about getting the best results for his client rather then try to “Stick it to the man”. Because you will be the one paying for it not him.
“Hate to tell you this but Military courts and regulations are a completely different animal than civilian courts”. No shit, geez thanks for clearing that up for me. I woulda never known if you, in your beneficence, hadn’t pointed that out to me.
Still seems to me that with your pre-trial agreement in place, you ended up getting the max available, with time off for good behavior. So, Branum did nothing for you that you couldn’t have done for yourself.
As to the “going awol and becoming a deserter”, I didn’t see that in any of your posts, if it’s hidden up there somewhere, I missed it.
Gary Walters made a good point, in #65. When did you enlist, pre-9-11 or post? If post 9-11, did you seriously think that you would not get deployed? Did you pay no attention to the fact that there are wars going on? Or, was your “conversion” just a matter of convenience?
Is this you?
http://www.ivaw.org/member/ryan-jackson
I served in the U.S. Army from 2005-2008. I approached my command and took numerous steps in attempt to relieve myself of an organization I believed to be fascist, volatile and an organization I believed was committing acts that were not morally or ethically justified.
I have to ask since you have never been to Iraq or Afghanistan how do you know for certain what actions where being done on the ground?
I received a bad conduct discharge despite the outstanding support I received form Courage to Resist, the IVAW, and many other local peace organizations.
Have you ever thought that it was because of them rather then despite them?
I am now back in college as a political science student with the hopes of attending law school and being able to give back to soldiers just as others have so graciously done for me.
Let me ask you this; do you think that your outcome was the best thing you could have gotten from your legal defense and why?
Bad news for you Ryan – a bad conduct discharge may make it very difficult for you to have a career in the law. First, you have to get into law school – while the faculty is VERY left wing in virtually all law schools – a bad conduct discharge is going to be two strikes against you unless you have GREAT grades & LSATs. Second, the state bar in virtually every jurisdiction is generally even less forgiving. If you eventually do get certified to sit for the bar, you are going to have to go through a mound a paper work that makes getting a discharge look like a walk in the park.
Susan, Sorry for the delay in response, I’ve been traveling. I’ll respond to both of your posts. In the first post you cover the ethical responsibility of attorneys and basically blame James for taking cases to trial unnecessarily. I would agree with you about the ethical responsibility of attorneys, however, this is an area of the law much different and also a very minute portion of the legal system in comparison to the grand scale of it. By that, I mean that many of Branum’s clients choose to push things and take things to trial maybe not intentionally but their desire to push back at the Army, their unit, and their country for a deeply held sense of betrayal and/or issue of conscience in which they feel they should be heard often leads these cases to trial. It also very much depends on the branch. For example, the Navy and Marines typically just chapter/discharge awol/desertion cases. The Army and Air Force tend to be stricter on them as well as failed urinalysis. The average Army sentence for people that are not in initial training (Basic/AIT) tends to be 6 months or more in the brig. You also have to take into account that we are still engaged in 2 wars with a dwindling public support and the military feels with a lot of these cases that deal with anti-war, they need to make an example and discourage other soldiers from following suit. I will agree with you that being an attorney requires a certain amount of professionalism to include one’s appearance, however, I do not feel I’m qualified to comment on James’ performance in this regard as a whole, since I am only one person, one case. You also stated that I had options indicating or rather implying that I should have pursued the unethical/immoral process of the CO packet. Why would I logically do such a thing? There are no options if the only option is unethical and immoral. That option is not grounds for anyone to say “you had options”. That’s like me telling you to answer a… Read more »
Sporkmaster, An attorney should be concerned with the getting the best results for their client and should be more importantly than sticking it to the man, I completely agree. However, in most cases, and I can only speak for myself factually, the clients choose to push and make a public display of the case and push the envelope because these clients are not just trying to get out of the military, they believe in something greater than that. This is a cause and movement that’s bigger than us, it’s liberating to be imprisoned when you know you’re morally and ethically right. A contract or obligation should never silence your conscience and if you allow it to, what kind of man have you become? I have never been to Iraq or Afghanistan and with that, you’re right, I don’t know “exactly” what was happening on the ground, but you’re taking an excerpt from something written and missing the big picture. For my case, and again I can only speak for me, I was a conscientious objector so it really doesn’t matter what was taking place on the ground for this particular discussion of course. I came to a point in my life when I simply realized through logic and reason that it is quite ignorant to believe that violence is in any way an intelligent means to resolve conflict. I do not think I received a bad conduct discharge due to the peace organizations by any means. I would have received an OTH or BCD either which way. I had one of the best JAG attorneys in the business in addition to James Branum as well, Captain Kenny. That being said, my legal defense did a wonderful job and I don’t think I could have done any better. The reason for that belief is that I secured a pretrial agreement for 100 days where the majority of Army cases with similar charges gets sentenced to 6 months minimum and often up to 15 months. The military judicial system runs about a 98% conviction rate and almost every case has a pretrial… Read more »
In that case the lawyer should advise his clients on the risk since he is suppose to be a subject expert. Tell me how much good did it do?
Despite what he claims otherwise you will not put the war “on trial” like James said he would do with Victor Agosto. You signed a contract out of your own free will, there was no draft. Your “movement” is wrong because it is screwing over other soldiers who will have to take the slot that you dodge. You basically robbed some one of a year from their families. Did that even cross you mind at all?
One of the reasons why I joined was to allow those that have gone on multiple tours to take a break by taking their place. You on the other had have done the exact opposite. So what you have to say about what is “just” and “moral” I am taking with a enough salt to cover a month long margarita bender.
If you have never been to Iraq or Afghanistan then why in the world do you think it is ok to join a group suggest that you have. What big picture am I missing that you are tying to lecture me about how the world works when you have never been to a place where violence is the norm. Go to a war zone and then we will talk about how better to run the world.
In the end you deserve the Bad conduct discharge, because it is not wrong to be a CO. It is wrong going AWOL and screwing over someone else life.
Sporkmaster,
You are very misguided in the areas of logic and reason. It’s wrong to be a CO? Seriously? I didn’t dodge and force someone to go in my spot. I don’t want anyone to go period, hence the CO. I am opposed to all wars. It is simply illogical to think that in the age in which we can clone things, we resort to shooting each other with assault rifles. We were lied to regarding the reasoning we entered Iraq. We preemptively attacked a nation creating a war of aggression. There is nothing ethical, moral, honorable found within the horrible truths of war. War is waged by the elitist for the sake of a dollar and you’re sadly their little brainwashed puppet, a slave to their conquest, a slave to their prosperity. Please reply to my post with a logical answer as to how I dodged and let my troops down when I believe the wars to be immoral and unjust? Would you logically suggest that I ignore my conscience and subject myself to killing another human being or even be killed for a cause that is immoral? I welcome you to discuss the morality of the issue if you’re able to do so.
Yeah, I’ve listened to Jackson long enough – you went AWOL for three months after you pissed hot. You’re no brave conscientious objector or great anti-war icon. You’re one of the thousands who misbehave and then blame someone else for their childish behavior. You pissed hot and went AWOL and got sent to jail. Yeah, the Bar Association is going to laugh their collective ass off over your application. The internet is not your friend.
Re-read what I wrote at the end before you start giving me a lecture about logic.
What you want and what happens are two different things. Do you really think that they Military would let a open slot not go unfilled for a deployment? Also before you go into Iraq, if I read your profile right you joined 2005. So there was major doubt about the WMD’s not being there at all. Since we had been there for almost two years but yet you did not seem to have a problem enough to let it stop you from joining. Why?
About my views on Iraq? I think that it was a mistake, that caused us to become distracted from Afghanistan. While legal and I see the reasons for it, it has hurt us on the long run. However, the mission in Iraq changed, because now we must make sure that Iraq does not become the next Somalia. That means helping in rebuilding and stopping the people that are doing the ieds. They will not stop even if we leave. Also I wanted to help those who have seen multiple tours by taking their places so they can stay home longer. That is my justification for taking part in the Iraq Campaign and wanting to take part in Afghanistan.
Now let me ask you this. When you went AWOL was your unit on deployment orders or not? Like I said in my last post, I DO NOT have a problem if you honestly a CO. I DO have a problem if you go AWOL or desert.
So this is what you look like now?
John Lilyea,
You think you have it all figured out and make statements that are hilarious due to the fact that you have no evidence to support them. My unit was made aware of my beliefs well before I failed my urinalysis. I have an E-7, well now warrant officer that was a witness in my case to testify that I had been telling my unit my beliefs well before I ever had any misconduct in the Army. I have documentation to prove all of this and first hand witnesses. So, just like your false statement about the sentences received by Branum’s clients, which you never addressed by the way, you continue to make false statements. You should really research other hobbies aside from wasting your time with this right wing blog site in which you can’t even manage to write true and accurate statements. It’s sad that I stumble across this site by accident and have to correct false statements about me made by its founder. To top it all off, I can actually prove with factual evidence your statements are false and I can do so on not just one occasion with you but now two.
Either way, genius, getting popped on the whiz quiz and running away never helps your cause. Sure, you can use your claim as somehow “evidence” of your beliefs.
Or maybe you can just admit you’re a friggin dirtbag and leave it at that. Nah, can’t be that, now can it?
So tell me that someone who gets a Big Chicken Dinner ain’t a shitbag. Please–I’m beggin ya.
Sporkmaster, I don’t understand what you don’t get about this. I don’t care about the slot for any deployment, I am a CO. I don’t want anyone to deploy to either war, they’re equally ridiculous. That’s great that you say in this post, you don’t have a problem with CO’s if that’s what you really are, but in your previous post you said being a CO is wrong. So which is it? You are correct regarding the WMD’s, however, I wish you would read my comments on here because I went over the evolutionary process that occurred with me personally over a 3 year span and led me to be a conscientious objector. I did not agree with the wars politically but could care less either way personally when I joined. There is no justification for the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, none that contains any bit of logical reasoning that is. However, I agree in part that you may be able to justify to yourself why you personally went, but the war itself remains very much illegal, unjust, and logic again tells us without question it is immoral. Oh, and no I my unit was not on orders to deploy but it was inevitable that they would be in the next year. You state that you do not have a problem if I am a CO but do if I go AWOL or desert but I would hope it’s safe to assume that you support a fair and just process or option for people that are CO’s. Since one does not exist, many of them choose to go AWOL or desert as just an effort to separate themselves from service. Their beliefs have taken them to a point within their own conscience and brought about a morality that does not coincide with the military and they are backed in a corner and often oppressed by their units. People go to extreme lengths to do what they believe is right and in the end they feel liberated. So, I would love for you to go over the options for a… Read more »
Dear Ryan,
You are NOT a CO. You are a dirtbag who got shitcanned. Quit trying to pretend otherwise.
NHSparky,
Read the comment I posted to Sporkmaster and please feel free to do the same, enlighten me on the options for a CO to get out of the military or seek assistance since obviously the two do not coincide. The failed urinalysis was way late in the game and I was already on the way out of the Army. Most activists in the anti-war movement are pretty liberal and probably 90 something percent have no problem with marijuana and support medicinal use and recreational for the most part as well. So, I highly doubt my failed military urinalysis admitting that I smoked weed, significantly hurt my cause. I’m a Army soldier, stressed out of my mind because I’m surrounded by war driven robots that follow orders like drones because it’s a fucking job and it pays the bills or because it gives them college money, driven by propaganda, ran by fear and coercion, and I decide to smoke a joint and now my cause is ruined? Are you fucking kidding me? I told my command everything I was going to do down to the T. They could have separated me from the beginning and saved a lot of headaches, negative attention to the military and the unit, and a lot of tax dollars. However, there are no options for a CO in the military but again, the offer stands, please enlighten me. Lastly, your comment was just humorous with the shitbag typical military trash talk that contains a severe lack of intelligence and any type of logical argument. I’d be happy to debate with you the concept of war, being a conscientious objector, and I’d love to debate with you about history and foreign policy so by all means, if you feel you’re well read and slightly educated, I’d love to hear it.
NHSparky,
You add yet another super intelligent comment. I’m not a CO now according to you, just a shitbag. Haha. I would love to hear your reasoning for that statement. Please tell me you have some good reason that you can defend with logic. I only went to prison over it and have military official documentation of me telling the military numerous times previous to any misconduct and throughout the whole court martial process my beliefs and my stance of nonviolence. So, who the fuck are you to challenge my beliefs or to tell me that I’m not a CO as if you know absolutely anything about me, my case, or anything for that matter. Just for once, I’d love for some of you pro-war nut jobs to present something, some type of argument that even remotely resembles a form of logic. Please, I’m dying for you to say something intelligent, present an argument that is even halfway presentable or debatable. This is becoming just humorous on this blog.
Hmmmm…popped on a piss test, four months in the brig, BCD…pretty sound logic to me.
“My primary political influenced has been the Jesus.”
This one??: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003522/bio
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2097448960/ch0003522
Hey, lawyer dood, a talkin’ action figure version of yer idol!
http://www.entertainmentearth.com/prodinfo.asp?number=BBP01026
“However, I agree in part that you may be able to justify to yourself why you personally went, but the war itself remains very much illegal, unjust, and logic again tells us without question it is immoral.”
Ryan… I hate to break it to you, but regardless of what your or my view on marijuana is, that too is illegal. One could rationalize that participating in illegal drugs ultimately can be traced to murderous thugs, but hey, live and let live for you, right? Going AWOL also is illegal, and one could rationalize that breaking your word/contract is immoral, but again, you’re enlightened and the rest of us slobs are in the dark. In fact, the only thing in your comment that is technically legal, albeit flawed, is “the war,” you know, the one where Congress granted authorization and continues to authorize initially in compliance with a UN Security Council resolution. Or did you mean the other war that occurred after the US was attacked and it was agian authorized here and aborad, as well as supported by NATO?
Even more striking is your defensive tone once it was revealed that you popped hot. Here’s what is going to happen on the first day of law school during orientation. They will ask everyone to reveal any marks on their record in anticipation of applying to take the bar. If you lie or omit the drug aspect of your conviction, and the bar finds out about it, then good luck with that. And I do hope that you will man up and explain away the drug activity when you complete your character assessment and conviction/incarceration. There are consequences in life, and using drugs while in the military is a pretty good basis for this, and if your lawyer convinced you that the drug use had nothing to do with maintaining a plea agreement, then Branum did you know favors and you should get your money back.
Ryan Jackson,
What was your MOS? Were you a CO before you enlisted? Or did you become one later? At what time did you become one? Did it roughly coincide with an upcoming deployment into Iraq or Afghanistan? At what point did you announce your CO status to your chain of command and request to be discharged?
And some enlightenment for you: you enlist, you carry out your orders. YOU don’t decide the mission is worthy of you, YOU don’t decide the war is illegal, YOU do what the fuck you are told to do to the best of your ability. Here is what you are. An unreliable, untrustworthy, self absorbed and self interested moral and physical coward whose word means nothing to him, and utterly and totally lacking in honor. And someone else had to go and carry out your duties because you didn’t want to be bothered, but of course you don’t give a fuck about them, now, do you?
USMC Steve, you left off doper, but otherwise your description of him, “An unreliable, untrustworthy, self absorbed and self interested moral and physical coward whose word means nothing to him, and utterly and totally lacking in honor” is right on.
And all that talk about being a “CO”, higher calling, immoral war, reading, etc, was bull shit. Just to cover for being a doper, drop out, fuck up?