Spc Alexis Hutchinson wins discharge as a result of your support

[annm4peace]

Because of your support, Spc Alexis Hutchinson will did not be going to Afghanistan, will not go to jail, will not be separated from her baby Kamani, and will get out of the Army within a few days.

To everyone who signed the petition to “Drop the Charges Against Alexis Hutchinson!” and/or donated to her legal defense, thank you! This outcome is a clear win for Alexis, Kamani, and her family. It would not have turned out this way without you.

As we will not have to pay for legal representation at court martial, we now have enough funds to pay off the remainder of Alexis’ legal expenses—and provide Alexis with $500 to help restart her life.

“Single mom Alexis Hutchinson wins discharge!”
Friends and Family of Alexis Hutchinson. February 11, 2010
http://couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/819/1/

“Single Mother Is Spared Court-Martial”
James Dao, New York Times. February 12, 2010
http://nytimes.com/2010/02/12/us/12awolmom.html

Many of our friends have noticed that Courage to Resist was not usually referenced in the media coverage. This was a tactical decision we made prior to Alexis’ refusal to deploy to Afghanistan. The goal being to focus all possible attention on the unfair and unjust situation Alexis and Kamani faced. It made fundraising on her behalf harder; however, I think overall it was the right call—even if “GI resistance” was not part of the core messaging.

Thank you again for coming to the aid of Alexis and Kamani Hutchinson. I hope we can continue to count on your support of other military objectors—including Spc Marc Hall who is now scheduled to be sent to Iraq to face court martial for producing an angry song about the Army’s “Stop-loss” policy.

[katandmoon]

1. Support for what? I had little sympathy for her.

[Earth_First]

3. Well aren't you just a bastion of compassion and sympathy. n.t

[Hello_Kitty]

8. Have you served in the military?

If not, you really don't understand the issue here.

[JonLP24]

19. I have

and I support her. K&R.

[Earth_First]

24. +1

:thumbs up:

[rd_kent]

33. Really?

You support someone that volunteers for service then disobeys orders and willfully disregards regulations? Why?

[rd_kent]

15. Do you have ANY idea of what happend here?

Any at all?

[Earth_First]

22. Yes. She choose not to abandoned her child instead deploying for The Occupation.

...and yes, I served as a 93C 1998-2006 and I supported her decision.

[rd_kent]

25. So you condone anyone that wants to do the same as she did?

Completely disobey orders and willful disregard or regulations? You actually support that?

[Earth_First]

27. You know for a FACT that she got pregnant to avoid deployment?

Life happens. Sometimes that involves making very serious, life-altering decisions.

I'm sorry you disagree, but I stand with the single mother on this one.

[rd_kent]

30. I never made that claim. Don't dodge, just answer the question.

You did not answer my question. Do you condone those that volunteer for service and then disobey orders and willfully disregard regulations?

[Earth_First]

34. Apparently I do! n/t

[rd_kent]

35. Got it. You stand on the side of lawlessness and irresponsible behavior.

[Earth_First]

37. Sure thing.

I'm glad to know that you really ARE the baseline for moral and ethical superiority.

Good day to you.

[rd_kent]

43. Again with claims I never made. Thats disingenuous, but I expected no less

since your argument ran out of steam several posts ago.

[Earth_First]

46. :yawn:

I grow weary of your junior varisty debate-team antics.

[rd_kent]

54. Hahaha! Thats because you cannot keep up.

Even my JV debate skills are too much for you.


You really need to reread this subthread and then decide who has a valid argument and who doesn't.

[Techn0Girl]

183. Thanks for clearly pointing out why you should be on 'ignore'

Your incessant ranting and pummeling over this person is completely unacceptable. You've hijacked half this thread :(

This soldier had a decision to make between her newborn child and her military and in THIS former soldier's eyes she made the right decision. The Army let her down completely by not understand and dealing with the situation. I know for a FACT that they are supposed to verify a soldier's deployment action plan for their children and they obviously did not do that.

I don't know what your beef is against women with children and I don't much care - you and your future opinions are on ignore.

[Hekate]

254. True dat. Both of them are getting the Iggy Prize from me...

Two people in one subthread -- a personal best.
:eyes:

Hekate

[uppityperson]

52. Oh good grief. Pot kettle. eom

"You stand on the side of lawlessness and irresponsible behavior."

[rd_kent]

57. You have got to explain, please.

Really, in what way am I being hypocritical here?

[uppityperson]

61. No. I do not "have" to explain. eom

[rd_kent]

63. Uh, ok. PLEASE explain?

Even though I already said please before.

[rd_kent]

77. I guess there isn't an explanation then, you just made it up?

[uppityperson]

84. ASSuming is bad.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7708217&mesg_id=7709267

[rd_kent]

95. So again, no explanation, just unfounded accusation. Got it.

[chrisa]

288. Lawlessness?

Isn't murder against the law? Forcing 18 year olds to kill in order to make people richer is the very definition of irresponsible behavior.

[merh]

319. The irresponsible behavior would be the behavior of those leaders that thought

it more important to deploy her to Afghanistan than it was for her to remain with her child.

But you go ahead with lawlessness mumbo jumbo.

[JustAVet]

100. It really doesn't matter whether she got pregnant on purpose or not

and it doesn't matter whether she hoped the pregnancy would help her avoid deployment or not. I'm not going to ascribe any motives to her decision to have a child, since I don't know her or her thought processes. However, once she became pregnant, she made the decision to stay in the Army. With that decision came responsibilities, and she completely shirked those responsibilities. Life as a single parent is difficult, life as a single parent in the military is doubly so. To make the decision and then expect to be treated differently than any other soldier was unreasonable on her part, and it would have been unreasonable for the Army to allow her to use a child to get out of deploying with her unit.

It seems to me that she is better off without the Army, and the Army is better off without her.

[Hello_Kitty]

111. Doesn't matter.

I stand with the military on this one. More to the point, I stand with her fellow service members who didn't get out of their deployments because they had kids.

[Techn0Girl]

278. Excuse me but you DON'T "stand by the military on this one"....

The U.S. Army has already agreed that this woman should be discharged administratively with no legal punishment. She is NOT receiving a dishonorable discharge either.

So your opinion of how this woman should be treated is markedly AGAINST current Army policy.

You are certainly entitled to disagree with what the Army did but by doing that you are being an army of one.

[Hello_Kitty]

295. She would not have gotten a dishonorable discharge.

Those are reserved for people who do heinous things like murder or spying. There are multiple categories of discharges below that and my understanding is the one that the administrative one she's getting will make her ineligible for veterans benefits (as it should be). And the reason she's being treated leniently is that her case got public exposure and much whining and gnashing of teeth by ignorant people on her behalf ensued.

[Techn0Girl]

302. You really don't know what you are talking about....

when you claim what a dishonorable discharge is for - unlike yourself I actually served in the military and I can tell you that your suppositions about it are just the words of a very misinformed person. You are entirely incorrect about who a dishonorable is given to. You are also incorrect about her discharge making her ineligible for Veterans benefits. She and her child will still be eligible for them because her discharge was NOT dishonorable. I know because I , unlike yourself , am a Veteran and actually have some experience and knowledge of the V.A. system.

The fact remains that YOU believe something differently than the Army has already decided. Goody for you. You can write about it all day long in the Internets but it doesn't change the facts - and the facts are that he Army has decided that this woman needs to care for her family without punishment from them.

Your opinion on the matter is entirely irrelevant to the actual facts.

[blueamy66]

45. Yes. She signed up for the military,

got pregnant, gave birth and then shirked her responsibilites. What else is there to know?

[Techn0Girl]

267. What else there is to know is...

1. That the U.S. Army has a procedure in place to accommodate single parents that THEY DID NOT FOLLOW in this instance. (please read the original linked article).

2. That, upon review, the Army agreed that this person had the right to be administratively discharged WITHOUT prejudice.

That is what there is to know.

[katandmoon]

17. I have plenty for people who deserve it. I don't see where she does.

[dionysus]

12. not surprising.

:rofl:

[Orsino]

323. Saving it all for her child, no doubt. n/t

[TexasObserver]

2. Recommend. It'll be fun to watch the curmudgeons weigh in.

[rd_kent]

6. Someone has to counter the enablers.

[EFerrari]

31. Enablers, my granny. Why you feel so compelled to beat up on this kid

is beyond comprehension. What is your problem? Abandonment issues acting up? What?

[rd_kent]

32. I don't see how anyone can support someone that volunteers for service, then disobeys orders

and willfully disregards regulations. THATS my problem, so stop projecting yours.

[EFerrari]

38. No, you don't see how. You've made that very plain in tens of posts.

I think you just hate the fact that this young woman made her own decision. It seems to gall you despite the fact that she's arguably more useful to the country raising that kid than being a target in Iraq. That's too bad.

[rd_kent]

53. You are comparing one thing to another.

I served for 21 years, then decided to get out because I no longer agreed with what I was doing and how I was being used. But I fulfilled my obligation, not only to my country, but to those that counted on ME to do MY job.

This woman FAILED to do her job and she FAILED to complete here obligation. I hate that she decided to fuck-over EVERYONE else because she was selfish. You cannot seem to grasp the fact that this horse shit going on in Iraq and Afghanistan was ALREADY going on BEFORE she joined. She joined KNOWING that she would get sent over there. Why the fuck did she join in the first place?


And you state that she is "arguably" more useful raising her child. Really? Arguably? Now she has no job, no income, legal bills and no prospects. Any future employer may think that she could at any moment, DECIDE that her current job is not to her liking and quit. Are you telling me THAT is being useful?

[EFerrari]

56. I hope those strawmen can dance or do windows or something. n/t

[rd_kent]

60. What strawmen?

I am only addressing things YOU brought up. Please point out these strawmen.

[EFerrari]

68. I didn't concoct an entirely fictional narrative for this young woman's life.

YOU did.

[rd_kent]

71. Fictional? Thats the FACTS! Nothing fictional about here joining at all.

What part is fictional?

[EFerrari]

If you don't know the difference between your suppositions and facts

that's also too bad.

Your hostility toward this young woman is way over the top. And I'm done enabling it.

[rd_kent]

78. So when asked to point out what is fictional, you dance away.....got it.

[EFerrari]

89. These are your suppositions which is a nice way of saying, your bullshit:

I served for 21 years, then decided to get out because I no longer agreed with what I was doing and how I was being used. But I fulfilled my obligation, not only to my country, but to those that counted on ME to do MY job.

This woman FAILED to do her job and she FAILED to complete here obligation. I hate that she decided to fuck-over EVERYONE else because she was selfish. You cannot seem to grasp the fact that this horse shit going on in Iraq and Afghanistan was ALREADY going on BEFORE she joined. She joined KNOWING that she would get sent over there. Why the fuck did she join in the first place?


And you state that she is "arguably" more useful raising her child. Really? Arguably? Now she has no job, no income, legal bills and no prospects. Any future employer may think that she could at any moment, DECIDE that her current job is not to her liking and quit. Are you telling me THAT is being useful?

And, your hostility toward me is also over the top. Let's fix that.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

98. good grief. You Demand answers, harrass 'til you get them, then insult.

"what part is fictional"

If you don't know the difference between your suppositions and facts that's also too bad.

"So when asked to point out what is fictional, you dance away.....got it."

Long answer.

"I give up. You seem to live in some fantasy world. "

[Techn0Girl]

180. Self- Deleted

[uppityperson]

82. "I don't know why she enlisted, and it really doesn't matter."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7708217&mesg_id=7709205

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7708217&mesg_id=7709268
"I hate that she decided to fuck-over EVERYONE else because she was selfish. You cannot seem to grasp the fact that this horse shit going on in Iraq and Afghanistan was ALREADY going on BEFORE she joined. She joined KNOWING that she would get sent over there. Why the fuck did she join in the first place?


And you state that she is "arguably" more useful raising her child. Really? Arguably? Now she has no job, no income, legal bills and no prospects. Any future employer may think that she could at any moment, DECIDE that her current job is not to her liking and quit. Are you telling me THAT is being useful?"

[rd_kent]

92. Uh, your cut and paste skills seem to be in order.

Not sure what part of my post you have issue with.

YOU are the one that said she was "arguably more useful".......

[uppityperson]

99. No. I am not. You accuse falsely. eom

[rd_kent]

101. "No you are not" what?

I didnt say you were anything nor did I accuse you of anything. Did you post is the wrong place?

[uppityperson]

105. Edited to give credit to Dr. Seuss

"YOU are the one that said she was "arguably more useful"......."

No. I am not.

Do you understand? I'll try with smaller words.


You wrote in a reply to me "YOU are the one that said she was "arguably more useful"......."

I wrote back "No. I am not. You accuse falsely. eom"

I did not say that. It was not me. It was (hang in there, words with more than 1 syllable coming up) another poster. Hence, therefore, see, it was not me. I did not. I am not the one who said " she was "arguably more useful"...". Not me. No, it was not me. It was someone else.

I did not write that. I did not say that.

I did not say it in a box. I did not say it with a fox. I did not say it here or there, I did not say it anywhere.

Not me. No.

[uppityperson]

113. I did not, did not, in the rain. Not in the dark. Not on a train. Not in a car, not in a tree

I do not say them, Sam, you see..

[rd_kent]

134. Ah, I see, I didnt realize you had inserted yourself into the conversation.

So let me backtrack to where you did that....


What was the point of your interjection?

[Obamanaut]

138. You mean, one cannot just jump into a thread on an open internet

discussion board?

Is that, like, a rule? Does it have a number? Would it have been more acceptable if the post agreed with you?

[uppityperson]

140. rather funny,isn't it? Oh dang, just did it again.

[rd_kent]

143. No, I dont say that.

I said I just realized that it wasnt the same person.

Now that I realize it, I asked what was the point trying to be made there?

[Obamanaut]

106. Actually, U.P. did not say "...arguably more useful...." That was another

DUer in post 38 I think.

[uppityperson]

109. I did not say them in a house, I did not say them with a mouse, I did not say them

here or there, I did not say them anywhere.

[Obamanaut]

117. Then it must have been someone else, up in post 38. n/t

[uppityperson]

120. He heard a small noise, a very faint yelp.

He heard a small noise, a very faint yelp. In fact it was a yelp for help. He looked and he looked, but nothing he could find, 'cept a small speck of dust.

[Obamanaut]

136. "a person’s a person, no matter how small’’

As you said recently, "A big mess."

[rd_kent]

135. I see that now. UP inserted themself into the conversation.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

69. "Why the fuck did she join in the first place?" is a million dollar question. Anyone have an answer?

"Any future employer may think that she could at any moment, DECIDE that her current job is not to her liking and quit."

Um, yes, that happens. Some employers are decent and understand that and try to work with their employees. Some don't and have a higher turnover. Just because she gets a job does not mean she is stuck with it you know. Or maybe you don't know. Have you worked outside the military?

[rd_kent]

75. Of course.

My point is, that a future employer may now look at her PRIOR behavior and decide that she is a risk to employ because of her prior actions.

I know that employers ARE impressed with military service, but only HONORABLE service. She will receive a Less than Honorable (LTH) or an Other than Honorable (OTH) discharge and employers are going to want to know why.

[TexasObserver]

79. It hasn't stopped Sarah Palin, known quitter, from getting a job.

[rd_kent]

85. So now you are comparing this woman to Sarah Palin as the same?

I guess my point is made, thanks.

[uppityperson]

91. Yes, your point is made. "a future employer may now look at her PRIOR behavior and decide that she..

"a future employer may now look at her PRIOR behavior and decide that she is a risk to employ because of her prior actions."

Another example of someone who quit was given, and all you can do is accuse the poster of saying both examples are the same?

Yes, your point is made.

[TexasObserver]

97. I'm showing that your point is a bad one.

She may or may not have a problem getting a job, and it is none of your business, anyway.

[rd_kent]

103. *facepalm*

[Obamanaut]

149. Here's my post #114, why I joined in 1960. This young woman may

have had similar reasons, we don't know. We do know from threads last year that her own Mom is quite likely somewhat overwhelmed herself, and maybe that had something to do with it. We don't know.
--------
114. Perhaps she enlisted for the same reason I did in 1960. We were poor, I saw no prospects for college, so in high school I did not take the courses required to enter college. My parents didn't care what courses I took as long as I passed. I did years of Latin and German, minimum math, history, science.

Limited job prospects for a 17 yr old HS graduate.

I was in basic training four days after graduation, and retired 28 years later
-------

[Amaya]

292. how do you know all of this?

you know her?

[Techn0Girl]

304. He (or she) doesn't actually "know" anything....

people like that just make it up as they go along apparently for the "fun" of getting people riled up. I put that person on ignore and I would respectfully suggest that you do consider doing the same. People like that are walked away from in real life and I think they should be treated no differently here.

[H2O Man]

133. I also believe

that she made the correct choice. Staying with and raising a child seems like the more ethical choice, when compared with traveling to Iraq to take part in an immoral military war of occupation.

[EFerrari]

146. It seems to escape notice that raising a human being is a little bit of work.

lol

:hi:

[TexasObserver]

155. Have you looked at this criminal?!

A 21 year old single mother who is a COOK!

Not Special Forces. Not some specialty with a brazilian dollars worth of training. A cook.

The article in the NYT makes clear the Army's making her an example was a campaign to help stop soldiers from getting out because of pregnancy. They point out that - as many of us have insisted - this was a unique handling of such a mother. The Army got the story they wanted, and they rallied their usual army of armchair chest beaters in support.

[H2O Man]

158. That photograph

is frightening. There is something unnatural about a young mother placing the needs of their itty-bitty children before other duties. I believe that there is a dire warning of this mortal sin, described in the Book of Genocide, in the Old Testicle. Jesus himself ordered the death by stoning of all mothers who commit this vile sin, as a form of evidence of God's love for all.

Our world would be a much safer place if people didn't do dangerous things, such as thinking for themselves, and loving innocent children. We should instead trust VP Cheney, a true Christian and war hero. He dared to uncover the yellow cake threat to our peace on earth and good will to Haliburton. Now, we must confront a danger even greater than Apple Pie: mothers of infants.

You can see the fear in her child's expression. "Why isn't Mommy out killing others? Why is she being nice to me? Looking out for my well-being?"

There needs to be harsh consequences. No "constitutional rights" for her! Nay! She is an enemy of the state. No civil rights, no human rights. We must whip ourselves into a frenzy, and allow the hatred to flow from our lips like spittle from a rabid dog's mouth. Only then will we be safe.

[TexasObserver]

159. "the Book of Genocide, in the Old Testicle"!! Too funny.

I can remember a comedian who used to act like a preacher and talk about the Bible "from Generations to Revolutions!"

Don't you miss the America that wouldn't think of young mother serving in a war zone if they had a baby at home? If she's committed to doing it and the baby has a stable home with loving parental figures, great. But if she doesn't, the kid has to come first in a decent society.

[H2O Man]

309. The weaknesses

of rigid thinking patterns are, sadly, fully illustrated in some of the responses splattered about on this thread. Such concrete thinking should be foreign to progressive-liberal democrats.

[TexasObserver]

58. She's a young woman who had a baby, and doesn't have the support in her life she needs.

It happens. We're not enabling her. We're thinking about a baby that needs a parent more than our military needs her dubious and replaceable services.

[Duckhunter935]

4. since she refused to honor her commitment

Another person will have to step up and take her place. Too bad she could not abide by army regulations

[rd_kent]

5. Wow, I'm really surprised at the support for someone who failed to keep up their end of an agreement

This woman got pregnant AFTER enlisting. When she notified her Chain of Command that she was pregnant, she was instructed that she needed a Family Care Plan, that included, at a minimum, a Primary, a Secondary AND an Emergency plan. This woman FAILED, even with the support AND extra time given by the Army, to come up with that plan.

She FAILED and anyone that supported her only assisted in that FAILURE.

[TexasObserver]

10. She's a mother who didn't want to leave her child.

The proper remedy for the Army is an other than honorable discharge.

Did you ever serve?

[rd_kent]

13. 21 Years. Retired Navy CPO.

And I agreed with the OTH, no benefits, pay back any enlistment bonus received.

[TexasObserver]

50. If you're good with the OTH, no benefits, pay back any enlistment bonus, we agree.

I'm not saying she should be able to stay in or get benefits. She is in breach. The issue is whether she's prosecuted, which I oppose.

[rd_kent]

67. Yeah, I dont think I ever advocated jail time for this.

[Earth_First]

72. +1

The loss of benefits, I agree.

To diminish her courage to stand up to breeching her contract with the military in order to raise her child is mindless.

However, it seems that there is some backstory with this rd guy associated with this story that will not likely be resolved in yet another thread concerning the subject.

[rd_kent]

87. "To diminish her courage to stand up to breeching her contract " - 'Nuff said.

wow, just wow.

[CLANG]

264. You have a critical empathy deficit.

Get help soon!

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Techn0Girl]

194. Are YOU on disibility by any chance ?

Receiving any special govt benefits perhaps?
Jobless? Unemployed?
Every been a drug or alcohol addict?

I ask because so may Veterans are in such situations.
I know because I am a Vet.

If you are one of the above then I say will say, just as you did to our military Sister, "Good! It was because of the choices YOU made" and let;s see how you feel about it?

[Name removed]

234. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WolverineDG]

9. Hooray for you! She's now unemployed & uninsured!

So, where's Daddy & why couldn't he take care of his child?

dg

[Blue_Tires]

121. from the story

Raised in Oakland, Specialist Hutchinson was a member of the Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps in high school and then enlisted in the Army upon graduation. She wanted, she said in a written response to questions, “to get away from home and try something new.” Her son, Kamani, was born in January 2009.

Specialist Hutchinson declined to say anything about the boy’s father, other than that he had never been involved with Kamani. Ms. Hughes said she believed he was a former soldier.


....

I hope someday there will be open and frank discussions on abandonment by young fathers

[WolverineDG]

152. Or young mothers who don't let the fathers see their kids

unless this guy is has abused/neglected her &/or the child, there is NO excuse for her not letting him see the child.

dg

[Blue_Tires]

153. that too

i don't know their particular backstory; so i was just talking generally...but I am seeing more young men now who have 2, 3, 4, etc by separate casual girlfriends without the first concern of being supportive or active in their lives (or they only give lukewarm support to the most recent one, until the next girlfriend comes along)...

[SoCalDem]

196. "...declined to say anything about the boy’s father,..."

whoopdeedoo..no child support for him, I guess.

I think they changed the law recently and in order to receive public assistance, the father must be named..

If women want to be treated equally in the military, they can't be playing the "baby card" too often.. I'm guessing that the male soldiers in her unit were not all that pleased to have to go, while she got a "pass".

[Blue_Tires]

238. i can only speculate that most likely

1. father is married to someone else
2. father is a superior in the army
3. father is a lowlife criminal piece of shit with 6 other random kids

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. The ignominious cloud of this will follow her for the rest of her life.

[noamnety]

185. Having a loving parent follows a child for life.

:)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

192. There is more to this than just that

*ALL* military parents have to deal with this. She *CHOSE* not to follow the rules that everyone else manages to comply with. She lost all military benefits including preference in hiring. Her record is public for any employer to check. A selfish intentional act with lifetime consequences. It never was about the child.

[noamnety]

212. I'm at peace with her decision

in part because I understand that forcing her to hand her child over to strangers in the foster care system for the sake of a career is an even more selfish intentional act with lifetime consequences.

If she was indispensable to the military's mission, they didn't plan for contingencies very well.

[uppityperson]

219. Ah! "It never was about the child" cries Misnomer

[JustAVet]

257. I won't go so far as to say it was never about the child

But I agree with everything else you said.

[CLANG]

266. Wow - can you teach me to mind read too?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

299. Actually, its just reading. Multiple other sources credit her with making such statements

[CLANG]

322. Right... and you can produce a link where she states:

A selfish intentional act with lifetime consequences. It never was about the child.

[Techn0Girl]

269. Excuse me but if you actually READ the linked to original article....

You will find that the Army has rules they are supposed to follow regarding single parent deployments that they chose to IGNORE in this case.

The Army let this Soldier down as much as anything else.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

298. I actually know the rules from personal experience

Also you might want to read other sources about those rules, including the rules themselves. The author was either ill informed or wanted their readers to be.

[Techn0Girl]

306. You say the author was "ill informed or wanted their readers to be" ....

Unless YOU can provide specific examples and back it up with verified facts - I call B.S. and call that you are making that all up and trying to misinform me.

I will take the word of an attorney plus a known author over an anonymous internet poster any day.

Back it up or else it's B.S.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

340. You claim military service...surely you were aware of the requirements even if you did not have

dependent children while in uniform.

[Techn0Girl]

341. I really don't know what you are referring to but it irrelevant as the Army has already decided...

in favor of this woman and I agree with their decision.

If you wish to disagree with the U.S. Army decision that is your perogative but it doesn't change what transpired.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

349. The Army did the right thing...discharge no benefits

or preferences. Its going to follow her for the rest of her life.

[Techn0Girl]

350. You need to inform yourself of the facts. She gets benefits. Some VA benefits among others.

LOTS of people get administrative discharges from the military. It is standard practice to do that for single parents facing deployment.

You need to involve yourself with facts rather than suppositions.

P.S. I don't think you are actually a "Professor" for some reason.

It is also likely that her administrative discharge will be appealed to favor a general discharge once she is released.

I'm sure her lawyer is working on that.

You appear to be gloating regarding her misfortune.
Exactly what kind of a person are you?

[uppityperson]

14. Good for her. Wish everyone would refuse to go. Same as under mrbush

I don't support the occupation of Afghanistan any more under Pres Obama than I did under mrbush.

If you disagree with me, that is your right. I also have the right to my opinion on this matter.

[katandmoon]

16. It's not like she was drafted! If she didn't want to go, she should not have enlisted.

[rd_kent]

26. You might have a point is there were a draft or service was mandatory.

But she VOLUNTEERED!

[uppityperson]

29. You have stated your opinion often on a couple threads. We disagree.Edited

Edited to add, why did she sign up in the first place? What was her home life like? Were there other jobs available? Could she get into or pay for college? I am curious about why she enlisted and you seem to know more about this particular case than I do.

Thank you.

[rd_kent]

36. I don't know why she enlisted, and it really doesn't matter.

She did it, willingly and voluntarily. What more is there to know?

[uppityperson]

41. Why is an important factor in deciding how "willingly and voluntarily" she signed up

You do know that people sign up for all sorts of reasons, don't you? Like Steven Green "willingly and voluntarily" enlisted rather than going to prison. Too bad about Abeer and her family.

The "why" is important and I am sorry for you that you cannot understand that.

Thank you for clarifying that you don't know more about her than I do.

[Obamanaut]

114. Perhaps she enlisted for the same reason I did in 1960. We were

poor, I saw no prospects for college, so in high school I did not take the courses required to enter college. My parents didn't care what courses I took as long as I passed. I did years of Latin and German, minimum math, history, science.

Limited job prospects for a 17 yr old HS graduate.

I was in basic training four days after graduation, and retired 28 years later.

[annm4peace]

18. Wow.. thought I posted this in Freeper land

Some people don't have all the family resources like other families.

Sometimes that is why people only see the option to join the military.

*** And I thought we had a "Volunteer Military ****

I love all the excuses to beat up this young mother.

The military isn't fighting for our democracy or for the American people. They are fighting for Corporate profit and interest.

So I support all active military who want to get out of the military.


Hurray for Sgt Hutchinson! I am so proud of your bravery and courageous action!

check out this video

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x433959

[rd_kent]

28. Her actions were NOT brave or courageous. They were cowardly.

What part about VOLUNTEERED is so hard to grasp? No one MADE her join. No one made her have a child. No one MADE her do anything.

[blueamy66]

47. So, having unprotected sex and getting knocked up is brave

and courageous?

Holy shit...our country is gonna combust!

[uppityperson]

55. Elsewhere you said she should adopt the baby out. Boy you ASSUME a lot

I guess you must know her personally since you know she had unprotected sex. The only way that could be is if you were the impregnator. Are you?

If not, you are assuming.

[blueamy66]

86. Um, the only way one can get pregant is if one

has unprotected sex.

Unless one believes in the virgin birth.

And, I'm a chick...I can't impregnate another chick.

But it's fun to rile you up...

[uppityperson]

94. Good lord. Contraceptives fail. You SERIOUSLY don't know this?

Seriously? And you were in the military, a female, and don't know that? Seriously?

[Techn0Girl]

271. One would actually have to have sex with another person to know this. Perhaps you assume too much?

heh

[Amaya]

296. it's probably some old fart behind the keyboard

any respectable woman doesn't refer to herself as a "chick"

ignore the him

[Techn0Girl]

308. Thanks for the picture.... now excuse me while I stab out my eyes

ouch!

[Techn0Girl]

273. "But it's fun to rile you up..."

And that comment get you put on my ignore list.

Just like in real life , if you act immaturely then people will walk away from you.

[Amaya]

294. You're a "chick"

btw, i got pregnant on the pill-

a "chick"

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

76. amy, I hope someone has brought it to your attention

that contraception FAILS sometimes. This might be a good piece of information to have.

[blueamy66]

90. And another piece of good info is...

if one enlists in the Army, one goes where one is sent...

Again..this isn't the Girl Scouts, it's the ARMY!

America needs to GROW THE FUCK UP!!!

[EFerrari]

96. Those two pieces of information are not mutually exclusive

and I think I just heard America say, you first. :)

[Amaya]

293. American needs to get the fuck out of the occupation business

[Techn0Girl]

334. Amen to that!

Although I suspect we'll get out of it the same way that the Roman's did.

[chrisa]

290. That's ridiculous.

The army's inability to accomodate pregnant women is misogynist. It's like they're trying to punish her for getting pregnant. Her actions after being pregnant (taking on the whole army and winning) were extremely brave.

[Techn0Girl]

311. I agree with you however....

You need to know that the Army actually DOES have regulations in place to accommodate this sort of thing. If you go back to the original article you'll find that her commander chose NOT to follow those rules which is why this situation developed - AND why this woman was eventually found not guilty and allowed release from the Army WITHOUT a dishonorable discharge.

Apparently all four of the keyboard chickenhawks putting this woman down on this thread did not read the actual article and I have a STRONG suspicion that not a one of them actually ever served (despite what some of them claim).

[Duckhunter935]

83. Specialist not Sergeant

Big difference there. If she recieved an enlistment bonus, pay it back, no more medical benefits, she should also pay back the cost of training her in her MOS. No excuses to beat her up I would just like her to abide by the rulses that she agreed to do when she volunteered.

[Maat]

20. Sometimes it is hard to believe that I'm on DU.

I commend her courage in refusing to deploy, and plan to become a supporter of Courage to Resist.

[blueamy66]

48. You're kidding me, right?

really?

[CLANG]

270. REALLY!

[EFerrari]

51. I know. It must be Calvinist Saturday or something.

lol

[TexasObserver]

70. They like to get up a head of steam for SUNDAY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY!

MONSTER JUDGMENTAL RALLY AT THE CALVINIST RACE TRACK!

COME ONE! COME ALL! GET YOUR SHAME ON!

SUNDAY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY!

[Maat]

300. Thanks, EFerrari!

You really GET it!

Take care!:)

[katandmoon]

164. WTF did she enlist, then?

[bigtree]

21. I remember the Army base communication man posted a response on a thread about this here

I thought that alone should confirm that we're being heard out there. Gratified for this outcome.

[EFerrari]

23. Good. Finally. Now, let's follow how Marc Hall does.

:hi:

[rd_kent]

40. These two are apples and oranges. Not even remotely related.

If you are talking about Marc Hall, that was kept IN the military by stop-loss?

[EFerrari]

44. Because your frame of reference is narrow

naturally you don't see how these two cases are related. That's too bad, too.

[blueamy66]

39. Um, she enlisted in the Army

and then shirked her duty.

I don't support her.

What is she teaching our kids?

[EFerrari]

49. She's teaching that there are some things you fight for, like your kids.

And she's teaching that adults can work out problems.

What are you teaching with you judgment of this woman?

[uppityperson]

62. He wants her to adopt out the baby.

searching out other thread on this topic can be instructive.

[EFerrari]

65. I won't be able to until later tonight as my thingy expired.

But unfortunately, I do remember reading some of those threads. I should have been cooking or baking. :)

[uppityperson]

73. here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7695608&mesg_id=7696665
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7695608&mesg_id=7698583

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7695608&mesg_id=7698588

[EFerrari]

81. Thank you, uppityperson.

Hoo-boy. :wow:

[CLANG]

272. She's not responsible for your kids!

Man, you people act like she entered your house in the middle of the night and stabbed your dog to death! She made a hard decision and she will pay the price. Why do you "progressives" have such a problem with that?

[blueamy66]

42. I don't support her.

She shirked her responsibilty.

What is she teaching our youth?

Shame on her.

[uppityperson]

59. We know you don't support her. You said she should adopt out her baby and serve

you accused her of having unprotected sex and "getting knocked up". Yup, you are a paragon of virtue for our youth to learn from.

[TexasObserver]

74. I suspect only those without kids consider them chattel to be passed around like a pet.

[JustAVet]

104. Mr. JustAVet is a veteran also

We have two kids, both born while I was active duty. With both pregnancies, I had the option of getting out of the service right up until the baby was born. I chose to stay in, but I did so knowing that if were both deployed, the kids would have to go with relatives. We didn't like the idea, but it was a decision that we both agreed to.

It had nothing to do with considering our children to be chattel passed around like pets - it had to do with the oath that I took when I enlisted and re-enlisted, and which I was bound by once I decided not to leave the military. Had I thought for one second that I wouldn't be able to fulfill my obligations, no matter how much it might have hurt, I wouldn't have stayed in.

I don't think it is wrong or unrealistic to expect people to live up to the obligations that they accept.

[EFerrari]

107. It's not wrong to expect people to keep their word.

It's unrealistic to believe that life always goes as planned. Surely retired military know that better than most of us. :)

[JustAVet]

110. I agree, things don't always go as planned

But this situation could absolutely have been avoided. She needed to have a plan and a backup plan, and she didn't. I'm not saying she should go to jail, but she absolutely shouldn't be in the military, and she absolutely shouldn't have an honorable discharge, both of which were handled in her case.

[EFerrari]

116. I don't know that this could have been avoided without knowing a lot more

about her resources. But, a decision has been made that seems equitable and that's the main thing, imo.

[TexasObserver]

118. You guys come in pairs, right?

As you note, your situation was much, much different from the young woman in this story. There's really no comparison. You had a solid support system, while she didn't.

It's unrealistic to think just because life is good to you, it's good to everyone.

A poster suggested she adopt her child out, so that she could serve. Would that have been acceptable for your kids?

[JustAVet]

122. Then she shouldn't have stayed in

If she couldn't fulfill the obligation, she shouldn't have committed to the obligation.

We had exactly what she should have had - a plan and a backup plan. If we couldn't have had a back up plan, whichever one of us was "next up" for re-enlistment would have gotten out of the military.

[TexasObserver]

124. Your lack of compassion is alarming.

She is a young woman with a child, a child she didn't have when she signed up at a very young age.

I hope you'll learn to think like a civilian, instead of like a military robot.

[JustAVet]

128. One can have compassion without agreeing that it's OK ignore an obligation

You are correct that she didn't have the child when she entered the military, but once pregnant, she could have left the military with an honorable discharge. Instead, she chose to stay in, ignore the obligation she committed to, and hope that she could get a pass on it. She didn't get a pass, (and rightly so) and now she's leaving the military anyway with a less desirable discharge.

And I for one don't believe that living up to commitments freely made is a virtue that only applies to those in the military. I believed in keeping my word long before I joined the military, and I continue to believe in it now.

[TexasObserver]

129. You had a much, much better situation than her, so it's easy for you to judge.

You break your arm patting yourself on the back with "but I took care of my kids and I met my obligation." Well, you weren't in her place. You lucked out in life and had a support system that made your life much easier than hers.

Your inability to have empathy doesn't serve you well.

[JustAVet]

130. You're right, I wasn't in her place

because I chose not to be in her place. If we hadn't had a support system, I wouldn't have stayed in. She could have made the same decision, but instead she chose to roll the dice and then lost.

I have empathy for her, but not sympathy.

[TexasObserver]

137. If your husband had left you, maybe you'd think differently.

If you had gotten pregnant and he had taken off, maybe you'd have had a baby and decided you didn't want to stay in the military.

You can't seem to accept other women often aren't as lucky as you when it comes to having a responsible father for a child.

[JustAVet]

163. And if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't screw with them

You keep coming up with "what ifs" when in fact there is no "if" with this case - the woman had an obligation, she chose to refuse to fulfill that obligation, and she wanted to continue on as if nothing had happened. And to top it off, she's being lauded as a hero for refusing to fulfill the obligation.

If my husband had left me, I would have been out of the military at the next enlistment time - no way would I stay in the military as a single parent any longer than legally necessary.

What I can't accept is that it's OK to sign a legal contract and make a commitment knowing what is expected of me, and then to expect special treatment when I refuse to live up to the contract.

This type of behavior, i.e., using children as an excuse to break one's obligation to the military, feeds right into all of the stereotypes about why women shouldn't serve. We can't have one set of rules for parents and another for non-parents.

[EFerrari]

166. Fallacy of omission. She had TWO obligations and she had to choose one.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

And don't even start about women serving. As if before women served, every deployment went perfectly. Simply untrue.

[JustAVet]

175. She had to choose one because she didn't do as she was ordered to do

She is not the first single parent that has to provided dependent care plans - thousands of soldiers before her, male and female, have done so. She tried to have it both ways - stay in the military while refusing to follow orders. It just doesn't work that way, and it can't work that way.

And as you said to someone earlier, don't put words in my mouth. I never implied that all deployments went perfectly, nor did I say that women shouldn't be in the military. However, when we have a case like this, where a woman refuses to fulfill her obligations because of her child, that feeds quite nicely into the "women don't belong in the military" meme that is so popular with the extremist right.

[EFerrari]

184. Circular logic. She had to make a choice and she made the right one.

And yes, you did imply that somehow this plan that went badly for this individual reflects on all women. Don't put words in your own mouth unless you can own them.

[JustAVet]

189. You're changing the subject

The words you put in my mouth were that all deployments went perfectly before women in the military - I never said that nor did I imply it.

I certainly stand by the idea that when a woman uses her child to get out of meeting her military obligations, it reflects badly on all women, even the ones that follow the rules. There was a time when a woman was not permitted to serve in the military if she became pregnant - I have no desire to see us revert to that, nor do I think it is on the horizon. However, if women using their children to avoid their obligations becomes commonplace, I can see where it could happen. Do you want to go back to that time?

Bottom line, this soldier and I had different circumstances, but the same two choices - stay in and follow the rules or get out. I made my choice based on my circumstances, whereas it appears that this soldier didn't even consider her circumstances when making her choice. No support system in place, no viable dependent care plan, yet she still thought it would be a good idea to stay in? She chose poorly.

As I said earlier in the thread, she's better off without the Army, and the Army is better off without her.

[EFerrari]

195. No, I'm not changing the subject. You advocate a smear against women

serving and try to pass it off as what the right wing would say. You're saying it. Own it.

[JustAVet]

220. That is absolutely untrue

I have been nothing but civil this entire conversation, while you have repeatedly been rude, condescending and intellectually dishonest. I have NOT advocated a smear against women, I have pointed out that situations like this fuel the fire for those that WOULD use this as a smear against women. And if you don't believe there aren't such people out there, I suggest taking a closer look rather than leveling false accusations against me.

I don't know if you are male or female, whether you served in the military or not, but I am female, I did serve in the military and I can tell you that it's already tough for women in the military. In many cases, we have to work harder and do better to get even the minimum recognition that men get just for showing up at work. I never used my kids as an excuse for not doing my job or fulfilling my obligation because I knew that to do so would make it that much for difficult for the next military mom that came along. My desire was to make it easier for the next woman, not harder.

You can sit here all night and into tomorrow and claim that I said all these things, but that doesn't make your accusations true. This soldier screwed up - she chose to stay in with no plan, and it backfired on her, badly. In the process, she has planted a seed of doubt in the mind of every superior that had to deal with this. By trying to have her cake and eat it too, she's just made it more difficult for every female in her unit and beyond.

[EFerrari]

275. "she's just made it more difficult for every female in her unit and beyond. "

I don't have to claim anything. You did say it.

[JustAVet]

286. Yes, and I stand by it

Her refusal to fulfill her obligation and using her child as an excuse for that failure has just made it more difficult for every woman coming after her, especially those with children or those who become pregnant.

That's a far cry from the accusation made against me that I don't think women should be in the military.

[TexasObserver]

182. You're not helping yourself with your continued attack on this woman.

If your goal is to come across as unthinking and unfeeling, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

[JustAVet]

193. I'm not attacking her

I'm just saying that she made a bad decision when she chose to stay in the military with no dependent care plan.

[TexasObserver]

303. Not much, you're not! You've savaged her over and over.

[JonLP24]

148. "she could have left the military with an honorable discharge."

I don't think the option is available any more. I got out in '08 and there have been quite a few female soldiers get pregnant(actually all that I knew had a spouse in the military) and not one of them that I know of had the option of getting out like that. I would like to know if it is really that way any more.

[rd_kent]

139. Its a direct comparison.

They both had the same choice to make, and they chose differently.

[TexasObserver]

142. No, it isn't. One had a loving, supporting father of her kid and one didn't.

[rd_kent]

145. She made a choice when she found out she was pregnant.

She had several options at that point. She chose poorly.

[TexasObserver]

147. She made a choice after she had the baby.

I'll take that choice over the one you seem to think is paramount.

[rd_kent]

154. You seem to not realize that WHILE she was pregnant

she was required to come up with her Family Care Plan. A primary, a secondary and an emergency care plan. She failed to do that. THAT was the poor choice she made, the choice to disregard policy and orders.

[TexasObserver]

156. This was a campaign by the Army to scare soldiers from getting out due to pregnancy.

It was highly unusual handling of a woman who wanted out because she had a baby. This case was picked by the Army to make an example.

The Army's decision to make her an example was the poor choice. They got their ass handed to them, and now they've cratered and are licking their wounds.

[rd_kent]

170. WHAT? A campaign by the Army to make an example of her?

Really? They bent over back wards to try and help her, even granting her a 30 extension (her unit left without her) to find childcare. Instead, she chose to not comply.


You are really reaching now. I see that no matter WHAT the facts are, YOU have your mind made up.

[TexasObserver]

176. You really should read some decent sources. Try this one.

New York Times
February 11, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/us/12awolmom.html


Legal experts said it would have been extraordinary if Specialist Hutchinson had been court-martialed over child care issues, saying they could not recall a similar case. However, hundreds and perhaps thousands of soldiers have been administratively discharged for such problems in recent years.

Some legal experts speculated that Specialist Hutchinson’s commanders threatened court-martial to send a message to other single-parent soldiers in the brigade. Last year, more than 10,000 single parents on active military duty deployed overseas.

“It could be that they have a ton of single parents and deploy regularly and can’t afford to have disruptions like this,” said Michelle M. Lindo McCluer, a former Air Force lawyer who is now director of the National Institute of Military Justice, a nonprofit group in Washington.

<snip>

Specialist Hutchinson’s case unfolded about the same time as the division’s commander was embroiled in another controversy. In December, the commander, Maj. Gen. Anthony A. Cucolo III, who oversees forces in northern Iraq, issued orders threatening to punish soldiers, married or single, who become pregnant. (Punishment was also threatened for sexual partners.) The general, who has sent home about eight soldiers from Iraq because of pregnancy, later backed off the threat of court-martialing such soldiers.

[Techn0Girl]

320. You can't actually use facts to support your case with poeple like that....

They are on here only because the intentionally want to rile others up or because their minds are locked (for whatever reason) and can NEVER be opened. Personally I believe the former. I have put the person you are responding to on ignore and would suggest that you may want to consider doing the same rather than giving him or her any more attention. I real life people like this are walked away from - I thin kthe same strategy should be applied here after putting out the facts as you have admirably done.

[JustAVet]

165. All the more reason not to stay in the military n/t

[TexasObserver]

177. She's out.

[JustAVet]

179. Thanks, but I've been caught up n/t

[Techn0Girl]

228. Then I assume You are Equally Outraged About the Army dishonoring the contracts....

of people it presumes to be gay?
I assume you are writing and have written angry letters to the Army about it?

Oh , not really?
Geee... color me surprised.

[TexasObserver]

280. Or outraged about stop-loss. Or outraged about Pat Tillman. Or Jessica Lynch.

Or shabby medical care for veterans.

Or untreated PTSD for veterans.

Or billions of dollars they can't find.

Forget that stuff! A single 21 year old woman with a baby broke her word and the Army has to find a new cook!

[Techn0Girl]

327. Seriously - what more can you say!

(apparently much more because getting this through to them is like herding cats)

[CLANG]

274. I don't think it is wrong or unrealistic to expect people to live their own lives

and take the consequences for their actions. Fucking unbelievable that this is happening on DU.

[Hello_Kitty]

115. I suppose only those without kids should be the cannon fodder.

While parents get all the non-combat assignments.

[TexasObserver]

119. If I had wanted to say that, I would have said that.

Stop trying to force your contorted, contrived words onto the posts of others.

[Maat]

301. Perfectly put, TexasObserver!`

People around here don't seem to understand the lifelong implications of removal of custody from a parent. I do, since I'm a retired social worker and an adoptive parent (Beloved Daughter and I have always honestly talked about the subject, and she's wise beyond her years in understanding who 'family' is, and difficult choices that have to made sometimes - hopefully relatively rarely).

[TexasObserver]

313. Thanks! I'm sure you've heard "they're too young to remember."

Children may not recall these memories, but that doesn't alter the fact that it affects them forever. If they develop abandonment issues in the first few years, it can seriously warp them emotionally. It's critical that a child have at least one totally dedicated parental figure. That person can be kin or not, but it has to be someone who is fulfilling that parental role. And if you snatch that person out of the child's life - for whatever reason - you put that baby at risk for long term and short term.

Babies are resilient, but they suffer a loss when a loved one is taken away. Where that loved one is their sole caregiver, it's potentially catastrophic.

Babies need certainty of love and support. The first job of every parent is being a good parent. The healthy baby has many adults who love them and give them love to bask in and grow in. Love and encouragement make babies grow into sound humans.

[blueamy66]

88. Thank you.

I take that as a compiment.

[Mudoria]

80. Didn't have my support

[proud2BlibKansan]

102. Some of the responses in this thread are DISGUSTING

How shameful.

[EFerrari]

108. Maybe the Pentagon has a new program. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

125. Spam message boards and pretend you are a progressive?

LOL

[TexasObserver]

127. I don't think there's any doubt that's happening.

It makes sense. The bad spelling. The weak writing and thinking skills. The consistent use of GOP themes, right down to the terminology.

[proud2BlibKansan]

131. Oh I have no doubt either

If you lurk on their sites, they talk about it.

I was responding to the idea that this is a Pentagon program. That might explain some of the rabid responses on this topic.

[EFerrari]

132. To be clear, I don't think DU needs the Pentagram to induce "passion".

lol

:rofl:

[TexasObserver]

144. I agree. I do believe they have a program along those lines.

They're doing it on the clock, too, while at duty stations.

[Techn0Girl]

261. I have to wonder about that myself since only 3 people on this thread have been accounting for about

50 % of the negativity.

Why the investment in making such a disturbance?

[TexasObserver]

281. Why? Vested Interest.

It's no coincidence we have a small army of pro gun, pro military, pro war posters who flock to these threads with their talking points. I'm sure some of them are on duty, and they have encouragement to post their nonsense on message boards. Propaganda is the norm for the military, not the exception. They live it and breath it. Life doesn't exist outside the safe, embryonic life attached to the military.

[Hello_Kitty]

112. Yeah, being cannon fodder should be reserved for people without kids. eom

[Techn0Girl]

224. Being Canon fodder should only be reserved for heterosexual people....

according to your line of "reasoning" since the Army regularly dishonors the contracts of people they find out to be gay or lesbian.

[TexasObserver]

123. It's a barometer of true progressive values.

This story has outed a lot of people who aren't really progressives.

The "let her adopt the kid out" meme is especially charming.

People change when they have a kid. Some rise to parenthood. Some run away from it. The military has many who like to "run away from it."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

126. Good for her. And, bravo for Courage to Resist. K&R

[rd_kent]

141. There was no courage in her decision, its was actually a cowardly one.

[proud2BlibKansan]

157. Yes. You have made your feelings abundantly clear

in multiple threads. :eyes:

[rd_kent]

173. As have you, so what?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

283. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

174. Facing military "justice" to protect her child is hardly cowardly.

Much less cowardly than conforming to military rules.

[TexasObserver]

178. But attacking her is cowardly.

The cowardly conduct is by those who attack this young mother for the sin of changing her mind after having a child.

[kiva]

150. So the "won't go because I won't leave my baby" was a lie?

You say that the fact that Courage to Resist wasn't usually 'referenced' in the media was a 'tactical decision' - would that be because Hutchinson was insisting that she was only refusing to be deployed because she had no one to care for her child, not because she had changed her mind about doing what she had volunteered to do?

According to Courage to Resist's website they seek help to "Please help Courage to Resist support the troops that refuse to fight with your urgently needed tax-deductible donation today." Refuse to fight is a whole different argument than "I'm a wonderful mother who can't bear to leave her child." My guess is that some who would support her as mother of the year might have a problem sending money to a woman who chose to take a military enlistment bonus, training from said military, then refuse to do what she had sworn to do to earn that bonus and pay.

I have no problems with people who do not wish to fight these wars - I oppose them and want all of our soldiers out - but have no respect for someone who chose to enlist knowing the US was involved in two wars, that there was a good chance she would be deployed, then changed her mind.

[EFerrari]

151. And I wish many, many, many more of these enlistees would change their mind.

By the hundreds and thousands.

[kiva]

160. Why not just not enlist?

Yes, I know that poor young men and women see the military as their best option and enlist for employment and educational opportunities, but they also make the commitment to serve in exchange for the bonus and pay and education. I agree that the fact so many see the military as their only choice is wrong, but we should be working to provide other opportunities (college, jobs) rather than encourage our young people to join the military then refuse to serve.

[EFerrari]

161. Agreed. They should have other opportunities. n/t

[katandmoon]

168. Wouldn't it make more sense if, you know, they just DIDN'T ENLIST in the first place?

[EFerrari]

169. I think you're confusing human experience with your perfect life.

[rd_kent]

172. WTF does that mean?

[Techn0Girl]

262. People don't always have a choice....

The Army offers housing , food , full medical , a livable wage , training and retirement benefits to people with only a high school education and no other experience. There are darn few positions out there these days that do the same. In fact I challenge you to find a single one.

[Obamanaut]

285. You just described my post #114. It worked for me, but it does not

for everyone.

As the senior enlisted man in a unit I was in, I was in the chain for reenlistment interviews with the first termers as they approached their discharge dates.

A young man told me he didn't like the Navy, and he was getting out. I assured him that I understood that it wasn't for everyone, and for those, getting out was a good decision, and wished him well, telling him to look into education benifits, finding help with job search, etc.

Later, our CO chastised me nicely. The young man told him what I had said. COs scrutinize reenlistment rates, and like them 'up' so they look good. Part of my job, he said, was to keep the first termers, as many as we could.

It was not our last disagreement.

[Techn0Girl]

312. Hehe ... Sounds like the Navy is JUST like the Army ....

but with better food I hear.

I strongly suspect that all four of the keyboard chickenhawks who are putting down this woman never ever served in the military despite what some of them claim.

[katandmoon]

343. Oh for god's fucking sake. You don't get all those things for NOTHING, now do you?

[SeattleGirl]

162. In all the condemnation I'm reading here in this thread, there

is something I'm not seeing much of: IT USUALLY TAKES TWO TO CREATE A PREGNANCY!!!!!

Unless this woman is a real-life Virgin Mary, or unless she had invitro fertilization, THERE WAS A MAN INVOLVED IN THE CREATION OF THIS CHILD.

And as some have said, SOMETIMES BIRTH CONTROL FAILS.

Some of you are acting like she and only she is responsible for becoming pregnant.

And shame on you for that.

But yeah, let's just blame it all on the woman. Would you also like to recommend that women not be allowed to enlist ever, at all, no way, no how?

Business as usual, I guess.

:grr:

[EFerrari]

167. It's bullshit. There, I said it and it's nearly Sunday.

lol

[JustAVet]

171. I agree with you that it takes two to tango,

but unless the father was in the military, there is nothing the military can do to make him take responsibility. They can however order the mom-soldier to take all necessary steps to ensure that she can meet all military obligations while ensuring that her child is cared for. She didn't do so.

I'm not blaming the woman for getting pregnant - things happen. I am blaming her for not living up to her obligations.

And quite frankly, this is a textbook case for anti-women-in-the-military groups that argue that women shouldn't be in the military.

[EFerrari]

181. What utter cr@p. It's too bad more of you didn't make the same amount of noise

when Bush invaded the wrong country.

[SeattleGirl]

200. And quite frankly, it seems you agree with the anti-women in

the military groups.

And I KNOW the military cannot do anything to the father if he's not in the military. That was not my point. My point is, sometimes things happen, even if we take our best precautions against it. Yet so many people here get on their high horse and act as if this woman did it on purpose. She was in ROTC fer Christ sakes! And if I remember correctly, she was a cook, not a commander in charge of a unit.

AND further, the woman thought she had things worked out with her mother taking care of her child, but that fell through. Would you suggest she just leave her child on a doorstep? Give him up to a group home? A foster home? She wanted to leave her child with the person she felt would take the best care of him. That it didn't work out was not her fault. Seems to me she was being a good mother there. Oh, but I guess military comes before all, doesn't it? wives, husbands, CHILDREN WITH NO WHERE ELSE TO GO. Fuck the kid, eh? Sorry, but I just cannot go along with that.

Sometimes things happen, and sometimes people do their best to live up to their obligations, but sometimes it's not possible. Tell me, have YOU ever had to not meet an obligation because something happened and no matter what you did, you couldn't get around the obstacles?

[JustAVet]

246. Totally wrong, I'm very pro-women in the military

I was one for 20 years.

I don't for one second have any reason to believe this woman got pregnant in order to get out of deploying. Accidents happen all the time - that's why I have two kids instead of one. But once pregnant, she had a choice to make. With no support system and a non-viable plan, choosing to stay in the Army was a bad choice, and now she's paying for it. I'm not saying she should have gone to jail - kicking her out with no benefits, repayment of bonus, if applicable, and less than honorable discharge is plenty. But I also don't agree that she is some kind of hero because she made a bad decision and then expected the Army to deal with it.

As for your last question, no, I've never not met an important obligation. Nitnoid stuff like hair appointments, etc., yes. But something as important as my family or my career? No.

[noamnety]

186. I support the mission she's on now

far more than I support the mission they wanted to send her on. :)

[Amaya]

297. +1000

Much more important! :applause:

[alarimer]

187. Good. That's one less bit of cannon fodder.

Fuck the piece of shit Army. I support anyone who wants out for whatever reason. Inhumane monsters- the kid is better off not being in foster care, that's for sure.

[proteus_lives]

188. Courage to Resist my ass.

She has no courage.

She broke her contract and her word.

She decided the rules didn't apply to her. Sounds like someone never grew-up.

To bad the courage of the real soldiers didn't rub off on her.

[JustAVet]

190. +1 n/t

[EFerrari]

191. Too bad she wasn't brave enough to abandon her baby to foster care

while she deployed to an illegal war on the wrong country. What a loser. A real soldier would have handed that bundle off and trotted out to be a target in a quagmire, for reals. :sarcasm:

[proteus_lives]

197. Of course,

She shouldn't expected the Army to take her seriously when she volunteered.

It was all a joke. (at least to her)

[Techn0Girl]

199. Men leave the Army all the time....

For medical reasons....
For psychiatric reasons...
Medical discharges are commonplace. It happens regularly.

But when a WOMAN wants to leave the military to care for her child who would have been left homeless if she had deployed....
well that's apparently unacceptable to a lot of men who have never even been in the military ... and perhaps to a very few who have.

[EFerrari]

202. That you can so easily dismiss this young woman says much more about you

than about her.

Have a good night.

[proteus_lives]

209. Sorry that disagreement pains you.

She broke her word and expected the Army to give her special treatment. That's all to be said about her.

[Techn0Girl]

211. Welcome to my ignore list....

You really just keep repeating the same point over and over again.
Thankfully I won't have to listen to it any more.

[proteus_lives]

231. Ignore?

Sorry you can't handle other opinions.

[SeattleGirl]

214. Wow, how very narrow minded of you.

Rigid militaristic thinking doesn't always apply to life outside the military. Even if you are IN the military.

[Techn0Girl]

218. A whole LOT of people out there om the internet claim to be in the military but never were....

REAL Vets support their military Brothers and Sisters.
REAL Vets understand how difficult it is to have a family in the military let alone a be a single parent.

[JustAVet]

227. Real vets support their military brothers and sisters when they're right

Yes, it is very difficult to have a family in the military, and doubly so when one is a single parent. That's why I think it was an incredibly poor choice for her to choose to stay in the military when she was pregnant instead of seeking a discharge immediately. Had she done so, all of this would have been avoided, because she would have been out of the Army before the baby was even born.

[TexasObserver]

305. That's right. That's why I support her, and not you.

She's right and you're not.

I'm a real vet. I don't know whether you are, or whether that's just some story you're promoting for today.

[EFerrari]

277. It doesn't pain me in the least to point out

that your judgmentalism has nothing to do with the reality of this situation or what was best for the greater good. I'm fine with that.

[Techn0Girl]

198. Yes, she broke her contract ....

In order to care for her child . In order to NOT abandon her child.
And she was right to do so.

The court agreed that she was right.
The Army eventually agreed that she was right.

But you are certainly entitled you your opinion regardless of how misogynistic it is.

[proteus_lives]

201. So now it's misogynistic is expect someone to keep their word?

Good to know.

[Techn0Girl]

204. No It's Misogynistic for YOU to pick on this woman for honoring her commitment to her child.

[proteus_lives]

210. Too bad for the kid.

He's in for a rough ride. She's shown how she honors her commitments.

[SeattleGirl]

217. What bullshit! But then, you are not a woman, you are not a

mother, and you seem to care little for them.

Guess it's no surprise you would have such an attitude.

I can't even tell you how angry this fucking bullshit makes me.

[Techn0Girl]

223. Hey chill out Sister :) It's only the Internet ... Just put the person on 'ignore' .....

and never talk to them again. Just like in real life :)

It's not worth getting angry over. Such people are not worth getting angry over.

[Name removed]

233. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SeattleGirl]

245. Oh cry me a river.

Boo fucking hoo.

You don't even recognize your own entitlement do you?

[proteus_lives]

263. Do you recognize the bigotry of your statement?

[Name removed]

282. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

268. Yeah, poor kid, can see how much he means to her, how commited she is to him.

[EFerrari]

206. It's mysogynistic to reduce this situation to that, yes, it is. n/t

[proteus_lives]

213. No it isn't.

[EFerrari]

276. Of course it is. You cut the frame to something you can handle

and then you beat her over the head with it.

Problems like this one come up in every big organization. That's why God invented HR.

Geeze. I don't think any of you made this much of a stink over Fallujah. But, oh my, she doesn't have a babysitter! The f#cking Army is going to fold!

How will they ever handle bin Laden if they can't handle this? Oh, wait, they did.

[uppityperson]

317. Techno, I have disagreed with you on some things in the past...

but have to say thank you for your posts here. Am looking forward to more of them.

[Techn0Girl]

326. Well, we can't agree on everything - that would just make the world boring :)

Thanks for your message :)

[SeattleGirl]

205. AND IT'S OKAY WITH YOU IF SHE BROKE HER CONTRACT,

HER OBLIGATION, TO HER SON????

Good fucking grief!

[proteus_lives]

215. See post #210.

[SeattleGirl]

222. I saw it, what what that tells me is you think the ONLY commitment

this woman has is to the military.

Fuck the child, eh?

You sicken me.

[proteus_lives]

235. Back 'atcha.

You hire her. You can give her all the special treatment she wants.

[SeattleGirl]

247. Why don't you just confess that you have this despicable

attitude because she's a woman? Let's just get that out in the open, shall we? I mean, it's so obvious.

[JustAVet]

252. I'm not about to speak for ANYONE else

but speaking for me, I would feel the exact same way if this were a single father facing this dilemma instead of a single mother. The difference is that if this were a man, it wouldn't be fodder for extremists to say "That's what you get when you let a man in the Army".

[proteus_lives]

265. It's obvious in your head.

But no where else.

Gender doesn't matter here. I'd be responding the same why if she was man.

Sorry if you can't handle other viewpoints and need to respond with shallow accusations.

[noamnety]

216. There is no "contract" when you enlist.

The enlistment document is not a contract specifically because it doesn't meet the legal requirements for being a contract.

If you are going to use terms to reference legal concepts, please refrain from using that one because it doesn't apply.

[Techn0Girl]

221. FWIW - everyone in the military refers to it as a "contract"....

At least they did when I was in during the 80's. In what way are you claiming the document is not a contract? I am curious.

[JustAVet]

256. Thanks, that's what we always called it as well n/t

[noamnety]

284. It's simply NOT a contract.

It doesn't meet the legal definition because it's not binding on both parties.

If you signed it and you thought it was a contract, you should have read the fine print better. Or the large print.

Whether or not the people you know in the military call it a contract doesn't make it one. If you'd have had better access to a truth-in-recruitment group before you signed it, you'd have understood that point, understood what you were signing before you signed it. It's scary to see people questioning why it isn't a contract AFTER they got out.

[Techn0Girl]

314. Saying something over and over again does NOT make it so.....

even if you stamp your feet and use capital letters.

Your main argument appears to be the assertion that the "enlistment contract" as it is universally known within the military is not a real contract because it is not binding on both parties. In the enlistment contract the enlistee agrees to do certain things for the military and the military agrees to do certain things for the enlistee. In my case they agreed to a certain amount of training in a certain field and a defined first post location. There are many many other things but hose are just two.

Should either party break the agreement there are legal penalties both within and without the military justice system. If the Army choose to NOT train me in the field that I was contracted to train with them or to NOT send me to the post the was in the contract I could have forced them to do so through the courts and/OR have recovered damages.

That is based on actual experience. Now I am sure that you will write back, stamp your little feet and claim the very same thing once again - but you are wrong plain and simply - I have proved you wrong and you have not made your case.

Every single person in the military refers to the "enlistment contract" and I assure you that they do so NOT because a million people are entirely wrong and only YOU have received special enlightenment.

Now go ahead... say it again...

[noamnety]

330. Calling it a "contact" again and again does not make it one.

A contract is binding on both parties. Read it. It's an enlistment "document" - and that's because it does not meet the legal requirements for technically being a contract. Not even if you stamp your feet and use capital letters. ;)

You are mistaken when you write: "Should either party break the agreement there are legal penalties both within and without the military justice system." The document says right in it that the government can change the provisions in it at any time. And that is why it is not a legal contract. But you knew that. You (apparently?) signed one, so you know it states:
"The following are not promises or guarantees of any kind." (Do you normally read that in a legal contract?)

And you know it also states: Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Services regardless of the provisions of this enlistment/reenlistment document.

-------------
"The Enlistment Agreement

The enlistment agreement is not a contract. It is a one-way agreement that is binding upon the recruit but not binding upon the military. The agreement states that the enlistee is "entitled to receive pay, allowance, and other benefits, as provided by law and regulation." However, the enlistment agreement also states, "Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/reenlistment document."

This language means that the military does not have to honor any promises made at the time of your enlistment. You, however, must give eight years of your life, obey all orders, and possibly kill or be killed. You may be subject to health hazards, discrimination, and emotional or physical abuse. Your superiors may decide to cut your pay or benefits without even telling you. Even the job placement that the recruiter promised you may be changed at a moment's notice. If you refuse to obey orders, you may be disciplined, face a court martial, and perhaps receive a dishonorable discharge."

http://www.centeronconscience.org/girights/enlist.shtml

[Techn0Girl]

332. You are quoting an extremely biased source and they are just as wrong as yourself...

You are quoting the Center on Conscience that has an agenda to sway people against enlisting in the military. Their analysis is flawed and incorrect as I will point out by using UNBIASED sources.

The enlistment contract is indeed a contract and is indeed enforceable...

1. Quoting a criminal defense lawyer, Terri Zimmermann Jacobs ,on the enlistment contract
http://mailman.io.com/pipermail/militarylawsection/2006-October/000092.html

"I agree that once the contract is signed it is legally enforceable.
HOWEVER, I have lots of people coming to me to get them out of delayed
entry program contracts, and I don't know if it's handled the same way
everywhere, but in Houston, the Army and Marine Corps do not pursue
prospects who want out -- they let them no-show and just make some sort
of notation that flags them if they should try to enlist again. In 10
years here I have never seen anyone rounded up and shipped off against
their will, but they had better not try to get back in later . . . ."

2. Quoting William P. Casella from The University of Chicago Law Review

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1599052
"In addition they (ed: the courts) have found that enlistees have certain contractual rights that serve to limit the power of both the Armed service and Congress"

3. The United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/988/988.F2d.131.92-5166.html

"On May 23, 1991, Muhammad filed another action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $15,000,000 for wrongful termination of his Army enlistment contract, intentionally inflicted emotional distress, and violation of his civil rights. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss Muhammad's federal tort and civil rights claims and ordered that the breach of contract/wrongful discharge claim be transferred to the U.S. Claims Court."

---------

So apparently a criminal defense lawyer, a renowned law professor and the freaking U.S. federal court of appeals DISAGREE with you and your odd assertions that the "enlistment contract" is not in fact a contract because they all treat it as such.

Look buddy - next time you Google you need to try to open your mint to MORE than one link and here's a phrase for you: it's called "Critical Thinking" . Perhaps you've heard of it?. It means that you should examine your source before you quote it. Just because you see it on the web doesn't mean it's true. OK? But when a well know law firm, a well know legal professor AND the U.S. Federal Courts system agree that the enlistment contract IS a contract well... most reasonable people would be pretty damn sure that it IS a contract.

This discussion is ended. I know for an iron clad certainty that you will now come back with some OTHER equally worthless source to support your equally worthless argument. You go on ignore. I'm not wasting a moment's more time on you.

Adios.

[uppityperson]

316. You sound like my old mom when I got divorced yrs back

"you broke the contract you signed, and your word!"

It took real courage to go through the legal and social shit that divorce entailed back then. It was much easier to stay married to an abusive immature spouse.

[Techn0Girl]

325. There are levels to social maturity....

Robert Kegaan, a well know Harvard developmental psychologist defines fives stages of social maturity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kegan


He claims that most people never evolve beyond the fourth stage which is a rigid adherence to current societal rules ("She broke her contract!", etc). The highest stage of social maturity, Kegan claims, is one where you can look objectively at existing laws and social mores and re-evaluate them within a greater context. Kegan claims that most people never evolve to this stage.

It;s an interesting theory and to me explains much about people.

[proteus_lives]

365. You married your mom?

Gross.

Well if the Army was abusing her, you might have a point. But they just expected her to do her job but she demanded special treatment.

[Techn0Girl]

203. Speaking of Honoring Contracts What about....

all the men and woman the U.S. Army let go - DISHONORING their contract because those men or women happened to be gay.

Military Kettle Meet Military Pot... Guess what color you BOTH are?

It works both ways.
The Army only honors enlistment contracts when it is convenient for THEM.

[SeattleGirl]

207. Snap! Excellent point you bring up, Techn0Girl!

Excellent! I bet that thought NEVER crossed their minds.

[Techn0Girl]

208. That would assume that there are minds to be crossed .... ;)

[JustAVet]

225. I'm wholeheartedly in favor of allowing gays to serve openly

Always have been, always will be, but the enlistment contract does include "at the convenience of the government", which is a catch-all that allows the government an out whenever they need one.

If someone is kicked out for being gay, then it would be because someone found out, no? In that case, like it or not, and I don't, the military has no choice but to discharge the soldier.

[SeattleGirl]

226. The military does have a choice. They could choose to allow

gays to serve openly, yet they haven't have they? They kick them out more often than not.

But this woman? My gawd, she DARED to have sex, and despite any protection she or her partner may have used, she got pregnant.

But fuck that, huh? She has an obligation to the military, the ONLY obligation she has, according to some on this board. Never mind her child. He is nothing but the result her her sin.

GAH!

[JustAVet]

230. No, the military doesn't have that choice

and they won't have it until Congress overturns DADT. The military can't just ignore the law on this matter, as much we all might wish they would.

Unplanned pregnancies happen all the time in the military, contraception or not...it's a fact of life. But when she became pregnant, she could have opted to get out rather than stay in and expect special treatment. That's my issue with this situation - not that she got pregnant, not that she's a single mom, not that she decided to stay in, but that she decided to stay in and expected special treatment, i.e., not deploying.

[Techn0Girl]

236. "Special Treatment" is a Republican talking point and you are using it JUST as incorrectly here....

as any Republican uses it elsewhere. To clarify: I'm not saying that you are a Republican - merely just that you are misusing the term just as a Republican would.

The FACTS of the matter are that married men and women in the military ALWAYS get special treatment. Every REAL military person knows that. Here are just a few examples:

1. Married Servicepeople are allowed to live off-post outside of the barracks when single servicepeopel do NOT

2. Married Servicepeople get a special housing allowance that single servicepeople DON'T get.

3. Married Servicepeople get special medical benefits that single Servicepeople DON'T get.

4. Pregnant Servicewomen are ALLOWED special (light) duty during the course of their pregnancy.

And Pregnant service people fill out a deployment action plan that the Army is SUPPOSED TO VERIFY - obviously they Army failed to do so.

Your argument about "special privileges is both incorrect and specious. Married and Pregnant service people ALWAYS have recieved special privileges and rightly so. REAL Vets know that and accept it.

[JustAVet]

239. I think you need to re-check some of your facts

1. Single service people are permitted to live off post. Of the four years I served before I was married, I only lived in the barracks for basic training, tech school and four months after I arrived at my first permanent duty station

2. Married people only receive a special housing allowance if they are living off-base or in base-housing that is managed by non-government contractors. Single people that live off-base are provided a housing allowance as well, although it will be at a single rate rather than a dependent rate.

3. Married service people get no medical benefits above what single service people receive. If you believe differently, please provide an example.

My argument about special privileges relates to the fact that this soldier wanted to stay in the military but not deploy because she had a child. It was her responsibility, if she wanted to stay in the military, to have a realistic and viable dependent care plan that covered all her bases in the event of deployment. Single people and dual military couples are required to be deployment ready, children or not. If they aren't able to do so, then they shouldn't stay in the military.

[Techn0Girl]

241. You need to be completely truthful

"3. Married service people get no medical benefits above what single service people receive. If you believe differently, please provide an example."

Domestic partners, recognized by the State, do NOT get medical coverage but a Spouse will. Q.E.D.

"Single service people are permitted to live off post. "
You are being intentionally untruthful. Single service people SOMETIMES are permitted to live off post. Married service people are ALWAYS given either off-post housing or are given special (larger)quarters to live in AWAY from the barracks.

My points remain valid that married and pregnant service people ALWAYS get special treatment .

Your "Special treatment" argument is utterly without merit since the ARMY Always f=gives special treatment to married and/or pregnant servicepeople and it is within such people's rights to expect such special treatment since it is a regular occurring benefit.

Just because YOU disagree with treating pregnant woman differently is meaningless - the U.S. Army ALREADY concurred that this woman should be honorably released. Hence YOUR opinion is contrary to what the Army currently believes.

[JustAVet]

248. Hmmm...

You're right, domestic partners don't get medical benefits because the federal government doesn't recognize them. The single service member herself gets the exact same medical benefit as any married member.

As for single people living off base, you said they aren't permitted, which is untrue. Did you mean to say they aren't always permitted to do so, because that would be correct. As for married people always being given off post housing again, that's not my experience. Every place I was stationed, it always came down to the occupancy level of post housing. If it was above 90%, quarters "in town" were approved. Otherwise, the family got to choose from one or two houses on post. Depending on the area, many, if not most military families prefer on post housing to living on the local economy.

Where did you get the idea that I though pregnant women shouldn't be treated differently? I said single parents shouldn't be treated differently, and I stand by that.

I would also challenge you to find where I ever said she shouldn't be released from the Army - she should be. With no benefits, repayment of any bonus on a prorated basis, and a less than honorable discharge.

[Techn0Girl]

255. Whatever... You apparently disagree with what the Army now believes...

Which is that this woman is getting an administrative discharge under "other than honorable" conditions which is NOT a dishonorable discharge. She is receiving no other punishment an being allowed to care for her child.

The fact the you believe things should have been done differently is completely irrelevant and I'm sure you recall the old Army maxim regarding "opinions" . (assuming you are really a Vet , of course)

You're entitled to your opinion regardless of how outdated or contrary to Army policy it may be.

[JustAVet]

259. As you obviously haven't read what I've written numerous times

I do agree with what the Army did - she's better off without the Army, and the Army is better off without her.

[SeattleGirl]

244. They could push Congress to repeal DADT, but I don't

see a whole lot of effort put into that, except for the recent hearings, and even that doesn't go far enough.

[JustAVet]

250. I agree, it's not happening fast enough

but the military can't push Congress to do anything - it's more the other way around.

[Techn0Girl]

229. YOu are in favor of the Military DISHONORING contracts of Gays and Lesbians...

but you are NOT in favor of this woman reneging on her contract in order to NOT leave her child homeless and helpless (since the Army is leaving her no other choice).

Sure... that's completely consistent with a Progressive mindset.

[JustAVet]

232. Where did you derive the notion that I'm in favor of the military

dishonoring contracts of gays and lesbians?

As for the soldier, there was no need for her to dishonor her contract - she could have left the military when she found out she was pregnant and that would have been the end of the entire episode. Instead, she chose to stay in the military but not to honor her contract.

[Techn0Girl]

237. Good then since we BOTH agree that he U.S. Army Dishonors SOME military contracts....

we should both agree that this woman is doing nothing different than the Army has done already.

[JustAVet]

240. I didn't agree that the military dishonors some contracts

That's your talking point, not mine.

[Techn0Girl]

243. That's NOT what you previously said. You already acknoledged that they revoke the contracts ....

of people presumed gay or lesbian.

[JustAVet]

249. Wrong

That's not what I said at all.

I said that under DADT, if a gay member is being discharged, it is because leadership found out they were gay.

[Techn0Girl]

251. Whatever ... the point remains that you disagree with what the Army alreay believes....

That this woman has the right to be discharged in her current circumstance.
This is what the Army now believes and you have the right to personally disagree with the U.S. Army as you see fit.

Personally I agree with the Army's decision - that this woman should be discharged without punishment.

[JustAVet]

253. Wrong again

I agree with the Army booting her out. My issue isn't with her leaving the service, it's with her expecting to be treated differently than every other single parent while she was in the service.

[Techn0Girl]

258. I'm sorry but you are best put on ignore...

You keep repeating yourself over and over and I find this boring and a waste of time.

You believe differently to current Army policy.
The woman was granted an Administrative discharge by the U.S. Army with no punishment and allowed to care for her child. Your personal opinion of this matter is no more relevant than is Archie Bunker's opinion of minorities in the modern world.

Sorry but you're on "ignore" as of this point.

[JustAVet]

260. I'm agreeing with you and you're putting me on ignore?

That's a new one!

[noamnety]

335. If you makes you feel any better

She seems downright irate at me, and I agree with her too. :)

[uppityperson]

318. He's dead, Jim. eom

[EFerrari]

321. That whole thing was weird. I'm glad you were on this thread

for the reality check alone! :)

[uppityperson]

324. Great

Here I am, suffering major work burn out depression and I'm "reality check". Glad you were here too and Techno and a few others. Very odd.

[Techn0Girl]

328. Work burn out !

Hah! I was unemployed for 8 months - I would DIE for work burnout LOL.
( count your blessings <g> )

And I just got a pretty great job at a University and I start Tuesday - Yay! It;s only temp for 4 months but has potential for bringing me on permenantly.

I hope to experience work burn out again soon ! :)

[EFerrari]

329. I have awful burnout from my last gig AND after two years of no employment

am now working part-time.

It's interesting. You don't have to have a job to be flattened by burn out. Good luck with the new one, Techn0Girl!

[Techn0Girl]

338. Thanks and I hope things get better for you. If you hang in there long enough they always do :)

[uppityperson]

337. Congrats and no

It has been killing me, finally have to stop, change what I am doing. It sucks since I was making good money, but no, spraining my brain, breaking my emotions, hurting my body, no thanks.

In over 30 yrs working what I do, I have never had this happen. Have been "burnt out and need a break" but haven't broken before. It is the economy, do more, now even more, now we're going to make you do what we can't do and be responsible for lives on top of it.

Congrats on the job, hoping it all goes well.

[TexasObserver]

310. Five years here and you never once spoke up about DADT, that's why!

It's clear that you're just fine with DADT, or Stop-Loss. You've never complained about those, but you have a major attitude about this 21 year old single mother who isn't even a specialist of any kind. She's a cook.

All the things you might have gotten pissed about, but the only one that really pissed you off was this woman. Not gays being discharged one after another. Not women soldiers being raped by fellow soldiers. No, you can let that slide. But let a single mother choose motherhood and you're ready for war.

Are you sure you're a mother, and not just someone who hates women?

[leftstreet]

242. IBTL

:beer:

[EFerrari]

279. Take that!

:rofl:

[chrisa]

287. Alex Hutchinson = Hero

I feel sorry for anybody still trapped in the military. At least she was able to make it out. She risked a court martial for her child, which makes her a hero.

[JustAVet]

289. A hero to some

I can't help but wonder if this support is because of what she chose to do or because of where she was deploying to.

If she was being sent to a location outside of Iraq or Afghanistan, a location where she couldn't take her child, would she still be seen as a hero? Somehow, I doubt it.

[chrisa]

291. She's a hero for standing up for herself and her child.

And fighting off an organization that asks you to sign your life away to people who cannot be trusted with it.

[Techn0Girl]

315. Well said !! Couldn't agree more :)

[TexasObserver]

307. Why were you booted out of the military?

Is that why you're so angry at this mother who wanted to get out?

[Tim01]

353. Does the military have these problems with guys? nt

[TexasObserver]

360. It's difficult to know the gender of ...

... a dead sock puppet.

Just A Vet met his/her maker.

[Techn0Girl]

364. Hallaleuja !

Good on DU for getting rid of that awful poser.
I'm sure it wasn't a real Vet.

[TexasObserver]

366. She/he made it up as they went along. The kids. The 20 years service.

All lies by a poseur trying to support the Army's untenable position.

[rd_kent]

339. Trapped? The Military is an all volunteer force. No one is trapped.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

342. Really? Try quitting when you changed your mind.

I volunteered and would have loved to tell them to shove their lousy job before my 4 years were up. As would most of my comrades when I was in.

[katandmoon]

344. You weren't aware of what you were signing up for?

[Techn0Girl]

346. You must be very young or very inexperienced (with all due respect)

Because NO one at all knows what they are signing up for - least of all anyone who ends up in combat.
No 18 year old kid (including me ) knows what t really means to really put your life on the line for your superiors.

No 18 year old kid knows what it means to be ordered to kill another person.

It's easy to be a keyboard warrior and mouth platitudes like that - it's a whole other thing to be ordered to kill women and children as the need arises. A lot of very good vets turned to drugs and a lot more ended up broken and homeless when they returned.

There's a reason for that .

Consider yourself lucky that you are ignorant of the reasons why this occurs.

[rd_kent]

348. Your stories are the exception, not the rule.

Sure, what you describes does happen, but that is not the norm.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

352. Sure I did. At 17 you know everything.

"The Marine Corps Builds Men", "The Few, the Proud". And, a lot of other outright lies.

[Techn0Girl]

345. Ha ! The only reason I didn't run away during Basic was because they had all my clothes LOL

It turned out to be the best thing for me but for the first 3 months I would have left pronto if offerred the chance :)

[rd_kent]

347. Well, thats why the pay is so good!

But really, its a commitment. You make an obligation. Should have thought about that before joining.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

351. $79 a month when I joined. $165 when I finally got out 4 years later.

A princely sum.

[Techn0Girl]

354. Well I feel a lot better now....

about my $460 when I started and $1250 when I ended. LOL

You know that wasn't really half bad (in 1980) considering that all my medical, dental, housing, food and work clothes were paid for.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

355. '61 - '65 for me.

We had to buy our clothes after the initial "gift". The food..wellll...it was usually..filling. The medical was laughable, dental non-existent, housing was jim-dandy if you didn't mind barracks, snoring, drunks, fistfights, and other diversions.

And, I was lucky enough to land in the "cushy" air wing.

[EFerrari]

356. I bought two cases of MREs to use in case of an earthquake and tried one

to see what they were like.

All I can say is, I hope that case is the first thing to be buried in the rubble. lol

[Techn0Girl]

358. Heh I used to use MREs like Ramen when I was in college and was broke....

Of course when I was in we ate C-rations . You hab=ven't lived until you've eaten some of what is in those!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

359. C-rations when I was in. Sure cure for diarrhea.

I never could figure out why they included toilet paper.

[Techn0Girl]

357. Really ... I guess I had it better than I thought...

I was in a field medical unit. The food was OK really - with some great spreads on the holidays. The barracks were oldish but not more than like 15 years or so old - but usually 2 to a room and for my last 2 years I had a private room and/or was off post. Medical was only laughable until I saw how bad it was OUTSIDE of the military (!) . And the people were by and large pretty cool - we were like a family in a lot of ways really.

[rd_kent]

362. You too cannot see humor? But don't bother anwering the true point I made in my post.

[rd_kent]

361. Seriously? You cannot see humor when its in your face?

[chrisa]

363. Come on, rd_kent. We all know about recruiters.

They slink into High Schools, and prey on kids who haven't even finished a quarter of their lives yet. They make all of these bullshit promises that they'll never keep. If the army were a company, they would be sued and condemned for false advertising.

And yes, people are trapped in the military. People do sign up and regret it.

[Techn0Girl]

331. "OMG! She BROKE her Contract!! " : Kegans Theory of social maturity

Why do some (on this thread only about 4) people seem to focus on this point alone whereas others see things differently?

(by the way if you read the original article - it was actually the Army that failed to follow it's own internal procedures - fyi)

Why are some people so hung up about the alleged contract business - regardless of how wrong that assumption is?

There is a theory of Social Maturity by a Harvard professor and developmental Psychologist that is widely accepted. In this theory Kegan describes 6 levels of social maturity and claims that the level most people ascend to is something he calls the "Institutional" level which is a rigid adherence to societal rules. Only a relative few go further to the "InterIndividual" level which evaluates those rules in a greater context.

Here is a nice excerpt that explains the concepts :

from http://the-mouse-trap.blogspot.com/2008/09/robert-kegans-stages-of-social-maturity.html

For many people, social maturity seems to stop here at the Institutional stage. Kegan himself writes that this stage is the stage of conventional adult maturity; one that many (but not all) adults reach, and beyond which most do not progress. However, the potential for continued development continues onwards and upwards.
The next evolution of self understanding occurs when the child (by now probably an adult) starts to realize that there is more than one way of being "fair" or "honest" or "brave" in the world. Whereas before, in the interpersonal mindset, there is only one possible right way to interpret a social event (e.g., in accordance with one's own value system), a newly developed InterIndivdiual mindset starts to recognize a diversity of ways that someone might act and still be acting in accordance with a coherent value system (though not necessarily one's own value system).

[EFerrari]

333. Interesting. I haven't read Kegan's model before

although studied British object relations for years. Thanks.

[Name removed]

336. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.