• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conscientious objection when in the military

Would you allow conscientious objection while in the military?

  • Yes - please give reasons

    Votes: 5 33.3%
  • No - please give reasons

    Votes: 10 66.7%
  • Other: please explain

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    15

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
23,515
Reaction score
15,388
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A Royal Navy medic refused to undergo rifle training on "moral and ethical grounds" ahead of deployment to Afghanistan, a court martial has heard.

Leading Medical Assistant Michael Lyons, 24, of Plymouth, Devon, is accused of wilful disobedience over the incident in Portsmouth last year.

Full Story here

Would you court martial this man? Would you allow conscientious objection within the armed forces?

My position is that the medic should be court martialled, in essence as a volunteer (we don't conscript or draft recruits) he signed, swore an oath and then refused a specific part of his military training. If he had been sent off to a war zone he would have become a liability.

You cannot pick and choose military assignment either!
 
I don't think the situation above outlines the exact situations I had in mind, but you actually can often choose military assignment. Some people have moral scruples against institutionalized and organized murder and the idea of war in general. They should be allowed to contribute in other ways.
 
Would you court martial this man? Would you allow conscientious objection within the armed forces?

My position is that the medic should be court martialled, in essence as a volunteer (we don't conscript or draft recruits) he signed, swore an oath and then refused a specific part of his military training. If he had been sent off to a war zone he would have become a liability.

You cannot pick and choose military assignment either!

Damn, this is tricky. Excellent question.

On the one hand, all volunteer force(I believe in England anyway), if you are going to volunteer, it's pretty silly to be a conscientious objector. Further, he is not being asked to shoot any one, he is being trained to use a rifle. lastly, you don't agree to serve if you feel like it when you sign up, you agree to serve when and how asked.

On the other hand, medic is a high demand job where using a rifle should not be needed, and it is a job where some one who objects on moral grounds from killing should still be able to serve. The should be, and I believe is, a path to be declared a conscientious objector while serving, but that should not keep you from serving.

Overall, it really depends on how their rules on conscientious objectors are. Too much just unknown in this case to really say. I would lean towards yes, he should be prosecuted since what he refused was training however, and no one should ever be able to choose where or if they deploy.
 
Would you court martial this man?

yes.
Would you allow conscientious objection within the armed forces?

No. If you want to be a ***** then do not join a occupation that involves the strong likelihood of you putting a bullet in someone.

My position is that the medic should be court martialled, in essence as a volunteer (we don't conscript or draft recruits) he signed, swore an oath and then refused a specific part of his military training. If he had been sent off to a war zone he would have become a liability.

Unless the combat medics I met when I was a infantry soldier were lying they told me that according to Geneva convention rules they get special protections and are not allowed to fire at the enemy. So a combat medic would not be doing any killing.


You cannot pick and choose military assignment either!
I do not know why some people act like you can. I have heard of cash sign on bonus, military schools sign on bonuses and duty station sign on bonuses but I have never heard of a fight only in the wars you want to sign on bonuses.


If he wanted to be a ***** then he should not have joined the military. Besides that every combat medic I have met in the army while field training has said that combat medics are not allowed to fire at the enemy and have Geneva convention protections, they carry handgun only for personal protection and forfeit any Geneva convention protections if they fire on any enemy troops.SO I am pretty sure this applies to British.
 
Last edited:
No. If you want to be a ***** then do not join a occupation that involves the strong likelihood of you putting a bullet in someone..

The medic is the guy who saves my ass on the battlefield, armed or not.

I'm not sure what to think about this, but calling him a "*****" is pretty low brow.
 
The medic is the guy who saves my ass on the battlefield, armed or not.

I'm not sure what to think about this, but calling him a "*****" is pretty low brow.

Using the conscience objector bull**** to weasel out of your military service makes you a *****. Using bull**** conscience objector status to weasel out of your duty because you disagree with the war not only makes you a ***** but a piece of **** as well. He out of his own free will knowingly joined a warfare occupation. That means getting trained to put a bullet in someone and depending on MOS that could also mean possibly dropping a bomb on someone, firing a large projectile at someone or some other method or tool to kill someone.
 
Last edited:
Would you court martial this man? Would you allow conscientious objection within the armed forces?
My position is that the medic should be court martialled, in essence as a volunteer (we don't conscript or draft recruits) he signed, swore an oath and then refused a specific part of his military training. If he had been sent off to a war zone he would have become a liability.

You cannot pick and choose military assignment either!

Yes. There isn't anything immoral or unethical about being trained with a rifle. No I would not allow conscientious objections, because, hey you signed up for it. I'd only accept it in the case of draftees.
 
if you are going to volunteer, it's pretty silly to be a conscientious objector.

Not necessarily ... many people who objected to the Viet Nam police action volunteered and served in VN. Conscientious objection isn't synonymous with non-violence or being opposed to war in general. Many of the objectors also didn't want to have somebody else have to serve in their place; that wouldn't have been fair, either.

Further, he is not being asked to shoot any one, he is being trained to use a rifle.

Well, he singed up for the military, not the Boy Scouts or the Red Cross. All the medics I ever ran across were armed, and many used their arms in combat; that's why they're part of units, and not just randomly wandering around saving everybody ... it's just another MOS.
 
It seems as though medical people and clergy can be Conscientious Objectors - someone like a member of the Seals, or infantry, or other combat troops should NEVER be against fighting.

Also - some people know that if they were in a war to kill they would probably loose grasp of the ability to stop killing and they too should be allowed to object due to the well being of society and self.
 
One can’t be in the military and be a conscientious objector. Job descriptions are not in concrete.
When I was drafted, the job I would get wasn’t up to me at all. When I joined the Air Farce, I wasn’t given any choice. All the Air Farce said was that I tested so high that I’d end up doing a high tech job. However, I was taught to fire a rifle, I was good at it. And this medic wants to be a CO. Imagine being injured and attacked in the field and you have a medic tending you that won’t and can’t protect the two of you by using your rifle.
 
Would you court martial this man? Would you allow conscientious objection within the armed forces?

My position is that the medic should be court martialled, in essence as a volunteer (we don't conscript or draft recruits) he signed, swore an oath and then refused a specific part of his military training. If he had been sent off to a war zone he would have become a liability.

You cannot pick and choose military assignment either!


duh it's the military, if you are a conscientious objector....don't volunteer for the military. or become a chaplain, they don't have to carry weapons anyway.
 
Last edited:
-- many people who objected to the Viet Nam police action volunteered and served in VN --

If you conscientiously object, then get out of the service first. This medic wanted to pick and choose which zones he was deployed in. Nearly every other person in the services simply goes where posted. Your sentence shows the discrepancy - the Vietnam objectors still went and served there.

-- All the medics I ever ran across were armed, and many used their arms in combat; that's why they're part of units, and not just randomly wandering around saving everybody ... it's just another MOS.

The point Redress was making concerned the training beforehand. He refused the weapons training that was part of his general training. A man unwilling and unable to defend himself while in uniform could be a hindrance to others on the same side.
 
The medic is the guy who saves my ass on the battlefield, armed or not.

I'm not sure what to think about this, but calling him a "*****" is pretty low brow.

You should think that whoever claims medics are ******s is an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about, and never saw any fighting outside of a school yard or a beer joint.
 
Last edited:
If you conscientiously object, then get out of the service first.

Why? Even Generals object to some conflicts they're serving in, and they still do their jobs. They just don't object in public while serving. Like I said, CO status isn't just about hippie stuff. There are many reasons for being a CO.

This medic wanted to pick and choose which zones he was deployed in. Nearly every other person in the services simply goes where posted. Your sentence shows the discrepancy - the Vietnam objectors still went and served there.

I never disagreed that this medic shouldn't be dumped. He obviously needs to be.

The point Redress was making concerned the training beforehand. He refused the weapons training that was part of his general training. A man unwilling and unable to defend himself while in uniform could be a hindrance to others on the same side.

I never said the medic was right; I was disagreeing with the notion that being a CO in and of itself isn't the same as refusing to serve nor does it automatically mean you're some kind of hippie traitor who shouldn't be in the military. Apparently that goes over the heads of some here. That isn't my fault, though ...
 
Last edited:
He should take the training. After all, it's just knowledge. But he can certainly object to being ordered to kill anyone, or to function as infantry. He signed up as a medic, to practice medicine. Signing a contract with the military is a two way street. They don't get to break the contract either. Since a medic may well be doing field triage, he'll need to know how to defend himself. Unless he's a complete pacifist, he's going to want to protect his own life, and to do that, he needs the weapons and the knowledge to operate them.
 
I remember some guys in our boot camp (Marines) that raised there hands when asked if anybody was a conscientious objector to going to war. They were removed from my platoon and I have no idea what happened to them, if they got sent home or sent back in training.

I would think its pretty easy to be a conscientious objector in combat. Simply don't fire back or put up any resistance.
 
Unless the combat medics I met when I was a infantry soldier were lying they told me that according to Geneva convention rules they get special protections and are not allowed to fire at the enemy. So a combat medic would not be doing any killing.

Yes, well ... please name the conflicts we've been in since WW II where the enemies we were fighting gave two ****s about complying with the Geneva Convention.
 
Since a medic may well be doing field triage, he'll need to know how to defend himself. Unless he's a complete pacifist, he's going to want to protect his own life, and to do that, he needs the weapons and the knowledge to operate them.

Indeed, and most of them out in the field will end up doing just that, contrary to what some here think.
 
I think he should be court marshaled for this. He shouldn't be allowed to refuse rifle training. No one is asking him to go on the front lines and kill people, but he needs to be trained on how to use a rifle for safety reasons. You should be prepared as much as possible in the military. Not just for your own sake, but for the sake of those you serve with. If a fight ever occurred where the medic was he needs to be able to defend himself. Having an unarmed and untrained medic means that he needs to be defended which puts other soldiers lives at risk. He needs to be able to hold his own and defend himself for his sake and for the sake of those he serves with. I fully support a court marshal for him refusing to go through rifle training.
 
Yes, well ... please name the conflicts we've been in since WW II where the enemies we were fighting gave two ****s about complying with the Geneva Convention.

Then that is more of a reason he learn rifle training.
 
Last edited:
I remember some guys in our boot camp (Marines) that raised there hands when asked if anybody was a conscientious objector to going to war. They were removed from my platoon and I have no idea what happened to them, if they got sent home or sent back in training.

Going by historical precedent, they more than likely became hard core Republican Hawks in Congress and the Senate, or became staffers and flacks for the Republican Party think tanks..
 
Last edited:
Going by historical precedent, they more than likely became hard core Republican Hawks in Congress and the Senate, or became staffers and flacks for the Republican Party think tanks..

You mean like like General Wesley Clark? NOPE - Dem! or like Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez NOPE - another Dem! ... Document any example?

We all know John Kerry wasn't against carrying weapons when his buddies were filming Vietnam sitcoms!

Let's not for get the demoralize anti-war remarks of General Murtha (Link From The Past)

of course my examples are as foolish as yours!

Oh! but you didn't have a single example - did you?
You just own that non factual insult! :lamo
 
If you are forced into joining (draft or similiar) yes I would. If you volunteer, no.
 
Would you court martial this man? Would you allow conscientious objection within the armed forces?

My position is that the medic should be court martialled, in essence as a volunteer (we don't conscript or draft recruits) he signed, swore an oath and then refused a specific part of his military training. If he had been sent off to a war zone he would have become a liability.

You cannot pick and choose military assignment either!

He volunteered, he made the choice.
It's idiotic on his part.

They should boot him, with an honorable discharge (or the UK equivalent) but no post military benefits.
 
Yes, well ... please name the conflicts we've been in since WW II where the enemies we were fighting gave two ****s about complying with the Geneva Convention.

It's the fact that we follow it that makes us the good guys. Sinking to the level of our enemies destroys what we're fighting for in the first place.
 
Back
Top Bottom