AWOL soldier seeking treatment arrested »

Posted by: Aidenag 8 months, 1 week ago

8.6

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 3

Propped: 153

Comments: 238

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

A soldier who served two combat tours in Iraq was arrested Wednesday for leaving the Army without permission more than a year ago to seek treatment for post traumatic stress disorder. Sgt. Brad Gaskins said he left the base in August 2006 because the Army wasn't providing effective treatment after he was diagnosed with PTSD and severe depression.

Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 238

Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

cowboygrandpa
Nov. 15, 2007, 5:19 a.m.
This is bad. We need to treat our returning soldiers for their disorders physical or mental. If we don't we will have problems like we did after Nam. You will have vets going off on people unexpectedly. Listen for crying out loud. Our government put them there. They should at least treat them when they come home. We have to speak out for these walking wounded or who will?

66 RepliesReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  gamahuche
  Nov. 15, 2007, 6 a.m.
  I agree cbgp!
  FTA:
  At the time, the Fort Drum mental health facility had a staff of a dozen caring for approximately 17,000 troops, Ensign said.
  Gaskins said that because he had been unable to get proper help, he requested a two-week leave and went home to New Jersey, where he has been living since.
  The base has expanded its mental health facility staff to 31 in the past year, with plans to add another 17 staffers, Abel said. "Is there a need for more â;; yes," he said.
  *******
  It doesn't sound like they have enough people to write the prescriptions, let alone deliver them.
  Does being locked up in an oubliette with 17,000 disturbed people sound like a route to regaining mental health and stability?
  
  63 RepliesReply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    cowboygrandpa
    Nov. 15, 2007, 6:06 a.m.
    gamahuche: That is not all. When you are ignored or shunted it makes the situation worse. Imagine being around 17,000 people with problems, that are being driven more mad by the lack of treatment and compassion. Instead of getting better you are made worse. Catch22.
    
    51 RepliesReply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      GWHayduke
      Nov. 15, 2007, 8:25 a.m.
      Just wait......it wont be long before some of our notorious Prop-peers get on this thread calling this soldier & others like him "phony soldiers"
      Read an article yesterday that soldiers are over twice as likely to commit suicide than civilians.
      War is indeed hell, particularly a fascist war with financial motives.
      
      50 RepliesReply | Report!
      - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        SonOfTheMask
        Nov. 15, 2007, 9 a.m.
        He's not a phony soldier...he's AWOL.
        
        49 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        Grrr
        Nov. 15, 2007, 9:13 a.m.
        Which one was W, again?
        I get confused sometimes.
        
        5 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        ecotourusa
        Nov. 15, 2007, 9:47 a.m.
        EXCELLENT Grrr!
        
        Reply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        AnteUp
        Nov. 15, 2007, 10:34 a.m.
        Grrr ~
        He was the "poster boy" - that's an IMAGE with NO DEPTH!
        
        Reply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        GWHayduke
        Nov. 15, 2007, 10:50 a.m.
        You think YOU'RE confused?
        Try fighting a war against a concept!
        No wonder these soldiers are psychologically messed up.
        
        Reply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        injest
        Nov. 15, 2007, 3:39 p.m.
        Which one was W, again?
        I get confused sometimes
        None, W had the CO permission
        
        1 ReplyReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        jaspersneed
        Nov. 15, 2007, 9:14 p.m.
        No he didn't. That's a flat out lie.
        
        Reply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        ecotourusa
        Nov. 15, 2007, 9:54 a.m.
        very keen sense of the OBVIOUS, SonOfTheMask. technically speaking, the soldier is AWOL. but, he served more than most. and, he is damaged now. the system needs to assist him--not kill him.
        
        7 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        SonOfTheMask
        Nov. 15, 2007, 10:02 a.m.
        I agree Eco...it is obvious that this guy is not a "phony soldier". Thanks for agreeing.
        And, technically speaking, he is a deserter. I'm quite sure he won't be executed, though, wouldn't you agree?
        
        6 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        AnteUp
        Nov. 15, 2007, 10:37 a.m.
        SOTM ~
        Do you think the chances are better that he will get the necessary medical attention as a prisoner?
        Or, as a U.S. veteran SEEKING medical attention?
        
        1 ReplyReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        ecotourusa
        Nov. 15, 2007, 10:49 a.m.
        good question AnteUp! i hope there is follow up to this story and others on Propeller.
        
        Reply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        JOEY EVANS
        Nov. 15, 2007, 3:45 p.m.
        "And, technically speaking, he is a deserter. I'm quite sure he won't be executed, though, wouldn't you agree?"
        Yes! Absolutely not! They most likely will have him elected president if his politics are right(wing)!
        Just sayin'
        JOEY EVANS
        
        Reply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        jaspersneed
        Nov. 15, 2007, 9:33 p.m.
        "I'm quite sure he won't be executed, though, wouldn't you agree?"
        And if he were to be executed, your reaction would be.... what?
        Not that it matters. He'll very likely execute himself anyway.
        
        2 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        Ciera Marie
        Nov. 15, 2007, 11:02 p.m.
        Didn't mean to vote for this comment.
        
        1 ReplyReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        jaspersneed
        Nov. 15, 2007, 11:57 p.m.
        Don't misconstrue my morbid sarcasm for genuine opinion. It was directed at Son of the Mask only. He will either know why or he won't.
        
        Reply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        cowboygrandpa
        Nov. 15, 2007, 2:04 p.m.
        SOTM: Yes, he's AWOL. The question is why did he have to go AWOL to get the treatment he needs? Now I don't know about you. But personally I think we have a moral obligation to render medical care to our returning soldiers. If we don't why should they go to fight for us? Would you? What did Bush do again? Oh thats right he went AWOL without the reprecussions no battle fatigue for him. He was just scared and irresponsible right here in the states. So how do you classify him again. He should be arrested right now and imprisoned. His case is so much more deserving of an official court martial. But see Bush is an ultra con whose cowardice is rewarded. I see now. Wonder what Limpaw will say about this guy. Better not say much. The vets who are the walking wounded need our help not jail time. IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW. They are war criminals and are guilty of crimes against our own soldiers.
        
        34 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        SonOfTheMask
        Nov. 15, 2007, 2:39 p.m.
        Grandpa: First, you're assuming that his version of not getting proper care is factual. It may be true, it may not be true. We don't know the specifics. What we do know is that he took it upon himself to desert. Now, how exactly he figured that would help him in getting proper care is beyond me. But, he's still accountable for his own actions as far as going AWOL and being a deserter. Even if he felt he wasn't getting good care, that doesn't give him the right to go AWOL.
        As far as your vitriolic rant on Bush, well you're welcome to it. In my opinion, you're way off base. People who let emotion, especially hatred, cloud their better judgment often engage in those types of outbursts.
        
        29 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        cowboygrandpa
        Nov. 15, 2007, 3:34 p.m.
        SOTM: No. I think the young soldier is clearly be shown to have a disorder by the very actions he took. Do we hold someone who is not in their right mind accountable for their actions. Bush is a liar and AWOL so no I don't think it is hatred of him. It is hatred of what he stands for stupidity.
        
        3 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        SonOfTheMask
        Nov. 15, 2007, 3:56 p.m.
        I didn't say he didn't have PTSD...the military already diagnosed him as having PTSD.
        My point is that we don't know whether or not he was receiving appropriate care or not, we simply have his assertion. We do know that he took a 2-week leave and turned it into an AWOL situation which is now technically a "deserter" status.
        And, if you're suggesting that his PTSD is so severe that he isn't accountable for deserting for lack of mental capacity, I'd have to disagree on what little we know from the article. His comments seemed pretty lucid even if he made an error in judgment in deserting.
        As far as Bush, you can hate him all you want and call him "liar" and "stupid" and "war criminal". That's your right, as your President he's certainly a public figure open to your free speech criticisms.
        
        2 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        cowboygrandpa
        Nov. 15, 2007, 4:05 p.m.
        SOTM: I know people who are lucid one moment and scary as hell the next. I have known some people with mental disorders who when on their meds were fine. Without them you did not know what they would do. Do not know about this young man but his service record indicates a responsible person. His actions after do not.
        
        1 ReplyReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        SonOfTheMask
        Nov. 15, 2007, 4:16 p.m.
        Good point. And it leads back to my point that we don't know the specifics on this guy's situation based on the article.
        I hope the military handles his case fairly based on the facts and that he gets treatment for his PTSD.
        
        Reply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        cowboygrandpa
        Nov. 15, 2007, 3:35 p.m.
        accidently hit pos. did not mean to vote either way. meant to hit submit for comment.
        
        Reply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        ML2007
        Nov. 15, 2007, 3:38 p.m.
        How do you know it is factual he took it upon himself to desert? That, along with all the other claims were in this article. I think it strange you pick and choose your own facts to make your argument, SOTM. I think he is neither a deserter or AWOL. I think he is a sick and confused soldier, and the war made him so. How many times must a man serve to be considered loyal? How many times must he be exposed to that kind of violence, confusion, and chaos before he will crack under the stress? It is funny to me Bush barks a loud bellowing cry when it comes to his own desire to lead our nation into an illegal war while clamoring about loyalty and patriotism for all, and then treats those who follow and fall as if they were disloyal and unpatriotic because they succumbed to what he himself created. Which one of the two is really the sickest? The "deserter" who followed Bush or Bush who led the "deserter" down the prim rose path? BTW, you are no expert on emotion.
        
        23 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        SonOfTheMask
        Nov. 15, 2007, 4:12 p.m.
        Well, I'm going by what is in the article. Did it not say he took a 2-week leave and never went back? Who else would then be responsible for "making" him desert if not him?
        I didn't pick and choose facts, to my knowledge. But if you'll clarify, I'll respond further.
        He is AWOL and he is a deserter according to the military. What you think about it doesn't change the definitions. He suffers from PTSD as a result of his service. He deserves medical care. Did I ever say otherwise? Did I question is loyalty or his patriotism? No, I did not.
        As far as "emotion", have you ever heard terms like "emotional outburst" or "angy tirade"? I bet you have. Have you ever heard of "emotionless outburst" or "calm tirade"? I doubt it. ;)
        
        21 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        ML2007
        Nov. 15, 2007, 4:41 p.m.
        Yes, I have heard those terms and I am no expert. Neither are you, so, why not try discussing the issues instead of talking down to people? Furthermore, my point exactly was you were picking the facts from the article you wanted to use to build your own agenda. You questioned grandpa with "not getting proper care" as possibly being not factual, then, you state his desertion as a fact. That is called posturing. He is no deserter and only AWOL until a military court decides it to be fact. The man was diagnosed with PTSD which means he should be excused from being AWOL because he could not be responsible for his actions. That means he deserves to be give an honorable medical discharge which would make him neither a deserter or AWOL. Those are the points of his legal argument. BTW, I changed no definitions, I simply stated my opinion, and I believe a man is innocent until proven guilty. It's a fact he was accused, but not found guilty. They arrested, not sentenced him.
        
        20 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        SonOfTheMask
        Nov. 15, 2007, 4:54 p.m.
        His status as AWOL is factual. However, his allegation of not receiving proper care is just that at this point...an allegation. My use of the term "desertion" may be in question, but it did seem that his intent was NOT to return to the military which is the definition of "desertion" per USMC. However, I will accept a rebuke on that score since he has only been arrested and not found guilty of desertion. However, I believe the military drops you from the active duty roll and calls you "deserter" as its classification up until the time you return or are caught.
        Do you suggest that PTSD waives you from being charged as AWOL? That seems highly doubtful to me. If the PTSD was serious enough, there should be a path towards a medical discharge.
        
        19 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        ML2007
        Nov. 15, 2007, 5:08 p.m.
        what hogwash and gobbly gook. It is an article that maintains both to be factual. That is all the article said, and you are trying to make something out of nothing- Get Real. I was in the USMC and I can assure you, under the Military Code of Justice, a man is not a deserter until he has been found guilty by a court martial. He is only AWOL until an inquiry has been made and formal charges made. The article does not mention that the military claimed he was a deserter. That may be your opinion, but that is the point. Your agenda is to apparently make the boy a deserter. He is not. No, the military classifies you as AWOL until a formal inquiry into your whereabouts has been ascertained and formal charges brought. I think you have been watching too many movies. And no, I am flat out saying that a diagnosed mental illness is reason for a medical discharge. That is the point. It is serious enough. Our history is full of such.
        
        18 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        SonOfTheMask
        Nov. 15, 2007, 5:25 p.m.
        Well, ML2007, I think I'm right that he is classifed as a deserter for being gone more than 30 days per this:
        http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/1...
        Adminstratively, he is so classified. Try that on for "gobbledy-gook"...
        
        5 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        ML2007
        Nov. 15, 2007, 6:13 p.m.
        I stand only partially corrected. It is interesting the DODD is dated August 2, 2004. That means this President, who has to justify his illegal war, must change the rules to satisfy his whim and control over the soliers. This is a Directive by Paul Wolfowitz altering the military code of conduct. Please read the 85 article of the Code of Military Conduct found:
        http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/SUBCH...
        Notice they mention words like court martial and "with intent". Little nuances to King George, his thugs and his henchmen like you. Also notice if you believe it easy to prove desertion this case: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-2234(1969...
        Yes, in my opinion, your response and the President's changing of the law presents gobbly gook. Obviously, you and the President are for labeling guilt without due process. Gobbly Gook!
        
        4 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        SonOfTheMask
        Nov. 15, 2007, 6:21 p.m.
        Sure, I show you the facts and now I'm Georgie's henchman. What a doofus you are...and a "posturing" doofus at that...
        By the way, the link you provided includes this waiver:
        "It is in no way intended as an official source of information relating to the Uniform Code of Military Justice"...LOL
        
        3 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        ML2007
        Nov. 15, 2007, 6:38 p.m.
        That was a direct quote from the Military Code of Justice. You mislead the reader disingenuously by stating the disclaimer from the site I took it. Here is another:
        http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegisl...
        It says the same thing, and you are busted. You still fancy yourself superior when you are not. Dufus? LOL When you defend the illegalities of GWB by quoting a Directive from Paul Wolfowitz, I suspect you are one of his henchmen trying to discredit people who do not see eye to eye with the President. The truth of the matter is that the Military Code of Conduct will be the ultimate decider in this case just like I said. You and George will not be. Thank God.
        
        2 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        SonOfTheMask
        Nov. 15, 2007, 6:48 p.m.
        LOL...you still don't get it. You can be classifed as a deserter without having been convicted as a deserter. But, no, wait, that has to be Wolfowitz (my fellow henchman) trying to suborn the Military Code of Justice and summarily judging everyone as desertes without a court martial proceeding.
        What a boob...
        
        1 ReplyReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        ML2007
        Nov. 15, 2007, 6:56 p.m.
        No, it is you who doesn't get it. If I classify you as a racist, therefore, you are, right? What I did not appreciate was your attack upon Cowboygrandpa and your willingness to label or "classify" the man in the article a deserter, an offense, that if convicted, can result in his execution. That is very serious. You are the Boob for taking such an accusation so flippantly. That your one of George's henchmen, what else am I to believe but from what you write.
        
        Reply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        SonOfTheMask
        Nov. 15, 2007, 5:30 p.m.
        And, to reiterate, his AWOL/deserter status is a FACT. His allegation of lack of proper care is an...wait for it...allegation. Nothing in the article suggests that the military corroborates, confirms or agrees that he was not getting proper care. In fact, it says he got 2 weeks at a medical facility, got his diagnosis at PTSD, and was advised NOT to go back to the medical center because it would delay his shot at a medical discharge. Hullo! Did you read the article?
        
        11 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        ML2007
        Nov. 15, 2007, 6:24 p.m.
        Under the existing Wolfowitz directive, it is a fact only in your own mind. A military Court Martial will determine what the man's intent was, not you are Wolfowitz. The article itself says: "Military doctors sent him to the Samaritan Medical Center in Watertown, where he spent two weeks and was diagnosed with PTSD. When he later asked his commanders about returning to Samaritan, they told him it would delay any chance he had at obtaining a medical release, Gaskins said."
        Wow, if the millitary are the ones who SENT him to a group who diagnoses him as having PTSD, then, how much more of a FACT can that be according to the article. He himself says: "They just don't have the resources to handle it, but that's not my fault," Gaskins said. Again, another article fact. My point was and still is that Grandpa, you said, assumed him not getting help was factual. I said you pick and choose your agenda as factual. Grandpa just accepted the whole article as was.
        
        10 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        SonOfTheMask
        Nov. 15, 2007, 6:31 p.m.
        Do you not understand "adminstrative classification" as a deserter? I didn't say he'd been tried and found guilty, in fact I already said I knew he hadn't been.
        And, hullo, "Gaskins said"...not "the military doctors said". Gaskins, the AWOL/deserter, "said" he was not getting proper care. Based on the article it is factual that he made that statement. The veracity of his statement is not factual. He alleges, but it has not been proven that he did not get "proper care".
        You lack subtlety, my friend.
        
        9 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        ML2007
        Nov. 15, 2007, 6:50 p.m.
        I said, IN MY OPINION, he is not a deserter, and he is not until proven so. He may be accused, and if GWB and Wolfowitz have their way from what it sounds like in the directive, punished before a trial. It is sad that the Administration has to categorize someone as a deserter and establish that fact by Directive. Another words, the Uniform Code of Conduct is not good enough for the President. Thanks, for helping me to further investigate a seedy President and to uncover another one of his historical law bending ventures.
        And yes, it is a FACT, he said he was not getting proper care. There are always two sides of an issue. His excuse for being absent without leave was that he was not getting proper care, his fact. It will be up to a court to determine who is right. The whole point of the article was to point out the disambiguates of such crap.
        True, I lack subtlety, but so do you. And?
        
        8 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        SonOfTheMask
        Nov. 15, 2007, 7:08 p.m.
        And I said "TECHNICALLY" he is a deserter. Which is true and I've backed it up. Thanks! ;)
        And, thanks again for admitting that there are "two sides" to the story and that it is not yet an established FACT that he wasn't getting proper care by the military. Hooray, we've had a meeting of the minds.
        
        7 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        ML2007
        Nov. 15, 2007, 7:26 p.m.
        LOL, Sorry, but Only in your own mind, has there been a meeting. No, technically he is an ACCUSED deserter. If he is a deserter, according to section (c) of the Uniform Military Code of conduct: (c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
        Your insinuations and accusations are important, even on this thread. Please do not make unjust accusations. There is a man's life at stake. And, you are right about the last comment (hooray for you) it is not yet an ESTABLISHED fact about getting proper care. Thanks for admitting it is a fact, even though unestablished.
        
        6 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        SonOfTheMask
        Nov. 15, 2007, 7:34 p.m.
        Once again, for the last time, he is a deserter by administrative classification. A FACT. He is not a convicted deserter. Another FACT. The article described him as a deserter. Another FACT. No insinuations. Just FACTS. Hooray.
        And, I didn't "admit" that it was a "fact" (even unestablished) that he didn't get proper care. You really do have a hard time grasping nuance and subtlety don't you?
        It's been a laugh, ciao for now.
        
        5 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        ML2007
        Nov. 15, 2007, 7:53 p.m.
        Right. Right. Right. And, you need to admit it is an unestablished fact. On that one, you are still hard headed and wrong.
        And, as to grasping nuance and subtlety LOL , They have no difference. They are a synonym for one another. LOL and both mean "a subtle difference in meaning."
        In answer to your question. Not at all. I saw the difference from the first. You are the one who lashes out at others with subtleties and expect no one to notice just like I did about your subtlety about nuance and subtlety. LOL Yes, this is fun! And we didn't give each other a single negative. LOL
        
        3 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        SonOfTheMask
        Nov. 15, 2007, 8:20 p.m.
        Stop being funny, I hate having to like you. :)
        Still, a fact is a fact. There is no "unestablished fact". A fact is established by definition. Wouldn't you agree? So, right now whether or not there was proper care has not been established.
        Also, although they may be synonyms, a nuance and a subtlety aren't exactly the same. A nuance is always subtle and so is a "subtle-ty". But subtlety in thinking/reasononing also means comprehending many small details to understand the whole. Whereas a nuance IS the small detail. So, you have to have subtlety to understand nuances.
        But, I'll tip my hat to you. I look forward to future debates.
        
        2 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        ML2007
        Nov. 15, 2007, 9:05 p.m.
        You are not the son of the mask, but you are now the son of the nuance. In a court of law, which this young man will be tried, all facts will be presented and then established as fact by the court. Up until then, they are considered unestablished facts. Gaskins is an eyewitness to being treated with not enough care, a fact. Even the military said he could not be treated and released even though the people they sent Gaskins to established him to have PTSD. What kind of care was the military now giving him? Good care, to wait? I do not think anyone would agree that poor care was nothing less than a fact in this case.
        As to your comments about subtlety and nuance, My Thesaurus gives this exact definition for both: " a subtle difference in meaning"
        
        1 ReplyReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        BoxMonkey
        Nov. 16, 2007, 12:06 a.m.
        Are you guys for real? Give it a break . I'm tired of reading one word at a time .
        
        Reply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        injest
        Nov. 16, 2007, 8:34 p.m.
        "a deserter by administrative classification. A FACT. He is not a convicted deserter. Another"
        This argument makes the Navy use of UA (Un-authorized) for just about any offence sound logical.
        
        Reply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        injest
        Nov. 16, 2007, 8:04 p.m.
        How many times must a man serve to be considered loyal? How many times must he be exposed to that kind of violence, confusion, and chaos before he will crack under the stress?
        And how do YOU KNOW this soldier was "exposed to that kind of violence, confusion, and chaos"?
        So far I have only heard 1 side of the story, and that side has not produced anything to support the claim.
        
        Reply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        PsychoHosebeast
        Nov. 15, 2007, 11:27 p.m.
        Another question that needs to be answered first is, "did he NEED to go AWOL to get the treatment he needs?" The answer is, most likely, no. Let's not forget here, this guy is trying to defend his actions--he may have gone AWOL for the same reason most other people go AWOL--he's an idiot and now he may very well be grasping at excuses that will cause people to have a knee-jerk reaction. Who knows.
        
        3 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        cushi
        Nov. 16, 2007, 12:08 p.m.
        People don't normally go seeking help if they're already getting adequate help.
        
        2 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        injest
        Nov. 16, 2007, 8:40 p.m.
        "People don't normally go seeking help if"
        You're assuming he was ACTUALLY seeking help. Nothing other than his or his lawyers word supports that.
        This may come as a shock, but when people find themselves in trouble of their own making, often make up excuses for their actions.
        
        1 ReplyReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        cushi
        Nov. 16, 2007, 11:16 p.m.
        How about this: GIVE THIS SOLDIER THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. That's the least we owe him for fighting for us! Isn't our system of justice predicated upon "innocent until proven guilty?" Why would you prefer to question his integrity when nothing has been said to dispute his contention? The statements from the army give credence to his claim.
        
        Reply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    ProudBlueTexan
    Nov. 15, 2007, 11:07 a.m.
    My concern is that the VA will go along with bushCo's dream of a commercial army enforcing his vision for America. What else you gonna do with 100,000 trained killers? Keep them on the payroll; give them something familiar to do.
    
    4 RepliesReply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      ML2007
      Nov. 15, 2007, 9:12 p.m.
      Bush does everything he can to terrorize us, but this is one piece of terror I agree with. I too, am a afraid he might turn these killers loose in American. Already, he has used them here. It is amazing that they do not even have or know the laws for keeping the hired killers under control. That we are even using them is a disgrace.
      
      3 RepliesReply | Report!
      - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        DarkWizard
        Nov. 15, 2007, 11:55 p.m.
        ProudBlueTexan and ML2007,
        I've always heard it is illegal for the President to use the military against American citizens on American soil. I've been trying to confirm this, but haven't found anything yet.
        A president having control of a paramilitary group would bypass the need for trying to get American soldiers to fight Americans on American soil. Of course, this may cause the military to fight against a paramilitary group if the military leaders went into a power struggle against one or more of the governmental branches.
        This is all hypothetical of course and many other scenarios could develop from such actions. But, the thought and potential are scary.
        
        2 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        injest
        Nov. 16, 2007, 8:27 p.m.
        Darkwizard the law is this. Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
        The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. Â§ 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act prohibited members of the national (Federal) uniformed services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard [during wartime] & State National Guard forces [when called into Federal service]) from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintained "law and order" on non-Federal property (States, their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate states. The statute generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the USA, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.
        
        1 ReplyReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        DarkWizard
        Nov. 17, 2007, 4:24 p.m.
        injest,
        Thank you.
        
        Reply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    BravoSierra
    Nov. 15, 2007, 10:04 p.m.
    To put this in perspective...research on the effectiveness of psychotherapists has them becoming increasingly less effective as they take on more than 20 hours of therapy a week. Doing good psychotherapy is gruelling work. Treating PTSD can take months to 2 - 3 years of therapy. Let's say that half of the 31 staff are trained psychotherapists and that 16 are psychtechs, testers, etc. 15 staff times 30 hours a week is 450 therapy hours a month. 450 therapy hours a month will treat roughly 450 people (excluding group therapy sessions). In the general population or any six month period 30% of people are suffering from a diagnosable mental disorder such as a mood or anxiety disorder.
    
    4 RepliesReply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      BravoSierra
      Nov. 15, 2007, 10:09 p.m.
      Even at a very generous estimate of needing 6 months per patient to make significant progress this staff of 31 can really only help about 900 people. National norms of people NOT subjected to war says that of 17,000 people, 5,000 could use help of any 6 month period. Even without the stress of combat and the stresses on families they are experiencing and a staff of 30 can only handle 1/5 or less of the soldiers and families needing help under 'normal' conditions. With the casualties we have coming home a staff of 31 is a futile effort that will help only a fraction of those needing moderate to long-term therapy. When the military says they have added 10, 20, 50, 100 or even 300 staff...these numbers are trivial given the numbers of casualties being produced. They are also not saying whether these staff are therapy staff and Ph.D. or Master's level diagnosticians and therapists or whether they are clerks and psychtechs. So far, it all sounds like propagando to me.
      
      3 RepliesReply | Report!
      - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        BravoSierra
        Nov. 15, 2007, 10:16 p.m.
        There is a legal principle that when one takes control and reduces another's degrees of freedom to make their own choices, then the one taking control has a greater responsiblity to provide for the one they are controlling. So, doctors, police, the military, etc. accept a stricter standard of care for those in their charge. When they fail to meet that stricter standard they have commited a breach of the social contract. Under Bush's administration we see breach after breach of the social contract of the state with the citizen, the state with the soldier, etc. For Bushites, it's a self-serving oneway street in which the use US Citizens as cannon fodder for their profit and power agendas.
        
        2 RepliesReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        BravoSierra
        Nov. 15, 2007, 10:17 p.m.
        I don't know why people are surprised. Bush and Cheney violated their contract to serve during Vietnam for self-serving purposes and they are doing it now. The breaches of this administration to serve, behonest with and use their power well are despicable. This is just another example of our civil and military leaders failures to live up to their end of the social contract with US Citizens.
        We the citizens need to replace them and anyone who supported them through these breaches of faith without challenging them or holding them accountable for their self-serving breaches of faith with us. Vote them out of office at every opportunity.
        
        1 ReplyReply | Report!
        
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        DarkWizard
        Nov. 16, 2007, 12:03 a.m.
        BravoSierra,
        I can't speak for everyone here, but I am with you on replacing "anyone who supported them through these breaches of faith." I am sure that many others agree as I have seen their comments enough times to know how they feel.
        My hope is that there are enough of us who think this way to make a difference and bring this country back to a country of freedom and hope that the whole world admired. If we don't make these changes soon, we will destroy ourselves from within.
        
        Reply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    ecotourusa
    Nov. 18, 2007, 12:24 a.m.
    Here' an organization a friend of mine just donated to that supports wounded vets:
    Coalition to Salute America's Heroes Foundation | 100 Broadway | Ossining , NY 10562
    914-432-5400 | Fax 914-923-3898 | Donations 888-447-2588
    http://www.saluteheroes.org/
    
    Reply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  injest
  Nov. 15, 2007, 5:12 p.m.
  Any proof?
  Any proof he was in Kosovo?
  Any proof he was actually in Iraq for 2 tours?
  Remember Josh Lansdale?
  "I returned from Iraq with a busted ankle and post-traumatic stress. It was "six months" before I could see a doctor," Lansdale said
  Fact: No record of Lansdale beind injured in Iraq, or being in combat.
  Josh took the political world by storm with several ridiculous claims of the long wait he endured at a VA Hospital. When asked, however, to justify those claims with appointment records, Josh became indignant and disappeared.
  Remember Sgt. Andrew Isbell was seemingly among the most heroic of the returning soldiers from the war in Iraq. When he appeared at his drug-possession trial in Rockport, Texas in August of 2004, neatly clad in his Army uniform, he told jurors that he had recently earned two Bronze Stars in Iraq, plus a Purple Heart for the bullet wound in his shoulder.
  
  1 ReplyReply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    injest
    Nov. 15, 2007, 5:13 p.m.
    Jurors were sympathetic to the fact that Isbell, an infantryman, was on medical leave from his dangerous job patrolling the streets of Baghdad, and acquitted him.
    Subsequent investigation proved that Isbell had seen no combat, suffered no wounds, and earned no decorations. He wasn't even a sergeant. He had instead worked in food service as a private, and had been discharged from the Army after being AWOL for two months. For his lies in court, Isbell was charged with aggravated perjury.
    Playing a victim is a tried and true excuse when you've been caught screwing the pooch.
    How bout that Jesse Macbeth !
    BTW have they caught the EVIL Right Wing Muggers that attack Randi Rhodes?
    LOL
    
    Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

jaern
Nov. 15, 2007, 7:11 a.m.
Poor guy. I hope he gets the help he needs and I don't think the military idea of treatment should be hair-of-the-dog.

Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

saneman
Nov. 15, 2007, 7:58 a.m.
What is freedom when the troops don't even have freedom?

7 RepliesReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  ecotourusa
  Nov. 15, 2007, 9:49 a.m.
  makes me think of the CSN song: Find the Cost of Freedom...
  
  3 RepliesReply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    JOEY EVANS
    Nov. 15, 2007, 3:51 p.m.
    Just remember what all them repugs say, "Freedom isn't Free!"
    JOEY EVANS
    
    2 RepliesReply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      priapism
      Nov. 15, 2007, 5:31 p.m.
      I'm glad you always sign your comments Joey - otherwise it would be hard to tell where they came from.
      
      1 ReplyReply | Report!
      - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
        
        JOEY EVANS
        Nov. 15, 2007, 5:36 p.m.
        You are welcome.
        Enjoy!
        JOEY EVANS
        
        Reply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  ProudBlueTexan
  Nov. 15, 2007, 11:08 a.m.
  They aren't fighting for freedom, doncha know?
  
  1 ReplyReply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    saneman
    Nov. 15, 2007, 11:17 a.m.
    The troops are suppose to represent freedom, but obviously, they do not have freedom, because if they leave and seek help, they will be arrested. Isn't it quite ironic?
    
    Reply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  injest
  Nov. 16, 2007, 8:57 p.m.
  Troops don't have freedom when they serve. They do not have the protections of the US constitution while they serve, they are under the UCMJ while they serve. They pay the price of your "freedom" with their sacrifice of their "freedom". Freedom isn't free, it's paid for with their sacrifice.
  
  Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

palama
Nov. 15, 2007, 8:18 a.m.
Whatever the military decides to do with him, I would hope that they give a lot of consideration to the fact that he served two tours of duty in Iraq and one in Kosovo. He has served this country much more than most. I pray that he gets the help he needs to straighten out his life and I pray for his future well being.

2 RepliesReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  cowboygrandpa
  Nov. 15, 2007, 2:24 p.m.
  palama: Amen to that. I also pray that the congress will overwhelmingly demand funding for our troops medical care. Cross the party lines here people or don't have a job next election.
  
  1 ReplyReply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    priapism
    Nov. 15, 2007, 5:39 p.m.
    Exactly. Anybody who has gone through what he obviously has gone through deserves to be cut some slack.
    
    Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

engineer
Nov. 15, 2007, 8:30 a.m.
The administration will go to hell. They'll spend a lot more time there. Prolife - BS

Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

Ciera Marie
Nov. 15, 2007, 8:42 a.m.
This is a sad day in our country when a soldier has to go AWOL to get help.
Thanks Aidenag for finding this, and submitting it. This is a must read for anyone who supports the war, this administration and says they support the troops.
Thanks CowboyGrandpa for informing me about this article. If this administration really supported the troops you wouldn't have things like this happening.

1 ReplyReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  ProudBlueTexan
  Nov. 15, 2007, 11:11 a.m.
  Forward the story to your nearest Congressional 'representative.' Make it clear you will vote them into oblivion if they support this sort of mistreatment.
  
  Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

Patriot1
Nov. 15, 2007, 8:55 a.m.
O.K people, what part of A.W.O.L. do you not understand?
I accept the fact that this individual is having some problems, but you can't tell me this person took a whole year to get help! It sounds to me like he went AWOL, then started asking for help after he got caught!!! Shame on him for giving the vets that do things the right way a bad name.PTSD is a real and very serious problem, and we MUST supprot our military people, by making sure they get the help they need!!!

10 RepliesReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  Aidenag
  Nov. 15, 2007, 8:59 a.m.
  A year is a very short period of time when talking about PTSD or other mental health issues such as depression... These are lifelong problems they are facing, not a broken leg, or something that goes away after xxx amount of time.
  
  Reply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  RedstateLib
  Nov. 15, 2007, 9:01 a.m.
  Well I guess that will have to do since you can't call him a "phony soldier". In the article the Army admits he did serve and that they do not have adequate staff to treat him. What the Army was doing was putting him on a shelf so they could give him a medical discharge and shuffle him into the overcrowded VA system. You say shame on him I say shame on you, for condoning the poor medical care being provided to our returning troops!
  
  1 ReplyReply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    cushi
    Nov. 16, 2007, 12:15 p.m.
    I can get behind this statement! Thanks, RedStateLib.
    
    Reply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  Codi6934
  Nov. 15, 2007, 10:36 a.m.
  I know guys that would admit to a drug problem the night before we had a p*ss test.
  
  3 RepliesReply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    AnteUp
    Nov. 15, 2007, 11:21 a.m.
    Codi6934 ~
    Are you talking about our troops in the Middle East?
    Active duty? Is that a regular thing - to test the troops?
    If they admit to a drug problem before the test, what
    happens to them? On the flip side, what happens if they
    haven't said anything and the test comes back positive
    for drugs?
    
    1 ReplyReply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      Codi6934
      Nov. 15, 2007, 11:38 a.m.
      AnteUp
      This happened years ago,but I am sure it has not changed and yes they were active duty in Korea. Also,the military does random p*ss tested on a regular basis. If you do a self referral to a drug/alcohol program the chain of command will not hold it against you. You will go to the Army version of re-hab. You can not get a ****** test for ( I think) 30 days, meetings etc. In a nutshell, it is a get out of jail free card. If the soldier did not say anything, and you come up hot, your a*s is in a bind. Depending on you rank, you can get a second chan

Hello!

AWOL soldier seeking treatment arrested »

Scale of 1 to 10

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 238