# U.S. Officer jailed for joining French Foreign Legion



## Red Ryder (Dec 18, 2014)

Punishment seems a bit harsh considering he turned himself in but he had to know there would be some kind of retribution, I would have stayed in France. Could this be a indicator on what kind of punishment Bergdahl is going to receive?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/1...ct-is-jailed-for-shirking-duty.html?referrer=


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 18, 2014)

Punishment does seem a bit harsh....I know real sexual assault suspects, child porn suspect...etc that have gotten lighter punishments in the Army.  I give him credit for completing his 5 years with the Legion and turning himself in.

"Lieutenant Franks was sentenced to four years in prison and dismissal from the Army on charges of conduct unbecoming of an officer and desertion with the intention to shirk duty, specifically deployment."

Joining the Legion is not the way to avoid a deployment, it's a sure way to BE deployed to a third world country with much less support than the Army provides.


----------



## Red Ryder (Dec 18, 2014)

http://www.havokjournal.com/culture/irony-west-point-lieutenant-deserts-french-foreign-legion/

Article brings up some good points when it comes to shirking duty and other officers that got less punishment for worse offences.


----------



## Rapid (Dec 18, 2014)

I wouldn't be surprised if Bergdouche doesn't get anywhere near this kind of sentence. While this guy screwed over the Army, at least he didn't _hand himself in to the enemy_... and at least he didn't make his country pay a heavy price for his release. On the contrary, he was still out there fighting the enemy in some capacity and his return cost 0 Taliban commanders.

As much as his actions deserves punishment, probably not on this scale. That is, given his good record in the FFL and the fact that he didn't bring any further discredit to the US...


----------



## RetPara (Dec 19, 2014)

One thing to consider is just how long he will actually be in 'the long course'.  If I remember a conversation from an earlier life with a MP corrections NCO - part of the in-brief for new prisoners is that the Warden/Commandant tell them he is cutting their sentence in half on the spot.   It can be lengthened or further shortened depending on their compliance with the rules......


----------



## Viper1 (Dec 19, 2014)

I have to disagree with a lot of the comments.  The guy had a five year obligation that he got bored with so he went and did his own thing.  He turned his back on an oath he made at school, his commissioning oath, and the Army Values e.g. Loyalty and Selfless Service.  He could have served his five, resigned, and then joined the _La Légion Étrangère.  _Instead he decided to be loyal to himself. 

If he desired the rigorous life, he should not have branched medical service corps either.  That is a not a branch that just gets handed to you out of school.  That branch is reserved for *maybe 20-30 *of the top performers out a graduating class of over 900 new LTs.  If he wanted the rough life, Combat Arms would have been the way to go. 

As far as not seeking counseling (as per the article) I also call BS.  A lot of us have paid out of pocket for civilian therapy so we wouldn't have to deal with the military therapy systems.  If he needed help, there are more than enough avenues outside of the Army to get it, without medication either. 

I'm glad he turned himself in, I'm glad he served well in the Legion, but I'm willing to bet his medical platoon was pissed as hell when he flew the coop.  The punishment is fair.  He'll serve it--or less--and he might be able to return to the Legion once he's done. 

As a fellow O, I've got little sympathy for this guy.  He made a witting decision to desert his Soldiers.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 19, 2014)

Viper1 said:


> I have to disagree with a lot of the comments.  The guy had a five year obligation that he got bored with so he went and did his own thing.  He turned his back on an oath he made at school, his commissioning oath, and the Army Values e.g. Loyalty and Selfless Service.  He could have served his five, resigned, and then joined the _La Légion Étrangère.  _Instead he decided to be loyal to himself.
> 
> If he desired the rigorous life, he should not have branched medical service corps either.  That is a not a branch that just gets handed to you out of school.  That branch is reserved for *maybe 20-30 *of the top performers out a graduating class of over 900 new LTs.  If he wanted the rough life, Combat Arms would have been the way to go.
> 
> ...


 

I couldn't agree more. And reading between the lines it almost sounds like he enjoys punishment...but maybe _not _the kind of punishment that involves getting shot at. He did two peacekeeping tours and was a General's bodyguard. General's bodyguards sometimes get to enjoy many of the same comforts as the men they protect. I think under the circumstances, desertion in time of war, 4 years is pretty lenient. And he may even enjoy it.


----------



## Rapid (Dec 19, 2014)

I think it'd be a fitting punishment if people who've done far worse were actually punished in a manner consistent with this. But because this guy isn't gay, or anti-war, or a straight up traitor like Snowden... then he's an easy target, because there isn't a media circus/liberal campaigners swarming him. So I see it as being unfair in the sense that military justice is hypocritical. Otherwise, sure, it's absolutely right.


----------



## Brill (Dec 19, 2014)

The Mother Army is kicking out officers but yet prosecuting those that just walk away?  

Where's the prosecutoral discretion?  The USG should simply charge him for his education (with interest or something) and move on.  We have bigger fish to fry.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 19, 2014)

Charged, yes...dishonorable discharge, yes...felony conviction on his record for the rest of his life, yes.

4 years, naw...not so much.   1 year served, and 3 years probation....better.

IMHO


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 19, 2014)

lindy said:


> The Mother Army is kicking out officers but yet prosecuting those that just walk away?
> 
> Where's the prosecutoral discretion?  The USG should simply charge him for his education (with interest or something) and move on.  We have bigger fish to fry.


 
Why should he walk?  Because we're too lazy to hold people accountable?


----------



## pardus (Dec 20, 2014)

He's a fucking dirtbag that deserted in a time of war, to join a foreign army (albeit an ally) no less. Fuck him, he deserves to be punished.

What sense does "I had to run away from an army and a deployment, in order join an army and deploy to drastically change my life" make?


----------



## Dame (Dec 20, 2014)

pardus said:


> He's a fucking dirtbag that deserted in a time of war, to join a foreign army (albeit an ally) no less. Fuck him, he deserves to be punished.
> 
> What sense does "I had to run away from an army and a deployment, in order join an army and deploy to drastically change my life" make?


An ally in name at least. The French are always looking to steal technology. I'm thinking his choice of country may have something to do with the punishment.


----------



## pardus (Dec 20, 2014)

Dame said:


> An ally in name at least. The French are always looking to steal technology. I'm thinking his choice of country may have something to do with the punishment.



Rubbish. Every country is trying to steal technology from each other. The French have been staunch allies when others have failed us. Don't forget that.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 20, 2014)

Dame said:


> An ally in name at least. The French are always looking to steal technology. I'm thinking his choice of country may have something to do with the punishment.



Yes, you are guys are paragons of virtue when it comes to intelligence. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present)


----------



## Gunz (Dec 20, 2014)

pardus said:


> He's a fucking dirtbag that deserted in a time of war, to join a foreign army (albeit an ally) no less. Fuck him, he deserves to be punished.
> 
> What sense does "I had to run away from an army and a deployment, in order join an army and deploy to drastically change my life" make?


 

There it is.

It's not about whether or not he was a hero with the FFL, it's not about which country's army he joined, or whether they're allied with us or not. All that is irrelevant. His service record with France is irrelevant. His personal problems are irrelevant. Your duty to your Country comes first. Always. _Always._ He knew that.


----------



## Brill (Dec 20, 2014)

Totentanz said:


> Why should he walk?  Because we're too lazy to hold people accountable?



Detention doesn't make financial sense. Levy a huge fine with a dishonorable discharge and move on.


----------



## Dame (Dec 20, 2014)

SpitfireV said:


> Yes, you are guys are paragons of virtue when it comes to intelligence.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present)


Not saying we (NSA) are. Wouldn't dream of it.



pardus said:


> Rubbish. Every country is trying to steal technology from each other. The French have been staunch allies when others have failed us. Don't forget that.



Also, not saying the French government is particularly guilty.
Unfortunately though, at this time, foreign contacts with certain countries are more scrutinized than others. French contacts raise red flags.

ETA: I'm sure there are other reasons but I wouldn't go into that even if I knew.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 20, 2014)

lindy said:


> Detention doesn't make financial sense. Levy a huge fine with a dishonorable discharge and move on.



If this were purely a financial issue, sure (e.g. ROTC cadets who ride the government dime and decide not to uphold their end of the deal).  But it's not, it's an issue of discipline and a heavy bilateral commitment that has been flagrantly violated.  I'll admit some morbid curiosity as to the "why" since it doesn't seem to fit the same mold as some of the other turds who've also decided that their commitment meant nothing.  But at the end of the day, he's an individual who actively decided to desert from the United States Army, and should be punished accordingly.


----------



## Brill (Dec 20, 2014)

Totentanz said:


> But at the end of the day, he's an individual who actively decided to desert from the United States Army, *and should be punished accordingly.*



Concur but HOW/WHY?

Punishment has a purpose:

Retribution or Revenge
Deterrence/Public Education
Incapacitation
Rehabilitation
http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_063684.pdf


----------



## Rapid (Dec 20, 2014)

It should be a question of deterrence. Unfortunately, I don't think it's much of a deterrent when you treat far worse individuals with a slap on the wrist. I think that's the issue here. Justice HAS to be consistent, in my opinion. Punishments need to be relative, need to match up, to be fair. You can't apply the full force of the law to some but not others. The same system has to apply to everyone, whether there's pressure from liberal campaigners or whatnot.


----------



## AWP (Dec 20, 2014)

It doesn't matter if it is deterrence, justice, or "other." The guy is a deserter and just about every justice system will not be fair despite our desire to the contrary.

He willingly deserted. In time of war. It doesn't matter if grandma was sick or he was bored, he deserted.  We complain about a lack of accountability in today's society, erosion of the Army Values, and an erosion of standards in general so hammering this guy shouldn't even be a discussion. I don't care if he deserted and killed UBL, went to the moon, cured cancer, or anything else......he deserted. His trial should be over before lunch is served.


----------



## Rapid (Dec 20, 2014)

I'm sure none of us disagree that he should be punished and that his case is fairly clear cut. It's just the hypocrisy of how other cases have been handled that leaves me a bitter taste.

In an ideal world, everyone should take the punishment they deserve. But if you're going to start cutting slack to special snowflakes, it's going to tarnish all your other cases because of the inherent disproportion. If I were looking at it 100% unbiased, then yeah, he deserves this. Though that means other shit needs to be fixed -- but I'm practically sure that it won't be.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 21, 2014)

A few things.  He didn't desert, he went UA (unauthorized absence).  Didn't he turn himself in?  Desertion is the act of leaving your unit without the intention of returning.  It may be a small point but that's what law is.  Yes he should be punished but does he need to be hammered with a four year prison sentence?  

Why do we crush this guy and then plant a rose garden for Bergdahl? Sgt Jenkins was a deserter that straight up defected to North Korea and we gave him 24 days after he turned himself in forty years later.  We are all over the map here.  I think intentions do matter here when it comes to punishment.  Give him a dishonorable and no more than a year in prison.  That's how long his deployment would have been anyway.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 21, 2014)

Wasn't there some other guy who decided not to deploy out of Hawaii and we gave him a slap on the wrist?  No punishment?  I'm sure someone can google fu some more examples.


----------



## AWP (Dec 21, 2014)

He's a commissioned officer and I think he should be held to a higher standard. The system is broken, but continuing broken policies won't provide the change necessary. At some point we have to turn the corner or continue our descent into mediocrity or even outright failure.


----------



## Brill (Dec 21, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> He's a commissioned officer and I think he should be held to a higher standard. The system is broken, but continuing broken policies won't provide the change necessary. At some point we have to turn the corner or continue our descent into mediocrity or even outright failure.



He basically "self selected" as a toxic leader and sentenced himself to hard labor in France.  FRANCE!!! Hasn't he been punished enough?


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 21, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> He's a commissioned officer and I think he should be held to a higher standard. The system is broken, but continuing broken policies won't provide the change necessary. At some point we have to turn the corner or continue our descent into mediocrity or even outright failure.


I thought the guy from Hawaii was an officer also?


----------



## pardus (Dec 21, 2014)

Teufel said:


> Wasn't there some other guy who decided not to deploy out of Hawaii and we gave him a slap on the wrist?  No punishment?  I'm sure someone can google fu some more examples.





SOWT said:


> I thought the guy from Hawaii was an officer also?



*Ehren K. Watada*

"He was brought before a court-martial in 2007 which ended in a mistrial, and was discharged in 2009."


----------



## Gunz (Dec 22, 2014)

I just don't think 4 years is excessive for walking away from your sworn duty, your responsibility, your men, your fellow soldiers and your country. It is, after all, one year less than he gave to France.

Bergdahl's case should merit a much harsher sentence...but probably won't. The administration has to justify the release of 5 Taliban in exchange for somebody worthy of the exchange and the risks incurred by forces engaged in that effort, ergo, Bergdahl has to be a misunderstood victim not a criminal. My 2c.

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/resu...th-desertion-charge-or-300k-back-pay-1.320202


----------



## Etype (Dec 23, 2014)

Dame said:


> An ally in name at least. The French are always looking to steal technology. I'm thinking his choice of country may have something to do with the punishment.


@EAL92 , are you really going to hate this comment and not offer up some commentary of your own?  There was nothing said that is not founded in truth- you may hate the comment, but it's the fault of your own flaws.

To you other folks who think it to be too severe of a punishment, if this would've happened during a declared war it _could_ be punishable by death.


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 23, 2014)

I think the punishment is a bit on the harsh side, but you cannot take into account where he went. The case must be viewed as him leaving, missing a movement, and then returning four years later. As a commissioned officer, you are held to a higher standard than an enlisted service member. It is of my opinion that the courts viewed it that way and partially made an example of him. If he did not like the job he wound up with, he should have reclassed at the proper time to whatever met his hearts desire. The Army (and every other branch) has multiple opportunities to serve in a unit that would allow you to be cold, muddy, wet, and straight up in the suck. If he decided the Army was not for him, he should have done his six years (or whatever is required) and then joined the Legion. He's even admitted to guilt by saying, “I feel really bad for the pain I put on my family, the disruption to my unit, but I don’t regret what I did — any of it, good or bad." He saw the Legion as a quick fix, and now he must suffer the consequences  for the actions he took.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 23, 2014)

He got a fair sentence.
I worked with a guy who deserted the Army many years ago (did not know it).
He tried to be a good samaritan, and the outstanding warrant came up during the investigation.
he went to Ft Carson and rejoined the unit he deserted from, they made him finish his enlistment and Court Martialed his ass 45 days prior to ETS.  He spent 30 days in jail and then got his General (Honorable (?)) discharge.
They could have sent Lt Dipshit back to Ft Dumm, waited until 30 days prior to the scheduled promotion, then CM'd his ass (I would have).
IIRC West Point Grads get a 5 year commitment upon commissioning, so the board essentially gave him the rest of his commitment behind bars.
He'll be out in a year anyway.


----------



## Viper1 (Dec 23, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> I think the punishment is a bit on the harsh side, but you cannot take into account where he went. The case must be viewed as him leaving, missing a movement, and then returning four years later. As a commissioned officer, you are held to a higher standard than an enlisted service member. It is of my opinion that the courts viewed it that way and partially made an example of him. *If he did not like the job he wound up with*, he should have reclassed at the proper time to whatever met his hearts desire. The Army (and every other branch) has multiple opportunities to serve in a unit that would allow you to be cold, muddy, wet, and straight up in the suck. If he decided the Army was not for him, he should have done his *Five* years (_*fixed it for ya*_) and then joined the Legion. He's even admitted to guilt by saying, “I feel really bad for the pain I put on my family, the disruption to my unit, but I don’t regret what I did — any of it, good or bad." He saw the Legion as a quick fix, and now he must suffer the consequences  for the actions he took.



The portion I bolded: that is part of the problem.  There is no way possible he "wound up with" that Medical platoon leader job.  This is part of my problem with the guy and his desertion to the FFL.  This is how it went down: He's one of the top guys in his class, picks med service corps (MSC) as his first choice and gets it because again, he is one of the top guys in his class.  We have branch briefs, summer training, exposure to officers and instructors from all branches of service, more branch briefs, decision points, discussions with classmates over the entire four years there.   The Army just didn't throw down a card saying, "here ya go sport, take it or leave it".  He CHOSE this job field, knowing full and well what it DIDN'T entail (e.g. infantry & combat arms 'embrace-the-suck-put-myself-through-pain-hooah-lifestyle').

Four years in jail is fair.


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 23, 2014)

I think this issue does bring up valid points though in how punishments are handed out. There needs to be a guideline by which punishments are issued and followed, and they should not just be given by the tip of dart thrown at a bunch of balloons and whatever punishment falls out of the balloon is the punishment that is given.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 23, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> I think this issue does bring up valid points though in how punishments are handed out. There needs to be a guideline by which punishments are issued and followed, and they should not just be given by the tip of dart thrown at a bunch of balloons and whatever punishment falls out of the balloon is the punishment that is given.


Generally the board is given an upper and lower punishment option.  The board members debate if required, and generally end up with a compromise sentence.  
I sat on one board and we gave a very lenient sentence, based on the command's negligence (we were sending the soon to be relieved Group Commander a message).


----------



## EAL92 (Dec 25, 2014)

Etype, the hate was for the beginning of the comment, my silence was to avoid a possible shit storm.  I do think the man needs to be punished, but the statement saying that the French "An ally in name at least" is completely stupid and completely disrespectful to their dead. Also," The French are always looking to steal technology". I'm no expert in that matter, but if you're going to accuse someone throw some proof up and make sure it's not hypocritical. So there you go that is my reason for the hate, I think it was a completely retarded comment that did not even pertain to the discussion.


----------



## Etype (Dec 25, 2014)

EAL92 said:


> Etype, the hate was for the beginning of the comment, my silence was to avoid a possible shit storm.  I do think the man needs to be punished, but the statement saying that the French "An ally in name at least" is completely stupid and completely disrespectful to their dead. Also," The French are always looking to steal technology". I'm no expert in that matter, but if you're going to accuse someone throw some proof up and make sure it's not hypocritical. So there you go that is my reason for the hate, I think it was a completely retarded comment that did not even pertain to the discussion.


First off, I appreciate your response, that being said-
Disrespectful to their dead?  The 10,000 they lost in the Revolutionary War?  That was the last time they helped us.  Of the 416,000 we lost in WWII, a good portion of those were lost in France fighting an enemy they couldn't even begin to confront.  Any involvement they had in Iraq or Afghanistan has been minimal/non-committal.  In all seriousness, we probably would have been much better off without the French, Germans, Italians, and Emirates and their "combat tourism."


----------



## EAL92 (Dec 25, 2014)

Revolutionary war.... pretty significant help there regardless of whatever their motives were to help establish independence. I'm fairly sure the lads back then appreciated the money and resources that were lent out. I respect the hell out of those 416,000( part of that was also the pacific campaign) lost, but it wasn't only the French we were helping, more like most of Europe. I understand you're point and frustration as a warfighter, but considering all of the bitching we did to try to get help from NATO and the nations that did not want to get involved what did we expect. Respect for the dead or wounded shouldn't be gaffed off because of a high or low number, the men on the ground did what they were ordered to and what their countries asked them to do to the best of their capabilities( Yes these NATO troops might have done a substandard job by US standard, but hey shit not all countries have the attitude, willingness or resources that we do). Not every nation that is an ally has to fight for the interest of another(however frustrating it might seem). The result is that men/women fought and died and that should be respected on all sides. I gave that hate because I thought it was generally a stupid fucking comment. This side conversation is irrelevant to the main topic and if you wish to discuss this further please PM. To redirect the conversation back to where it should be, I think the Lieutenant has some balls for doing what he did and he probably served with honor, however he still left his unit and country during a time of war and broke his oath as a serviceman. That carries it's consequences and now that he came back he'll have to face them. I think the man knew that and he seems to want to face the repercussions of his actions.


----------



## Dame (Dec 25, 2014)

Mods, please forgive me. Not trying to hijack.
My comment was not based on anything that happened in the past. It was based on cyber and tech relations between the countries right now. 
I did not list examples so as NOT to hijack the thread. There was no point in arguing. You either know this stuff because you have an interest in it or you don't cuz you don't.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/france-intellectual-property-theft-107020.html 
Another example below.


> One of the members of the critical French tech group Reflets.info, with which Epelboin is involved, tweeted: "Cool Story Bro: Chinese hackers are now american"
> 
> “At the time, Republicans/Sarkozy were in charge,” he said, “and the bad guys where Chinese. The message was: the digital world is dangerous, and the iconic bad guy is a Chinese hacker working for the secret services. Now, the Democrat/Socialists are in power, and going after Google and Amazon, accused of killing the press and the content business, and not paying their taxes, so the bad guy is obviously American, now. Still, the rest of the story is the same: the digital world is dangerous.”
> 
> ...


 http://www.dailydot.com/news/us-france-hacking-flame-malware-sarkozy/


----------



## EAL92 (Dec 25, 2014)

By Curt Hopkins  on November 22, 2012

comments from this man man https://twitter.com/epelboin notice the nyan cat background. Is this man's opinion really news worthy and credible.

.......Realizing that this is getting out of hand. I'm shutting up for now and going back to my lurker cave.









**Three* threads merged.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 26, 2014)

France under Sarkozy was not much of an ally.  However, the Hollande administration was one of the U.S.' only backers when proposing strikes against Syria, and even know they are conducting air strikes and ground raids against ISIS.  This notion that France is not an ally is outdated.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 26, 2014)

We debated this ad nauseum on another site that a few of us are members on.  

He went UA, you kind of have to capture deserters.  If this is about deterrence there have been a few dudes that refused deployment because they thought the president was a foreign national, none of them went to jail for failing to uphold the oath they swore.  

Bergdahl being my biggest beef, a deserter that we exchanged not only Taliban prisoners but a relatively significant amount of blood and treasure during the subsequent search.  

We say what we want about Franks in that being at the top of his class he could have done whatever he wanted.  Yep, that's true, but sometimes you still get screwed.  However, that's not my point.  He may have really wanted that job.  No one has addressed the mental health aspect that he's brought up, and here at Bliss every Soldier that has gotten here in the last 36 months has gone through ASIST during in-processing.  There have been three suicides in my brigade in the last 18 months that I know of.  One was the previous SGM in by SQDN, I wasn't here at the time.  But everyone who knew him said there were no signs.  Not everyone shows signs, having been there.

Based on the fact that you cannot upgrade a standard once it has been degraded, because someone else isn't going to get theirs I tell you.  While I was stationed at Knox we had a guy that Ft Hood sent to us who'd been AWOL for 7 years from 3/1 ID.  In-processed him, and chaptered eventually after I'd left.  But he drew a check for at least three months.  I definitely think a dismissal from the service (read dishonorable/other than honorable discharge for officers) + a giant fine would have been the correct thing.  Now we have to feed and cloth the dude for a possible four years.


----------



## x SF med (Dec 26, 2014)

My biggest problems with this guy or anybody that goes UA...  1. they place others in danger by their need for self protection  2.  they are dishonorable individuals  3. they are ethically and morally crippled for breaking oaths to the guys who are directly depending on them and the citizens of their country. 

My issue with this guy is that he was in the top 10% of his class at USMA and chose his branch, one of the toughest to get as a WP grad...  with his class standing, if he wanted Infantry, he would have gotten it.   I am not sure if he did BAC and Ranger in his 3rd year Summer, but if he did...  Why the choices made after that? 

and I call bullshit that officers are held to a higher moral and ethical standard then enlisted men...  What gets an enlisted man generally sent to Leavenworth or Chaptered, might delay an Officer's promotion if he has a well placed rabbi in the ranks..  take a look at the plethora of shithead 05 and above whose true biographies come out after their protectors lose power....  Not that all Officers are morally/ethically bankrupt, nor are all enlisted men angels or devils...  but there are built in protections for officers, especially for Academy grads (sorry Viper, Teufel, et. al.)....

This guy, as one of what is supposed to be the best of the best Officers, to desert his post in time of conflict to join another country's military is a blatant pissing on his oath as an officer in the US Army.   If he were buried 30 ft below the deepest basement at the USMA for the rest of his life, it would be a fitting punishment for defrauding the taxpayers for an outstanding education, a guaranteed career, prestige, and all for his own selfish reasons....  Fuck him, the maximum effective range of an excuse is ZERO meters, he is supposed to be a leader and an example chosen by the leadership of this country to attend a Service Academy.  Why apologize or excuse him in any way.  Shun, ostracize, regale, shame and debase him for his actions, nothing he did fits the motto "Duty, Honor, Country".   Again, Fuck him and those that would excuse him, he chose to accept a nomination to a service academy, chose to accept a commission as an officer, chose his branch, and then chose to turn his back on his obligations. dishonorably discharge him, bill him for all of the education, hassle, and expense of having to re-billet his position, and then deport him to France, broke and shamed, as a former member of the LEdF, he can get citizenship there.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 26, 2014)

EAL92 said:


> I think the Lieutenant has some balls for doing what he did and he probably served with honor, however he still left his unit and country during a time of war and broke his oath as a serviceman.



When you say he broke his oath as a serviceman, you're actually defining a dishonorable man.  I submit to you that it is impossible serve honorably, as you suggest, with that betrayal as a foundation. 

Oh yeah....Fuck France. 

And Pakistan.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 26, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> France under Sarkozy was not much of an ally.  However, the Hollande administration was one of the U.S.' only backers when proposing strikes against Syria, and even know they are conducting air strikes and ground raids against ISIS.  This notion that France is not an ally is outdated.


Legally, France isn't an ally.  They may or may not be part of nATO, so that would make them a treaty partner.
France assists when it helps them, and gives minimal assistance when required (PR purposes).
They will actively undermine our military actions if they want (Bosnia and Kosovo come to mind).
I feel no sympathy for this officer, he can finish his commitment in KS; wonder what the punishment for desrtion from the FFL is?


----------



## pardus (Dec 26, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Legally, France isn't an ally.  They may or may not be part of nATO, so that would make them a treaty partner.
> France assists when it helps them, and gives minimal assistance when required (PR purposes).
> They will actively undermine our military actions if they want (Bosnia and Kosovo come to mind).
> I feel no sympathy for this officer, he can finish his commitment in KS; *wonder what the punishment for desrtion from the FFL is?*



IIRC it's something like 30 days in jail then continue with your contract as normal. Desertion is not uncommon, that's one reason you have your identity stripped when you join them.


----------



## AWP (Dec 26, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> France under Sarkozy was not much of an ally.  However, the Hollande administration was one of the U.S.' only backers when proposing strikes against Syria, and even know they are conducting air strikes and ground raids against ISIS.  This notion that France is not an ally is outdated.


 
Maybe at higher levels, but I know of some instances where French pilots refused to provide CAS to our guys on the ground. By and large their ground forces have taken the fight to the TB here in Afghanistan, but other elements have acted like children. The wholesale "cheese eating surrender monkeys" thing isn't fair, but I also consider them to be like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates.

Still better than the Polish though.


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 26, 2014)

Etype said:


> First off, I appreciate your response, that being said-
> Disrespectful to their dead?  The 10,000 they lost in the Revolutionary War?  That was the last time they helped us.  Of the 416,000 we lost in WWII, a good portion of those were lost in France fighting an enemy they couldn't even begin to confront.  Any involvement they had in Iraq or Afghanistan has been minimal/non-committal.  In all seriousness, we probably would have been much better off without the French, Germans, Italians, and Emirates and their "combat tourism."



The French lost 88 people in Afghanistan. Just because you don't read about them every day does not mean they are not actively fighting the GWOT. They are more heavily active in Mali, but were also active in Afghanistan until 2012. Yes, they did not support the war in Iraq but we're supportive of the NATO mission in Afghanistan.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 26, 2014)

Also, what about all of those NSW pricks that signed NDAs that wrote books?  Nothing happened the them either.


----------



## CDG (Dec 26, 2014)

ThunderHorse said:


> Also, what about all of those NSW pricks that signed NDAs that wrote books?  Nothing happened the them either.



What does that have to do with this case?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 26, 2014)

Because Desertion and Treason tend to be what we call capital crimes, and if the the DoD wants either Justice or Deterrence or both then they should not degrade the standard.  In my eyes they tend to float in the same realm.


----------



## CDG (Dec 26, 2014)

ThunderHorse said:


> Because Desertion and Treason tend to be what we call capital crimes, and if the the DoD wants either Justice or Deterrence or both then they should not degrade the standard.  In my eyes they tend to float in the same realm.



So the NSW guys are guilty of treason now?  That seems like quite the stretch.  An NDA violation does not equate to treason.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 26, 2014)

ThunderHorse said:


> Because Desertion and Treason tend to be what we call capital crimes, and if the the DoD wants either Justice or Deterrence or both then they should not degrade the standard.  In my eyes they tend to float in the same realm.


Suggest you look up what constitutes treason.


----------



## Etype (Dec 26, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> The French lost 88 people in Afghanistan. Just because you don't read about them every day does not mean they are not actively fighting the GWOT. They are more heavily active in Mali, but were also active in Afghanistan until 2012. Yes, they did not support the war in Iraq but we're supportive of the NATO mission in Afghanistan.


I am aware.  Even Georgia, who has enough to worry about in their own country, has lost troops in Afghanistan.

The UK and Australia have made a splash in Afghanistan, I don't think anyone would disagree with that.  Every other country's worth is a topic for argument.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 26, 2014)

The contribution of our allies is O/T, but the countries in NATO/OTAN that didn't pull their weight were not UK/AUS/NZ/FR/NED/DEN...look at the size of their forces versus others and then do the math.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 27, 2014)

pardus said:


> IIRC it's something like 30 days in jail then continue with your contract as normal. Desertion is not uncommon, that's one reason you have your identity stripped when you join them.


 
Right, they get almost no leave IIRC, so quite a few go over the hill.


----------

