Do No Evil – 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.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
inonoysotile
inatural
rontravel
romeohoover1968
imarathon
iarthritis
iacupuncture
ianxiety
ilyav
medical.imaging
JHK00
MaryP.Murphy
LyleW.Cortez
GrainOfSand
dunnrose
ETproductions
Hullios
LisaFo
mitziebitzie
DiffeeOnline
neer1010
aardael
BoxMonkey
xcentrix
ML2007
sussane
Radiofreeeuropa
drugless
sudiger
<
244)
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?
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 รข;; 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?
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.
He's not a phony soldier...he's AWOL.
Which one was W, again?
I get confused sometimes.
EXCELLENT Grrr!
Grrr ~
He was the "poster boy" - that's an IMAGE with NO DEPTH!
You think YOU'RE confused?
Try fighting a war against a concept!
No wonder these soldiers are psychologically messed up.
Which one was W, again?
I get confused sometimes
None, W had the CO permission
No he didn't. That's a flat out lie.
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.
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?
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?
good question AnteUp! i hope there is follow up to this story and others on Propeller.
"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
"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.
Didn't mean to vote for this comment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
accidently hit pos. did not mean to vote either way. meant to hit submit for comment.
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.
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. ;)
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.
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.
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.
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"...
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!
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
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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"
Are you guys for real? Give it a break . I'm tired of reading one word at a time .
"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.
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.