Afghanistan War Resister to "Put the War on Trial"

"What I did there, I know I contributed to death and human suffering," Agosto told Truthout from Fort Hood, in Killeen, Texas, in May, "It's hard to quantify how much I caused, but I know I contributed to it." Full Story »

Posted by Patricia Blochowiak

See All Reviews »

Review

Samuel W.  Velsor IV
4.0
by Samuel W. Velsor IV - Jul. 15, 2009

Well sourced and detailed.

A good long lay out of the problems with military personnel that do not want to go to war. This whole matter could have been resolved had the General not changed the Court Martial that had been approved to at a lower level; now the whole thing is going to be very public.

Branum, angered by this recent turn of events, explained the difference between the types of court martial, “They (the Army) are not acting in good faith here. What this still means, is the cap went from 30 days (of possible jail time for Agosto with a summary court martial) to a year (with a special court martial), so a pretty big jump I would say, and a leap from an Other Than Honorable discharge (summary court martial) to a bad conduct discharge (special court martial), which means once he is convicted his pay would stop.”

Very poor act of faith from the General Officer, when you consider that an Agreement had been made.

Agosto and Bishop are not alone. In November 2007, the Pentagon revealed that between 2003 and 2007 there had been an 80 percent increase in overall desertion rates in the Army (desertion refers to soldiers who go AWOL and never intend to return to service), and Army AWOL rates from 2003 to 2006 were the highest since 1980. Between 2000 and 2006, more than 40,000 troops from all branches of the military deserted, more than half from the Army. Army desertion rates jumped by 42 percent from 2006 to 2007 alone.

Going AWOL is wrong and they should face the full force of law. Appealing and working a case is a whole different, correct, matter.

See All Reviews »

Samuel's Rating

Overall
4.0

Good
from 13 answers
Quality
4.2
Facts
4.0
Fairness
4.0
Sourcing
3.0
Style
3.0
Context
5.0
Depth
5.0
Enterprise
5.0
Relevance
4.0
Popularity
3.0
Recommendation
3.0
More How our ratings work »