NationStates Jolt Archive

Army Deserter Hopes To Visit The U.S.
Associated Press
February 24, 2005

TOKYO - Forty years after defecting to North Korea and some six months after making his way to Japan, Charles Robert Jenkins hopes to visit his U.S. homeland with his Japanese wife and their two North Korea-born daughters, an official said Thursday.

Koichiro Takano, the mayor of the town where Jenkins and his family live, said the former U.S. Army sergeant would soon apply for a passport so he could fly to the United States, according to a Sado city official on condition of anonymity.

Kyodo News Agency reported the family hoped to go in mid-March before his daughters start college classes in April. Japanese government officials said no date for the trip had been decided.

The North Carolina native had told reporters last month that he hoped to see his 91-year-old mother, who lives in a nursing home in Roanoke Rapids in northeastern North Carolina, "sooner (rather) than later."

Jenkins, 65, resettled in his wife's hometown in December after serving 25 days in a U.S. military jail for abandoning his U.S. Army post to defect to North Korea in 1965.

He has said he would like to spend the rest of his life in Japan with his family on the remote island of Sado in northern Japan.

His wife, Hitomi Soga, was kidnapped by North Korean agents when she was a 19-year-old nursing student and taken to the isolated communist state in 1978. She married Jenkins soon after but was only allowed to return to Japan in 2002 when Pyongyang reversed years of denial and admitted it had kidnapped 13 Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s.

Jenkins and their daughters, Mika and Brinda, left North Korea and joined Soga last July.

Jenkins does not have a U.S. passport since he was allowed to enter and stay in Japan with only a U.S. military identification card.

Oh, come on Eut. It's been 40 years. He wants to see his mother. Does "forgiveness" and "redemption" not cross your vocabulary? You may have need of such terms yourself, you know, and the more you give it in this life, the more you'll get it in the next one. :)

Oh, come on Eut. It's been 40 years. He wants to see his mother. Does "forgiveness" and "redemption" not cross your vocabulary? You may have need of such terms yourself, you know, and the more you give it in this life, the more you'll get it in the next one.

I'm with you on this one. Meh.

Besides, he'd be no good in the military now. :p

I think he should be let in. Whilst my first impression was against him, he does have a good reason... I had thought, before reading the thread, that he decided that he just wanted to go back to the US. I don't see why he should be refused, since he's not staying.

Why not let go he spent his time in jail for it and he just wants to go home to see his family.

Absolutely, if he gets a passport he should be able to go back to NC!!!! DOes it hurt to let grandchildren see their grandmother??! :( They should get a passport and go home.

Absolutely, if he gets a passport he should be able to go back to NC!!!! DOes it hurt to let grandchildren see their grandmother??! :( They should get a passport and go home.

Good point ... no reason to punish the kids for the actions of the father.

What's your problem, Eutrusca? Did you know this man personally?

What's the problem with letting him visit??

Good point ... no reason to punish the kids for the actions of the father.
Then allow the children to visit accompanied by their mother.

What's your problem, Eutrusca? Did you know this man personally?
Nope.

Then allow the children to visit accompanied by their mother.

it says there all going to NC

To reiterate; what is your problem?

He should be allowed to see his family if he is willing to stand trial for his crimes. That's fair and there's not a jury in the nation that would convict him, anyway.

Actually i'm against it like Entrusca, although I'm not American nor was from the military.

But there has to be rules that is to be adhered and not bended. Maybe what can be done is minimally allow him only within the airport or internatonally 'free' zones of the country. But cannot step a foot outside the airport in the US so that his mother can see him.

But the rules must stand. If not, might as well, every traitor or deserter run out of the nation, live his life till very old age and then come back expecting to be forgiven.

To reiterate; what is your problem?
Why are you asking me if I have "a problem?"

Why are you asking me if I have "a problem?"

Because I'd like to know what exactly your "problem" is.

Why are you asking me if I have "a problem?"
If i understand him correctly, he's asking why you are so strongly opposed to allowing Mr. Jenkins to return to the US.

In my opinion, you've implied why, but you haven't explicitly explained it.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

If i understand him correctly, he's asking why you are so strongly opposed to allowing Mr. Jenkins to return to the US.

In my opinion, you've implied why, but you haven't explicitly explained it.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Damn m0dz0rs always ruining my fun.

If i understand him correctly, he's asking why you are so strongly opposed to allowing Mr. Jenkins to return to the US.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
The man chose to desert in time of war. In a saner age, he would have been shot.

The man chose to desert in time of war. In a saner age, he would have been shot.

It's amazing that you can make such quick judgements with such little information.

The man chose to desert in time of war. In a saner age, he would have been shot.

since when is exicution SANE punishment! :mad:

He should serve out the remainder of his commitment in Afghanistan or Iraq. *Then* he should be allowed to go home.

I'd really have to know more details in order to make a more specific judgement. If he helped the other side, definitely not. If he wet his britches in the heat of the battle, maybe. If he just ran of 'cause he was a jackass, probably not.

Oh, come on Eut. It's been 40 years. He wants to see his mother. Does "forgiveness" and "redemption" not cross your vocabulary? You may have need of such terms yourself, you know, and the more you give it in this life, the more you'll get it in the next one. :)
Of course not, being a compassionate person is contrary to being a superiorist, all-american git. Judging by the other thread, I'm the only one that understands Eutrusca's nature here.

A North Carolina man is he, I thought those guys were Tarheels.
Come on he wants to see his old mother and live a normal life. Give him a break.

I'd really have to know more details in order to make a more specific judgement. If he helped the other side, definitely not. If he wet his britches in the heat of the battle, maybe. If he just ran of 'cause he was a jackass, probably not.

Does "'cause he was a jackass" include being opposed to the war?

The man chose to desert in time of war. In a saner age, he would have been shot.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are against any display of mercy (except perhaps the mercy of a quick death) to deserters. If you feel that this is an accurate statement of your opinion, then that's a clear enough explanation.

I'm neither going to agree nor disagree. I was just seeking clarification.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

It's amazing that you can make such quick judgements with such little information.
I know all I need to know about this. He deserted in time of war; he betrayed his Country, his fellow soldiers, his unit, and his Service. He is a traitor, pure and simple. What more information do I need???

Of course not, being a compassionate person is contrary to being a superiorist, all-american git.
Knock it off.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Does "'cause he was a jackass" include being opposed to the war?
No, I was more referring to using the army for a free trip to the far east and then taking off. I don't think there was much debate over Korea, though.

Of course not, being a compassionate person is contrary to being a superiorist, all-american git. Judging by the other thread, I'm the only one that understands Eutrusca's nature here.
Judging by this post, you couldn't "understand [my] nature" if your life depended on it.

This brings into the light an important question: At what point does the law cease to serve man and only serve its own ends?

Judging by this post, you couldn't "understand [my] nature" if your life depended on it.
Well, what I'm getting is you are another jingoist American and anyone who opposes American or disagrees with American policy is a bastard traitor, unless of course the person setting the policy is a "left wing" person, because all I have ever seen from you American propagandist crap.

I know all I need to know about this. He deserted in time of war; he betrayed his Country, his fellow soldiers, his unit, and his Service. He is a traitor, pure and simple. What more information do I need???

As one Army Vet to another, I don't think he was a traitor. A coward? Sure, I'll give him that. He is a deserter, yes, but he served his time as alloted by the military and, thus, has repaid his debt.

Forgiveness and Redemption, man, make them your mantra.

Actually i'm against it like Entrusca, although I'm not American nor was from the military.

But there has to be rules that is to be adhered and not bended. Maybe what can be done is minimally allow him only within the airport or internatonally 'free' zones of the country. But cannot step a foot outside the airport in the US so that his mother can see him.

But the rules must stand. If not, might as well, every traitor or deserter run out of the nation, live his life till very old age and then come back expecting to be forgiven.

What's wrong with forgiving?

This brings into the light an important question: At what point does the law cease to serve man and only serve its own ends?
About 2 miles back.

What's wrong with forgiving?
Well, I see his point. It does seem harsh, but you can't just start forgiving people 'cause you feel sorry for them. If you do, the whole legal system crumbles to the earth.

I hope he is given a passport and allowed into America. I hope he can visit his mother. After which, I hope he is promptly arrested and made to stand trial for his desertion.

I hope he is given a passport and allowed into America. I hope he can visit his mother. After which, I hope he is promptly arrested and made to stand trial for his desertion.
Did you miss the part where it already said he had been in military prison for deserting? And isn't there some sort of statute of limitations on all sorts of law things.

I know all I need to know about this. He deserted in time of war; he betrayed his Country, his fellow soldiers, his unit, and his Service. He is a traitor, pure and simple. What more information do I need???while I agree with the most part, I will admit the following points.
it was after the Korean war. even if the artical is a couple years old, it states that he abandoned his post 40 years ago.. which would put it in the 1960's the Korean war ended in the early 50's.

He was caught. Desertion from duty in the time of war is punnishable by death or at least something more severe than 25 days in the stockades.

so he did his time and spent most of his life in exile. while I agree that it will show compassion, he did run from his duty that could've cost someone their life.


I will leave that decision up to the Government.

This brings into the light an important question: At what point does the law cease to serve man and only serve its own ends?
The true purpose of the law in a democracy is to serve the best interests of the people.

It is definitely not in the best interests of the people to allow a deserter to serve the enemies of their Country, only to reward him by allowing him to return later and act as though what he did was now somehow ok.

The true purpose of the law in a democracy is to serve the best interests of the people.

It is definitely not in the best interests of the people to allow a deserter to serve the enemies of their Country, only to reward him by allowing him to return later and act as though what he did was now somehow ok.


how did he *serve the enemies of their country* ?

The true purpose of the law in a democracy is to serve the best interests of the people.

It is definitely not in the best interests of the people to allow a deserter to serve the enemies of their Country, only to reward him by allowing him to return later and act as though what he did was now somehow ok.
I didn't realise allowing some one to see their NINETY ONE year old mother was going to hurt me, shit I better go live in a fucking hole so all these other crazy things like allowing gay marriage and letting prisoners out of jail who have served their 71 years won't hurt me. Shit, silly me thinknig things like invading half a dozen countries would be less in my best interest, and everyone's for that matter

I didn't realise allowing some one to see their NINETY ONE year old mother was going to hurt me, shit I better go live in a fucking hole so all these other crazy things like allowing gay marriage and letting prisoners out of jail who have served their 71 years won't hurt me. Shit, silly me thinknig things like invading half a dozen countries would be less in my best interest, and everyone's for that matter
What do these other things have to do with this. They are irrelevant and you are generalizing.

What do these other things have to do with this. They are irrelevant and you are generalizing.
They are completely relevant. Especially the latter one about allowing some one out who has served 71 years in prison. He i s saying it is somehow not in MY best itnerest to allow some one to visit his mother yet is is in my best interest to let people who have served half their lives in prison out and especially it is in my best itnerest to support the president in invading as many countries as possible.

while I agree with the most part, I will admit the following points.
it was after the Korean war. even if the artical is a couple years old, it states that he abandoned his post 40 years ago.. which would put it in the 1960's the Korean war ended in the early 50's.

He was caught. Desertion from duty in the time of war is punnishable by death or at least something more severe than 25 days in the stockades.

so he did his time and spent most of his life in exile. while I agree that it will show compassion, he did run from his duty that could've cost someone their life.
I will leave that decision up to the Government.

He abandoned his fellow soliders WHILE ON PATROL. He risked their lives as well as his.

Yes, he was in Korea in the later 60s.

He was not caught, he SURRENDERED to North Korean soldiers, and knowingly made propoganda for their government.

I read his story in the New York Times a few weeks back.

how did he *serve the enemies of their country* ?Abandoning his post.

what if his deserting his post allowed enemy agents to sneak in and secure military secrets or kill high ranking officers? wether or not that happens, he left his post and opened that possiblity.

They are completely relevant. Especially the latter one about allowing some one out who has served 71 years in prison. He i s saying it is somehow not in MY best itnerest to allow some one to visit his mother yet is is in my best interest to let people who have served half their lives in prison out and especially it is in my best itnerest to support the president in invading as many countries as possible.
When has he said these other things? This in a discussion I am not privvy to?

He abandoned his fellow soliders WHILE ON PATROL. He risked their lives as well as his.

Yes, he was in Korea in the later 60s.

He was not caught, he SURRENDERED to North Korean soldiers, and knowingly made propoganda for their government.

I read his story in the New York Times a few weeks back.

That changes things. I'd have to say he must deifinitely stand tria lif he returns t othe states and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

When has he said these other things? This in a discussion I am not privvy to?
He repeatedly makes threads which supports the war going on in Iraq

He abandoned his fellow soliders WHILE ON PATROL. He risked their lives as well as his.

Yes, he was in Korea in the later 60s.

He was not caught, he SURRENDERED to North Korean soldiers, and knowingly made propoganda for their government.

I read his story in the New York Times a few weeks back.I never said he wasn't wrong. but he was caught (surrendered if you will) and punnished.

Jenkins, 65, resettled in his wife's hometown in December after serving 25 days in a U.S. military jail for abandoning his U.S. Army post to defect to North Korea in 1965.

the question is, he did his time that was metted out to him. was he stripped of his citizenship? was his 25 days were on condition he never set's foot on American Territory again?

again, I leave the decision up to the Government.

He abandoned his fellow soliders WHILE ON PATROL. He risked their lives as well as his.

Yes, he was in Korea in the later 60s.

He was not caught, he SURRENDERED to North Korean soldiers, and knowingly made propoganda for their government.

I read his story in the New York Times a few weeks back.
Thank you. I made the ( obviously unwarranted ) assumption that almost everyone on here had read about or heard about these particulars.

Thank you. I made the ( obviously unwarranted ) assumption that almost everyone on here had read about or heard about these particulars.
Still, isn't like he is gonna stay here, allow him to come see his mother for a while, under military supervision, then ship him back to wherever

The man chose to desert in time of war. In a saner age, he would have been shot.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Korean War wasn't technically a war, and so peacetime punishment should be the worst he has to face (even if he had actually deserted at the height of it), no?

I never said he wasn't wrong. but he was caught (surrendered if you will) and punnished.
I was under the impression that he was never punished in any way. Anyone know more about this?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Korean War wasn't technically a war, and so peacetime punishment should be the worst he has to face (even if he had actually deserted at the height of it), no?
No. "Desertion in the face of the enemy" is punishable by death, whether the conflict is a "declared war" or not.

I was under the impression that he was never punished in any way. Anyone know more about this?According to the article you posted he spent his time in Jail for abandoning his post. now if he escaped from the military jail before his sentence was up then I think that should've been mentioned.

if that's the case, then indeed he should be allowed back to the US.





To be arrested and tried for Deriliction of Duty and Escaped felony...

No. "Desertion in the face of the enemy" is punishable by death, whether the conflict is a "declared war" or not.

However, he surrendered to the enemy, which seems to be a key point.

According to the article you posted he spent his time in Jail for abandoning his post.
25 DAYS is not "punishment." It's not even a slap on the wrist.

25 DAYS is not "punishment." It's not even a slap on the wrist.
Well whoever the fuck was in charge of handing out punsihments deemed it punsihment enough, since you are so big on pro-military, you have no right to question it. Military punishments to other military members has never been more than a slap on the wrist

25 DAYS is not "punishment." It's not even a slap on the wrist.That may be our opinion, but if that was what the military court delt out then that was his punnishment, as stupid as it sounds... he did his time. we cannot look back and say "that was too light, punnish him more!"

but that light sentence makes me think that there is more to the story than printed.

Well whoever the fuck was in charge of handing out punsihments deemed it punsihment enough, since you are so big on pro-military, you have no right to question it. Military punishments to other military members has never been more than a slap on the wristwrong. the military tends to be harsh with themselves because Disipline, Duty and Honor are drilled into the soldiers minds. Dersertion is a serious offense.

Here's a portion of an article on this:

Thursday November 4, 2004
The Guardian

An American soldier who spent nearly 40 years in North Korea was yesterday given a 30-day prison sentence and a dishonourable discharge after pleading guilty to defecting to the communist state and aiding the enemy - charges that carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. [ The last I knew, the maximum penalty was death ]

Staff Sergeant Charles Jenkins, 64, broke down as he told a court martial at Camp Zama, the US army's headquarters in Japan, that he had defected to avoid doing dangerous daytime patrols in South Korea and because he feared being sent to Vietnam.

"I started to fear something for myself," he said, "but I started to fear even more that I might cause other soldiers to be killed. [ I doubt this ]

"I started drinking alcohol. I never drank so much before."

He said he had tied a white T-shirt to his rifle before entering the north on the morning of January 5 1965.

He had planned to ask the North Koreans to send him to the Soviet Union so that he could turn himself in at the US embassy in Moscow.

Instead, he said, he was harshly treated by the North Koreans and was forced to teach English to cadets.

Refusal to do so, he said, would have resulted in "hardship to me and my family that would never end".

Two further charges brought against him by the US army, of calling for the overthrow of the United States in propaganda broadcasts and of making disloyal statements, were dropped. [ as part of a plea bargain ]

Mr Jenkins will be held at Yokosuka naval base just outside Tokyo while US military authorities decide whether or not to follow the judge's recommendation to suspend the 30-day sentence.

Even if he has to serve his time Mr Jenkins will soon be free to live in Japan with his Japanese wife and their two children after months of uncertainty over their future.

He was already charged, and prosecuted, you can't do shit to him. Double jeopardy is unconstitutional

That may be our opinion, but if that was what the military court delt out then that was his punnishment, as stupid as it sounds... he did his time. we cannot look back and say "that was too light, punnish him more!"

but that light sentence makes me think that there is more to the story than printed.
He gave himsef up in Japan, and my understanding is that the Japanese government had issues about the entire affair, at least partially because his wife is a Japanese national who had been abducted by the North Koreans.

He gave himsef up in Japan, and my understanding is that the Japanese government had issues about the entire affair, at least partially because his wife is a Japanese national who had been abducted by the North Koreans.so there were extenuating circumstances that could account for the extremely light sentencing. so he did his time that was metted out to him. He stayed clean (I Hope) so perhaps a visit to his mother may not be out of the question.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are against any display of mercy (except perhaps the mercy of a quick death) to deserters. If you feel that this is an accurate statement of your opinion, then that's a clear enough explanation.

I'm neither going to agree nor disagree. I was just seeking clarification.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Desertion in a time of war is punishable by Death

I know all I need to know about this. He deserted in time of war; he betrayed his Country, his fellow soldiers, his unit, and his Service. He is a traitor, pure and simple. What more information do I need???

Here here! Kill all traitors that desert! :sniper:

so there were extenuating circumstances that could account for the extremely light sentencing. so he did his time that was metted out to him. He stayed clean (I Hope) so perhaps a visit to his mother may not be out of the question.
I am ambivalent about that in the extreme. As you have discovered if you have read many of my posts, I am not without compassion, but as a former soldier and commander I cannot condone desertion or surrender. And "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" is definitely beyond the pale. There is a time for forgiveness, but this is not the time.

Desertion in a time of war is punishable by Death
Who, pray tell, were we ate war with in the 60s?

I am ambivalent about that in the extreme. As you have discovered if you have read many of my posts, I am not without compassion, but as a former soldier and commander I cannot condone desertion or surrender. And "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" is definitely beyond the pale. There is a time for forgiveness, but this is not the time.
Fine, be an ass, but the WORST they can do is not let him see his mother, and the worse they can do if they let him is give a military escort. If you don't want to be compassionate, try being constitutional

Desertion in a time of war is punishable by DeathAhem... your enthusiasm is abmirable... but it was not during the war... but after.

Here here! Kill all traitors that desert! :sniper:
:rolleyes:

Ahem... your enthusiasm is abmirable... but it was not during the war... but after.
The operant phrase is "desertion in the face of the enemy." This applies whether there is or is not an ongoing war.

Who, pray tell, were we ate war with in the 60s?

North Korea and Vietnam!

Fine, be an ass, but the WORST they can do is not let him see his mother, and the worse they can do if they let him is give a military escort. If you don't want to be compassionate, try being constitutional

This is the military. Not a civil trial! Kill him for deserting. He's not worthy to be a US Citizen. :mp5: :sniper:

Ahem... your enthusiasm is abmirable... but it was not during the war... but after.

Legally speaking, and I love global politics, the Korean War was and still is going on.

Legally speaking, and I love global politics, the Korean War was and still is going on.LOL then I step out of this argument. because if what you say is true, then the generals who handed this soldier his punnishment did so when the war was still going on, then they to are traitors... and if they are traitors then we cannot trust our own military. and I really don't wanna follow that thought to it's natural conclusion.

Legally speaking, and I love global politics, the Korean War was and still is going on.
Legally speaking, It never started

LOL then I step out of this argument. because if what you say is true, then the generals who handed this soldier his punnishment did so when the war was still going on, then they to are traitors... and if they are traitors then we cannot trust our own military. and I really don't wanna follow that thought to it's natural conclusion.
Sigh. Things are not always as simple as we might suppose or wish.

Sigh. Things are not always as simple as we might suppose or wish.True... if they were then we wouldn't need lawyers... or politicians for that matter.

Legally speaking, It never started
"On June 27, [1950] U.S. President Truman authorized the use of American land, sea, and air forces in Korea; a week later, the United Nations placed the forces of 15 other member nations under U.S. command."

True... if they were then we wouldn't need lawyers... or politicians for that matter.
... or soldiers.

"On June 27, [1950] U.S. President Truman authorized the use of American land, sea, and air forces in Korea; a week later, the United Nations placed the forces of 15 other member nations under U.S. command."
Article I Section 8 Clause 11: "Congress shall have power to declare war [...]"

Article I Section 8 Clause 11: "Congress shall have power to declare war [...]"
And your point?

And your point?
"Legally speaking," since we are speaking legally, there was no war unless you can find a declaration of war on north korea by congress

"Legally speaking," since we are speaking legally, there was no war unless you can find a declaration of war on north korea by congress
And your point??

And your point??
With the reutterance of that, I hate you, that's my point.

With the reutterance of that, I hate you, that's my point.

Roflcakes. :p

With the reutterance of that, I hate you, that's my point.
Your loss, my friend.

Last I heard, the US had tried and convicted this man, and he served his time. He was not stripped of his citizenship, and a US citizen has full rights of mobility within the US under law.

As such he is fully entitled to receive a passport and visit his mother.

Now if you disagree with the sentance he received - feel free to complain to the military. However under the strict rule of law I see no way that the US could possibly prevent him from returning to visit his mother.

You don't like what he did? Fine - that is your right. However bear in mind that his mother is blameless and might also just want to see her son one last time, and perhaps meet her grandchildren before she dies.

Your loss, my friend.
I doubt that. With your assumption that everyone had read the same articles that you die, I assumed you could understand basic logic. Logic like: if your argument is he deserted in time of war and legally the war was and is still going on, Congress never declared war and thus that opinion is null and void. But since you can't follow, I hate you.

"Legally speaking," since we are speaking legally, there was no war unless you can find a declaration of war on north korea by congress

Legally speaking, then, the Americans shooting back at the Zeros bombing Pearl Harbor are criminals, then, as the US was not at war with Japan at that moment. :rolleyes:

Seriously: Yes, you are right. Congress never declared war on North Korea.

By the same token, however, the conflict was under the auspices of the UN (recall the Soviets boycotting the debate, thus allowing the West to have a UN mandate on the issue), thus negating the need for the US to declare war, since it was taking part in a UN operation. 16 allied nations fought under the UN flag, including the US.

(PS: those other nations? Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, South Africa, Turkey, Thailand, Greece, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, Colombia, the Philippines, Belgium, and Luxembourg.)

Chill out, Eutrusca, it's been 40 years. He only wants to visit his family.

How is it that I see people like skapedroe get into trouble for posting articles without external links or offering editorial comment, but then I see people like Eutrusca posting whatever they want, sans links or comments, with no repercussions whatsoever?

"On June 27, [1950] U.S. President Truman authorized the use of American land, sea, and air forces in Korea; a week later, the United Nations placed the forces of 15 other member nations under U.S. command."


the president has the power to deploy troops without the congress declaring war for a maximum of 60 days.

60 days after the president deploys troops, one of two things must happen:

A) congress declares war.

B) the troops come home.

now, in the case of the Korean war, neither of those things happened, because of the UN. when the UN decided to attack korea, the american troops became, technically, UN troops, as well as the troops of the other countries that decided to chip in.


America was not at war with korea, the UN was.

the president has the power to deploy troops without the congress declaring war for a maximum of 60 days.

60 days after the president deploys troops, one of two things must happen:

A) congress declares war.

B) the troops come home.

now, in the case of the Korean war, neither of those things happened, because of the UN. when the UN decided to attack korea, the american troops became, technically, UN troops, as well as the troops of the other countries that decided to chip in.

America was not at war with korea, the UN was.
You are correct.

If he was tried and convincted by a US court, then what is the problem?

I mean, unless his conviction states something about taking away US citizensship and/or dissallowing him to visit the country. He has to be allowed to enter the country.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Chill out, Eutrusca, it's been 40 years. He only wants to visit his family.

I share that view.

You are correct.


then what's the problem?

he defected from the UN army, and he was tried by a UN military court.

he served out the sentence passed, so he should be returned to full rights.

if you think that the sentence was not severe enough, that's just too damn bad.

the US cannot re-try him for a crime commited against the UN.

double jeopardy is illegal. (ie: you can't be tried for the same crime twice)

What's with the real Christian values in the US?
Is fear and retribution the way to heaven?
He's done his time and he is not going to call a Jihad or strap bombs to himself.

Geez, what's the deal with everybody ganging up on the old guy? He was some kid who was afraid of getting sent to Vietnam who got plastered one day, ran out, and found himself staring down the business end of a North Korean assault rifle. It's not like he was TRYING to defect to the DPRK, he was practically held hostage!

Military deserters and soldiers who resist unjust war in some way, shape, or form shouldn't be looked down and spat upon; I think they're deserving of our respect and admiration because they're willing to put their asses on the line and defy the US military juggernaut. Jenkins was just an unfortunate young man (at the time) who was resisting for mostly nonpolitical reasons, who didn't really have anywhere else to run but the DMZ.

Oh, come on Eut. It's been 40 years. He wants to see his mother. Does "forgiveness" and "redemption" not cross your vocabulary? You may have need of such terms yourself, you know, and the more you give it in this life, the more you'll get it in the next one. :)

seriously man let the guy come back! he was in the military during virtnam i sure as hell woulda quite/deserted

seriously man let the guy come back! he was in the military during virtnam i sure as hell woulda quite/deserted
It was Korea.

Well, what I'm getting is you are another jingoist American and anyone who opposes American or disagrees with American policy is a bastard traitor, unless of course the person setting the policy is a "left wing" person, because all I have ever seen from you American propagandist crap.
I didn't realise allowing some one to see their NINETY ONE year old mother was going to hurt me, shit I better go live in a fucking hole so all these other crazy things like allowing gay marriage and letting prisoners out of jail who have served their 71 years won't hurt me. Shit, silly me thinknig things like invading half a dozen countries would be less in my best interest, and everyone's for that matter
I_Hate_Cows: Official Warning - Flamebait

...

Article I Section 8 Clause 11: "Congress shall have power to declare war [...]" And your point?"Legally speaking," since we are speaking legally, there was no war unless you can find a declaration of war on north korea by congressAnd your point??



America was not at war with korea, the UN was.You are correct.
Eutrusca, part of the reason for the mutually malicious behavior between yourself and "I_Hate_Cows" seems to be that you assume that everyone reads the same material that you do and that everyone is familiar with the same details that you are. These are NOT reasonable assumptions unless you post the material on NationStates and link to the sources. For example, I, personally, did not remember that the UN could declare war instead of the US (an important part of your logical argument) until "Dementedus_Yammus" spelled it out in Post #95. Thus, your comments in Posts #84 and #86 appeared, to me, to be deliberate attempts by you to be dense and nearly got you official warnings for trolling.

Eutrusca, you need to exercise more caution. If this happens again, an official warning will ensue.

...

How is it that I see people like skapedroe get into trouble for posting articles without external links or offering editorial comment, but then I see people like Eutrusca posting whatever they want, sans links or comments, with no repercussions whatsoever?
Because even Mods overlook things. Additionally, a Mod has to notice a pattern of behavior OR a Mod has to believe that a particular isolated incident was started to deliberately cause trouble before we Mods start handing out official warnings for it. Neither of those seem to apply, here. Still, I'd appreciate it if someone could link to a source for Post #1 and cite the source for Post #81.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

Why not let go he spent his time in jail for it and he just wants to go home to see his family.


my question as well.

I'd appreciate it if someone could link to a source for Post #1 and cite the source for Post #81.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator
The source for the first article was the Associated Press, and was so noted at the top of the article.

The source for the first article was the Associated Press, and was so noted at the top of the article.
That's not really a source. Technically, I can sit here and type up whatever I want and label it "Associated Press"

Actually i'm against it like Entrusca, although I'm not American nor was from the military.

But there has to be rules that is to be adhered and not bended. Maybe what can be done is minimally allow him only within the airport or internatonally 'free' zones of the country. But cannot step a foot outside the airport in the US so that his mother can see him.

But the rules must stand. If not, might as well, every traitor or deserter run out of the nation, live his life till very old age and then come back expecting to be forgiven.

We do give amnesty to such people periodicly. Everyone who ran away to Canada to get out of Vietnam was allowed back in.

If you think that rules must be adhered to simply because "rules are rules" then I refer you here (http://zerointelligence.net/) .

The man chose to desert in time of war. In a saner age, he would have been shot.

Because in a saner age a nation that claims to be built upon the principles set forth in the Bible (you know, peace and forgivness) sanity was measured by how many people got shot to death for 40 year old grudges.

Well, I see his point. It does seem harsh, but you can't just start forgiving people 'cause you feel sorry for them. If you do, the whole legal system crumbles to the earth.

Well there is the matter of the purpose of law.

Is crime punished because sadistic bastards get some satisfaction from the suffering of others and they've found a socially justifiable means of bringing it about, or is crime punished to prevent behavior that, if commited on a large scale, would be harmful to society?

I don't see very many people willing to accept 40 year exiles in dictatorial countries to get out of the military, and we've been much more forgiving of those who ran away to the relativly benign Canada, so it makes no sense to suddenly get all up in arms about this guy's story just because it doesn't happen very often.

Of course lots of people on Etrusca's side of the debate seem to be overlooking the fact that the military sentenced him and already put him in jail for his desertion. I don't think politicians looking to curry favor from the most obnoxious and sadistic members of our society deserve the option of imposing tougher sentences than a military court.

Legally speaking, then, the Americans shooting back at the Zeros bombing Pearl Harbor are criminals, then, as the US was not at war with Japan at that moment. :rolleyes:

Seriously: Yes, you are right. Congress never declared war on North Korea.

We're in the Imperial age of America right now. The president doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare war, but he does have the authority to take emergency measures for the sake of national defense, for example shooting back if the country is attacked.

Sadly in the process of becoming an empire countries consolidate power in a central figure. In ancient Rome and pre-WWII Germany we saw both undergo the same pattern. A legislative body was persuaded that the central leader needed more power because there was an emergency going on. The leader then engineers his own emergencies to justify is continued hold on power. Bush elevated this to a really crappy art with his color coded Bullshit Barometer.

By the same token we now have a Congress that can be persuaded to let the President "declare war" even though the Constitution gives congress no power to abandon this responsibility and the president no power to claim it.

Of course lots of people on Etrusca's side of the debate seem to be overlooking the fact that the military sentenced him and already put him in jail for his desertion. I don't think politicians looking to curry favor from the most obnoxious and sadistic members of our society deserve the option of imposing tougher sentences than a military court.
Even if they wanted to they couldn't

We're in the Imperial age of America right now. The president doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare war, but he does have the authority to take emergency measures for the sake of national defense, for example shooting back if the country is attacked.

And that's Imperial how? America has not taken any territory in armed combat since the Spanish-American War.

Barring that first sentance, what you say is true.


Sadly in the process of becoming an empire countries consolidate power in a central figure. In ancient Rome and pre-WWII Germany we saw both undergo the same pattern. A legislative body was persuaded that the central leader needed more power because there was an emergency going on. The leader then engineers his own emergencies to justify is continued hold on power. Bush elevated this to a really crappy art with his color coded Bullshit Barometer.

Huh? Rome and Weimar Germany have VERY little in common!! Rome appointed Octavian (later Augustus Caesar) as Emperor after he dealt with a civil war started because Marc Anthony married Cleopatra. The Big O didn't have anything to do with it.

Weimar was a failed state from the beginning, pinned with a crushing debt from the victorious allies. The rise of the Third Reich would have been nearly impossible has Versailles not been so punitive. Futher, the Reich was voted (though never in a majority in an election), unlike Rome, where the Senate
just up and decided. I'll certainly grant the Reichstag fire and all the rest, but there is little to compare to Rome here.

As for Bush, he's out of office in 4 years. I'd also argue that his foreign policy is no better or worse than that of many other Presidents, most notably Johnson (LBJ) or Polk.
Comparing him to Augustus or Caesar is like comparing a McDonald's hamburger to a steak from Morton's. Both are meat. There, the similarities begin... ;)


By the same token we now have a Congress that can be persuaded to let the President "declare war" even though the Constitution gives congress no power to abandon this responsibility and the president no power to claim it.

Huh? We've declared war on someone?

Because in a saner age a nation that claims to be built upon the principles set forth in the Bible (you know, peace and forgivness) sanity was measured by how many people got shot to death for 40 year old grudges.

While about half of the Founding Fathers were religious in some way, it should also be noted that the nation was certainly not based on Biblical principles. On a God? Yes.
But your measure of sanity and those of others may or may not be the same.

whats the big deal? Our President is a deserter too

whats the big deal? Our President is a deserter too

From what? I mean, I know you'd like the idea of him giving himself up to the Cubans or something, but... he ain't. Sorry.

Interesting. I find that Eutrusca made me think long and hard about my stance on such issues.

Draft-Dodging, Desertion, Traitors, how do you feel towards them? How do you treat them?

I, for one feel that the man in question was a deserter and a traitor. But my view is that he paid his debt to the nation (the 25 days in jail that was given him) and that he should be allowed his freedom as the law permitted. Its true that he deserves the stigma that he earned through his actions, but I'm not sure I feel much antipathy towards him as it happened so long ago.

Let him into the nation; he is legally allowed in the nation because he served his time in jail. Let him see his mother. But let us not forget that he abandoned his comrades to their fate, he betrayed the oath he took to serve, and only our compassion lets us forgive him these trespasses.

I have long felt that Robert Novak of CNN betrayed our nation by outting an undercover CIA agent. He endangered both her her life and the lives of Americans everywhere by undermining national security. I think of him as a traitor and a criminal; but no legal action has been taken against him. I feel much antipathy for Novak, and I struggle against it, because it reduces my ability to deal calmly with the issue.

Is it possible that I am incorrect in my assesment of the facts? Possibly, and for this reason I will not take action against him. I will not hunt him down and place him under citizen's arrest; I will not lobby for his incarceration, I will not slug him if I see him. But to me at least, Novak and this other man share the same destinction; traitors to our nation.

It took some considerable time to think out my position on this issue. Reflections on my views on society and my views on legal matters. Thanks Eutrusca for bringing this up.

Draft-Dodging, Desertion, Traitors, how do you feel towards them? How do you treat them?

Draft-dodgers--To be dispised and hated. They were called to duty and they refused. They should not be trusted!

Deserters--Should be shot on site

Traitors--Shooting is to good for them. Hang'em in DC along the Mall!

That is what I think should be done and how to treat these people.

Oh, come on Eut. It's been 40 years. He wants to see his mother. Does "forgiveness" and "redemption" not cross your vocabulary? You may have need of such terms yourself, you know, and the more you give it in this life, the more you'll get it in the next one. :)
There's no statute of limitations under the UCMJ for desertion and treason. He defected to the enemy during time of war; he should be hanged from the tallest yardarm they can find.

Forgiveness and redemption is God's providence, not JAG's.

"Legally speaking," since we are speaking legally, there was no war unless you can find a declaration of war on north korea by congress

And your point??

His point is that the executive usurped the authority delegated to Congress under the Constitution. Using this argument, every "war" fought by the United States after World War II has been unconstitutional. During Vietnam, an antiwar group tried to stop the war using this argument, but the Supreme Court refused to hear the case (probably for political reasons more than constitutional ones imho); therefore the legal validity of this argument remains unsettled.

I personally agree with this argument. The executive has become WAAAAAAAY too powerful over the last few decades. It was Lyndon B. Johnson's administration, not the Congress, who baited the Vietnamese into attacking United States property and dragged us into Vietnam, and the Congress rolled over and gave the president a blank check.

We all know where that got us :rolleyes:

Recommended reading (and my source for the Vietnam claims):

Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0142003425/qid=1109400688/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-9494324-5084914?v=glance&s=books)

Sorry, the material is buried in the book, not the website, and I don't have it here to quote.

He should be allowed to see his family if he is willing to stand trial for his crimes. That's fair and there's not a jury in the nation that would convict him, anyway.
He won't be tried by a civilian jury. He'll be judged by a panel of military officers at a court martial, and I suspect they'll have little pity for those who betray their country and desert during war time.

Did you miss the part where it already said he had been in military prison for deserting? And isn't there some sort of statute of limitations on all sorts of law things.
Not for desertion and treason.

Ahem... your enthusiasm is abmirable... but it was not during the war... but after.
The United States is still at war with North Korea.

He won't be tried by a civilian jury. He'll be judged by a panel of military officers at a court martial, and I suspect they'll have little pity for those who betray their country and desert during war time.

As far as I can gleam, he has ALREADY stood trial for his actions, been sentenced, served his sentence, and been released.

He should be allowed back in to the country.