Thursday, May 15, 2008

Court Concludes Paratrooper Is Entitled To Conscientious Objector Status

In Barnes v. Green, (D AK, May 13, 2008), an Alaska federal magistrate judge concluded that an Army paratrooper's request for conscientious objector status be granted. The court rejected the Army's contention that Michael Barnes was not sincere in his claim that he was a conscientious objector, saying:

Much is made of the fact that Barnes did not attend church services in Iraq. While [this] ... might hold sway if there were other facts showing a sudden and convenient getting of religion, surely the Army agrees that it is not its province to suggest there is a proper way to be a Christian, or for that matter, to lay claim to or practice any other form of religion....

The fact that Barnes’ thought processes may not have been "mature" is of no moment. One need not be a St. Augustine or a St. Thomas Aquinas to qualify as CO, indeed conscientious objection has no necessary relation to intellectual sophistication....

The evidence is overwhelming that Barnes – a motivated infantryman –is a person who takes his religious beliefs seriously, and there is strong evidence that his decision was motivated by those beliefs.... True, the timing of Barnes’ decision is suspect. But that alone cannot be the basis for denying his application....
Instead of remanding the case to the Army's Conscientious Objector Review Board, the court concluded that Barnes' petition for habeas corpus and mandamus should be granted and the Army should be ordered to grant Barnes an honorable discharge. The Army has until tomorrow to appeal the magistrate's findings. Yesterday's London Guardian reports on the decision.

UPDATE: the May 24 Anchorage Daily News reports that the Army has appealed the magistrate's decision to federal district Judge John Sedwick.

2 comments:

Barb said...

CO's typically did alternate service --so why discharge him if he has time to serve? Why not retrain him as a medic or just put him to work in their hospitals or in some non-gun-toting way to fulfill his contractual obligation?

Mitch said...

Barb - Applicants specifically request either discharge (1-O) or noncombatant (1-A-O) status. "In 1–0 application cases, the investigating officer will not recommend a classification of (1–A–0) unless the person has indicated a willingness to remain on active duty in a noncombatant role." AR 600-43 (21 Aug 06) Para 2-5.k.(7)