19 Refuse an order in Iraq -- too dangerous.

[Colleen Thomas]

Google <----- The Original Google Search Results List.




Solider's grandfather says refusal of mission saved lives

This latest story adds new details to the story --- if trustworth. (Its source is the Grandfather of one soldier.)

Thanks Burley, but I saw nothing in there hat make sme believe the vehicles were unsafe. On the ohter hand, if their punishment is reduction & rank & being split up, that tends to make me believe they had some legitimate concerns of some kind.

-Colly

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... I saw nothing in there hat make sme believe the vehicles were unsafe....

From what I understand of Harold's explanation, the "safety-maintenance stand down" while the military conducts no further missions until the unit's vehicles are inspected; when taken as a response to the claims of unsafe vehicles, argues that the soldiers possibly had some degree of merit to their claims.

Either that, or I did not follow Harold’s explanation.

What seems new in this new report is the suggestion that the contaminated fuel was intended for helicopters which might have crashed as the result of a using the delivery.

Of course, that is only a so-far unsubstantiated claim made by the grandfather, who might be confused, or trying to spin better public opinion for his grandson.

Only time will tell.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

From what I understand of Harold's explanation, the "safety-maintenance stand down" while the military conducts no further missions until the unit's vehicles are inspected; when taken as a response to the claims of unsafe vehicles, argues that the soldiers possibly had some degree of merit to their claims.

Either that, or I did not follow Harold’s explanation.

What seems new in this new report is the suggestion that the contaminated fuel was intended for helicopters which might have crashed as the result of a using the delivery.

Of course, that is only a so-far unsubstantiated claim made by the grandfather, who might be confused, or trying to spin better public opinion for his grandson.

Only time will tell.

I've seen the fuel alternatly described as disel and aviation fuel. Noone has yet said what it was contaminated with or what they expected to do with it at the base. It isn't too hard to imagine that they were given the contaminated fuel to deal with and someone made a snafu in records, so that the higher ups didn't realize it was no good.

As you said, only time will tell.

-Colly

 

[Weird Harold]

From what I understand of Harold's explanation, the "safety-maintenance stand down" while the military conducts no further missions until the unit's vehicles are inspected; when taken as a response to the claims of unsafe vehicles, argues that the soldiers possibly had some degree of merit to their claims.

The official DOD statement and the General in charge of the investigation have both said, "the soldiers had some valid concerns."

For Colly:

from: http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2435973&nav=0RaPS2sc
Larry McCook of Mississippi is one of the soldiers in question. His wife says McCook refused to go on a mission to deliver food and water in combat zones. Patricia McCook says her husband's unit felt it was a suicide mission, "They just want to be safe. It's just like putting them in a boxing match, putting them in a boxing ring and say 'box' then handcuff you. They don't give you anything to work with. If you're going to put them out there, give them what they need to fight."

She says her husband's unit felt their vehicles are unable to take fire and they had little support, "The vehicles were very unsafe. In his term, the vehicles were 'deadlined.' So for this reason all the soldiers, 17 of them, decided not to go because of their fear for their lives, basically."

This is a later AP Wire story than the early Reuters report I first saw the claim of "deadlined" vehicles. Mrs McCook's statement is also more complete than the first story.

"Deadlined" is a very specific term -- it means the vehicle forms have a documented problem that is considered serious enough that the vehicle is unsafe to use.

I don't know the Army's exact rules for clering a "deadline" discrepancy. They should be fairly close to the Air Force's rules for entering, clearing or downgrading such discrepancies.

The Air Fores rules are:

Anyone can enter a discrepancy in the forms and assign it a "red-X." ("Grounded" or "Deadlined" depending on whose Jargon you're using.)

Only a Supervisor with specific authorization to clear Red-X conditions can certify the repairs are complete and/or downgrade the discrepancy to a "Red-diagonal" or "Red dash" -- not safety related or requires inspection respectively.

In most Air Force units, additional specific authorization for field grade officers and senior NCO's is required to down-grade a "Red-X" condition without repair. (So called "9-level Authorization")

Specious Grounding or Deadlining can and does happen as do illegal orders to down-grade a condition that warrants "grounding."

From the time in service given for McCook and at least one other participant, there was at least one and probably two people in the group who had the authority to change the status of the vehicles who apparently refused to do so.

As long as the entry in the vehicle records is "open" it's against written regulations to use that vehicle and any order to use the vehicle or change the status against a technician's best judgement is an illegal order and should be refused.

I don't know what the true status of the vehicles was, or what the specific discrepancies documented were, but I've been in similar situations where I had to stand-up for my best judgement against an illegal order to change an aircraft status.

It's NOT an uncommon occurance in military maintenance where technicians who want to fix things come into conflict with suprvisors and officers who want the readiness numbers to look good or don't have enough aircraft to meet the schedule.

It's amazing how an officer's attitude changes when you tell him, "No sir. I will NOT put my name to that action in the forms. You have the authority to sign YOUR name if you wish, but I will not falsify government documents."

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thanks Harold,

if the vehicles were supposed to be grounded it would make things much different. I do have a question for you though, in reguards to deadlining a vehicle. When i worked for the phone co, I had to inspect my van and sign off it was good to go. I had a DOT liscense and could have been fined heavily if I went out with it not in good order. All techs could do this.

During a work slow down, the chief steward told all of us to find something worng with out vans. We all did. Are regular grunts able to do this? or does it require a mechanic to say it's unsafe?

-Colly

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Colleen Thomas]

==========================

What I said, what Harold said, but somehow, this war has had some strange twists to it for as short a time as it's been going on, and as long a time as it is supposed to have been over.

mismused

There are times when I really feel the command & control in this war is getting as convoluted and confused as it was in Vietnam. I am not sure if thats a consequence of fighting an asymetrical war, but I seem to remember the soviets having some of the same difficulties in Afghanistan.

There is a new report out now that five members of the unit have been dropped in rank & reassigned. The report hints that these were the "ring leaders".

Not being there, it's hard to make a faior assessment. That said, the circumstances would have to be extrodinary for rank & file soldiers to refuse an order and there not be significant disciplary fall out, I think.

-Colly

 

[Weird Harold]

During a work slow down, the chief steward told all of us to find something worng with out vans. We all did. Are regular grunts able to do this? or does it require a mechanic to say it's unsafe?

A "Work to Rule" is the only kind of "strike" available to the military and it has been used many times.

It does NOT require a mechanic to "find something wrong" it only requires an entry in the vehicle forms -- which must be signed in the "discovered by" field. A company cook on the way to the latrine can legally deadine a vehicle if he spots a problem that warrants it.

However, falsely entering a discrepancy that doesn't exist is subject to the same kind of penalties as certifying something as fixed when it isn't. There are also guidlines for what discrepancies are sufficient to deadline a vehicle and which are "minor discrepancies. Simply marking a minor discrepancy as a major discrepancy isn't sufficient to deadline a vehicle in support of "work to rule." The only thing marking a minor discrepancy as a major discrepancy would accomplish is to document an erronous deadlining and get a supervisor involved.

If the vehicles in question were deadlined to support the refusal, the discrepancies claimed would have to be carefully chosen and worded.

Falsifying documents could easily turn 17 individual cases of possible insubordination into a definite "Conspriacy to Commit Mutiny" -- a possible capital offense in a combat zone.

In other words, I don't think the deadlining of the vehicles was staged or exagerated whatever else the investigation might reveal.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

A "Work to Rule" is the only kind of "strike" available to the military and it has been used many times.

It does NOT require a mechanic to "find something wrong" it only requires an entry in the vehicle forms -- which must be signed in the "discovered by" field. A company cook on the way to the latrine can legally deadine a vehicle if he spots a problem that warrants it.

However, falsely entering a discrepancy that doesn't exist is subject to the same kind of penalties as certifying something as fixed when it isn't. There are also guidlines for what discrepancies are sufficient to deadline a vehicle and which are "minor discrepancies. Simply marking a minor discrepancy as a major discrepancy isn't sufficient to deadline a vehicle in support of "work to rule." The only thing marking a minor discrepancy as a major discrepancy would accomplish is to document an erronous deadlining and get a supervisor involved.

If the vehicles in question were deadlined to support the refusal, the discrepancies claimed would have to be carefully chosen and worded.

Falsifying documents could easily turn 17 individual cases of possible insubordination into a definite "Conspriacy to Commit Mutiny" -- a possible capital offense in a combat zone.

In other words, I don't think the deadlining of the vehicles was staged or exagerated whatever else the investigation might reveal.

Harold, what constitutes mutiny? I've always asumed it was when more than one person was insubordinate, but from you r post I get the feeling there are specific conditions on it?

 

[Weird Harold]

Harold, what constitutes mutiny? I've always asumed it was when more than one person was insubordinate, but from you r post I get the feeling there are specific conditions on it?

There are specific conditions, but I've never had occasion to read the exact legal definition.

In general, it's mutiny if it's premeditated and/or involves an attempt to usurp control from "properly constituted authority." A single person can commit "Mutiny" although it's more comonly a mass offense.

A short definition would probably be "premeditated disobedience of lawful orders."

 

[mismused]

delete