Distruction of Government Property

Today, I heard an soldier talking about a injury he received while he was drunk that he never sought treatment for because he might have been sent to a court-martial for destruction of government property. This military urban myth has been around for decades; in the myth, usually somebody was tried at a court martial because his sunburn was considered destruction of government property. This myth is easily dispelled by just reading the actual UCMJ, and not listening to urban myths repeated by others.

Although I was never a military lawyer, I have over 20 years of military law enforcement experience gained during 26 years of active duty in the Navy. Therefore, I know something about the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) since I investigated and charged hundreds of sailors for violations of it.

The article in question is Article 108: Destruction of Government Property. The article states:
“Any person subject to this chapter who, without proper authority—

(1) sells or otherwise disposes of;

(2) willfully or through neglect damages, destroys, or loses; or

(3) willfully or through neglect suffers to be lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of, any military property of the United States, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

To be convicted of any article in the UCMJ, all of at least one of the elements of the crime (article) must be proven.

The elements of Article 108 are as follows:

(1) Selling or otherwise disposing of military property.

(a) That the accused sold or otherwise disposed of certain property (which was a firearm or explosive);

(b) That the sale or disposition was without proper authority;

(c) That the property was military property of the United States, and

(d) That the property was of a certain value.

(2) Damaging, destroying, or losing military property.

(a) That the accused, without proper authority, damaged or destroyed certain property in a certain way, or lost certain property;

(b) That the property was military property of the United States;

(c) That the damage, destruction, or loss was willfully caused by the accused or was the result of neglect by the accused; and

(d) That the property was of a certain value or the damage was of a certain amount.

(3) Suffering military property to be lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of.

(a) That certain property (which was a firearm or explosive) was lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of;

(b) That the property was military property of the United States;

(c) That the loss, damage, destruction, sale, or wrongful disposition was suffered by the accused, without proper authority, through a certain omission of duty by the accused;

(d) That the omission was willful or negligent; and

(e) That the property was of a certain value or the damage was of a certain amount.

The element we are concerned with is the element (2). To be convicted of damaging government property, all the parts of this element must be proven. Part (b) of the element states that the property must be the military property of the United States. So can a person be the property of the United States.? The answer is no! The UCMJ speaks about “person” and “property” in many places and always makes a distinction between the two. Legally, property is owned and thus may be bought and sold. It has been over 100 years since any person was bought or sold in the United States.

Even if an argument could be made that people may be considered property, then part (d) would still pose an insurmountable obstacle. Part (d) states that the property was of a certain value or the damage was of a certain amount. What value could be placed on a person, a few dollars for the mineral content, a few thousand dollars for the sale of body parts, or maybe a few million dollars for sentimental value?

Some people say that instead of Article 108, a person with sunburn would more likely be charge with Article 115: Malingering. This article states:

Any person subject to this chapter who for the purpose of avoiding work, duty, or service”—

(1) feigns illness, physical disablement, mental lapse or derangement; or

(2) intentionally inflicts self-injury; shallbe punished as a court-martial may direct.

Its elements are:

(1) That the accused was assigned to, or was aware of prospective assignment to, or availability for, the performance of work, duty, or service;

(2) That the accused feigned illness, physical disablement, mental lapse or derangement, or intentionally inflicted injury upon himself or herself; and

(3) That the accused’s purpose or intent in doing so was to avoid the work, duty, or service. Note: If the offense was committed in time of war or in a hostile fire pay zone, add the following element

(4) That the offense was committed (in time of war) (in a hostile fire pay zone).

The accused’s action must have been for the express purpose of avoiding doing something that the accused knew he or she was required to do. With this limitation, someone who gets accidentally sunburned at the pool would not be charged with malingering. However, if it could be proved that the person got sunburned for the express purpose of avoiding a duty, he or she could be charged with malingering.

In the military you are not taken to an Article 15 (administrative hearing for minor offenses) or to a court-martial (criminal trial) for first time minor offenses. Your direct supervisor give you more chances until he or she is fed up with you; then the office in charge will give you more chances until he or she is fed up with you. When a person goes to a Article 15 hearing it is because his or her chain of command has run out of other options.

Article 15 hearings are subject to appeal and courts-martial are automatically appealed. In addition, all military convictions are subject to review at many different levels. No military commander is going to put his or her career and integrity at risk to falsely punish some twerp.

Military accused have the same rights as they would have in the civilian justice system. The likelihood of false conviction in the military justice system is no more than it is in the civilian justice system.

As with other segments of society, the military has its share of people who are uninformed or misinformed. Just because a person served in the military for a few years, it does not make the person an authority on all aspects of the military.

Survival of the Fittest

According to science, humans, as well as all other life forms, evolved to their present state by the process of survival of the fittest. Only the fittest survived for any appreciable length of time, which increased their chances of producing offspring and passing their superior genetic makeup to future generations. As with many other things, if one thing is true, then the antithesis must also be true. If it is true that humans became superior being because only the fittest survived to procreate, then if the unfit are helped to survive and procreate, then humankind will deteriorate and will suffer the consequences.

Now we use advanced technology to keep the unfit alive, support them when they cannot do it for themselves, and then not only allow but encourage them to procreate. The human gene pool is being polluted. Will humankind deteriorate or will branches of humankind develop with one branch becoming more fit to survive and one or more branches developing into inferior, unfit beings?

Birthday Celebrations

Why do we celebrate birthdays? We do not celebrate graduation days, marriage days, or death days. What is so special about ones day of birth?

For some occasions, such as marriages, we celebrate the anniversary of the date of the occasion, but not the date itself. Therefore, we celebrate marriage anniversaries (such as the 20th marriage anniversary), not marriage days. If anything, we should celebrate the anniversary of our day of birth (such as the 25th birth anniversary). Of course that would mean we would have to admit our ages, and some would probably balk at that. The month and day of their birth they want everyone to know (so as to increase their chances of receiving gifts), but they protect the year of their birth as though it was vital to national security. This birth year secrecy has been practiced for centuries, not just because of recent concerns about identity theft.

I assume that as a child I thought birthdays were special, but, at an early point in life (around 10 years of age) I began to question the purpose of birthdays and saw no point in them. I still do not.

Event to continue to honor...

I read today that the drag car 2008 Lucas Oil Super Nationals will continue to honor the death of a driver killed in a race last night. Events, ball games, races, concerts, etc. always choose to continue to honor the death of a person involved in the event. The reason they give is that, “She would have wanted it this way” or “It is best way we can honor him.” Event promoters never cancel an event to honor the person. Why don’t event promoters just tell the truth? They are continuing with the event because it they would lose tons of money and anger the competitors and spectators if they canceled it. No matter how badly the spectators may feel about the death, they are not willing to give up seeing the event. Saying the event is continuing to honor the person just gives the spectators a way to easy their collective conscious. It only when so many people are killed at an event that it would be unconscionable to continue that an event is canceled; no matter if those killed would have wanted the event to continue.

The people in … are resilient, tough, courageous, etc. in the face of adversity.

I get sick of hearing the media blather on and on about how resilient, tough, courageous, etc. the people are in some area that has been hit by a natural disaster. To say the people in one place are this way means that there must be some place were the people are not this way. The media never point out any place where the people are wimpy, weak, cowards in the face of calamity. If there is no such place, then it must be that people in general are resilient, tough, courageous, etc. This being the case, why make such a big deal about what is basically human nature. If anything, the media ought to point out how stupid some people are to live in dangerous areas and how utterly stupid it is to rebuild in the same areas where the odds are that at some future date they will be called upon again to be resilient, tough, courageous, etc.

Wisdom

Why are martial artists so intrigued with Zen sayings when there is just as much wisdom in our own homegrown sayings? How is a Zen master’s wisdom any better than that of a country farmer? Both are stating the obvious; both are merely using common sense. So, why do martial artists tend to consider a Zen saying profound while considering a country saying quaint? Here are a few country sayings that are just as profound as any Zen sayings.

• Never name a pig you plan to eat.
• Life ain't about how fast you run, or how high you climb. It's about how good you bounce.
• Keep skunks and gossipers at a distance.
• Life is simpler when you plow around the stumps.
• Words that soak into your ears are whispered...not yelled.
• Meanness don't happen overnight.
• Forgive your enemies. It messes with their heads.
• Don't sell your mule to buy a plow.
• Don't corner something meaner than you.
• It don't take a very big person to carry a grudge.
• You can't unsay a cruel remark.
• Every path has some puddles.
• Don't wrestle with pigs. You'll get all muddy, and the pigs'll love it.
• The best sermons are lived, not preached.
• Most of the stuff people worry about never happens.
• Never miss a good chance to shut up.
• Always drink upstream from the herd.
• If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
• There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves.
• Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
• If you're riding' ahead of the herd, take a look back every now and then to make sure it's still there.
• You know you are getting old when everything either dries up or leaks.
• One must wait until evening to see how splendid the day has been.
• Many folks want to serve God, but only as advisors
• Quit griping about your school; if it was perfect, they wouldn’t let you attend
• God promises a safe landing, not a calm passage.
• You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage him.
  

Pet Insurance

The following letter to the editor appeared in the 1/31/08 edition of the Winston-Salem Journal:

Pet Insurance
I laughed reading “Taking Care” (Jan. 22) about companies offering pet insurance. Something is wrong when pets are insured but some people aren’t.

I don’t have health coverage, and my husband’s company doesn’t allow him to claim me as his legal spouse. We are a gay couple, married in 2005 in Toronto, where I am from. Canada respects our marriage, and we would have free coverage there, but we live here because we want to be with our new granddaughter and we like our jobs.

Pet insurance in Canada would be no problem because Canadians have health care; pet care is just a natural extension (notice the biggest pet-insurance provider in the story is Canadian). That’s unlike here, where children are denied the basics and adults have died because of no private insurance or because private companies have refused to pay.

There’s good here in the United States, but offering pet insurance when millions of citizens go without — well, you be the judge.

I could not set this go by without a response, so I emailed the following letter to the editor (I was limited to 200 words or less. so I did it in 199 words)

Even though pets are legally considered property, the writer of the “Pet Insurance” letter of 31 January implies it’s wrong to insure them while there are people without health insurance. He apparently thinks it’s okay for him to insure his property, such as his vehicle, while it’s wrong for others to insure their property, such as their pets.

The writer, who is from Canada, which offers "free" health care, laments not having health insurance since moving here. Most people have a choice in respect to health insurance; they may choose to buy it, work for an employer that offers it, or live in a place that gives it to them. For those unable to take advantage of either of these choices, free health care is available through public and private agencies.

The writer says people here are dying due to a lack of health insurance or from denial of coverage. While this may be true in some cases, it’s also true that people are dying in Canada while waiting for an appointment to receive free health care, which is why so many Canadians come here to receive immediate health care, even though they have to pay for it.

Dogs and Plants

Dog ownership demands responsibility. Once you claim ownership of a dog, you are responsible for its welfare. If you own a dog you must provide for it (fresh water, healthy food, proper shelter, proper health care, and proper training), protect it (from harming or being harmed by objects, animals, or people), and show it affection (just as with humans, dogs are social animals, they like being around other dogs and people and feeling needed). Dogs first behave as their species is genetically wired to behave, then they behave as their breed has been bred to behave, then they behave as they have individually genetically been wired to behave, and then they behave as they have learned from life or have been trained to behave by humans.

I have a dog. I got him when he was 2 months old and I have had him for 12 years. We are together almost 24 hours a day; we have only been apart for 6 days in 12 years. He is a dog. I know he is a dog; he knows he is a dog. I do not consider him a child and he does not consider me a dog. I let him be a dog and do what a dog does as much as possible. He goes on long walks in different places every day so he can sniff, track, mark, and act as a dog. I do not dress him in clothes, feed him human food, or attribute human attributes to him; I treat him as a dog. He considers me the leader of his pack, looks to me for nourishment, protection, affection and, in return, he protects me and returns affection. It is symbolic relationship that has existed between humans and dogs for eons.

Dogs know we are not dogs, and yet they still want to be around us and they accept us as their superiors. Once a dog accepts a human as the alpha leader, it willingly works for the leader, and will accept anything from the leader, even if it cruel and inhumane behavior.

There are those who enjoy dogs and accept the responsibilities that come with dog ownership. Most dog owner take better care of their dogs than some people do of their children. You read about children being found dead or dying after being left alone in enclosed, hot vehicles during the summer, but rarely do you hear of the same happening to dog. Dog owners insure their dogs are safe at all times; the same cannot always be said about the parents of children.

Some dog owners have psychological problems that cause them to view dogs as the children they have not had as yet, never had, had but who seldom visit, or had but died. They dress them, feed them human food, attribute human characteristics to them, treat them as children, and claim to know what they are thinking. These people are not dangerous, but their behavior is cruel to dogs in that it deprives them of their ability to be dogs.

There are also those who view the attachment dogs have with humans as a way for them to rule over something in their lives. They are losers who have not developed the basics of humanity, so they think they can use dogs for their sadistic enjoyment. Thankfully, these people are in the minority, but there are still too many of them.

Another group is those who view dogs as they view plants, something to keep in the backyard. A plant needs to be fed and watered to keep it alive and it is anchored in one spot its entire life. Some treat their dogs the same way, they chain it in one spot its entire life, fed and water it, and give it an occasional pet on the head. These people do not think of themselves as animal abusers but they are abusers.