Why would anyone in their right mind sign a contract that specified prison terms for those who did not abide by the rules? I can see having to repay what the government invested in training, but that's about it. No legal contracts for free people should include prison terms as punishment. Case in point, of course, Watada: "the maximum penalty would be a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay and seven years in prison." Well, that's just stupid.
2007-02-09 13:20:26 · 18 answers · asked by Spock 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
They get you to swear in and sign in and THEN they brief you about UCMJ.
2007-02-09 13:50:10 · answer #1 · answered by THE STUDLIEST 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Prison terms for those that don't abide by the rules??? Are you serious? You're already living in a world that does that and you didn't sign a thing to get in it. If you commit murder, sell drugs, rob someone or break any number of rules in society.... you end up in prison. Where exactly is the logical difference you're making with the military? There is no difference... but the military does hold itself to a higher standard...maybe thats where your question is going... I really can't tell. But to tell the truth... if you have to ask the question of why someone would sign a contract and join... then you'll never understand the answers you'll hear.
2007-02-09 21:31:40 · answer #2 · answered by vampyrebo 1 · 6⤊ 0⤋
The military expends a good amount of money on outfitting the new recruit with uniforms, training, food, medical services, dental services, transportation, and also pays the person. The training, depending on the branch of service, often includes technical training, equal opportunity training, financial skills, etc.
The military, like any other business which pays for educational expenses , wants a certain amount of service in return or they want their money back. They have a legal obligation to the taxpayers to ensure taxpayers money is being spent properly.
They rarely put people in prison, unless the person just outright takes the training and goes awol with the intention of stiffing the government for the bill.
As a taxpayer who pays taxes to pay for training the military, etc., I'd be a little pissed if someone just took the training and ran.
2007-02-09 21:32:54 · answer #3 · answered by zappa_dappa 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
To get people to willingly face the dangers, harships, and petty annoyances of military life requires both tangible carrots and sticks. the carrots are fairly decent pay, health care, earlier retirement than most civilians, housing, ect. These are great and all, but if someone does a cost benefit calculation in their head, they may decide that they'll just quit when the war comes their way. Hence the stick. If you not only lose your benefits, but your freedom as well, it changes the cost benefit analysis completely, and leads the wavering member to follow the rules, more or less.
I would submit that any country that allowed its soldiers to quit without at least moderately severe penalties would quickly find itself with a very, very, tiny military in no time at all. So, I think it is quite logical.
2007-02-10 00:02:30 · answer #4 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As someone whos been in the military (Navy). That contract doesnt just bind you it also binds them to retirement pay, benefits and if you choose a school before signing they have to send you.
If you go in and dont like it there is a million ways to get out of the contract and military.
Plus when you go in the military you sign away alot of your freedoms while in. Most dont realize the military is a dictatorship not a democracy.
But if you look at the benefits you get after you get out its worth it, I, E. Job preference, leadership abilities, etc.
2007-02-09 21:28:21 · answer #5 · answered by scari2000 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You really have no idea what you are talking about. Go do some real research and then ask a real question. What "contract" have you ever see? None. Thank you for not serving so we can continue to protect your right to be misinformed and clueless about the military service.
2007-02-09 22:50:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, sports figures get contracts, union workers get contracts, and actors get contracts.
The military cannot lay you off, they must feed you, clothe you, house you, even when there is NO war.
Because people like Watada would refuse to go, they put in those requirements that you gotta do what you are told.
Seven years seems a little lenient to me....
2007-02-09 21:28:43 · answer #7 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
your reasons above are why people should think before they VOLUNTARILY sign up. Once they do, and then want to break the agreement, I have no sympathy for them. Anyone who violates the military contract should be fully prosecuted to the max. It should never be a light decision.
2007-02-09 23:03:08 · answer #8 · answered by John B 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What's a matter? Is a military contract not logical? maybe they really want you to want to be in the military before they let you in. This way people don't just sign up to mess around.
2007-02-09 21:23:34 · answer #9 · answered by Tumbling Dice 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Get Scotty to beam you up, Spock... if you feel that way our armed services don't want you anyway. I'd hate to go into battle with you at my side.
.
a Proud Vet
2007-02-09 21:26:19 · answer #10 · answered by J T 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Duty to country...honor...good benefits and pay...cool looking uniforms...get to play with guns...when you move up in rank, other people have to salute you. That's probably worth it!
2007-02-09 21:23:26 · answer #11 · answered by chrisatmudd 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋