Army Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, an Auburn native, announced, May 15, he would not be reporting for duty to deploy to Iraq.
He served four years in the Army after graduating from Auburn High School in 2002.
Chiroux served as a photojournalist for the Army. During his tour, he talked to many soldiers who had served in Iraq, and Chiroux developed suspicions about our country’s reasons for occupying Iraq.
Chiroux was honorably discharged last summer because his duties had been fulfilled. He was told in February he would be called back to duty June 15 at midnight.
Chiroux was contemplating suicide until he found out about Iraq Veterans Against the War, a group of more than 1,000 founded to give soldiers a way to speak out against the occupation in Iraq. He joined IVAW March 19.
Chiroux wrote a letter to the Army saying he would not be accompanying the other soldiers being deployed June 15, and he is now actively involved with IVAW.
The majority of our editorial board agreed with army spokesperson Maj. Nathan Banks Sr., who said soldiers in the Individual Ready Reserves have service obligations even after being honorably discharged. He said this is clearly stated in enlistment contracts.
Enlisting in the military should not be looked upon as a nothing more than a four-year job commitment. Being a soldier should be an honorable, lifelong commitment.
But some people enlist in the military for the wrong reasons.
For example, people shouldn’t enlist only to pay for their college educations and then expect to be released of all of their responsibilities as soldiers.
Nor should people enlist because of emotional reasons, as seen after the terrorist attacks Sept. 11, 2001.
The majority of the editorial board believes Chiroux and the IVAW have the right to have their opinions heard, even though they shouldn’t take their freedom of speech as far as to abandon their commitment to the military.
The entire board, however, agreed the military should make soldiers’ responsibilities more clear to those interested in enlisting.
Soldiers should know far in advance when they will be expected to report for duty and when they can expect to return home.
July 1, 2008 - 2:31pm
By all means, editorial board, ENLIST!!!!
http://www.army.com/enlist/ Do five and get back to me about patriotism, editorial staff. In the meantime, I'll keep defending your rights as well as those of our servicemembers and the Iraqi people who few on your editorial staff SEEM really care about. -------------------- Sgt. Matthis Chiroux’s reasons for refusing orders to Iraq as illegal: 1) The occupation of Iraq is regularly violating the following articles of the Geneva Conventions: Article 75, Art. 51, Art. 70, Art. 35, Art. 3, Art. 5 and Art. 33. 2) The occupation of Iraq is in violation of U.N. General Assembly Res. 3314 which defines crimes of aggression as “… the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State…or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations…” 3) The occupation of Iraq is in violation of Principle VI of the Nuremberg Tribunal Charter which states, “The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: a) Crimes against peace: Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties: b) War crimes: …murder, ill-treatment…of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war,…plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages… c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination…and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population…when such acts are done…in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.” 4) The occupation of Iraq is in violation of U.S. Federal Law 18 U.S.C. §, 2441 (War Crimes Act of 1996) which defines committing a war crime as: “…a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party…” punishable by fine, imprisonment, or death. 5) The occupation of Iraq is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Art. VI, para. 2, making treatise adopted by the U.S. part of the “law of the land.” Thus, a violation of the U.N. Charter, Hague IV, Geneva Conventions, etc. is also a violation of U.S. federal law. 6) The current rationale used by the Bush administration for the continued occupation of Iraq is not in keeping with the original reasons laid out in the Joint Congressional Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. 7) Orders to deploy to Iraq are not lawful as defined by the following articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for the reasons of the illegalities listed above: 809.ART.90, 891.ART.91, 892.ART.92 or 892.ART.92. 8) Deploying to Iraq with this knowledge is not in keeping with the first and most important section of the U.S. Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment where servicemembers swear to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.`July 8, 2008 - 8:32pm
Matthis Chiroux
Matthis has a brain that he uses, thus seeing the illegality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. As the staff of the Plainsman sit and type and go out for pizza, children are dying in Iraq, or have lost their parents, or have no homes thanks to our patriotic bombs and missiles. Matthis is in the right here and I am appalled that a college educated staff in control of the Plainsman is so uneducated to the big picture of what is happening in this country. The military should be redeployed back to the United States to do the liberating of it's own citizens, who are standing idly by in sheepskins while being sheared of freedoms and liberties by a gang of thugs in the White House. I give the Plainsman an F plus for journalism.July 17, 2008 - 3:48pm
Reality Check
Editorial board...it's time to wake up if you believe that enlisting is (or ought to be) purely an idealistic act of perpetual servitude. If this were the case, the military would shrink beyond recognition. If we couldn't entice the poor to enlist by dishing out the $$$, then we wouldn't have had enough people be in Iraq in the first place...and we wouldn't have wanted that ,would we?