November 27, 2004
JENKINS/CLINTON '08
U.S. Army deserter Jenkins sobs after release from prison (Eric Talmadge, AP, 11/27/04)
Free for the first time in nearly four decades, U.S. Army deserter Charles Jenkins sobbed with joy as he was released from a military jail on Saturday after serving 25 days for abandoning his squadron and crossing the border into North Korea in 1965.So, here's a guy who deserted in order to avoid a troop movement to a war zone, and then aided the enemy for 40 years. He returned to US custody during another war, in which volunteers are fighting and dying. He served 25 days in the brig. Most any other country would have executed him. We should be glad that he intends to stay in Japan, rather than run for president. Posted by David Cohen at November 27, 2004 11:04 PMThe frail 64-year-old, still in uniform and carrying a heavy duffel bag, broke down in tears after arriving at this U.S. Army base, where he was flown by Blackhawk helicopter after completing his sentence at a nearby naval prison. . . .
Jenkins, a native of Rich Square, N.C., testified in his Nov. 3 court-martial that he fled his Army post in South Korea on Jan. 5, 1965, because he had heard rumors that he was to be reassigned to combat in Vietnam. He said he didn't intend to stay in the North - instead, he had planned to defect to the Soviet Embassy there and eventually make his way back to the United States. Jenkins also revealed Parrish's death during the testimony. . . .
Jenkins has said that North Korea used him as a propaganda tool in broadcasts across the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea and that he was forced to teach English to North Korean military officer cadets.
DeWitt Clinton? George Clinton? Castle Clinton?
I don't get the reference.
Posted by: Social Scientist at November 27, 2004 11:12 PMNo surprise that you wouldn't.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at November 28, 2004 1:27 AMSocial 'scientists' are just that stupid.
This Jenkins character was obviously a low IQ type and got stuck in North Korea for decades where he lived a good life by relative standards. I doubt he had too many meals of wild grass soup. He should have gotten life in prison without parole. Had he been in the Roman Republic, he, his wife, their children would all have been summarily executed.
Posted by: Bart at November 28, 2004 6:44 AMExcept there is natural reluctance to punish the elderly harshly that I think must be read into the equation in cases like this. I'm not defending this light slap and I'm not sure sixty-five counts as elderly, or even close, but we all have a vague sense within that the aged are somehow not exactly the same people they once were and should not be as directly accountable for their sins of long ago. It isn't rational, but I think it is human and good.
Last year an orthodox colleague left me speechless by tearing into the ongoing search for, and prosecution of, Nazi war criminals by saying he was disgusted by the ceaseless hounding of sick old men and wanted it wrapped up. I didn't agree, but he sure left me pondering.
Posted by: Peter B at November 28, 2004 8:58 AM"...he was disgusted by the ceaseless hounding of sick old men..."
After all, the Nazis gave sick old jewish men a pass, didn't they?
So what's the basis for the 25 days?? Is that about one day for each year he was AWOL? I thought the punishment was 30.55 hours for each decade of being AWOL.
Posted by: LarryH at November 29, 2004 7:28 AMThe basis of the 25 days was most likely the time it took to process the guy's Duck Dinner. This does seem a little light, but we recall that the guy who had been running with the NVA's, Bobby Garwood, got a DD and nothin else.
Don't forget that this thing had been worked out with the Japanese, with consideration given to the accused's Japanese wife. As for old Nazis, the only good one is a dead one, at any age.
Posted by: Lou Gots at November 29, 2004 12:10 PM