U.S. Army policy for dealing with military personnel who assert a conscientious objection to military combat is set forth in a newly updated Army regulation (pdf).
Criteria for likely approval or rejection of a conscientious objection claim are described. Claims that are insincere or “based on objection to a certain war” will “not be favorably considered.”
The Regulation accepts the reality of conscientious objection with due respect.
“Care must be exercised not to deny the existence of beliefs simply because those beliefs are incompatible with one’s own,” it states.
In any case, “The burden of establishing a claim of conscientious objection as grounds for separation or assignment to noncombatant training and service is on the applicant.”
See “Conscientious Objection,” Army Regulation 600-43, 21 August 2006.
Americans are paying too much for almost everything, because the United States has long treated its trucking industry as an artifact to be preserved rather than as an opportunity for innovation.
These ideas aim to advance the detailed policy solutions needed to foster public trust and implement fairness in the adoption of AI across diverse domains, from healthcare and government benefits to rural access, education, and worker protections.
The evidence is clear: algorithmic pay-setting is established in app-based work, and payroll/timekeeping failures show how software can produce systemic wage harm at scale
While a few states have taken steps to implement decision-making mechanisms for certain AI systems, too many leaders are simply accepting narratives about AI’s purported public benefit at face value – jumping to the “how” of AI implementation before thoroughly vetting potential systems and deciding whether they are appropriate to use at all.