I guess soldiers are not allowed Freedom of Speech are they?

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
sure it is legal, but the point is that it is sick and wrong.

If you were in combat and you had to rely on everyone around you, would you want someone there who keeps talking about how they don't agree with their commanding officer? Heck no! It would make everyone else nervous. In the military, you keep that crap to yourself.

That's exactly why people keep dying. That's why administrations continue to abuse their positions like they have. Tradition doesn't make something right, morality and intelligence make something right. Hell slavery was tradition, but it was a BAD one. You don't question orders in a firefight, cause there's no politics IN the foxhole. But outside of the hot zone, it's your DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY to point out problems, questions, or concerns. That's what forms a strong organization, be it military, commerical, or private. Moreover, I ONLY trust people that stick to their personal philosophies and honor. Anyone who does something they don't agree with is untrustworthy and a liability.

People seem to forget that as a soldier/sailor you swear an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION against domestic enemies as well as foreign. If the president himself attacks the constitution, you're sworn to respond. But people don't. Cause they have no ideals, no honor, no courage any more. They fear isolation, reciprocation. They don't believe they can win. If our founders had felt that way we'd be drinking our tea and praising the queen to this day. Standing up for what's right is ALWAYS the most important thing. Always.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
sure it is legal, but the point is that it is sick and wrong.

If you were in combat and you had to rely on everyone around you, would you want someone there who keeps talking about how they don't agree with their commanding officer? Heck no! It would make everyone else nervous. In the military, you keep that crap to yourself.

That's exactly why people keep dying. That's why administrations continue to abuse their positions like they have. Tradition doesn't make something right, morality and intelligence make something right. Hell slavery was tradition, but it was a BAD one. You don't question orders in a firefight, cause there's no politics IN the foxhole. But outside of the hot zone, it's your DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY to point out problems, questions, or concerns. That's what forms a strong organization, be it military, commerical, or private. Moreover, I ONLY trust people that stick to their personal philosophies and honor. Anyone who does something they don't agree with is untrustworthy and a liability.

People seem to forget that as a soldier/sailor you swear an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION against domestic enemies as well as foreign. If the president himself attacks the constitution, you're sworn to respond. But people don't. Cause they have no ideals, no honor, no courage any more. They fear isolation, reciprocation. They don't believe they can win. If our founders had felt that way we'd be drinking our tea and praising the queen to this day. Standing up for what's right is ALWAYS the most important thing. Always.

Kudos, well said.

 

[kylebisme]

ya thanks PrinceofWands, that sums it up nicely.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
ya thanks PrinceofWands, that sums it up nicely.

It sums up what nicely? It's nothing more than the blatherings of the oligrophrenic with the kudos emanating from her brethren.

It's really very simple. You want to publicly question your superiors, you're going to get hammered. It doesn't matter if it's the NCO you work for or the President. You will pay a price. If you understand that there is a time, place and method available to you (the teach this in boot camp) to address these matters then chances are you will not only get an answer to your questions nothing bad will happen to you. That is my experience anyway. Ask yourself what would happen to you if you stood in the lobby of where you work and told everyone that walked by that the CEO of the company was an idiot. What would happen to you?

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
ya thanks PrinceofWands, that sums it up nicely.

It sums up what nicely? It's nothing more than the blatherings of the oligrophrenic with the kudos emanating from her brethren.

It's really very simple. You want to publicly question your superiors, you're going to get hammered. It doesn't matter if it's the NCO you work for or the President. You will pay a price. If you understand that there is a time, place and method available to you (the teach this in boot camp) to address these matters then chances are you will not only get an answer to your questions nothing bad will happen to you. That is my experience anyway. Ask yourself what would happen to you if you stood in the lobby of where you work and told everyone that walked by that the CEO of the company was an idiot. What would happen to you?

He did not call anyone an idiot. He said he disagreed with what they were doing. Big difference.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
sure it is legal, but the point is that it is sick and wrong.

If you were in combat and you had to rely on everyone around you, would you want someone there who keeps talking about how they don't agree with their commanding officer? Heck no! It would make everyone else nervous. In the military, you keep that crap to yourself.

That's exactly why people keep dying. That's why administrations continue to abuse their positions like they have. Tradition doesn't make something right, morality and intelligence make something right. Hell slavery was tradition, but it was a BAD one. You don't question orders in a firefight, cause there's no politics IN the foxhole. But outside of the hot zone, it's your DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY to point out problems, questions, or concerns. That's what forms a strong organization, be it military, commerical, or private. Moreover, I ONLY trust people that stick to their personal philosophies and honor. Anyone who does something they don't agree with is untrustworthy and a liability.

People seem to forget that as a soldier/sailor you swear an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION against domestic enemies as well as foreign. If the president himself attacks the constitution, you're sworn to respond. But people don't. Cause they have no ideals, no honor, no courage any more. They fear isolation, reciprocation. They don't believe they can win. If our founders had felt that way we'd be drinking our tea and praising the queen to this day. Standing up for what's right is ALWAYS the most important thing. Always.

:beer:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
ya thanks PrinceofWands, that sums it up nicely.

It sums up what nicely? It's nothing more than the blatherings of the oligrophrenic with the kudos emanating from her brethren.

It's really very simple. You want to publicly question your superiors, you're going to get hammered. It doesn't matter if it's the NCO you work for or the President. You will pay a price. If you understand that there is a time, place and method available to you (the teach this in boot camp) to address these matters then chances are you will not only get an answer to your questions nothing bad will happen to you. That is my experience anyway. Ask yourself what would happen to you if you stood in the lobby of where you work and told everyone that walked by that the CEO of the company was an idiot. What would happen to you?

He did not call anyone an idiot. He said he disagreed with what they were doing. Big difference.

The principle is the same. If you publically spoke out against your company, Boss, employer - what do you think will happen to you?

CkG

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
ya thanks PrinceofWands, that sums it up nicely.

It sums up what nicely? It's nothing more than the blatherings of the oligrophrenic with the kudos emanating from her brethren.

It's really very simple. You want to publicly question your superiors, you're going to get hammered. It doesn't matter if it's the NCO you work for or the President. You will pay a price. If you understand that there is a time, place and method available to you (the teach this in boot camp) to address these matters then chances are you will not only get an answer to your questions nothing bad will happen to you. That is my experience anyway. Ask yourself what would happen to you if you stood in the lobby of where you work and told everyone that walked by that the CEO of the company was an idiot. What would happen to you?

He did not call anyone an idiot. He said he disagreed with what they were doing. Big difference.

No there's not but I'll play your stupid little game. What would happen if you stood in the lobby and told everyone that you didn't agree with the way the CEO was running the company? Or better yet went on TV and said it with the clear implication that you thought it was wrong?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
ya thanks PrinceofWands, that sums it up nicely.

It sums up what nicely? It's nothing more than the blatherings of the oligrophrenic with the kudos emanating from her brethren.

It's really very simple. You want to publicly question your superiors, you're going to get hammered. It doesn't matter if it's the NCO you work for or the President. You will pay a price. If you understand that there is a time, place and method available to you (the teach this in boot camp) to address these matters then chances are you will not only get an answer to your questions nothing bad will happen to you. That is my experience anyway. Ask yourself what would happen to you if you stood in the lobby of where you work and told everyone that walked by that the CEO of the company was an idiot. What would happen to you?

He did not call anyone an idiot. He said he disagreed with what they were doing. Big difference.

No there's not but I'll play your stupid little game. What would happen if you stood in the lobby and told everyone that you didn't agree with the way the CEO was running the company? Or better yet went on TV and said it with the clear implication that you thought it was wrong?

Thanks UQ. THAT sums it up nicely PoW is an extremist joke.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
ya thanks PrinceofWands, that sums it up nicely.

It sums up what nicely? It's nothing more than the blatherings of the oligrophrenic with the kudos emanating from her brethren.

It's really very simple. You want to publicly question your superiors, you're going to get hammered. It doesn't matter if it's the NCO you work for or the President. You will pay a price. If you understand that there is a time, place and method available to you (the teach this in boot camp) to address these matters then chances are you will not only get an answer to your questions nothing bad will happen to you. That is my experience anyway. Ask yourself what would happen to you if you stood in the lobby of where you work and told everyone that walked by that the CEO of the company was an idiot. What would happen to you?

In all probability you'd be in the majority if you called the CEO an idiot.. There are only two ways to go.. and if the company goes bad the CEO is an idiot and if it is going well he is Brilliant!
But, I agree with you otherwise. The military provides for 'venting' up the chain of command. Along that chain one will most likely find the answer to the issue they opine. If they can't deal with it then they don't belong.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
ya thanks PrinceofWands, that sums it up nicely.

It sums up what nicely? It's nothing more than the blatherings of the oligrophrenic with the kudos emanating from her brethren.

It's really very simple. You want to publicly question your superiors, you're going to get hammered. It doesn't matter if it's the NCO you work for or the President. You will pay a price. If you understand that there is a time, place and method available to you (the teach this in boot camp) to address these matters then chances are you will not only get an answer to your questions nothing bad will happen to you. That is my experience anyway. Ask yourself what would happen to you if you stood in the lobby of where you work and told everyone that walked by that the CEO of the company was an idiot. What would happen to you?

He did not call anyone an idiot. He said he disagreed with what they were doing. Big difference.

No there's not but I'll play your stupid little game. What would happen if you stood in the lobby and told everyone that you didn't agree with the way the CEO was running the company? Or better yet went on TV and said it with the clear implication that you thought it was wrong?

He does not work for a company. He works for the government. He works for us. Another big difference.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Ask yourself what would happen to you if you stood in the lobby of where you work and told everyone that walked by that the CEO of the company was an idiot. What would happen to you?

well you would surely get fired which would be fair, and if the military was discharging the man i doubt he would complain given the statements he made. but the act of binding the man to his contract and using the vagueness of its wording to punish him for simply speaking his mind, is comparable in its diabolical nature to a Faustian deal.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Ask yourself what would happen to you if you stood in the lobby of where you work and told everyone that walked by that the CEO of the company was an idiot. What would happen to you?

well you would surely get fired which would be fair, and if the military was discharging the man i doubt he would complain given the statements he made. but the act of binding the man to his contract and using the vagueness of its wording to punish him for simply speaking his mind, is comparable in its diabolical nature to a Faustian deal.

There's nothing vague about an enlistment contract, the UCMJ nor the regulation about comments made about the President. Sorry.

He does not work for a company. He works for the government. He works for us. Another big difference.

You're really grasping for that ever elusive straw now. It matters not who he "works" for. He has voluntarily enlisted and subjected himself to the UCMJ and other military regulations. He broke them. He was punished for it. Period. End of story.

 

[LunarRay]

Just don't say the CFO is an idiot..

But, when I don't agree I am armed with facts and figures.. the proof of the allegation. If I think someone... anyone is not doing what is in the best interest of the company well... it is my job to challenge that... facts and figures... In our military case it is opinion based on the ideal of a faction which is not going according to the faction's ideal but, may well be going according to plan.. the plan of the government.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet


There's nothing vague about an enlistment contract, the UCMJ nor the regulation about comments made about the President. Sorry.

when people who have made an oath to uphold the principles of our constitution, punish a man for exercising the liberties acconolaged by that constitution, there is most definitely something vague about the terms of the contract.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet


There's nothing vague about an enlistment contract, the UCMJ nor the regulation about comments made about the President. Sorry.

when people who have made an oath to uphold the principles of our constitution, punish a man for exercising the liberties acconolaged by that constitution, there is most definitely something vague about the terms of the contract.

Posted here for the ignorant:

I, ___________________________________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

The courts have ruled time and again that the maintaining of good order and discipline in the armed forces overrides any Constitutional argument of free speech. Anyone who has spent more than 10 minutes in the .mil understands that "support and defend" does not mean "you have the freedoms guaranteed by it". This is the key "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

 

[kylebisme]

and the fact that it is traditional for the miltary to be so blatently hypocritcal does not make it any less wrong.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
when a person is enlisted in any of the armed forces he forfeits his constitutional rights in favor of the uniform code of military justice.


people should read that paperwork they sign.

Funny... in your oath your swear to uphold the constitution...but can't avail yourself to it. Seems odd no?

And I think people enlisting are in general more concerned with the checks they'll be able to sign and don't bother reading or don't have any other choice but strave.

ironic, but not odd. the military as i pointed out is not a democracy and it does not pretend to be one. that is why it is kept on such a tight leash, and that is another reason why the "4th" of the checks and balances system(the armed populace) exists...or as Thomas Jefferson said

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344

the militia and the military are two seperate entities.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention, 1788

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
sure it is legal, but the point is that it is sick and wrong.

If you were in combat and you had to rely on everyone around you, would you want someone there who keeps talking about how they don't agree with their commanding officer? Heck no! It would make everyone else nervous. In the military, you keep that crap to yourself.

That's exactly why people keep dying. That's why administrations continue to abuse their positions like they have. Tradition doesn't make something right, morality and intelligence make something right. Hell slavery was tradition, but it was a BAD one. You don't question orders in a firefight, cause there's no politics IN the foxhole. But outside of the hot zone, it's your DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY to point out problems, questions, or concerns. That's what forms a strong organization, be it military, commerical, or private. Moreover, I ONLY trust people that stick to their personal philosophies and honor. Anyone who does something they don't agree with is untrustworthy and a liability.

People seem to forget that as a soldier/sailor you swear an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION against domestic enemies as well as foreign. If the president himself attacks the constitution, you're sworn to respond. But people don't. Cause they have no ideals, no honor, no courage any more. They fear isolation, reciprocation. They don't believe they can win. If our founders had felt that way we'd be drinking our tea and praising the queen to this day. Standing up for what's right is ALWAYS the most important thing. Always.

Of course you are right, however, you should wait until you are no longer in the service before you question your orders and ideals that you are protecting. As I said, it's ok to have feelings, but it is inappropriate to question what your commander-in-chief while he is actually commanding you.

 

[sandorski]

If anything, this thread points out something important: If you must, desire, or unable to keep from exercising your Constitutional Rights, then the military might not be for you. I wonder how many join without knowing that fact?

That said, I have a problem with this situation. It seems that going to a protest is not the same as "disobeying orders" or "questioning ones superiors". If obedience and unquestioning is so pervasive as to reach beyond the Base, the uniform, and the direct control(aka on leave when no one in authority is commanding you) then how does a soldier Vote for other than the incumbent, is that not "questioning ones superior", the very act of undermining ones superior? I think the intent and the useage may have been skewed over time.

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: sandorski
If anything, this thread points out something important: If you must, desire, or unable to keep from exercising your Constitutional Rights, then the military might not be for you. I wonder how many join without knowing that fact?

That said, I have a problem with this situation. It seems that going to a protest is not the same as "disobeying orders" or "questioning ones superiors". If obedience and unquestioning is so pervasive as to reach beyond the Base, the uniform, and the direct control(aka on leave when no one in authority is commanding you) then how does a soldier Vote for other than the incumbent, is that not "questioning ones superior", the very act of undermining ones superior? I think the intent and the useage may have been skewed over time.

My guess is that the nuances of this case have not been brought out. I spent some time searching the Internet and could only find two sources of information on this event. One is the Fisk article (and Fisk is widely known for his attacks on US policy in Iraq) and the other was a widely distributed opinion piece written by the father of the sailor. There may be a lot more to this story than those sources provide.

However, UCMJ Article 134 is a very broad regulation that allows the military to discipline anyone who's actions interfere with the successful completion of the mission. Article 134 is used in cases of sexual offenses, petty theft, inattention to duty, animal mistreatment, etc. It has even been used to discharge homosexuals. It is truly the "catch-all" of the regulations.

The key portion is probably Clause 2:

"Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

Here is a further explanation of the disloyality interpretation of Article 134:

"Examples include praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the United States, or denouncing our form of government with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection among members of the armed services. A declaration of personal belief can amount to a disloyal statement if it disavows allegiance owed to the United States by the declarant. The disloyalty involved for this offense must be to the United States as a political entity and not merely to a department or other agency that is a part of its administration."

I would really like to see a more complete transcript of the case, since the small part included in the news articles does not seem to fit the definition and military courts tend not to stray from the word of the law.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: KenGr

Originally posted by: sandorski
If anything, this thread points out something important: If you must, desire, or unable to keep from exercising your Constitutional Rights, then the military might not be for you. I wonder how many join without knowing that fact?

That said, I have a problem with this situation. It seems that going to a protest is not the same as "disobeying orders" or "questioning ones superiors". If obedience and unquestioning is so pervasive as to reach beyond the Base, the uniform, and the direct control(aka on leave when no one in authority is commanding you) then how does a soldier Vote for other than the incumbent, is that not "questioning ones superior", the very act of undermining ones superior? I think the intent and the useage may have been skewed over time.

My guess is that the nuances of this case have not been brought out. I spent some time searching the Internet and could only find two sources of information on this event. One is the Fisk article (and Fisk is widely known for his attacks on US policy in Iraq) and the other was a widely distributed opinion piece written by the father of the sailor. There may be a lot more to this story than those sources provide.

However, UCMJ Article 134 is a very broad regulation that allows the military to discipline anyone who's actions interfere with the successful completion of the mission. Article 134 is used in cases of sexual offenses, petty theft, inattention to duty, animal mistreatment, etc. It has even been used to discharge homosexuals. It is truly the "catch-all" of the regulations.

The key portion is probably Clause 2:

"Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

Here is a further explanation of the disloyality interpretation of Article 134:

"Examples include praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the United States, or denouncing our form of government with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection among members of the armed services. A declaration of personal belief can amount to a disloyal statement if it disavows allegiance owed to the United States by the declarant. The disloyalty involved for this offense must be to the United States as a political entity and not merely to a department or other agency that is a part of its administration."

I would really like to see a more complete transcript of the case, since the small part included in the news articles does not seem to fit the definition and military courts tend not to stray from the word of the law.

Good points.

 

[Gaard]

"I don't agree" = disloyal statements, criticism, and somehow fits the following quoted passage..."Examples include praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the United States, or denouncing our form of government with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection among members of the armed services. A declaration of personal belief can amount to a disloyal statement if it disavows allegiance owed to the United States by the declarant. The disloyalty involved for this offense must be to the United States as a political entity and not merely to a department or other agency that is a part of its administration."

???

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: Gaard
"I don't agree" = disloyal statements, criticism, and somehow fits the following quoted passage..."Examples include praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the United States, or denouncing our form of government with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection among members of the armed services. A declaration of personal belief can amount to a disloyal statement if it disavows allegiance owed to the United States by the declarant. The disloyalty involved for this offense must be to the United States as a political entity and not merely to a department or other agency that is a part of its administration."

???

Well, given that definition what he did was not a disloyal statement. He certainly did state his belief but considering the fact that he said "I'll do my part" I don't see how his statement "disavows allegiance owed".

 

[UltraQuiet]

He was protesting by holding a sign that said, "Bring our Troops Home" at anti-war rallies while home on leave.

He was charged and punished appropriately.