Top generals: Obama is 'purging the military'

[mudhen69]

You act as if people haven't tried this frequently over the years and recently and always, always been destroyed (as it should be). I'm a little concerned that you say you think you can say whatever you want with the specific, explicit UCMJ article that says you definitely can't right there in the same post.

Would it make you feel better if I reference more explicit and more specific that says you can?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

​I am not advocating that we should all go out and bad mouth the POTUS. That would be and should be a career killer and you would likely be forced to resign/retire since, as a condition of employment, you should not publicly discredit your boss, whether you are a military officer or a jr exec at Apple. My only point is that I would be shocked if anyone was ever criminally charged under article 88 and convicted since the US Constitution protects the free speech of everyone (including military officers). I think it would be an interesting situation and would likely find its way to the Supreme Court.

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer

[Jughead]

My only point is that I would be shocked if anyone was ever criminally charged under article 88 and convicted since the US Constitution protects the free speech of everyone (including military officers).

Then I submit that a bit of even casual research would leave you shocked. There have been innumerable cases of a military member convicted by court martial of Art 88 violations, the First Amendment notwithstanding....

I think it would be an interesting situation and would likely find its way to the Supreme Court.

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer

You don't say....

Edited November 3, 2013 by Jughead

[B.M.]

I would be shocked if anyone was ever criminally charged under article 88 and convicted since the US Constitution protects the free speech of everyone (including military officers). I think it would be an interesting situation and would likely find its way to the Supreme Court.

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer

That sounds like an airtight case, Mr. Darrow. Let me know if you're going to test it, so I can grab some popcorn.

Ps, I don't know if you're aware of this, but it says in the constitution that if you ask an undercover narc if he's a cop then he's required to tell you he is. I totally heard it from a friend of mine in prison. And it'll help you out next time you buy a shit dime bag before you post.

[mudhen69]

Then I submit that a bit of even casual research would leave you shocked. There have been innumerable cases of a military member convicted by court martial of Art 88 violations, the First Amendment notwithstanding....

Innumerable?? Not the adjective I would use.

I did do some casual research prior to my post and found an journal article stating that convictions under article 88 are "extremely rare" (pg 73) and there is has been one person charged under article 88 since 1967 (pg 75)..

https://cape.army.mil/repository/materials/WhenSoldiersSpeakOut.pdf

I knew that masters degree was going to pay off someday.

Ps, I don't know if you're aware of this, but it says in the constitution that if you ask an undercover narc if he's a cop then he's required to tell you he is.

Not familiar with that amendment/article of the US Constitution...please elaborate.

I also "googled" this assertion and the top article was titled "7 Bull$h!t myths we believe about police thanks to movies"

If you actually read what I said you would realize that I don't claim that publicly disagreeing with civilian military leadership is consequence free. I merely said that it usually (def:more often than not) does not result in a criminal conviction under article 88.

I firmly believe that military members should remain apolitical and keep their comments to themselves. However, some senior uniformed leaders have chosen to bring their viewpoints into the public forum to force debates at the expense of their own career.

[waveshaper]

That sounds like an airtight case, Mr. Darrow. Let me know if you're going to test it, so I can grab some popcorn.

Ps, I don't know if you're aware of this, but it says in the constitution that if you ask an undercover narc if he's a cop then he's required to tell you he is. I totally heard it from a friend of mine in prison. And it'll help you out next time you buy a shit dime bag before you post.

I seem to remember that during President Clintons term in office there was a big crackdown by DoD leadership on things like contemptuous language toward the President. Basically we were told by USAF leadership to keep our pie holes shut. Things like UCMJ violations of Article 88, 92, 133, 134, etc. were on the table, I think.

https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/07-1999.pdf

[Majestik Møøse]

My only point is that I would be shocked if anyone was ever criminally charged under article 88 and convicted since the US Constitution protects the free speech of everyone (including military officers). I think it would be an interesting situation and would likely find its way to the Supreme Court.

The 1st Amendment relating to military members has found its way to the Supreme Court many times. Here's an example ruling:

"In 1974 the U.S. Supreme Court wrote, “While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections. The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it” Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 758 (1974). This quote from the Court sums up what is known as the Doctrine of Military Necessity or the military-deference doctrine."

Read more until your eyes bleed here: https://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/military-speech. Basically if the military has a compelling interest to limit free speech, or any other right, they can IAW the UCMJ. What the UCMJ contains was determined by Congress per the Constitution, which says "The Congress shall have Power....To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces."

[slackline]

"The Congress shall have Power....To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces."

Well, great! We're the Air Force! I see no problem...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[JarheadBoom]

Not familiar with that amendment/article of the US Constitution...please elaborate.

I also "googled" this assertion and the top article was titled "7 Bull$h!t myths we believe about police thanks to movies"

Sarcasm detector inop?

Or, perhaps you should've put that Masters degree to work a wee bit more. The entire quote from B.M. (emphasis is mine, and is key):

Ps, I don't know if you're aware of this, but it says in the constitution that if you ask an undercover narc if he's a cop then he's required to tell you he is. I totally heard it from a friend of mine in prison. And it'll help you out next time you buy a shit dime bag before you post.

[Majestik Møøse]

Well, great! We're the Air Force! I see no problem...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Well damn you're right.

[B.M.]

If you actually read what I said you would realize that I don't claim that publicly disagreeing with civilian military leadership is consequence free. I merely said that it usually (def:more often than not) does not result in a criminal conviction under article 88.

I firmly believe that military members should remain apolitical and keep their comments to themselves. However, some senior uniformed leaders have chosen to bring their viewpoints into the public forum to force debates at the expense of their own career.

I read what you wrote, and to paraphrase the Prez, "You didn't write that."

There's a world of difference between being "asked to leave the military for breaking the employer/employee relationship," and being told "you can leave quietly and we won't make this an issue (by pressing charges, followed by a slam-dunk conviction), take your pension, and embarrass us all. For the good of the service, and the country, retire before we court martial your ass."

And McChrystal didn't fall on his sword, he spoke his mind with a reporter. Big difference.

I seem to remember that during President Clintons term in office there was a big crackdown by DoD leadership on things like contemptuous language toward the President. Basically we were told by USAF leadership to keep our pie holes shut. Things like UCMJ violations of Article 88, 92, 133, 134, etc. were on the table, I think.

https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/07-1999.pdf

I remember those days well. Years of trash-talking Billy at every turn, followed by 8 years of those (formerly contemptuous) officers reminding E's of their UCMJ responsibilities with regards to W. And now we're back to square 1, with those same O's now trash talking Obama.

The circle of life continues...

[M2]

Fixed it for ya...

And McChrystal didn't did fall on his sword, he spoke his mind with a reporter. Big difference mistake.

[B.M.]

^^ Valid. I meant a different figure of speech.

McC resigned because he said some dumb (and accurate) shit to a reporter. He didn't "bring his opinion into the public view to force debate at the expense of his career", ala a dude testifying to a Senate committee on substandard body armor, etc. He trusted a reporter.

Big difference.

[Azimuth]

That sounds like an airtight case, Mr. Darrow. Let me know if you're going to test it, so I can grab some popcorn.

Ps, I don't know if you're aware of this, but it says in the constitution that if you ask an undercover narc if he's a cop then he's required to tell you he is. I totally heard it from a friend of mine in prison. And it'll help you out next time you buy a shit dime bag before you post.

+1 for Breaking Bad reference

[waveshaper]

Two more rouge seafarers may end up having to walk the plank.

.https://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/11/09/two-admirals-caught-in-widening-bribery-scandal.html?comp=7000023317828&rank=1

[Azimuth]

Two more rouge seafarers may end up having to walk the plank.

.https://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/11/09/two-admirals-caught-in-widening-bribery-scandal.html?comp=7000023317828&rank=1

Branch was the CO on the Nimitz when they recorded that series "Carrier."

[Vicious3027]

Branch was the CO on the Nimitz when they recorded that series "Carrier."

I thought he looked familiar. That documentary is one of my favorites.

[waveshaper]

Branch was the CO on the Nimitz when they recorded that series "Carrier."

I hope this good CO of the USS Nimitz was sharing his hornswaggled, ill-gotten booty with his crew and if he was I am sure the morale of his shipmates was extremely high during Asian Port of Call stops "so to speak".

[ThreeHoler]

Two more rouge seafarers may end up having to walk the plank.

.

They were red? Or were they rogues?

[matmacwc]

I hope this good CO of the USS Nimitz was sharing his hornswaggled, ill-gotten booty with his crew and if he was I am sure the morale of his shipmates was extremely high during Asian Port of Call stops "so to speak".

Incorrect use of sts, pay up.

[waveshaper]

Incorrect use of sts, pay up.

Sorry, I am not the best at sexual connotations and word games. On the enlisted side of the house we normally get right to the point. What/how much is the fine for this transgression?

[nsplayr]

$69 dollars

[Seriously]

Sorry, I am not the best at sexual connotations and word games. On the enlisted side of the house we normally get right to the point. What/how much is the fine for this transgression?

Don't quibble.

[M2]

Fat Leonard strikes again!

[Prosuper]

Ran across this article, it gives us the inside baseball stuff that goes on between the West Wing and the Pentagon.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/obama-vs-the-generals-99379.html