TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/s ... 54071856/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I feel this is a violation of free speech hewas not in uniform (which is how I understood the rule about military people and political stances but maybe wrong) and it was a personal statement.

Saying he would not follow orders was not the best desicion but hey the germans were "just following orders" so its kinda refreshing to know we have millitary individuals that are willing to actually think.

All that said I am not in the millitary and my understand things wrong. Any opinion from those who were/are?

Sorry if this has been posted.

lama wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/s ... 54071856/1

I feel this is a violation of free speech hewas not in uniform (which is how I understood the rule about military people and political stances but maybe wrong) and it was a personal statement.

You are wrong. You are ALWAYS in service. The whole "out of uniform" thing doesn't exist.

When you enlist, you surrender your protected rights under the constitution, and are now constrained by the UCMJ. Many civilians don't understand that we military types (and ex military) surrendered our constitutionally-protected rights so that we could protect and defend the Constitution. We do it voluntarily and proudly.

Ok. I guess I can understand that. Don't really feel its right but my opinion doesn't matter much in this case and I understand that.

Why do you feel you have to give up your rights to defend ours? Is there a purpose or is it just cause? If I am out of line let me know trying to understand why being in the millitary requires you to not have an opinion.

Yup. He should have kept his mouth and keyboard silent.

He does have the right and obligation to disobey an illegal order, but the decision about the legality of an order that came from the POTUS is way above his pay grade.

OldCannon wrote:

lama wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/s ... 54071856/1

I feel this is a violation of free speech hewas not in uniform (which is how I understood the rule about military people and political stances but maybe wrong) and it was a personal statement.

You are wrong. You are ALWAYS in service. The whole "out of uniform" thing doesn't exist.

When you enlist, you surrender your protected rights under the constitution, and are now constrained by the UCMJ. Many civilians don't understand that we military types (and ex military) surrendered our constitutionally-protected rights so that we could protect and defend the Constitution. We do it voluntarily and proudly.

As someone who's been out less than two years, I will both agree and disagree with you. I agree that servicemembers do NOT have all the same political rights as a civilian; the UCMJ does indeed place several restrictions upon those in the uniformed services. However, there are political activities that are authorized. One is allowed to attend political rallies, for instance, but not in uniform or not to speak at such as in a manner that would indicate the viewpoint as representative of the service. Commissioned officers have even more limits on their speech than enlisted members. I wish I had the relevant sections of the UCMJ to post, but I'd be lying if I said I remembered the numbers for them.

Heartland Patriot wrote: Commissioned officers have even more limits on their speech than enlisted members. I wish I had the relevant sections of the UCMJ to post, but I'd be lying if I said I remembered the numbers for them.

Here ya go - from the UCMJ

ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

hate to say it but he should have known better , now he's gonna pay for it ... sorry bro

G26ster wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote: Commissioned officers have even more limits on their speech than enlisted members. I wish I had the relevant sections of the UCMJ to post, but I'd be lying if I said I remembered the numbers for them.

Here ya go - from the UCMJ

ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Thank you. And that does say COMMISSIONED officers...not NON-COMMISIONED officers or other enlisted personnel. I guess they expect some trash talking from "the troops".

I totally agree that he should not have done it. It was not smart by any measure. We will see how it goes, I just have mixed opinions of the whole thing.

As far as the obligation and right of disobeying an illegal order being above his pay grade. I am of the opinion that pay grade has nothing to do with it. While I would hope that those above his pay grade would make that decision, if they do not then the responsiblity falls on whichever pay grade has the intestinal fortitude to do something. Again, mixed opinions about it.

Thank you to those who have responded, I was and am interested in what others think about this.

lama wrote:I totally agree that he should not have done it. It was not smart by any measure. We will see how it goes, I just have mixed opinions of the whole thing.

As far as the obligation and right of disobeying an illegal order being above his pay grade. I am of the opinion that pay grade has nothing to do with it. While I would hope that those above his pay grade would make that decision, if they do not then the responsiblity falls on whichever pay grade has the intestinal fortitude to do something. Again, mixed opinions about it.

Thank you to those who have responded, I was and am interested in what others think about this.

I think you got my point. If an illegal order from the POTUS made it all the way down to a private without anyone else challenging it I think it would not go well for the private that decided not to obey the unlawful order. Unlawful! That was the term I was looking for. Not illegal.

Heartland Patriot wrote: As someone who's been out less than two years, I will both agree and disagree with you. I agree that servicemembers do NOT have all the same political rights as a civilian; the UCMJ does indeed place several restrictions upon those in the uniformed services. However, there are political activities that are authorized. One is allowed to attend political rallies, for instance, but not in uniform or not to speak at such as in a manner that would indicate the viewpoint as representative of the service. Commissioned officers have even more limits on their speech than enlisted members. I wish I had the relevant sections of the UCMJ to post, but I'd be lying if I said I remembered the numbers for them.

Oh, actually, we're in agreement. Just because you give up constitutional rights doesn't mean the UCMJ doesn't give them back to an extent, and you're absolutely correct that each service does what it can to allow servicemenbers to participate in political actions. In this case though, I think he stepped over the line, and he should have quickly backed down and ate a few slices of humble pie. I can't figure out why he wasn't first offered an Article 15 though, unless he soundly rejected it and chose to stand before a board. He can't say he wasn't warned either. Now he has an OTH discharge. The only good news is that he can apply to have the OTH discharge expunged after...hnmm.. don't remember...4 years? At least is wasn't a DIS.

Pride goes before the fall. As a 9 year vet, he should have known better.

lama wrote:Why do you feel you have to give up your rights to defend ours? Is there a purpose or is it just cause? If I am out of line let me know trying to understand why being in the millitary requires you to not have an opinion.

Because freedom goes against discipline. If you could quit whenever you wanted, very few hills would be taken and the foxholes would be empty when the enemy got there.

The United States Military is a dictatorship, it is not a Democracy.
In the U. S. Military one does not elect his/her officers, they are appointed.
A person can receive UCMJ for sunburn. You have abused government property, etc….

...don't know this Marine...but I do know a lot of good military men who've had enough and just want OUT...they're tired of being used as cannon fodder because of political games...and without an American patriot for a commander-in-chief...they're tired of seeing America apologized for and betrayed...

MeMelYup wrote:The United States Military is a dictatorship, it is not a Democracy.
In the U. S. Military one does not elect his/her officers, they are appointed.

I can't tell if you're kidding or not. If not, you're displaying a significant inability to grasp the fundamentals of both what the military is about and what the word "dictatorship" means.

MeMelYup wrote:A person can receive UCMJ for sunburn. You have abused government property, etc….

Yes. Again, the reasons are obvious when one applies critical thinking.