707guy
"You can't make this shit up..."
Well said. Now shut the fuck up, new guy.
Classic...
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
UCMJ Article 88 & Social Media
- Thread starter robav8r
- Start date
Classic...
This is my point; the policy is not cut and dried. Why else would Rep Duncan Hunter become involved or the USMC seeking further from OSD?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ad-on-donkey/2012/04/05/gIQAz2oYyS_story.html
Well is the United States Marine Corps is asking for guidence on how social media Impacts thie rule, then they must be concerned that there may be some gray areas.
There's no gray area. It's just looking for an explicit directive reminding everyone that, while FB is not real life, what you say and do there still counts in real life.
So a guy in the parking lot at work has the IDIOT bumper sticker Like you can find here:
http://www.cafepress.com/+obama_idiot_bumper_sticker,394498094
He comes and goes to work in uniform. Kosher? I don't think this kind of expression is acceptable myself. Just saw it today and this thread got me thinking...
http://www.cafepress.com/+obama_idiot_bumper_sticker,394498094
He comes and goes to work in uniform. Kosher? I don't think this kind of expression is acceptable myself. Just saw it today and this thread got me thinking...
So, a thought. And I caveat this statement with I know the regs and UCMJ(well a working knowledge of it). But we all swore to the Constitution and not a person. I believe that is for a purpose. Now, if those people above us are not following the Constitution, is it not our duty to uphold it and call them out?
We all had our cute little training about refusing unlawful orders. But does not this still apply?
This meant to be a "think of this" than attack my opinion.
We all had our cute little training about refusing unlawful orders. But does not this still apply?
This meant to be a "think of this" than attack my opinion.
IIRC, the ruling from the JAGs at Legal O Skool was that single, normal-size bumper stickers are 1st Amendment protected; it's the idiot who puts a "Bush/Cheney '00" or "Obama/Biden '08" custom vinyl applique across his windshield that will get hammered. But I also think that that ruling was for more generic campaign stickers. As a Legal O, if I saw that a member of my command had a bumper sticker calling the sitting President an idiot, I would be running it by their DivO/LCPO at a minimum, and maybe the XO.
Your working knowledge of ucmj qualifies you as a constitutional scholar? I know mine sure as shit doesn't. There's a mechanism in place already for deciding if the executive and legislature are following the constitution. That's what the courts are for. It's not the job of the military to "call them out" and make decisions about national policy. You want to see what happens when armies decide that is their job, there's plenty of examples in Africa, South America, etc.
Those of us in uniform are free to debate and disagree, sure. Disrespect and disobey, you're crossing a line.
I cant comment on Congressman Hunter without running afoul of the UCMJ!
magnetfreezer
Well-Known Member
If the mechanism is already there then why swear us to it as well? Like a backseater ejecting, if you invoke the Constitutionality rule when not warranted, you'll only get yourself in needless trouble and look stupid. However, everyone develops their own thresholds (radalt showing 150' and pointed at a mountain on a 500' leg with no correction by the pilots after screaming at them isn't usually a specific criteria in the NATOPs) as to when to be their own seat commander. While there are plenty of military junta cases there are also plenty where the military / security force becomes a tool of a bad regime since they were loyal to a person vs principles.
In your mind, what would be a good example of when an individual should step in and determine the constitutionality of an order or policy on their own?
I see what you're getting at, but I think it's a spurious analogy. It seems to be suggesting that we, the armed forces, can decide whether to support the elected government based on our opinions of the particular person in office. You're exactly right that we support the institution, not the person, which is why we don't get to base our support of that institution based on the current occupant.
Let's have a sanity check here. I have mixed opinions on the current administration, but I don't for one minute expect an order to come down to NORTHCOM to force everyone to buy health insurance at gunpoint. The "illegal orders" some seem to be fulminating about exist mostly in their heads. The SGT in question gave as an example of an order he wouldn't follow would be one to seize citizens' firearms. Anyone see that in message traffic lately? And even if you believe that deep down the President would really like to issue such an order...he hasn't. And there are plenty of established, independent institutions standing between any one man in office and doing something illegal before we get to the armed forces.
I could come up with examples of hypothetical orders that I could not obey in good conscience. Until I actually receive one of the orders, though, as a commissioned officer, I don't have any business questioning the authority or legitimacy of the president's authority as C-in-C.
Let's have a sanity check here. I have mixed opinions on the current administration, but I don't for one minute expect an order to come down to NORTHCOM to force everyone to buy health insurance at gunpoint. The "illegal orders" some seem to be fulminating about exist mostly in their heads. The SGT in question gave as an example of an order he wouldn't follow would be one to seize citizens' firearms. Anyone see that in message traffic lately? And even if you believe that deep down the President would really like to issue such an order...he hasn't. And there are plenty of established, independent institutions standing between any one man in office and doing something illegal before we get to the armed forces.
I could come up with examples of hypothetical orders that I could not obey in good conscience. Until I actually receive one of the orders, though, as a commissioned officer, I don't have any business questioning the authority or legitimacy of the president's authority as C-in-C.
This.