I wouldn't call that "gray" so much as "this is where the line is." Two hypothetical enlisted sailors get married. One picks up LDO or STA-21. Both succeed. Fast forward 15 years. Totally legal.
-
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
Deror
How can I make this thread more awkward?
Twenty somethings have an opinion on just about everything (Lord knows I do), and this generation is raised with the idea that we're special and that our input is somehow valuable or relevant at all times. I read an article a while back about how recruits are now trying to find the "why" behind their DI's orders. Generation Me isn't content to be a cog in the wheel of society, or to work our way up to a level where we've established why our input is valuable. We feel entitled to a sense of appreciation regardless if it's merited. The Sgt found people in the Tea Party who appreciate him spouting what they think, and he's more than happy to go down as their martyr for it.
/rant
/rant
A picture with a candidate at a rally, regardless of how it got there, is more than just being a spectator. Nittany03 had it right - there's a pretty bright line, and it's delineated very, very specifically as to where that line is.
If I understand Article 88 correctly...and I'll stand by for correction/education if I don't...it only applies to "Commissioned Officers". Ergo...not germane in this current case.
I would argue that even criticism of policy while in uniform is verboten. We're expected to toe the line when acting (or representing) in an official capacity. Some people seem to want to make an issue as to whether someone could infer that you're a member of the military from a picture on FB or what have you. People in the military are allowed to have political opinions, but once you're actually in uniform, you're speaking/acting in an official capacity and those opinions get put on hold while you toe the line. That's the difference.
@Renegade: Art 134 applies, as previously discussed.
@Renegade: Art 134 applies, as previously discussed.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I disagree, and we'll have to agree to disagree since it's hypothetical BS anyway.
A LAWYER, something you and are are neither - will argue it is a picture of you with your brother. Period.
There is grey area.
That's the way I read it. My guess is that the SGT is in violation of Article 92, Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation. Without breaking out the Manual for Courts Martial, I would guess that the Article 88 probably carries a greater maximum penalty than the Article 92.
No. You do at an AdSep board though.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I don't know of many campaign rallys at sea. Last I checked, you can still refuse NJP.
I think you missed a subtlety. Agree to disagree means that no matter how many flippant comments you make - I'm not going to agree with you.
You obviously get what I was saying, I think you're just trying to be a smartass. We are entitled to opinions, however it's important that we understand the ramifications of perspective when voicing those opinions. Marine talking shit about POTUS on FB is a bad fucking idea, why does this need to be explained to everyone? Maybe that's the problem these days.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
Not trying to be a smartass, just pointing out that as you further make the transition from E to O - a big piece of it is realizing that words mean things. You have to think about how you phrase something, because not every E is going to be as astute as you were (as I'm sure you well know).
I don't think it's that big of a problem, honestly. Maybe the guys I serve with are different, but we all pretty much think he's a dumbass.
It wasn't just the Facebook page in question that got him in trouble or saying that he wouldnt' follow illegal orders, he said a few things that were a lot worse like calling the President "the economic and religious enemy", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
This reminds me of what happened with 1st Lt. Kelly Flinn, the B-52 pilot that was eased out of the USAF after banging an airman's husband in '97. Her command told Flinn several times to stop seeing the guy, going so far as to put it in writing the last time, then finally hammered her when she kept seeing him. It wasn't the adultery that got her in big trouble, it was the repeated violation of explicit orders even after being told to stop that got her in the biggest trouble. Similar thing here, even after being warned off he still went full stupid. But then again he did look at the law and determined he wasn't in violation of it apparently. Talk about sea-lawyering......
I think you've painted with a broad brush here. Is our generation different than those that came before? Sure. Does it have a minority that is a bunch of assholes? Sure. Just like the draft dodgers of the Greatest Generation and the hippies of the Baby Boomers. I do resent the idea that our generation is a bunch of attention whore, participation ribbon wanting, mother loved us too much, can't survive without positive reinforcement babies. We certainly have new technology in which to connect to the world, and also make an ass of ourselves. As many have stated, the SGT in question violated the rules and then gave the middle finger to the man when they told him to slow down. Clearly an issue.
I'll continue to use Twitter, Facebook, etc because they help me connect to the world. I'll always be careful to understand I'm holding the professional equivalent to a loaded Uzi. Those who don't? I heard civilian unemployment is down!