Free Speech?

[TWB]

I still don't understand why those who are charged with protecting our country are not entitled to the same rights the rest of us are.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SAN FRANCISCO, June 4 (AP) — An Air Force colonel who wrote a letter to a newspaper calling President Bush a joke and accusing him of allowing the Sept. 11 attacks to happen because "his presidency was going nowhere" has been suspended and could face a court-martial.

The letter from Lt. Col. Steve Butler, vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, Calif., was published May 26 in The Herald of Monterey County.

"He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism," wrote Colonel Butler, who is nearing retirement. "His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama. His presidency was going nowhere."

He added, "This guy is a joke."

Colonel Butler was suspended on May 29 pending an investigation into his remarks, an Air Force spokeswoman, Valerie Burkes, said today.

Military law dating to 1776 specifically prohibits "contemptuous words against the president" and other leaders.


So much for free speech.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

It's just like any other business... If you bad mouth your boss be prepared to get the boot.

 

[Weird Harold]

I still don't understand why those who are charged with protecting our country are not entitled to the same rights the rest of us are.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SAN FRANCISCO, June 4 (AP) — An Air Force colonel who wrote a letter to a newspaper calling President Bush a joke and accusing him of allowing the Sept. 11 attacks to happen because "his presidency was going nowhere" has been suspended and could face a court-martial.
...
Military law dating to 1776 specifically prohibits "contemptuous words against the president" and other leaders.


So much for free speech.

The 1776 citation is the least of the good Colonel's worries.

The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) contains several other "crimes" he could be charged with, including but not limited to:

Insubordination
Incitement to mutiny
Conduct unbecoming an officer
Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline

The latter is the biggest problem with allowing "free speech" to military personnel -- especially to those in command positions.

The military is NOT just civilian life with uniforms.

 

[miles]

Re: Re: Free Speech?

The 1776 citation is the least of the good Colonel's worries.

The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) contains several other "crimes" he could be charged with, including but not limited to:

Insubordination
Incitement to mutiny
Conduct unbecoming an officer
Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline

The latter is the biggest problem with allowing "free speech" to military personnel -- especially to those in command positions.

The military is NOT just civilian life with uniforms.

Exactly. I don't know if it's a specific code, but people in the military do not express their political opinions publicly unless they are so directed.

Next time the Prez makes a speech to a joint session of Congress, watch the Joint Chiefs of Staff closely. The only time they ever applaud the President's remarks is when he praises the military or their mission.

What the hell was the colonel thinking?

 

[penguindance]

 

[HeavyStick]

There is a specific article of the UCMJ covering disrespect of officers towards Officials.

I am in the Marines have been for 12 years.

While it is a trade off, I may not get e chance to practice my First Amendment Rights as often as I have defended them. But one of the things that makes the Officers remarks so disturbing is that reading between the lines it's as if President Bush allowed for it to happen in his first 18 mo's.

That is the most disturbing conclusion that most people can deduce from his statement.

 

[SINthysist]

He should have resigned his commission before opening his mouth.

Hillary didn't applaud either...

At least not without rolling her eyes!







Urrah!

 

[plasticman33]

I still don't understand why those who are charged with protecting our country are not entitled to the same rights the rest of us are.

So much for free speech.

Having served in the Air Force for 6 years, you learn one thing. The military is not a democracy. The President is the Commander and Chief, you may disagree with his policies, but do not verbalize that disagreement publically. If he was so dead set against Bush, he should have resigned prior to making those statements.

This is something that most civilians, who have never served, have trouble understanding.

 

[TWB]

I find it interesting because the country takes away the rights of those who sacrifice themselves in service to the country with what may be the ultimate sacrifice.

The military is not a democracy, but does anyone but myself see the irony in that? Military personnel sacrifice their personal freedoms to fight for the freedoms of others? They leave a democracy for what basically amounts to a dictatorship in order to protect a democracy?

Interesting.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

I find it interesting because the country takes away the rights of those who sacrifice themselves in service to the country with what may be the ultimate sacrifice.

The military is not a democracy, but does anyone but myself see the irony in that? Military personnel sacrifice their personal freedoms to fight for the freedoms of others? They leave a democracy for what basically amounts to a dictatorship in order to protect a democracy?

Interesting.

you are making a valid point of irony, but then again whats the old joke about the grandest of oxymorons, millitary intelligence? After serving in the navy for several years, and after getting myself into trouble many times with my big mouth, I finally figured that much out, its not a democracy. A Lt. Col. should have had this figured out way before a simple petty officer did. His charge is to do what the Commander in Chief orders him to do without question.

I DO agree with what he said to some degree but as a former military man, I cannot support his insane decision to air his opinion in public.

 

[TWB]

Oh, by the way, it is not that I do not understand that there needs to be some order and lack of insubordination. I understand the military's interest in keeping dissention in the ranks to a minimum.

But, the irony in my post above is not lost on me either. . .

 

[brokenbrainwave]

you are correct on both counts sir. But can you not also agree what this guy did was just plain dumb?

 

[TWB]

you are correct on both counts sir. But can you not also agree what this guy did was just plain dumb?

I don't think GWB, (despite the fact that I think he is a bit of a twit), would have intentionally withheld information to get his poll numbers up and allowed the trade towers to be hit, if that is what you are asking. Regarding the speaker, knowing military law, it was definitely not smart, assuming he wanted to keep his job. . . Hindsight is 20/20, tho!

 

[brokenbrainwave]

I don't think GWB, (despite the fact that I think he is a bit of a twit), would have intentionally allowed the trade towers to be hit, if that is what you are asking. Knowing military law, it was definitely not smart, assuming he wanted to keep his job. . . Hindsight is 20/20, tho!

nooo I was asking if what the Lt Col did was not what was really dumb, we all know that Duyba aint that bright

 

[miles]

I find it interesting because the country takes away the rights of those who sacrifice themselves in service to the country with what may be the ultimate sacrifice.

The military is not a democracy, but does anyone but myself see the irony in that? Military personnel sacrifice their personal freedoms to fight for the freedoms of others? They leave a democracy for what basically amounts to a dictatorship in order to protect a democracy?

Interesting.

They are forbidden to publicly express their political opinions because it would almost cetainly result in divisiveness in the ranks. Their success relies on unity and teamwork to accomplish their mission.

Yes, people in the military and their families sacrifice a hell of a lot. They also receive little thanks or recognition.

As Weird Harold said, the military is not civilian life with uniforms. They are trained to follow orders without question. It can't work any other way, and calling it a dictatorship tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Daddyslilpet]

As a spouse of a career Army NCO (that's Non-Comissioned Officer, btw), I have to agree with the replies I've read so far. A soldier knows the rules and must obey them, regardless of his or her personal opinion. They are allowed to have their opinions, just not to voice anything derogatory to the Commander and Cheif - The President.

The military ways don't always make sense to us civilians, but that doesn't matter.

 

[Ginny]

nice third leg ya got there, TWB......<wink>

 

[brokenbrainwave]

As a spouse of a career Army NCO (that's Non-Comissioned Officer, btw), I have to agree with the replies I've read so far. A soldier knows the rules and must obey them, regardless of his or her personal opinion. They are allowed to have their opinions, just not to voice anything derogatory to the Commander and Cheif - The President.

The military ways don't always make sense to us civilians, but that doesn't matter.

aww critter, your just looking for ways to dispose of various bodies, LOL

 

[miles]

Ginny

The time on your ass-clock never changes. Sigh.

 

[plasticman33]

Oh, by the way, it is not that I do not understand that there needs to be some order and lack of insubordination. I understand the military's interest in keeping dissention in the ranks to a minimum.

But, the irony in my post above is not lost on me either. . .

The irony was not lost on me either, TWB, but the fact remains that those who serve, in the most powerful military on earth, are subjected to strict rules of conduct that have no parallel in civilian life. Those that serve must be willing to accept those losses of freedom. Most do it, gladly, out of patriotism. Corny, but true!

(Hmmm, you suddenly develop an interest in Canadian soccer?)

 

[REDWAVE]

Double standard

Christ on a crutch, does anybody here have any memory? Remember when a whole bunch of the military top brass were publicly criticizing Clinton over the tolerant policy toward gays in the military he wanted to establish? Were any of them punished? Hell, no. Clinton ended up having to back off and institute his weasly "don't ask, don't tell" policy. As a result, oppression of gays in the military continues to this day. It was damn near a military coup which took place then. And now Butler faces punishment for speaking the obvious truth about that usurper and traitorous tyrant Bush. There's a clear double standard involved here.

 

[SINthysist]

They had been pre-punished with the policy by a guy who hated and wanted to humiliate the military in one big 1960's style fuck you gesture.

Plus he sacked many of their top members for adultery...

So, cut our men and (and women and cpl Klingers) a little slack. Try goose-stepping a mile in thier shoes...

 

[bluespoke]

Re: Double standard

Christ on a crutch, does anybody here have any memory? Remember when a whole bunch of the military top brass were publicly criticizing Clinton over the tolerant policy toward gays in the military he wanted to establish? Were any of them punished? Hell, no. Clinton ended up having to back off and institute his weasly "don't ask, don't tell" policy. As a result, oppression of gays in the military continues to this day. It was damn near a military coup which took place then. And now Butler faces punishment for speaking the obvious truth about that usurper and traitorous tyrant Bush. There's a clear double standard involved here.

If you can't distinguish between Army top brass and a Lt Col. then you shouldn't really be arguing with the grown ups.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

Re: Double standard

Christ on a crutch, does anybody here have any memory? Remember when a whole bunch of the military top brass were publicly criticizing Clinton over the tolerant policy toward gays in the military he wanted to establish? Were any of them punished? Hell, no. Clinton ended up having to back off and institute his weasly "don't ask, don't tell" policy. As a result, oppression of gays in the military continues to this day. It was damn near a military coup which took place then. And now Butler faces punishment for speaking the obvious truth about that usurper and traitorous tyrant Bush. There's a clear double standard involved here.

yes it is called politics. The decision Clinton made to allow homosexuals in the military was a resoundingly unpopular one with Americans in general. Am I supporting the military leaders that lamblasted Clinton, not on your life, it was wrong for he was the boss. They should have been prosecuted under the Military Code of Justice for the same reasons this man might be tried for.

The war on Terror is very popular with the electorate, his remarks went against popular opinion, making it very easy to uphold the law. Clinton chickend out of that fight, Bush it would appear, (not debating if it is right or wrong) will not. Double standard, not really, just one President was weaker in the public opinion arena than the other. Keep in mind, that was Clintons first act as President, not very savvy.

 

[penguindance]

Re: Re: Double standard