Pages: 1 2

 

Poll

Should Army Members Be Allowed to Give Their Views About Politics?

Never14%14% - 10
Yes, like any citizen59%59% - 40
Only if they are not on duty19%19% - 13
Only if they are talking to another Army member5%5% - 4
Total: 67
2006-11-16 11:17:39
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina
I recently found an article talking about the Uniform Code of Military Justice (US, I don't know the name in other countries), which in its article 88 prohibits commissioned officers from speaking or writing "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.  The same happens here in my country.  I don't know in any other country.
What do you think about this kind of prohibition?
2006-11-16 11:40:36
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6749|Northern California
I said never because it is the rules.  I don't agree with those rules.  I also don't understand how or why our military, whose job is to protect our country and constitution, does not live constitutionally.  There are sooo many ways they are contradicting the constitution that it's not even funny. 

And yes, it's COMPLETELY possible to operate in a fully disciplined, completely loyal manner by choice (opposite of compulsion).  And believe it or not, there's MUCH MORE growth when you choose to be so disciplined as opposed to being forced to do so..as is the case when you enlist.  In the military, you are not a normal citizen anymore and you do not enjoy rights given to non-military citizens (and non-felons).  So the second option isn't possible.
2006-11-16 11:40:55
EVieira
Member
+105|6736|Lutenblaag, Molvania
It seems to make sense, after all you are serving your country and the executive branch is your highest authority. Politization in the armed forces is something very, very problematic. When pockets of anti-government sentiment forms in the army, its the beginning of a revolution. When an armed forces is way too much pro-government, oppression is a high risk.

But the men in service are citizens too, so they must have the same rights. Complicated...

Edited for spelling

Last edited by EVieira (2006-11-16 11:42:19)

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2006-11-16 11:48:45
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6751|Connecticut

sergeriver wrote:

I recently found an article talking about the Uniform Code of Military Justice (US, I don't know the name in other countries), which in its article 88 prohibits commissioned officers from speaking or writing "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.  The same happens here in my country.  I don't know in any other country.
What do you think about this kind of prohibition?
Like it or not he is the Commanding Officer of the armed forces. That means he is within that soldiers chain of command. Therefore any such flaming of a superior would be considered insubordination. See article 134, I believe it is a catch all article.
Malloy must go
2006-11-16 11:52:57
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina

deeznutz1245 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I recently found an article talking about the Uniform Code of Military Justice (US, I don't know the name in other countries), which in its article 88 prohibits commissioned officers from speaking or writing "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.  The same happens here in my country.  I don't know in any other country.
What do you think about this kind of prohibition?
Like it or not he is the Commanding Officer of the armed forces. That means he is within that soldiers chain of command. Therefore any such flaming of a superior would be considered insubordination. See article 134, I believe it is a catch all article.
I understand your point, and I cited the UCMJ coz this is a US forum, but I'm asking about all the countries.  While you are right, the president is the Commander in Chief, all Army members are citizens first, so that's where I find this hole in the law of US and Argentina, at least.  Here it is called Codigo de Justicia Militar, or Code of Military Justice.

Last edited by sergeriver (2006-11-16 12:02:28)

2006-11-16 11:53:07
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6751|Connecticut

IRONCHEF wrote:

I said never because it is the rules.  I don't agree with those rules.  I also don't understand how or why our military, whose job is to protect our country and constitution, does not live constitutionally.  There are sooo many ways they are contradicting the constitution that it's not even funny. 

And yes, it's COMPLETELY possible to operate in a fully disciplined, completely loyal manner by choice (opposite of compulsion).  And believe it or not, there's MUCH MORE growth when you choose to be so disciplined as opposed to being forced to do so..as is the case when you enlist.  In the military, you are not a normal citizen anymore and you do not enjoy rights given to non-military citizens (and non-felons).  So the second option isn't possible.
It is possible. It is the idea of making personal sacrifice for the good of your countrymen. Those who have made the sacrifices would never change it, and our rights do not feel infringed upon by ant means. If you beleive your country is great and you are someone who helped preserve that greatness, you just dont mind.
Malloy must go
2006-11-16 12:02:58
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6980|Eastern PA
No. It's essential to maintain civilian control over the military. And those in the military can express their views, just not in a public venue (ie. newspaper editorial, news segments, etc.). The system has worked fine in this and other countries for a while now.

If anything it's necessary to prevent the military from exercising undue influence on domestic politics (beyond voting and making recommendations to the civilian leadership of course). Just as I'm not in favor of excessive civilian micromanaging of military affairs (ie. McNamara, LBJ, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Nixon) I think the uniformed leadership especially should stay out of civilian political affairs.
2006-11-16 12:04:27
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6911
If you choose to serve: STFU, it's in the contract.  Don't sign it if you don't like it.
If you are conscripted: Then you shouldn't be forced to change or hide your views about elected officials.  And you shouldn't be put in front of a firing squad for them either.  Sadly, in reality, you'll probably have to choose between the two...
2006-11-16 12:10:22
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

If you choose to serve: STFU, it's in the contract.  Don't sign it if you don't like it.
If you are conscripted: Then you shouldn't be forced to change or hide your views about elected officials.  And you shouldn't be put in front of a firing squad for them either.  Sadly, in reality, you'll probably have to choose between the two...
Can any law be above the Constitution?
2006-11-16 12:14:54
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6726

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

If you choose to serve: STFU, it's in the contract.  Don't sign it if you don't like it.
If you are conscripted: Then you shouldn't be forced to change or hide your views about elected officials.  And you shouldn't be put in front of a firing squad for them either.  Sadly, in reality, you'll probably have to choose between the two...
Well FYI less and less people are willing to join up and this law might have a little to do with it. Maybe if this thing is thrown out more people will join.
2006-11-16 12:52:07
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6749|Northern California

sergeriver wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

If you choose to serve: STFU, it's in the contract.  Don't sign it if you don't like it.
If you are conscripted: Then you shouldn't be forced to change or hide your views about elected officials.  And you shouldn't be put in front of a firing squad for them either.  Sadly, in reality, you'll probably have to choose between the two...
Can any law be above the Constitution?
That's a good question.  From reading the constitution plenty, and from concensus, it is definately a guideline for making laws.  Sometimes we pass laws and find out they were unconstitutional (just a couple weeks ago, California Prop 83 was suspended and altered because a provision was found to be unconstitutional -- GPS collars for life, even after time served).  But military law..martial law...somehow these are acceptable because of interpretations in the constitution that allow for certain heightened levels of state.  For example, habeas corpus can be suspended by congress under a constitutional provision under certain national conditions like invasion.

I have a partner in my office who is also a army captain and jag, i'll ask him about some examples of military law being unconstitutional.  I'll PM you the results if I get them! lol
2006-11-16 12:54:23
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6911

sergeriver wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

If you choose to serve: STFU, it's in the contract.  Don't sign it if you don't like it.
If you are conscripted: Then you shouldn't be forced to change or hide your views about elected officials.  And you shouldn't be put in front of a firing squad for them either.  Sadly, in reality, you'll probably have to choose between the two...
Can any law be above the Constitution?
More importantly should any law... to that I don't know. 

But the answer to your question is same as that of this question:  Can any government have secrets?

Without limitation on freedom of speech, there can be no state secrets, as no law can prevent disclosure.  But the people who have access to state secrets sign a contract not to distribute them.  But I think the line should be drawn at people who haven't subscribed to that contract who are in possession of leaked documents.  They shouldn't be threatened, although not everyone agrees.  But in the UK if you know something is protected by the official secrets act and you publish it, you are guilty of an offence.  Although ignorance is an excuse in the eyes of this law.

IMO contracts between people and/or governments can be above the consitution, if someone has knowingly signed that contract.  They sold their soul in exchange for their rights.  (edit: but I still support a transparent society and government where there are no secrets)

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-11-16 12:55:42)

2006-11-16 13:04:34
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6749|Northern California
Ooh wow!  Just read this!!

    Washington- Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), an outspoken opponent of the Military Commission Act of 2006, today introduced legislation which would amend existing law in order to have an effective process for bringing terrorists to justice.

    The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act:

    * Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees
    * Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants
    * Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials
    * Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence the deem to be unreliable
    * Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions
    * Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight
    * Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions

    This is currently not the case under the Military Commission Act, which will be the subject of endless legal challenges. As important, the bill would also seek to ensure that U.S.servicemen and women are afforded the maximum protection of a strong international legal framework guaranteed by respect for such provisions as the Geneva Conventions and other international standards, and to restore America’s moral authority as the leader in the world in advancing the rule of law.

    “I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting this country from terrorists,” Sen. Dodd said. “But there is a right way to do this
    and a wrong way to do this. It’s clear the people who perpetrated these horrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moral compass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country’s Constitution, we’re taking away our own moral compass, as well.”


So it looks like the unconstitutionality of a law Bush illegally got passed will be yanked!  Woohoo!  Hoooray for those protecting our constitution!
2006-11-16 13:06:01
FederalRepublic
Member
+4|6633

IRONCHEF wrote:

I said never because it is the rules.  I don't agree with those rules.  I also don't understand how or why our military, whose job is to protect our country and constitution, does not live constitutionally.  There are sooo many ways they are contradicting the constitution that it's not even funny.
I never joined the military so I'm curious as to what ways the Constitution is contradicted?
2006-11-16 13:10:59
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6749|Northern California

FederalRepublic wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

I said never because it is the rules.  I don't agree with those rules.  I also don't understand how or why our military, whose job is to protect our country and constitution, does not live constitutionally.  There are sooo many ways they are contradicting the constitution that it's not even funny.
I never joined the military so I'm curious as to what ways the Constitution is contradicted?
The contracted ability to supress freedom of speech, to bear arms, search and seizure, etc.  An example...correspondence is not private.  The topic at hand is another example...not being able to dissent against your political leaders, even if they are not your superiors.  I also believe there are laws within the UCMJ that say you can object to morally wrong orders..but try arguing that decision legally if you took it! lol
2006-11-16 13:19:40
FederalRepublic
Member
+4|6633

IRONCHEF wrote:

FederalRepublic wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

I said never because it is the rules.  I don't agree with those rules.  I also don't understand how or why our military, whose job is to protect our country and constitution, does not live constitutionally.  There are sooo many ways they are contradicting the constitution that it's not even funny.
I never joined the military so I'm curious as to what ways the Constitution is contradicted?
The contracted ability to supress freedom of speech, to bear arms, search and seizure, etc.  An example...correspondence is not private.  The topic at hand is another example...not being able to dissent against your political leaders, even if they are not your superiors.  I also believe there are laws within the UCMJ that say you can object to morally wrong orders..but try arguing that decision legally if you took it! lol
I'm curious... how are those unconstitutional?
2006-11-16 13:29:12
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6994|Salt Lake City

What was posted by the OP would seem to be limited to commissioned officers.  Does this also apply to rank and file grunts?
2006-11-16 14:44:24
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

What was posted by the OP would seem to be limited to commissioned officers.  Does this also apply to rank and file grunts?
I think it applies to any member of the Army.
2006-11-16 17:15:33
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6973|US
I think there is a difference with politely disagreeing and "contemptuous words."
2006-11-16 17:25:22
Fester53D&E
Member
+3|6688|Los Angeles, CA
In the US, the Congress has allowed the military to be governed under the UCMJ as cited above.  From a former Marine Officer's perspective, the UCMJ supersedes the constitution as it governs what military members can and can't do.  For example it allows a commanding officer of sufficient rank to impression members in his command. 

As for the not speaking about elected officials, the way it's most easily explained is that if someone in the military is interviewed or quoted about virtually anything, (especially if he or she is in uniform), it is not the individual speaking, but the organization he or she represents.  So if you have a young Private or Lieutenant that blasts an elected official in public, it can be perceived as official statement and/or policy that applies to the entire service.   You don't want Privates or Lieutenants setting policy for the services!
2006-11-16 17:28:03
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina

Fester53D&E wrote:

In the US, the Congress has allowed the military to be governed under the UCMJ as cited above.  From a former Marine Officer's perspective, the UCMJ supersedes the constitution as it governs what military members can and can't do.  For example it allows a commanding officer of sufficient rank to impression members in his command. 

As for the not speaking about elected officials, the way it's most easily explained is that if someone in the military is interviewed or quoted about virtually anything, (especially if he or she is in uniform), it is not the individual speaking, but the organization he or she represents.  So if you have a young Private or Lieutenant that blasts an elected official in public, it can be perceived as official statement and/or policy that applies to the entire service.   You don't want Privates or Lieutenants setting policy for the services!
That is clear.  What I don't get is, how can a law be above the Constitution?
2006-11-16 17:42:02
jonsimon
Member
+224|6753

sergeriver wrote:

Fester53D&E wrote:

In the US, the Congress has allowed the military to be governed under the UCMJ as cited above.  From a former Marine Officer's perspective, the UCMJ supersedes the constitution as it governs what military members can and can't do.  For example it allows a commanding officer of sufficient rank to impression members in his command. 

As for the not speaking about elected officials, the way it's most easily explained is that if someone in the military is interviewed or quoted about virtually anything, (especially if he or she is in uniform), it is not the individual speaking, but the organization he or she represents.  So if you have a young Private or Lieutenant that blasts an elected official in public, it can be perceived as official statement and/or policy that applies to the entire service.   You don't want Privates or Lieutenants setting policy for the services!
That is clear.  What I don't get is, how can a law be above the Constitution?
Theoretically it can't. But in practice it's simple, just ignore the constitution and suppress anyone that points it out.
2006-11-16 17:45:56
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6943|United States of America
Military shouldn't even touch politics. Just like politics shouldn't be allowed to try to control the military.
2006-11-16 18:08:23
jonsimon
Member
+224|6753

DesertFox423 wrote:

Military shouldn't even touch politics. Just like politics shouldn't be allowed to try to control the military.
How does that make sense? Military that isn't controlled by the government? The military would take over.
2006-11-16 18:59:27
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6819

FederalRepublic wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

FederalRepublic wrote:


I never joined the military so I'm curious as to what ways the Constitution is contradicted?
The contracted ability to supress freedom of speech, to bear arms, search and seizure, etc.  An example...correspondence is not private.  The topic at hand is another example...not being able to dissent against your political leaders, even if they are not your superiors.  I also believe there are laws within the UCMJ that say you can object to morally wrong orders..but try arguing that decision legally if you took it! lol
I'm curious... how are those unconstitutional?
They aren't.  You can lose the same rights on private property, which an army barracks is.  Further, all jobs have a higher code of conduct than would normally be required.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard