Marine Corps Chickens Out, They Can't Stand to Hear It.

[TacticalPeek]

Stole this from Atrios at Eschaton (atrios.blogspot.com).


Liberal views force soldier out of military

I am writing this in response to a series of letters published by The Item , beginning with my own letter on March 14, 2003 titled "Bush Shows Arrogance Not Leadership." In it, I discussed the relevance of United Nations approval prior to the War in Iraq, as well as the consequences of "going at it alone." Following the printing of my letter, a pair of readers retaliated by attacking my loyalty and ability to "cover their son's back." The more striking of the two had this to say:

"If Sgt. E-5 Ferriol is who he says he is and is in the job he claims he is in, I think about now he will be in front of his commander answering a lot of questions concerning his loyalty, the enlistment oath and above all the oath he took to get the security clearance to be in the job he claims to be in. I would not want a person with his views in a foxhole next to me nor could I rely on intelligence analysis he that might get me killed. I took what I think is the correct action, cut the article out of the paper, wrote a cover letter and sent it to the DoD for action."

I would like to take this opportunity to let Mr. Simpson know that I am who I say I am and I was in the job I said I was in. I honorably served my country for eight years in the United States Marine Corps; providing honest intelligence analysis and collecting countless awards and promotions throughout my career. I was also a leader and mentor to scores of young men and women. In those eight years, I sacrificed more of myself for this country than most men and women ever will in their lifetime. But, thanks to the zeal and quick judgment of this individual, I am no longer serving our beloved country. His forecast was correct. Following his letter to DoD, I was brought up on charges of "Disloyal Statements" under Article 134 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Not because anything I wrote was disloyal, but because of my political views and how they differ from Mr. Simpson and others like him. The unfortunate aspect of this is not my demise, but their inability to understand or accept the opinions of others as different from their own. Nonetheless, I was forced to retain an attorney and undergo weeks of scrutiny before being cleared of the charges. I was, however, never allowed to work in Intelligence again; forced to separate the Marine Corps over threats that I would not be allowed to reenlist.

more
http://www.theitem.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031107/OPED01/111070006

What a bunch of wusses, that can't handle the truth. (Its only words guys, check your gut.)

[FormerMarine6055]

1. I wonder

What the first article about this guy was.

It's a fact of military life that you DON'T have the right to free speech in the military.

Any thing you say, especailly about the CiC, can you problems.

Back when Clinton took office, there were several Generals who retired early beacuse they make bublic comments about their dislike for Clinton.

If this guy used his rank in his previous letter, and also included intelligence tht was sensitive, then he got what he deserved.

[DUreader]

4. No sensetive intel was used or he wouldn't have been cleared of charges

He was cleared of charges and yet retaliation followed, not surprising,

but still wrong.

[FormerMarine6055]

6. A wrong as it may be,

a military service member has no First Amendment rights.

If you write a letter to the editor, or make a public speech, or even publicly endorse a political figure or policy, you could be in violation of the UCMJ.

I had to decline donating to a political campagin because all people who donated were going to be placed in a newspaper ad.

I had to decline because I was active duty.

[markus]

2. Any military lawyers out there? What is a "disployal statement"?

Can simply questioning President Bush in an appropriate legal forum and fashion cause someone to be brought up on charges?

[smaug]

3. What is this Article 134 of the UCMJ?

I'd like to clarify something for our members who haven't been in the military - I've been out of the service for over 20 years, but as far as I can remember, here's how it goes:

Article 134 of the UCMJ is the "general" article. It enables a command in the military to prosecute a service member for just about any "offense", which can be defined on the spot by the complaining officer or commander of the unit. The military is a completely different society, and from what I understand from talking to cousins who are either still in or just gotten out, or nephews (no nieces serving yet :D ), serving, emphasis on group think is getting worse. If your opinions don't follow the party (Rethuglican) line, you get into 'trouble.'

Democracy isn't favored in militaries, and ours is no exception. What I find troubling is the dichtomy between when I was in service in the 1970s/early 80s (discussing politics and telling us how to vote was EXTREMELY taboo) and today: we have a general officer going around to fundamentalist churches proclaiming that Islam is Satan (plays very well there, don't you think?), and soldiers being separated for saying what is, is.

When our country violated international law and custom in order to swagger and "bring it on," and some called the Bushevik regime on it, they were called unpatriotic, and reviled as traitors. Now that we're looking for "desire for weapons of mass destruction" and splitting hairs on "imminent threat" definitions, the military finds the use of general articles such as Article 134 extremely useful. What Johnny ("I lost an election to a dead man") Asskrack could do with that (Oh, wait! We've the Patriot Act!").

</sarcasm>.

[leetrisck]

5. Guess they'd rather have the deserter

in the foxhole with them - oh, I forgot he's an AVIATOR, he wouldn't be in a foxhole. He would be in the chickenhouse.