Officer in trouble for questioning whether troop re-deployment legal.

[SadEagle]

From Rochester, NY local paper, the Democrat and Chronicle:

some snips:

...

McAplin says the reprimand is related to his comments that the battalion may be violating federal law by not allowing troops who have served in a combat zone a required 12-month "stabilization period" at home.

....

About two weeks ago, he said, soldiers being redeployed at the 401st were asked to sign a waiver of Title X rights, a provision of the U.S. Code since 1953. Most of the officers refused to sign and all but four of the enlisted personnel called to redeploy agreed to sign, said McAlpin.

"If an officer said to sign something, you signed it - that?s what I did as a kid," said McAlpin of his own 12 years as an enlisted man. "Now I?m a little older, a little wiser and my mouth is a lot bigger."

....

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/news/1128152GCTV_mil28_news.shtml
-------------

I think the story speaks for itself.
:grr:

[sistersofmercy]

1. I could be wrong about this but one of the executive orders signed by

the sneaky little twit* is essentially, a gag order for military or at least that is how it reads to me. Someone posted it a while back and I can't remember the number but it came after 13303, perhaps 1332? not sure.

[SadEagle]

3. Yeah, but he was /asked/ by the officer in charge

To quote one more piece:

"He expressed doubts and questions about the Title X waiver during a Saturday teleconference call with Col. Sands, in which officers were invited to speak freely. "I wanted the brigade commander to answer to these soldiers (about Title X), basically voice to voice," he said. "

I mean, it's not like he went to the press or anything.

[Bandit]

2. They did the same thing when they voted for this imposter

They signed their name without thinking. Officers weren't told to sign or they would have signed also. They get what they signed up for so I guess they are happy about it.