Is The Military Barred From.......

[rsmith6621]

Speaking out against the Iraq/national security policy's of the bush administration....can they be punished if found out???

[LynnTheDem]

1. Depends.

Define "speaking out".

If you mean protected speech to their Congress-critters, no, they can't be punished.


If you mean active duty troops talking to reporters or posting online against the bush admin, yes they can be punished.

But I forgot...US laws don't mean shit anymore, now that king george gets to decide all by hisself who's an "enemy combatant" and "disappear" them.

[rsmith6621]

2. Speaking out in Forums

Like DU........

[LynnTheDem]

3. If they're active duty troops, then no they're not supposed to

give their opinions of the MFing idiot squatting in the White House.

While our troops willingly give thier lives for our rights & freedoms, they don't have many of those rights & freedoms themselves while they're active duty.

The definition of "irony".

[Monkeyman]

4. Yep they will article 15 their butt

[rsmith6621]

5. Thanks All....

Some opposition Ive have had in another forum I suspect is active duty or a NG...I just wanted to get a clarification from some of you.

[LynnTheDem]

7. NG is not the same as active duty.

More leeway for NG.

But remember; 2/3rds of US troops are NOT republicans.

And that's another of them pesky "librul bias" FACTS.

[Toots]

12. I saw NG and immediately thought of FNG

Funny how that works. I thought of New Guy before National Guard. When I was in Natioanl Guard were basically non existent. There were some in Basic and AIT but I don't recall ever running into one after that. That was one of the bennies of joining the guard, you got to stay home where the guard belongs....Things change but not necessarily for the better.

[Gwerlain]

6. I think there are a couple of good reasons for it.

I saw one Dem (Senator? maybe just a Congresscritter) say, "We don't need a Republican army and a Democratic army," and I could hardly agree more. Another important point is that what soldiers do is fight in war, and train in peace, and they have to follow orders. Criticism of any element of the currently constituted government is a violation of the responsibility to the chain of command. At least I think that's the theory. And the President is, after all, the supreme commander of the military.

[LynnTheDem]

9. My hubby is active duty career soldier.

I'm aware of the reasons.

Doesn't change the irony.

;)

[Gwerlain]

10. Troo dat.

;)

[originalpckelly]

8. Yes, and for good reason...

it is designed to prevent our military from becoming involved in politics, and I only mean active duty soldiers.

It basically prevents our nation from being a military oriented dictatorship.

We take the risk of these people not being able to speak out on disasters like Iraq in exchange for the real security of not giving the military more power.

The publicizing of the petition for redress is something that crosses this line, unfortunately. I hope those soldiers aren't punished, because it is the failure of civilian leadership which has pushed them to such extremes.

They may contact Congress, but they must keep it on the down low.

[hootinholler]

11. It's a fine line and an intricate dance

To speak out against policy without disparaging the chain of command.

-Hoot

[RB TexLa]

13. Active military members may appeal to congress for "redress" while

out of uniform. Basically it is they have a right to go to congress or a member of congress if they are not in uniform and do not attempt to speak for anyone but themselves individually.