People who are writing political statements need to leave their military status out of their statements.
It's never prosecuted, but it is a violation of federal law and the UCMJ.
Printable View
People who are writing political statements need to leave their military status out of their statements.
It's never prosecuted, but it is a violation of federal law and the UCMJ.
Darn shame you CAN'T Vote ... we sure need more INFORMED VotersQuote:
Originally Posted by sparks19
like you!
I also deduct points for the negative ads and unending tails of how
"That Other Guy is doing it all wrong ..."
I'm afraid that BOTH the Presidential Wanna-bees are into negative
numbers in MY points tally ...
"NONE of the above" is sounding better every day.
;)
Would you please tell that to the McCain camp? How many times do we have to hear about his VietNam experience?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
Different animal, in that he's not using his rank to enhance his status. For instance, without the COL, USAR ******* after his name, would that statement have even been posted on this board?
Senator to President - not enhanced status?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
You bet your life it would. I like these ideas offered and I don't care if
he graduated high school or not. This man makes sense.:)
This man is also retired from Military service & can say what he wants to say.
What are they going to do, hold his military retirement check? Retired
Military are allowed to use their former rank after they leave the service.
It's done all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
Let's see if my creds make me anymore noteworthy?
Reporter KGIL Radio (RET.), Writer/proofreader JHFPHS Optimist (RET.), Volunteer KFH Charities/Community Outreach (RET.), Contributor LADN/LAT (RET.), LIMOM (RET.)
Nope, I still sound like an AH.:D
_---------------
My nephew -USMC (RET.) - and I once had spirited convo about Bill Clinton and what he thought about him. My nephew surprised me, He sheepishly shrugged his shoulders, smiled and said that he could not comment on his CIC? This was at the time of BC's budget cuts and pillaging of the AF of America.
To this day he really won't comment about politics. He was a lowly grunt, but I am proud that he didn't take the rules that he was under-and is no longer bound by seriously.
It's like driving, You get less stressed and arrive in better spirits when you stop tooting your horn at every stop sign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
Now Richard, don't be so hard on yourself.:rolleyes:
How many more titles do you want to have in your lifetime? How many job
apps did you put in today? Any nibbles? :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
Dearest,
IT's all in jest, I have to laugh at myself!
I wasted too many years wondering what people thought about me, to really find out what I thought about myself.
Plus, if I laugh long enough, the people around me start to laugh, too!:D
----------
I actually do have a job, IT's taking care of mom!!!:)
Psst....LIMOM means Legend In My Own Mind!:o
You cannot use your retired military rank to advance a political statement, period. It's a violation of both the UCMJ and the Hatch act. And yes, they can withhold pay and take other punitive actions, and I wish they would. There were various issues in the 2004 campaign with both sides trotting out wounded soldiers, vets, etc. in uniform. Everyone got a quick reminder about the Hatch act, and no further action was taken, as usual.:rolleyes:
Had he not used the rank, I almost guarantee Obama's campaign wouldn't have made that mailing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
Roger!
Article 88—Contempt toward officials
“Any commissioned officer who uses 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 shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;
(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used.
Explanation.
The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.
Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.
Maximum punishment.
Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.
There are other places... But I think this works.
ETA... Personally, what an arrogant statement from a REMF. A doctor at that!! When was the last time HIS ass was really on the line???? Ask a guy on the pointy edge of the stick what THEY think.
* Please note that my opinion on the Iraq war is rather negative. So please don't flame me as some GWB supporter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
How sad. I did not realize Americans are required to give up their constitutional rights when they join the military. Rather ironic, isn't it?
So how did those horrid Swift Boaters get away with lying about a fellow soldier? Is that permissable? How are you allowed to express policitical opinions on here? How are former military people allowed to serve in congress or the cabinet?
And...how does McCain get away with it?
This comes down to reading comprehension again...Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
If I said something like this...
"All Democrats are misguided fools and deserve to be killed.
SFC Brian D B**** USA, Retired"
THAT is a UCMJ violation. If I left out the rank and (ret) part... Its all good. And yes, it is THAT simple.
ES,
I can certainly engage in political discussions, but cannot do so while using my rank to add emphasis to my statements.
I can attend a political rally, anti-war protest, or another political function, but not in uniform.
I can solicit donations for a campaign, but cannot use my military status in those communications.
As stated many times through the career of a soldier, remember, we're a dictatorship defending a democracy. You can think it, but keep your trap shut.
But I still don't get my question answered! How does McCain get away with the constant reference to his military service. Can't he lose his pension or something?
And I still think it is very sad that your freedom of speech is curtailed!
McCain has never used his rank to make a political statement. I can refer to my service all I want, but I cannot make a statement using my rank to add emphasis or appear in uniform.
I think you'll find that's pretty much the deal in any democracy. We have this law down under called the "Official Secrets act". Quite a wide ranging and broad piece of work, and I'm still exonerably bound to it twenty years after I 'retired'. It does manage to keep me out of jury duty though apparently. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
I can understand how most people would feel this way. But remember, the military is about going into harms way and doing some very dangerous work. When bullets are flying, there is no time to take a vote or have your soldiers opinions heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
It truly is the only job in the world where a dictatorship WORKS. Sure, in garrison/admin mode stuff, you COULD 'take a poll' or hear the gripes and stuff. But in combat, ONE leader's word is final.
* No, we do not create robots in the Army. We encourage initiative and forward thinking. It is one of the reasons our military is so good at what it does. Even the very lowest level leader is allowed and encouraged to modify the plan, as long as the mission is accomplished. But, when you are given a order, especially in combat (and as long as it is lawful) you carry out that order, NOW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
The statement by a retired officer was NOT used in any mailing.:confused:
Re using the Hatch Act to enforce silence on political issues on non serving
military members is unconstitutional. I would love to see a court case on this
very issue, but it won't happen. Now, if a active military officer voiced his
personal beliefs while in service of his country, then that's a different ball
game.
I do not understand the difference between talking about one's service and using rank to add emphasis. If someone uses a photo of him/herself in uniform, how is that different than appearing in uniform? And who is to say whether the rank was used to add emphasis or for some other reason?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
Can someone say, I am a retired Captain in the Army and one thing I learned...blah, blah, and I feel that...blah, blah. Is it only if they put all the letters after their name they break the law? Can they criticize congress but not the president? Can they criticize a mayor or the Chief of Police?
I do know this. Living as I do in the Land of Retired Military (and many active as well with Camp Pendleton) next time I see a letter to the editor signed with Ret. Whatever, USMC I will insist the criminal be apprehended!:D:D
You can criticize the mayor, Chief of Police, etc.......they are not in your chain of command. Congress and the President ARE in your chain of command.
Liz, if they prosecuted a retired military person for breaking the law by violating the Hatch act, it would be a slam dunk case, as the person is not separated from the military. They are still on the rolls, and still subject to the UCMJ, where applicable. We all carry little blue ID cards, and are subject to recall if the country sees fit to do so.
One last question (I know...I always say that...;))Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
So if there is an election between a sitting president and a challenger - say a governor, the military person can criticize the governor but not the president?
If you are in the state militia, are you prohibited from criticizing the governor?
(Okay...that's two)
1) You can't criticize either, as either may wind up as the pinnacle of your chain of command.
2) This is an easy one.......that question is covered by the UCMJ of the individual states.
Thanks LH.
I am very sorry your right to free speech is curtailed. I remain a bit shocked and greatly saddened to learn of this.
ES, it gets irritating at times, but there's a good reason for it. It maintains the military's position as serving authority, not being the authority. It avoids someone like Gen. Patton or MacArthur strutting on stage at a political convention and taking the reins of the civilian government and maintaining their standing in the military...........A la Libya, Pakistan, or any other military run country.
(Actually, MacArthur's candidacy may BE the reason that little part of the UCMJ exists........Ike was no one's fool)
But I could also see it being used the other way. Someone who served in the military is is now a civilian (yes, I know you are always subject to recall. I know a woman who was 6 or 7 years out of the military was recalled and sent to Afganistan - infant and toddler left at home) cannot criticize the president or congress. I understand active duty - sort of. But it sounds like a way for the government to control dissent . Never a good thing -- unless you are partial to dictatorships.
It seems to me there should be an expiration date after which you are again able to speak freely!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
Can you cite one case where this has happened? Give me one instance
(besides treason) where a case has been successfully prosecuted.
I really want to U.S. government/AFs to chase around people with typewriters and email.
Then people will sue and the whole case gets out of hand.
As a matter of fact, I think more people should use e-mail, It keeps sharp, pointy things out of their hands and everyone is safer.:confused:
Liz,
Hatch act and article 88 prosecutions on military members are rare, normally for an active servicemember it's a verbal removal of several pounds of flesh from a sensitive area (been there, done that, got the T-shirt, which is why I'm so familiar with this), normally the max is a letter of reprimand placed in the official file (A career-ending penalty for an active or reserve soldier).
For retired servicemembers, I've seen bans on communications through Army e-mail(which retired servicemembers are eligible to use), bans from using army discussion boards, and stern warnings from superiors, but never anything beyond that.
To enforce the provisions of article 88 the servicemember would have to be returned to active duty for prosecution, which would be costly, as it is a military crime, not a civilian crime.
Hatch act prosecutions for civilian government employees, however, are fairly common, with the penalties normally being a ban from using official communications means to monetary fines, in extreme cases there have been dismissals.
So, the answer is no. I know many government officials have been
charged & prosecuted under the Hatch Act, but no retired military people.