What do you base your political decisions on?

[Edwina's Secretary]

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 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?

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!

[Lady's Human]

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.

[Edwina's Secretary]

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.

One last question (I know...I always say that...)

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)

[Lady's Human]

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.

[Edwina's Secretary]

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.

[Lady's Human]

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)

[Edwina's Secretary]

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!

[lizbud]

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.

Can you cite one case where this has happened? Give me one instance
(besides treason) where a case has been successfully prosecuted.

[RICHARD]

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.

[Lady's Human]

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.

[lizbud]

So, the answer is no. I know many government officials have been
charged & prosecuted under the Hatch Act, but no retired military people.