NationStates Jolt Archive

George Bush is going to go down in history as the President Who Destroyed America.

Oh sure, there were problems before he ever took office. Every nation has problems. But in the year 2000, the USA was at a fairly high point. The economy was growing. Science was moving forward. International relations were fairly good. The future looked bright. And then, an election was rigged, and a "President" who was never properly elected took office.

We all know how all the different stories about inappropriate election practices during the 2004 election. The cheating. The manipulation of the polls. The fact that people from largely Democrat demographics were prevented from voting. If you don't know about all this stuff... then you weren't paying attention. We also know that the 2000 elections were bullshit. But it's too late for that. We got the chimpanzee in the Oval Office, and we've got to deal with him. Too bad the War-Monger president, who doesn't even know HOW to run a war in the first place, also doesn't know how to run a country. The disaster on September 11th, 2001 was handled very well... not by Bush, but by Rudy, the esteemed former mayor of NYC. The only reaction from Bush to the whole fiasco: LET'S GO TO WAR! But... that's in the past. What about now?

Our country is already hurting financially because of the actions of our "president", or inactions, as the case might be. Our international relations are shot to hell - EVERYBODY hates us. The education system is hurting. Our entire economy is likely to fall into recession, if not an actual depression to rival the crash of the 1920s. The average citizen can't even afford gasoline - but if we'd invested in cars that used non-petroleum fuel sources (a technology we've had for a couple of decades but never developed) we wouldn't have this problem in the first place! (Hmm, does anyone else detect a connection between the oil companies, the government who funds research, and the car companies?) The progress of the scientific community is being thwarted by Chimp-Boy's religious convictions. Bush was too busy "stopping the fags from destroying our nation" to bother running the nation. I wonder how much money went into his "Protect Marriage" campaign. How much money and resources have been spent on a war overseas, when our own infrastructure needs desperate help? DID YOU KNOW that Bush wanted to implement a universal health-care system in Iraq, funded by our own tax dollars, when we don't even have universal health care here? I don't have health coverage, but MY MONEY is going to help give medical care to some Iraqi. THIS IS BULLSHIT!

Now, not all of these things fall solely on the shoulders of George W. Bush. It's his entire pathetic administration, but he's the man with the final say. He's the guy who was given all sorts of extra powers of authority by the Patriot Act. He's the idiot leading the pack. I'm sorry, "leading" was the wrong word. Leadership is a quality he doesn't have.

Let's look at the situation we have right now. Our National Guard is overseas when we need them at home. Yes, they're calling them back home now, but they should have been here in the first place. People are dying, in America, of dehydration, hunger, and disease, because we took too long to respond to an emergency. The US Army can drop a bomb with pinpoint precision overseas within an hour of receiving the mission, and they're telling me it took our leaders THREE FUCKING DAYS to drop food and water on our own soil? MORE BULLSHIT! American citizens are dying, on American soil. Oh sure, the "president" went to visit the poor victims, and he hugged women and girls for the camera, and shook people's hands... what a wonderful photo opportunity it must have been. But when he climbed aboard his helicopter to fly to the disaster area, did he even bother to think of loading a couple of extra crates of water, and maybe some food, for the victims? I'm sure there was space. And it may not have helped everybody, but to the family that would have received those supplies, it could mean the difference between life and death. Compassionate-conservativism, my fucking ass.

This whole disaster-relief operation is a textbook example of "too little, too late." It's a textbook example of SHITTY LEADERSHIP. All the way from the bottom up. For the first 24 hours, the mayor of New Orleans told people he had it under control, and they didn't need help. Two days later, he's screaming and swearing at people for not coming sooner. What? Did he think the National Guard just shows up on its own? You have to ask! We, the soldiers of the Reserves and Guard, don't sit in our unit headquarters, watching CNN, and say, "Oh look! A disaster! Let's go!" WE CAN'T. We have to have orders. We need authorization. And we need to be requested. And then, what about the governor of Louisiana? Have we even heard anything from him? He should have realized that the mayor of New Orleans wasn't seeing the situation clearly, and acted. But no. And then there's the "president." WHAT THE FUCK? There has been a failure in EVERY level of our civilian chain of command. And then there's FEMA. Don't even get me started. They're running a logistical nightmare. Yes, communications are down, but they knew that would happen! They were supposed to have been planning for this for years! The people of that organization are paid dearly, specifically to be ready in case of an emergency. And then, the emergency happens, and it all falls to hell. The Army can go in, and within 24 hours, we could have had food and water and medical facilities on the ground, IF we had been requested... but we weren't, until it was too late, and people were already dead and dying of preventable causes. 50,000 people were stranded in a convention center, and FEMA didn't know ANYTHING about them until four days after the storm. They would have known all about it if they'd just turned on the television, because apparently CNN has better information than the people who are supposed to handle the disaster. This is pitiful, and inexcusable.

Opportunities have been wasted, resources have been poorly used. Every vehicle going into that region, whether traveling by land, air, or sea, should be carrying food, water, clothing, medicine, and other supplies in, and carrying people out. It doesn't matter if they can only fit a little bit on a helicopter. If a helicopter is going to pick up medical evacuees, they have room in their cargo hold to carry supplies in, before picking up the patient. Who the fuck was running the logistics here, and did we check to make sure they'd at least graduated kindergarten before hiring them? Things only started to work when the Army took over (thank God for General Honore), and I'm sure they're going to need much more help before it's over. I'm a qualified officer in the Army Engineer Corps. SEND ME, DAMN IT! I'm sitting here, making LJ entries, when I should be helping to save lives! I'm going insane, wanting to do something!

To finish off, I'd like to address Mr. George W. Chimpanzee Bush, the President Who Destroyed America:

Your citizens are dying, and I personally hold you responsible for their lives. As the president, you are a public servant, NOT a king. Your job is to serve the people of the United States of America and to uphold the Constitution, not to preach your Biblical beliefs and to play golf. I'm sorry the hurricane disrupted your vacation. It must be awful for you, but I assure you, it's far worse for the victims.

Today, you addressed the nation, and admitted that you made some mistakes - that everyone involved in the relief effort made some mistakes. That's not good enough. Apologies won't bring back the people who died needlessly. As the highest authority in the land, you can't afford those sorts of mistakes. "Oops!" is not an answer. You were supposed to do something, but you didn't until it was too late for many of them, and more are going to die. Their blood is on your hands. There are still people living in filth, sleeping in the streets, crowded into crumbling buildings, stranded on rooftops, dehydrated, sick, dying, and desperate for just a bottle of water and a bit of food. These are American citizens - your highest priority... but you are incapable of understanding their suffering because you've been so sheltered all your life, you can't even comprehend the sensations of true hunger, thirst, or desperation. You've never had to worry about your next meal, or of having a roof over your head. And when you left New Orleans, after hugging a few people while surrounded by cameras, and you flew back to Washington, DC in the comfort of your helicopter, WHAT DID YOU HAVE FOR DINNER? I'll bet it was delicious, wasn't it?

Oh, and by the way, how much money are you going to donate to the victims of the hurricane, Mr. Bush? How much money is going to come out of your personal bank account? You're independantly wealthy, and could live comfortably on JUST the pension from your presidency for the rest of your life. Children are giving their lunch money. What are you going to give? How much do you really love America?

The American people don't want your lies, excuses, and apologies anymore. How many mistakes can you make before you stop making them? How many more people have to die for your stupidity? Should we just wait for the next major disaster to strike, just in case you do better next time? We don't want a "next time", Mr. Bush. We don't want your promises of a better tomorrow. We want your resignation.

~*removed*
2LT, US Army Reserves
Engineer Corps
...

Now, you may be wondering why this post has been moved back up.

Well, we get e-mails, and the young officer who wrote this post, is, within 24 hours, facing a court martial for expressing her opinion with her name attached.

See, the government can move really fast when it wants to.

Normally, we don't remove posts, but then most of our readers don't face time in Leavenworth for expressing their thoughts.

I had joked with her about this possibility, thinking it would end in a reprimand, but I guess her superiors have other ideas.

We hope removing the post will prevent her actually being tried. Hopefully, we can help her get a good civilian lawyer if it comes to that.


So, is this right? Do you lose your right to any vague amount of free speech while in the army reserves? More to the point, should you be able to be jailed for expressing your opinion, regardless of where you are?

I suspect that the main problem is the 'name attached'. On one level, it could be taken as an official statement - and while it clearly isn't, no disclaimer has been added. Beyond that, there are, I imagine, clauses similar to the British OSA. Perhaps she violated those?

Revocation is spelled incorrectly. It has a C not a K.

Actually, having read what the army person wrote more thoroughly, I'm of the opinion that - freedom of expression not withstanding - they should be jailed for sheer stupidity.

...
So, is this right? Do you lose your right to any vague amount of free speech while in the army reserves?
Yes
More to the point, should you be able to be jailed for expressing your opinion, regardless of where you are?
I believe you meant 'what you are', and yes.

...


So, is this right? Do you lose your right to any vague amount of free speech while in the army reserves? More to the point, should you be able to be jailed for expressing your opinion, regardless of where you are?

Of course not. Regardless of whether one agrees with the writer, saying that the president is a failure should not be a punishable offense. But this sort of thing is hardly unexpected, given the current bizarre attitude that nonconformity, protest, and individualism are un-American rather than supremely American...

I think it's absolutely idiotic that they would have someone serve jail time for expressing an opinion.

However, it is quite possible that their right to free speech is signed away upon joining. I wouldn't know, not having ever joined the military or read about the forms. It would be rather silly, but it's possible.

"Land of the free"

:rolleyes:

My sympathies go out to ~*removed*.

Revocation is spelled incorrectly. It has a C not a K.
Thanks Comrade! Your addition to this thread has been noted, and I thank you so much for pointing out my mistake in spelling!

"Land of the free"

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Entering the military is a personal choice in America. And not mandated such as in countries like Germany. When you enter the military in America you revoke some of your rights for the sake of military discipline. Free Speech when concerning your superiors is one of them.

This is nothing new. Soldiers' freedom of expression has always been restricted especially during times of conflict.

As much as we all wince (or act like we do) at the thought of conformity and singlemindedness, it is pretty damned imprtant in their line of work.

:rolleyes: Entering the military is a personal choice in America. And not mandated such as in countries like Germany. When you enter the military in America you revoke some of your rights for the sake of military discipline. Free Speech when concerning your superiors is one of them.
I tend to disagree. The constitution is clear when rights are revoked when you enter the military (see right to a grand jury hearing when facing the death penalty), but says nothing about the abridgement of first amendment rights. Besides, it's utterly silly to JAIL someone for expressing an opinion, at the most she should be discharged. But in all honesty, if we go around supressing the opinion of people who disagree with the upper commands actions, there is no one to point out their failings left.

In general, you're not supposed to say that your Commander in Chief is a fucking moron.

It'd be more interesting to see what charges are brought against this Engineer 2LT.

I am so glad I live North of the border. That is, until America has another spasm and decides: "No... Canadian oil is just as good as Saudi oil."

This is nothing new. Soldiers' freedom of expression has always been restricted especially during times of conflict.

As much as we all wince (or act like we do) at the thought of conformity and singlemindedness, it is pretty damned imprtant in their line of work.
This person is not active duty, nor is she in a combat zone.

If she isn't active, she should denote that next to her rank. Otherwise, she is speaking as an officer in the US military.

And just because she isn't in a combat zone doesn't mean she isn't involved and seen as a member of the US Armed Forces.

This person is not active duty, nor is she in a combat zone.
Though she is not in a combat zone, it could be argued that she is in a police state.

I tend to disagree. The constitution is clear when rights are revoked when you enter the military (see right to a grand jury hearing when facing the death penalty), but says nothing about the abridgement of first amendment rights. Besides, it's utterly silly to JAIL someone for expressing an opinion, at the most she should be discharged. But in all honesty, if we go around supressing the opinion of people who disagree with the upper commands actions, there is no one to point out their failings left.

The Military has its own courts and its own justice system. It holds its own trails and decides its own punishments. Discharge is one of the possible outcomes.

Though she is not in a combat zone, it could be argued that she is in a police state.
Despite the fact that you're simply trying to insult America, you are still correct. The Military of the US is a functioning structured communist police state. And she is a member of it.

The Military has its own courts and its own justice system. It holds its own trails and decides its own punishments. Discharge is one of the possible outcomes.
Not the point. We're talking about the fact that she could face jail time for holding an opinion...

Though she is not in a combat zone, it could be argued that she is in a police state.

No, it can't. Really, you don't have a leg to stand on with such a foolish statement that stinks of rhetoric.

She is in the military. If she didn't know their attitude towards this sort of thing, she shouldn't have chosen to sign on.

If she isn't active, she should denote that next to her rank. Otherwise, she is speaking as an officer in the US military.

And just because she isn't in a combat zone doesn't mean she isn't involved and seen as a member of the US Armed Forces.
She's a reservist, not a member of the active duty armed forces (activated reservists, army, navy, etc)

In general, you're not supposed to say that your Commander in Chief is a fucking moron.
Indeed. I knew we were in for nothing more than an angry, hyperbolic rant when I read this whopper:

George Bush is going to go down in history as the President Who Destroyed America.

:rolleyes: Entering the military is a personal choice in America. And not mandated such as in countries like Germany. When you enter the military in America you revoke some of your rights for the sake of military discipline. Free Speech when concerning your superiors is one of them.

I repeat:

"Land of the free"

:rolleyes:

Not the point. We're talking about the fact that she could face jail time for holding an opinion...

Uh huh, and this young officer didn't seem to comprehend the oath she took. Violated her oath and thusly is facing said consquences of belonging to the Military with its unique Courts, Judges and Laws. Sucks for her.

Uh huh, and this young officer didn't seem to comprehend the oath she took. Violated her oath and thusly is facing said consquences of belonging to the Military with its unique Courts, Judges and Laws. Sucks for her.
So the military which upholds the constitution is allowed to violate it whenever it damn pleases?


I think not.

She's a reservist, not a member of the active duty armed forces (activated reservists, army, navy, etc)


She specifically mentioned her rank, which signifies she is indeed active. There are reserve units in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All "reserve" signifies in this context, is that her unit is made of people entirely from her state.

I repeat:

"Land of the free"

:rolleyes:

And I repeat that you're a dumbass. Citizens are free. The Military can not function in the same manner as the civilian world. :yawn:. Come back when you have the ability to see past your own ass. Because right now its filling your view.

She specifically mentioned her rank, which signifies she is indeed active. There are reserve units in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All "reserve" signifies in this context, is that her unit is made of people entirely from her state.
She's stateside, and not in any conflict. A reservist. Not activated.

Uh huh, and this young officer didn't seem to comprehend the oath she took. Violated her oath and thusly is facing said consquences of belonging to the Military with its unique Courts, Judges and Laws. Sucks for her.
What exactly is this oath, and where in it is a revocation of the right to free speech? I don't know of it, and I would like to understand this issue.

So the military which upholds the constitution is allowed to violate it whenever it damn pleases?

When it concerns military personal. Yep.

I think not.

And you would be wrong.

I repeat:

"Land of the free"

:rolleyes:


And she freely chose to join an organization that restricts personal freedoms for overall effectiveness.

What doi you think would happen if you were working in a large corporation and got up and identified yourself as a high ranking executive in said comapany and bashed the CEO in a public forum for the world to see?

And I repeat that you're a dumbass. Citizens are free. The Military can not function in the same manner as the civilian world. :yawn:. Come back when you have the ability to see past your own ass. Because right now its filling your view.

Yup, those flames really do make you seem like you first came across. Your personal indignity is nothing I will suffer. Either you start acting like a grown-up and stop it with the childish name-calling, or this ends now.

She's stateside, and not in any conflict. A reservist. Not activated.


Where does it say that? She specifically points out she is an officer in a reserve unit. For all we know, that reserve unit is currently deployed in Bagdad.

She gave her name, rank and branch, even her MOS. She spoke in an official capacity as a US Army officer.

Show me where she is inactive or she is stateside?

When it concerns military personal. Yep.



And you would be wrong.
On what grounds? What grounds does the military have to throw people in jail for exercising their first amendment rights?

Discharging, yes, because they can say it all that they want, and the military is employ at will. However, imprisonment is another matter entirely, as it deprives a person of their liberty, infringing upon the first amendment prohibition of restrictions upon free speech. What is to stop a blanket draft from being proclaimed, then anyone who speaks out against the government jailed for criticizing the armed forces while being a member of that force?

What exactly is this oath, and where in it is a revocation of the right to free speech? I don't know of it, and I would like to understand this issue.
Its part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Dealing specifically with disparaging remarks directed at superiors. The tricky part of this is that she is an Officer. And though subject to them, she didn't specifically swear to follow them. However as far as the Military operates in practice, she's FUBAR. Though it will likely simply get quietly swept away with a discharge before the dust settles.

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

...


So, is this right? Do you lose your right to any vague amount of free speech while in the army reserves? More to the point, should you be able to be jailed for expressing your opinion, regardless of where you are?
Attacking the chain of command when you, as an officer, are part of it is not only disloyal, it's detrimental to good order and discipline in the armed forces, which is vital to the effectiveness of any military organization. If this ( name unknown ) officer wanted to criticise, she should have resigned her commission and quit the military before doing so.

Not the point. We're talking about the fact that she could face jail time for holding an opinion...It is the point. the military has their own set of laws and due processes. Bet you the jail she's going to is the military one and not the civilian one.

She is not going to Jail for Holding an Opinion, but by choosing to air that opinion while she is representing the Nation called the USA. that makes her comments Offical statement from the US Defense forces and since she is not the PR officer, that is overstepping her duties and bypassing her Chain of Command.

And she freely chose to join an organization that restricts personal freedoms for overall effectiveness.

And some of us live in countries where fundamental human rights cannot be signed or stripped away. "Land of the free," indeed! :rolleyes:

What doi you think would happen if you were working in a large corporation and got up and identified yourself as a high ranking executive in said comapany and bashed the CEO in a public forum for the world to see?

The military is not a private organisation. It is an extension of the government. And for the government to suppress critical statements in this way, well, is indicative of a flawed and corrupt system.

She's stateside, and not in any conflict. A reservist. Not activated.not retired, not discharged so still a memeber of our forces and thus oathbound to follow thier rules and procedures.

I'd like to cite Alder v. The Board of Education here:''[i]t is clear that such persons have the right under our law to assemble, speak, think and believe as they will. . . . It is equally clear that they have no right to work for the state in the school system on their own terms. They may work for the school system under reasonable terms laid down by the proper authorities of New York. If they do not choose to work on such terms, they are at liberty to retain their beliefs and associations and go elsewhere. Has the State thus deprived them of any right to free speech or assembly? We think not.''

Clearly it is allowed for the military to discharge people for their speech. Imprisonment, however, is a violation of the right to free speech.

On what grounds? What grounds does the military have to throw people in jail for exercising their first amendment rights?

Discharging, yes, because they can say it all that they want, and the military is employ at will. However, imprisonment is another matter entirely, as it deprives a person of their liberty, infringing upon the first amendment prohibition of restrictions upon free speech. What is to stop a blanket draft from being proclaimed, then anyone who speaks out against the government jailed for criticizing the armed forces while being a member of that force?

The fact that the Army can vote. And this has nothing to do with speaking out against the government. A Senator is not part of your chain of Command. The President is.

The fact that the Army can vote. And this has nothing to do with speaking out against the government. A Senator is not part of your chain of Command. The President is.
The president is also a political figure. I know many army veterans who were active duty during the time who spit upon (not literally) Clinton. If we were to carry your absurd logic to it's conclusion, anyone who votes against the president would be guilty of sedation and thus able to be jailed.

And for the government to suppress critical statements in this way, well, is indicative of a flawed and corrupt system.
Oh, come on, Fass. If it's flawed and corrupt then it's been that way almost since the Nation was formed. And I don't know of any military organization on the planet where members of the chain of command are allowed to be publicly critical of the commander in chief.

And some of us live in countries where fundamental human rights cannot be signed or stripped away. "Land of the free," indeed! :rolleyes:

So, you can't excersise your right to set aside some of your rights? Can you see how thats a little contradictory?

Also, I think you're wrong. Go ask one of Finland's soldiers if he can go to the media and give his name and rank and say his CO is an asshole.



The military is not a private organisation. It is an extension of the government.

And the government will fire employees that publicly slander higher ups. All employers do it.

And for the government to suppress critical statements in this way, well, is indicative of a flawed and corrupt system.

No, its indicitive that militiries are different from civilians.

Our armed forces are meant to defend our freedoms, not practice them.

I'd like to cite Alder v. The Board of Education here:''[i]t is clear that such persons have the right under our law to assemble, speak, think and believe as they will. . . . It is equally clear that they have no right to work for the state in the school system on their own terms. They may work for the school system under reasonable terms laid down by the proper authorities of New York. If they do not choose to work on such terms, they are at liberty to retain their beliefs and associations and go elsewhere. Has the State thus deprived them of any right to free speech or assembly? We think not.''

Clearly it is allowed for the military to discharge people for their speech. Imprisonment, however, is a violation of the right to free speech.

Try reading up on the UCMJ.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

Let's count how many articles she violated by writing this letter in an official capacity as a commisioned officer of the US army.

Anyway then, here go. UCMJ Article 89

“Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Maximum punishment.

Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

As passed by Congress.

The president is also a political figure.

Irrelevant

I know many army veterans who were active duty during the time who spit upon (not literally) Clinton.

And I know plenty who spit upon Bush who aren't getting a court martial. It all depends on how public you go.

She's a reservist, not a member of the active duty armed forces (activated reservists, army, navy, etc)

Doesn't matter, if you are a soldier, even in a reserve capacity, you are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice 24/7, even when not activated or even drilling.

The president is also a political figure.

Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

I know many army veterans who were active duty during the time who spit upon (not literally) Clinton.

If they did it publically while representing the United States Armed Forces, they were just as wrong as this woman.

If we were to carry your absurd logic to it's conclusion, anyone who votes against the president would be guilty of sedation and thus able to be jailed.

No, votes are confidential. Besides, voting for another guy is far short of publically disparraging the CinC.

Anyway then, here go. UCMJ Article 88

“Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Maximum punishment.

Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

As passed by Congress.

And possibly illegal. Again, I cite you to the case law laid down by the USSC that says that you can fire someone for speech, but you can not imprison them because that violates thier free expression of speech. The fact that you're in the military or not does not matter, the same constitution applies.

Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

And? Doesn't change that he is still a political figure.

If they did it publically while representing the United States Armed Forces, they were just as wrong as this woman.

Take a look at any right wing message board, you'll find them


No, votes are confidential. Besides, voting for another guy is far short of publically disparraging the CinC.
So then exit polls are no go then? Funny, missed that one.

And possibly illegal. Again, I cite you to the case law laid down by the USSC that says that you can fire someone for speech, but you can not imprison them because that violates thier free expression of speech. The fact that you're in the military or not does not matter, the same constitution applies.

:yawn:

Yes, because you're smarter than Congress. And yes, because you're smarter than the Supreme Court that has let it fly. Yep. :rolleyes:

And? Doesn't change that he is still a political figure.

That he is a political figure is irrelevant.

So then exit polls are no go then? Funny, missed that one.

Uh, are you dumb? Exit polls are a voluntary thing ya know.

So, is this right? Do you lose your right to any vague amount of free speech while in the army reserves? More to the point, should you be able to be jailed for expressing your opinion, regardless of where you are?

So what else is new? Truman sacked MacAurther over his criticism of the Korean War. Anybody say that Truman was wrong?

:yawn:

Yes, because you're smarter than Congress. And yes, because you're smarter than the Supreme Court that has let it fly. Yep. :rolleyes:
It has? Care to cite a case in which it was upheld? I'd be glad to conceed that I was wrong and go back to the original point of this thread, that is that no person should be put in jail for their opinion, status in the armed forces or not.

So what else is new? Truman sacked MacAurther over his criticism of the Korean War. Anybody say that Truman was wrong?
Earth to mars, sacking is fine, but Truman didn't put him in jail.

And possibly illegal. Again, I cite you to the case law laid down by the USSC that says that you can fire someone for speech, but you can not imprison them because that violates thier free expression of speech. The fact that you're in the military or not does not matter, the same constitution applies.

Guess what. This is a military court, not a civilian one. SCOTUS rulings do not set precedent for military courts.

888. ART. 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.

907. ART. 107. FALSE STATEMENTS

Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN

Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, ll conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

That he is a political figure is irrelevant.

Nope. If senators are fair game, so is the president. If you are attacking his presidential roles, you can do whatever you like. She attacked his lack of effort in relief efforts, not his military policy.

Uh, are you dumb? Exit polls are a voluntary thing ya know.
Exactly my point. By taking part in exit polls, they are voicing their dislike of the CiC :rolleyes:.

It has? Care to cite a case in which it was upheld? I'd be glad to conceed that I was wrong and go back to the original point of this thread, that is that no person should be put in jail for their opinion, status in the armed forces or not.

That it has never entertained a case on the matter is proof enough.

That it has never entertained a case on the matter is proof enough.
Care to show me a case that has been appealed that high and had the writ of certiorari denied because of that (not on technical grounds)?

Nope. If senators are fair game, so is the president. If you are attacking his presidential roles, you can do whatever you like. She attacked his lack of effort in relief efforts, not his military policy.

Read article 89 again. See if you can't spot your error.

Exactly my point. By taking part in exit polls, they are voicing their dislike of the CiC :rolleyes:.

They are also anonymous smart guy

Care to show me a case that has been appealed that high and had the writ of certiorari denied because of that (not on technical grounds)?

That would generally speaking be your responsibility. That it has never been appealed that high is also proof enough that no one buys your line.

It has? Care to cite a case in which it was upheld? I'd be glad to conceed that I was wrong and go back to the original point of this thread, that is that no person should be put in jail for their opinion, status in the armed forces or not.

You can have whatever opinion you want, so long as you are not in direct violation of the UCMJ, such as standing in a public form and using your rank to lend weight to your opinon.

The same thing would have happened if this soldier had said the same things about the CO, or battalion commander, or anyone else up the chain, except that almost no one would have heard about it.

Either this officer is really stupid, or this is a set up of some sort.

They are also anonymous smart guy
So? They still are voicing their dislike. Are you honestly telling me that if the name wasn't on there, but everything else was (rank, etc), she would be fine?

It has? Care to cite a case in which it was upheld? I'd be glad to conceed that I was wrong and go back to the original point of this thread, that is that no person should be put in jail for their opinion, status in the armed forces or not.

And had she not put down her rank and unit, nothing would have happened, status or not.

She acted in an official capacity, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and is going to be punished for it.

Is she in jail? Has the court marial already decided?

Guess what. This is a military court, not a civilian one. SCOTUS rulings do not set precedent for military courts.

888. ART. 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.

907. ART. 107. FALSE STATEMENTS

Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN

Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, ll conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
:rolleyes:

That's why those prisoners in Gitmo appealed to the courts to be allowed into the civilian judicial system. And why issues of evidence and admissibility of witnesses showed up in front of the SCOTUS from military courts.

888. ART. 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.

Err, whoops. Senators aren't fair game either.

That would generally speaking be your responsibility. That it has never been appealed that high is also proof enough that no one buys your line.
What? How do I know that imprisonment has even been given? Sorry, doesn't work that way. Show me a case that has its writ of certiorari denied because the SCOTUS refuses to get involved with this, because it is wrong, or a SCOTUS decision upholding this punishment, or quit making comments like that.

So? They still are voicing their dislike. Are you honestly telling me that if the name wasn't on there, but everything else was (rank, etc), she would be fine?

Bingo.

First of all... I think the right to free speech -- especially when it comes to criticizing your government -- is... well, a right. I don't think you should lose it by joining the military.

But what really makes me laugh every time this happens is that they care -- "they" being the soldier's superiors, the Bush administration, etc.

I mean, it's not like she's divulging secrets here. Moreover, while her writing is mildly witty, it slips much too close to "crude" for most people to find it convincing. Indeed, while I personally agree with much of her opinion, the only thing that makes it interesting for me is the fact that someone doesn't want me to read it.

I guess they figure she should be an example; that if they let one by, others will feel so much more free to speak their mind.

Still, I wonder if this reactionary mindset doesn't do them more harm than good.

Actually, if you join any company, public or private, part of the employment contract you sign is a statement saying you will never issue any communication defaming the company or its management.

I would assume this is the case in the military.

Jail time is very harsh though, but being fired is to be expected.

Bingo.
Care to show me this? I don't see any thing that grants the ability to be immune from discharge in the articles you cited if you don't add your name.

Still, I wonder if this reactionary mindset doesn't do them more harm than good.

True.

Though more than likely its her pissed off Captain or someone else a bit closer to her than the President that caused it to happen.

Care to show me this? I don't see any thing that grants the ability to be immune from discharge in the articles you cited if you don't add your name.

Rather hard to charge someone when you don't know whom that someone is.

:rolleyes:

That's why those prisoners in Gitmo appealed to the courts to be allowed into the civilian judicial system. And why issues of evidence and admissibility of witnesses showed up in front of the SCOTUS from military courts.

Are the prisoners commisioned officers?

Oh, come on, Fass. If it's flawed and corrupt then it's been that way almost since the Nation was formed. And I don't know of any military organization on the planet where members of the chain of command are allowed to be publicly critical of the commander in chief.

Well, the Swedish ones are. Officers have even published debate articles in news papers criticising the leadership in the Swedish military, including the commander in chief directly. The commander in chief himself has criticised the government on numerous occasions.

Actually, if you join any company, public or private, part of the employment contract you sign is a statement saying you will never issue any communication defaming the company or its management.

I would assume this is the case in the military.

Jail time is very harsh though, but being fired is to be expected.
I don't disagree with being fired. I maintain however, that jail time poses a restriction on free speech that is not allowed under the constitution.

Rather hard to charge someone when you don't know whom that someone is.

Exactly right.

Are the prisoners commisioned officers?
Are they in the judicial system? If the SCOTUS has the ability to hear appeals from the military courts, the precedent of the SCOTUS must then apply to the military courts.

Rather hard to charge someone when you don't know whom that someone is.
Many ways to do this. I believe some anonymous bloggers have been discharged for statements made on their blogs.

Actually, if you join any company, public or private, part of the employment contract you sign is a statement saying you will never issue any communication defaming the company or its management.

I would assume this is the case in the military.

Jail time is very harsh though, but being fired is to be expected.

There's the rub. There "could" be jail time. The court-martial (according to the first post) hasn't even convened.

If she didn't know their attitude towards this sort of thing, she shouldn't have chosen to sign on.

If she didn't know their attitude towards free speech, would she not have been reasonable to assume that it is the same attitude as the civilian authorities?

Is it the responsibility of every recruit to ask, specifically, of every right and 'attitude', "and how does the military feel about this" before signing on?

And possibly illegal. Again, I cite you to the case law laid down by the USSC that says that you can fire someone for speech, but you can not imprison them because that violates thier free expression of speech. The fact that you're in the military or not does not matter, the same constitution applies.


No, it doesn't infact. Find me one other case where SCOTUS over ruled a military tribunal when regarding a soldier.


And? Doesn't change that he is still a political figure.

OK, real slowly this time.

He

is

the

top

of

the

chain

of

command.

That is specifically pointed out in the UMCJ as being off limits to public criticism.

Take a look at any right wing message board, you'll find them

So, report them.

So then exit polls are no go then? Funny, missed that one.

Cite me one instance of a soldier giving his name, rank and MOS while leaving an exit poll. Or when exit polls have been ever used in any official capacity what-so-ever.

Earth to mars, sacking is fine, but Truman didn't put him in jail.

MacArthur had way too much pull, expecially in the military to try and court martial him. Truman bought him off somehow.

Nope. If senators are fair game, so is the president.

Senators are not fair game. Even if they were, THEY ARE NOT IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND!

If you are attacking his presidential roles, you can do whatever you like. She attacked his lack of effort in relief efforts, not his military policy.

The UMCJ does not make the distinction. And she does criticize his military policies.

So, you can't excersise your right to set aside some of your rights? Can you see how thats a little contradictory?

No. There are certain rights that you cannot sign away.

Also, I think you're wrong. Go ask one of Finland's soldiers if he can go to the media and give his name and rank and say his CO is an asshole.

I don't know what Finnish soldiers can do. I know what Swedish ones can, and criticism of the military leadership is not uncommon at all. If slander laws are broken, and the person convicted, he may be dismissed. But thrown in jail? No.

There's the rub. There "could" be jail time. The court-martial (according to the first post) hasn't even convened.
And I'm saying that jail time is not constitutional if given. Actually the entire point of this thread was meant to be a discussion on whether it is right to throw someone in jail for having an opinion, not a discussion on the finer points of military law.

And some of us live in countries where fundamental human rights cannot be signed or stripped away. "Land of the free," indeed!

At least the members of the American military are allowed to vote.

No. There are certain rights that you cannot sign away.

And Freedom of Speech isn't one of them.

Are they in the judicial system? If the SCOTUS has the ability to hear appeals from the military courts, the precedent of the SCOTUS must then apply to the military courts.

There was the debate over which jurisdiction they fell under. A Commisioned Officer, violating the UCMJ directly falls under military jurisdiction.

Can you cite any case where a Commissioned Officer has appealled to SCOTUS?

At least the members of the American military are allowed to vote.

And? That is no way unique.

And Freedom of Speech isn't one of them.

Yes, yes it is. Barring confidentiality and classified documents, your right to express yourself cannot be signed away. At least not where I live.

...


So, is this right? Do you lose your right to any vague amount of free speech while in the army reserves? More to the point, should you be able to be jailed for expressing your opinion, regardless of where you are?
This kind of idiotic statement coming from an officer in the U.S. Military is contrary to the good moral of the military. This sows dissent in the ranks and most certainly deserves punishment.

What doi you think would happen if you were working in a large corporation and got up and identified yourself as a high ranking executive in said comapany and bashed the CEO in a public forum for the world to see?

I think that might depend on whether or not you are right. In the business world, it could potentially be a very good move.

Plus, the worst they could do is fire you. Not send you to prison. (Right?)

And I'm saying that jail time is not constitutional if given. Actually the entire point of this thread was meant to be a discussion on whether it is right to throw someone in jail for having an opinion, not a discussion on the finer points of military law.

Since it wouldn't be under the civilian judicial system and would be a military punishment in military prisons which she voluntarily entered with full knowledge of the UCMJ, it's well within the confines of the constitution.

She is not going to Jail for Holding an Opinion, but by choosing to air that opinion while she is representing the Nation called the USA. that makes her comments Offical statement from the US Defense forces and since she is not the PR officer, that is overstepping her duties and bypassing her Chain of Command.

You have to stretch really far to pretend that anyone could be so confused as to believe her opinion represents an "official" opinion, or that she meant it to.

If I write a public letter criticizing my university, and sign it, "Professor so-and-so," no one would ever take me to be "representing" my university, would they?

It is a clear violation of the UCMJ and punishble under it, so I have no sympathy for her.

If she didn't know their attitude towards free speech, would she not have been reasonable to assume that it is the same attitude as the civilian authorities?

No, no. A thousand times no. We are talking about an organization that micromanages you to the point where they tell you how to cut your hair, when to go to sleep, and how to blouse your trousers. She should have realized there are restrictions about how she could express herself.

Is it the responsibility of every recruit to ask, specifically, of every right and 'attitude', "and how does the military feel about this" before signing on?


Yes. It is their responsibility to learn about what they are signing up for. They should have some knowledge of the UMCJ and protocols etc etc.

Then again, I'm one of those freaks that likes to read what they are signing, so I could be wrong.

You have to stretch really far to pretend that anyone could be so confused as to believe her opinion represents an "official" opinion, or that she meant it to.

If I write a public letter criticizing my university, and sign it, "Professor so-and-so," no one would ever take me to be "representing" my university, would they?

Since she signed her rank and unit, she expressed her opinion in an official capacity.

As for the professor analogy, better hope you have tenur.

No, it doesn't infact. Find me one other case where SCOTUS over ruled a military tribunal when regarding a soldier.


Ex parte QUIRIN.

Ex parte HAUPT.

Ex parte KERLING.

Ex parte BURGER.

Ex parte HEINCK.

Ex parte THIEL.

Ex parte NEUBAUER.

UNITED STATES ex rel. QUIRIN
v.
COX, Brig. Gen., U.S.A., Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, and 6 other cases.

Oh, overruled. That's different. It also doesn't matter. Although in the above case the lack of the right to a jury trial in military courts was upheld, the court did feel fit (along with the district court below it) to rule on the issue. There are others...

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/orders/2003/010904pzr.pdf

Supreme court allowing the case to be reviewed in the SCOTUS (Yaser Esam Hamdi v. Donald Rumsfeld)

RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE v. PADILLA et al., notice the positioning of the names. Although the SCOTUS upheld the lack of jurisdiction, the lower court ruled in favor of the defendant, being held in a military brig.


And for one that still is standing?

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/gherebibush121803opn.pdf

The federal courts have appeals jurisdiction over gitmo.

No, no. A thousand times no. We are talking about an organization that micromanages you to the point where they tell you how to cut your hair, when to go to sleep, and how to blouse your trousers. She should have realized there are restrictions about how she could express herself.




Yes. It is their responsibility to learn about what they are signing up for. They should have some knowledge of the UMCJ and protocols etc etc.

Then again, I'm one of those freaks that likes to read what they are signing, so I could be wrong.

In boot camp, they have a couple of classes on the UCMJ. As an officer, she had to have taken entire courses. There's also annual training on it.

She knew.

No. There are certain rights that you cannot sign away.

If they are your rights, you can wave them or do whatever you want with them as long as the next person isn't harmed.

That is the basic premise of rights. If you can't, they really aren't your rights, then.


I don't know what Finnish soldiers can do. I know what Swedish ones can, and criticism of the military leadership is not uncommon at all. If slander laws are broken, and the person convicted, he may be dismissed. But thrown in jail? No.

Are you sure? Or did the Swedish military just not decide to send them to jail?

Since it wouldn't be under the civilian judicial system and would be a military punishment in military prisons which she voluntarily entered with full knowledge of the UCMJ, it's well within the confines of the constitution.
The protections of the constitution still hold, to a reasonable degree, in the military.

You have to stretch really far to pretend that anyone could be so confused as to believe her opinion represents an "official" opinion, or that she meant it to.if she's giving her rank, unit and/or wearing the uniform, yes, her opinions will be taken by reporters/news agencies/media as being official.

If I write a public letter criticizing my university, and sign it, "Professor so-and-so," no one would ever take me to be "representing" my university, would they?try it. Oh yes they will. by presenting yourself as a Professor So N. So from Whatever University, you will be seen as an Expert/Learned on the field you are commenting on and you are also presenting your institution's reputation as backing and support to your own personal reputation.

Ex parte QUIRIN.

Ex parte HAUPT.

Ex parte KERLING.

Ex parte BURGER.

Ex parte HEINCK.

Ex parte THIEL.

Ex parte NEUBAUER.

UNITED STATES ex rel. QUIRIN
v.
COX, Brig. Gen., U.S.A., Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, and 6 other cases.

I'll look those up.

Edit: Looked them up. German military officers in the roles of sabuetrs and spies on US soil during WW2. Still different from what you are complaining about. Even if SCOTUS didn't side with the military

Oh, overruled. That's different. It also doesn't matter.

It matters greatly.

Although in the above case the lack of the right to a jury trial in military courts was upheld, the court did feel fit (along with the district court below it) to rule on the issue. There are others...

Actually, SCOTUS ruled they have no place in those cases.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/orders/2003/010904pzr.pdf

Supreme court allowing the case to be reviewed in the SCOTUS (Yaser Esam Hamdi v. Donald Rumsfeld)

RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE v. PADILLA et al., notice the positioning of the names. Although the SCOTUS upheld the lack of jurisdiction, the lower court ruled in favor of the defendant, being held in a military brig.


And for one that still is standing?

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/gherebibush121803opn.pdf

The federal courts have appeals jurisdiction over gitmo.[/QUOTE]

You are refering to foriegn nationals and other people NOT IN THE UNITED STATES MILITARY vs the US Military.

Completly different from a uniformed officer publicly breaking the UMCJ.

I'll look those up.



You are refering to foriegn nationals and other people NOT IN THE UNITED STATES MILITARY vs the US Military.

Completly different from a uniformed officer publicly breaking the UMCJ.
Doesn't matter. Court systems are court systems, and Federal courts have appeals jurisdiction over military courts. Article three, read it some time.

The protections of the constitution still hold, to a reasonable degree, in the military.

Sure they do. However when you publicly denigrate your superiors in an official capacity, you're going to be punished for it in military courts. As a commissioned officer, she knew full well what those repercussions could be.

If she wrote this thinking there would be no repercussions, she's more ignorant than her writing leads one to believe.

This kind of idiotic statement coming from an officer in the U.S. Military is contrary to the good moral of the military.

And you think imprisoning her for it will help morale? Interesting.

Why, again, is getting rid of her not enough?

Sure they do. However when you publicly denigrate your superiors in an official capacity, you're going to be punished for it in military courts. As a commissioned officer, she knew full well what those repercussions could be.

If she wrote this thinking there would be no repercussions, she's more ignorant than her writing leads one to believe.
I agree that she should be punished, with a discharge. Not with time in prison.

Ex parte QUIRIN.

Ex parte HAUPT.

Ex parte KERLING.

Ex parte BURGER.

Ex parte HEINCK.

Ex parte THIEL.

Ex parte NEUBAUER.

UNITED STATES ex rel. QUIRIN
v.
COX, Brig. Gen., U.S.A., Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, and 6 other cases.

Oh, overruled. That's different. It also doesn't matter. Although in the above case the lack of the right to a jury trial in military courts was upheld, the court did feel fit (along with the district court below it) to rule on the issue. There are others...

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/orders/2003/010904pzr.pdf

Supreme court allowing the case to be reviewed in the SCOTUS (Yaser Esam Hamdi v. Donald Rumsfeld)

RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE v. PADILLA et al., notice the positioning of the names. Although the SCOTUS upheld the lack of jurisdiction, the lower court ruled in favor of the defendant, being held in a military brig.


And for one that still is standing?

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/gherebibush121803opn.pdf

The federal courts have appeals jurisdiction over gitmo.I think the implication was that the USCMJ has jurisdiction over US soldiers was kinda clear from the context, not soldiers of other nations. Gitmo is likewise irrelevant to consideration of the USSC overruling a military tribunal of a US soldier.

No, no. A thousand times no. We are talking about an organization that micromanages you to the point where they tell you how to cut your hair, when to go to sleep, and how to blouse your trousers. She should have realized there are restrictions about how she could express herself.

I agree. But I was responding to a post that said "if she didn't know."

So the military which upholds the constitution is allowed to violate it whenever it damn pleases?
Yes, because like others have stated the military has its own rules, the UCMJ, so as to maintain order within the the services. But, just be glad that we use the UCMJ now, instead of Rocks and Shoals, I know the Army had the Articles of War, because her last sentence could be considered mutinous and the punishment for mutiny is whatever is decided in the court-martial, and death is an option.

If they are your rights, you can wave them or do whatever you want with them as long as the next person isn't harmed.

That is the basic premise of rights. If you can't, they really aren't your rights, then.

Well, damn! Why can't I sell myself into slavery, then?

I'm really pissed about this. I thought I had a right to freedom... but I guess not.

Article 88—Contempt toward officials (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm88.htm)

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm92.htm)

I think the implication was that the USCMJ has jurisdiction over US soldiers was kinda clear from the context, not soldiers of other nations. Gitmo is likewise irrelevant to consideration of the USSC overruling a military tribunal of a US soldier.
It doesn't matter. The distinction does not exist in law. If the federal courts can hear appeals from anyone in the military justice system, it stands to follow that the federal courts can hear appeals from other people in the military justice system. Again, article three. Military tribunals are inferior courts to the supreme court, and so the SCOTUS has jurisdiction in cases arising under the constitution.

I agree that she should be punished, with a discharge. Not with time in prison.

Which is most likely what she'll get. I never argued she "should" be put in jail.

However serving a sentance in a military prison would NOT be unconstitutional for blatantly violating the UCMJ.

Well, damn! Why can't I sell myself into slavery, then?actually, you can sell YOURSELF into slavery. draw up a contract that both you and your master can sign.

now selling someone else into slavery... that's different.

If they are your rights, you can wave them or do whatever you want with them as long as the next person isn't harmed.

That is the basic premise of rights. If you can't, they really aren't your rights, then.

No, the basic premise of inalienable rights is that they are just that, inalienable.

Are you sure? Or did the Swedish military just not decide to send them to jail?

They cannot send anyone to jail.

Which is most likely what she'll get. I never argued she "should" be put in jail.

However serving a sentance in a military prison would NOT be unconstitutional for blatantly violating the UCMJ.
Why not? Such a sentance would violate the constitution.

Doesn't matter. Court systems are court systems, and Federal courts have appeals jurisdiction over military courts. Article three, read it some time.


No, Civilian and military courts obviously function differently. If I were to ambush people I was having a conflict with, I go to jail. Soldiers get medals.

Soldiers generally don't apply to the Constitution. They can't, its a totally different existence.

No, the basic premise of inalienable rights is that they are just that, inalienable.

Yes, they can't be taken away. But, you can choose to give them up. You do that everyday you live in a country with laws that restricts your rights for the common good.

Your freedom of speech doesn't extend to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Hence, it is restricted.



They cannot send anyone to jail.

They can't? Or don't?

Why not? Such a sentance would violate the constitution.

Only in your opinion.

No, Civilian and military courts obviously function differently. If I were to ambush people I was having a conflict with, I go to jail. Soldiers get medals.

Entirely different things. Civilian laws generally don't apply to military members. However, the constitution is a blanket provision. The rights it provides are blanket rights. You still have the right to criticize a superior officer, you just have to face the problems when you do that. Those punishments include discharge. However, I contest that imprisoning someone constitutes an undue limitation upon a persons right to free speech.

Only in your opinion.
And in the Supreme Courts. How is being a teacher (where you would, supposedly, give up your right to 'free speech') any different from being a soldier? Each have their rules of conduct. Each have their own 'courts'.

It doesn't matter. The distinction does not exist in law.

Yes, it does due to the fact that SCOTUS ahs never over ruled a military tribunal in regards to US military personel. They haven't even heard any cases. They only cases they heard were in regards to foriegn nationals. The one that involved professional soldiers, SCOTUS upheld the tribunal and even said they really shouldn't be involved.

The Gitmo cases involved people that weren't professionals.

If the federal courts can hear appeals from anyone in the military justice system, it stands to follow that the federal courts can hear appeals from other people in the military justice system.

Thjose people you cited weren't in the American military.

Again, article three. Military tribunals are inferior courts to the supreme court, and so the SCOTUS has jurisdiction in cases arising under the constitution.

No, SCOTUSwill not even hear such cases.

They cannot send anyone to jail.

Incorrect.


http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf-files/277C63~1.pdf


pg 123.

Yes, they can't be taken away. But, you can choose to give them up. You do that everyday you live in a country with laws that restricts your rights for the common good.

Your freedom of speech doesn't extend to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Hence, it is restricted.

In law. Not in anything you signed.

They can't? Or don't?

They can't. Courts of law decide if people go to jail or not.

Incorrect.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf-files/277C63~1.pdf
pg 123.

And this is where I tell you that the Swedish military was the one being discussed, not the American. Please, before you decide to butt in in the future, be sure to actually understand what is being discussed, preferably by reading the discussion.

Yes, it does due to the fact that SCOTUS ahs never over ruled a military tribunal in regards to US military personel. They haven't even heard any cases. They only cases they heard were in regards to foriegn nationals. The one that involved professional soldiers, SCOTUS upheld the tribunal and even said they really shouldn't be involved.

You'd, of course, be willing to cite that case...

Entirely different things.

No, its anexample of how the two worlds are different.

Civilian laws generally don't apply to military members.

And military laws obviously don't apply to civilians.

However, the constitution is a blanket provision. The rights it provides are blanket rights. You still have the right to criticize a superior officer, you just have to face the problems when you do that. Those punishments include discharge.

One of said problems is that you can be imprisoned. She knew this full well, or should have.

However, I contest that imprisoning someone constitutes an undue limitation upon a persons right to free speech.

Unfotunatly, ever legal precedent ever contradicts you.

And in the Supreme Courts. How is being a teacher (where you would, supposedly, give up your right to 'free speech') any different from being a soldier? Each have their rules of conduct. Each have their own 'courts'.

Now you're just entering the world of fantasy.

The military justice system is separate from the civilian justice system to the point where a person can have double jeopardy for violations.

The SCOTUS decision you keep repeating Ad Nauseum applies to civilian jurisdiction.

Now you're just entering the world of fantasy.

The military justice system is separate from the civilian justice system to the point where a person can have double jeopardy for violations.

The SCOTUS decision you keep repeating Ad Nauseum applies to civilian jurisdiction.
Again, you've yet to cite anything that proves your point. Article III clearly provides for redress in cases arising under constitutional law from any court and any citizen.

And this is where I tell you that the Swedish military was the one being discussed, not the American. Please, before you decide to butt in in the future, be sure to actually understand what is being discussed, preferably by reading the discussion.

And thus proving you did not read the article at all and just attack people w/o being informed. The pages referenced were on SWEDISH MILITARY JURISDICTION in a US military journal.

You'd, of course, be willing to cite that case...


You did it for me. Your German spies.

In law. Not in anything you signed.

But, its obviously a restricted right.



They can't. Courts of law decide if people go to jail or not.

And a military tribunal is a court of law.

Again, you've yet to cite anything that proves your point. Article III clearly provides for redress in cases arising under constitutional law from any court and any citizen.

I linked to the entire UCMJ which clearly states the jurisdictions that it has.

This is to the point that no matter what information in presented, you'll still just keep claiming "unconstitutional".

There are limits on "freedom of speech" in the civilian world to prevent a breakdown of order as well. Do you think it would be "unconstitutional" to be jailed for instigating a riot?

And thus proving you did not read the article at all and just attack people w/o being informed. The pages referenced were on SWEDISH MILITARY JURISDICTION in a US military journal.

Well, then, shall we see what you own document says:

"Since January 1, 1949, there has existed no special penal code for the Swedish armed forces and they are subject to the General Code of Criminal Law."

When the special penal code for the armed forces was abrogated the
special courts were abolished as well, and military jurisdiction was transferred to civilian law-courts, as a rule the court (city court or district court) situated in the garrison town. The military cases brought before civilian courts are, generally speaking, handled in accordance with the same rules of procedure as other cases.

The Public Prosecutor summons the accused to appear in accordance with normal procedure. In certain cases of importance the accused is entitled to public counsel, and the procedure, which is verbal and limited to a general hearing, is conducted in accordance with the same rules as apply to civil cases.

And not to be a stick in the mud, but the document is flawed on several points, the grossest being that it claims that Sweden has the death penalty during time of war. Sweden does not. That would be a violation of the 13th protocol (http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/187.htm) in the European Convention on Human Rights.

You did it for me. Your German spies.
No dice.

"We may assume that there are acts regarded in other countries, or by some writers on international law, as offenses against the law of war which would not be triable by military tribunal here, either because they are not recognized by our courts as violations of the law of war or because they are of that class of offenses constitutionally triable only by a jury. It was upon such grounds that the Court denied the right to proceed by military tribunal in Ex parte Milligan, supra. But as we shall show, these petitioners were charged with an offense against the law of war which the Constitution does not require to be tried by jury."

Here the court explains it's reason for rejection the petition. The implication from this is, of course, that if the constitution mandates a trial in a court (as it does under cases arising in article three per matters under the constitution, namely first amendment rights), then that trial must take place.

"Accordingly, we conclude that Charge I, on which petitioners were detained for trial by the Military Commission, alleged an offense which the President is authorized to order tried by military commission; that his Order convening the Commission was a lawful order and that the Commission was lawfully constituted; that the petitioners were held in lawful custody and did not show cause for their discharge. It follows that the orders of the District Court should be affirmed, and that leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court should be denied."

Clearly the court found against them. I agree. But the fact that the habeas corpus petition was heard in the SCOTUS, and more to the matter, the various parts that state under what conditions a court trial in a civilian court would be required, states that the SCOTUS not only has the ability to hear petitions from military courts, but also their precident is binding upon them.

I linked to the entire UCMJ which clearly states the jurisdictions that it has.

This is to the point that no matter what information in presented, you'll still just keep claiming "unconstitutional".

There are limits on "freedom of speech" in the civilian world to prevent a breakdown of order as well. Do you think it would be "unconstitutional" to be jailed for instigating a riot?
So are you claiming that the incitement/clear and present danger tests apply to a revervist? I could see you making that claim while she was in Iraq, or some other similar situation, but this is not the case, nor does it appear to be inciting anything.

But, its obviously a restricted right.

In law. Not in what you signed. You cannot sign away your inalienable right to express yourself, barring confidentiality and classified documents.

And a military tribunal is a court of law.

The Swedish military is subject to civilian law. It has no special law for itself, nor does it have any special courts. Soldiers are citizens and have equal rights.

Well, then, shall we see what you own document says:



And not to be a stick in the mud, but the document is flawed on several points, the grossest being that it claims that Sweden has the death penalty during time of war. Sweden does not. That would be a violation of the [url=http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/187.htm[/url] in the European Convention on Human Rights.


Not flawed but dated.

So there isn't a separate judicial system for the military. That doesn't mean that violators of the law can't be sent to jail, they just use the civilian courts.

The US has a separate judicial system for the military and a separate set of laws. So unless SCOTUS declares that imprisonment for violating several sections of the UCMJ are unconstitutional (which they haven't), it is allowable.

So are you claiming that the incitement/clear and present danger tests apply to a revervist? I could see you making that claim while she was in Iraq, or some other similar situation, but this is not the case, nor does it appear to be inciting anything.

Nice twist. Once again, you're claiming "blanket" protections. The civilian and military jurisdictions are separate.

It was incitement in that (once again) she was acting in an official capacity by adding her rank and unit and thus encouraging a breakdown in discipline and the chain-of command.

Had she not done that and been acting as in a civilian capacity, there would have been no repercussions through the military or civilian courts.

So are you claiming that the incitement/clear and present danger tests apply to a revervist?

A uniformed military officer? Absolutly. She signed it using her rank and MOS, what does it matter if she serves on weekends? She was still representing the US military. She is still drawing a government paycheck. She obviously considers herself an officer. Why can't you grasp this?

I could see you making that claim while she was in Iraq, or some other similar situation, but this is not the case, nor does it appear to be inciting anything.


she made the claim while in uniform. thats all that matters.

And not to be a stick in the mud, but the document is flawed on several points
Well, it was written in 1963...

Not flawed but dated.

So there isn't a separate judicial system for the military. That doesn't mean that violators of the law can't be sent to jail, they just use the civilian courts.

And, again, it is not the military, but the civilian court system that does that. The military cannot send anyone to jail. So, I was in fact, unsurprisingly, right all along. You would have saved me some time wasted cutting and pasting your own document, had you only read it.

The US has a separate judicial system for the military and a separate set of laws. So unless SCOTUS declares that imprisonment for violating several sections of the UCMJ are unconstitutional (which they haven't), it is allowable.

Which brings me back to my original point of your system being flawed.

You do't know what you're talking about. No Liberals do. I lost 4 realtives in Iraq, and just got back from active duty there. I don't think Bush is a horribale President. In fact he's one of my heros. Befor you post threads like this, think about the ones who are ACTUALLY being affected.


:sniper: :mp5: :headbang:

In law. Not in what you signed. You cannot sign away your inalienable right to express yourself, barring confidentiality and classified documents.

Given a soldier's position with confidential documents and actions as well as public safety, I'd say they fall under yur exemptions.



The Swedish military is subject to civilian law. It has no special law for itself, nor does it have any special courts. Soldiers are citizens and have equal rights.

Are they subject to civilian laws, or just civial courts? Obviously the military can get away with things civilians can't.

A uniformed military officer? Absolutly. She signed it using her rank and MOS, what does it matter if she serves on weekends? She was still representing the US military. She is still drawing a government paycheck. She obviously considers herself an officer. Why can't you grasp this?



Because to recognize that the UCMJ has had separate jurisdiction since its inception and that things like this aren't new would destroy the whole "Bush is creating a police state" meme that is common in threads like this.

Well, it was written in 1963...

I just noticed, which makes it even less valuable as a resource, especially one that attempts to corroborate a false claim of me being wrong in the understanding of my own country's legal system.

And, again, it is not the military, but the civilian court system that does that. The military cannot send anyone to jail. So, I was in fact, unsurprisingly, right all along. You would have saved me some time wasted cutting and pasting your own document, had you only read it.



Which brings me back to my original point of your system being flawed.

They can still send people to jail. They just use the civilian court system instead of their own.

Oh right, the whole "US/Bush/conservatives sucks" thing. Gotcha.

Nice twist. Once again, you're claiming "blanket" protections. The civilian and military jurisdictions are separate.

It was incitement in that (once again) she was acting in an official capacity by adding her rank and unit and thus encouraging a breakdown in discipline and the chain-of command.

Had she not done that and been acting as in a civilian capacity, there would have been no repercussions through the military or civilian courts.
I missed where she advocated the disobeyment of orders, and that there was a massive uprising in the works. (because that's what the test means: First, something has to be incited, second, it has to have a reasonable chance of occurring because of the persons actions close to the person's speech)

Given a soldier's position with confidential documents and actions as well as public safety, I'd say they fall under yur exemptions.

Ah, but the law is cleverer than that. If the confidentiality is broken, the person who broke can attempt to argue for why breaking it was justified, and thus escape punishment.

Also, The Freedom of the Press Act (http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____6313.aspx) (a constituent of our constitution) guarantees public access to most government documents, and has been used time and time again to invalidate confidentiality, as the right of access has often been proved to stand above it.

None of this applies to criticism of the government, which generally has nothing to do with confidentiality.

Are they subject to civilian laws, or just civial courts? Obviously the military can get away with things civilians can't.

They are subject to both. There is no special penal code for the military.

Soldiers can't be subject to civilian laws. they'd never be able to function.

Soldiers can't be subject to civilian laws. they'd never be able to function.

But how does free speech hinder the military's ability to function?

They can still send people to jail. They just use the civilian court system instead of their own.

Meaning, that they do not send people to jail at all, but can request that a Prosecutor examine the case, just like any other. I could report a crime tomorrow and a prosecutor may act on it and a person found quilty by a court may be sent to jail. Are you seriously going to claim that it was I, and not the court, that sent that person to jail?

Oh right, the whole "US/Bush/conservatives sucks" thing. Gotcha.

Nope. It's that whole pesky "land of the free" not being so free and having a flawed two-tier system thing.

Soldiers can't be subject to civilian laws. they'd never be able to function.
Soldiers are subject to a nations laws any time they go overseas. In fact, they are also held responsible to civil law as well (example: they can't run amok violating financial laws)

I missed where she advocated the disobeyment of orders, and that there was a massive uprising in the works. (because that's what the test means: First, something has to be incited, second, it has to have a reasonable chance of occurring because of the persons actions close to the person's speech)

You've obviously not been in the military.

By disrespecting the chain of command, you are advocating its breakdown. She, as a commissioned officer, making it public knowledge that she considered her CIC to be incompetant in ever way possible, was defacto encouraging subordinates to not follow lawful orders.

Be that as it may, the point was that there are restrictions on civilians' speech just as there are restrictions on military. The restrictions are different (along w/ that whole separate jurisdiction thing again) but both are there to maintain order.

Soldiers can't be subject to civilian laws. they'd never be able to function.

Oh, but they are here. And they function very well. Their duties are clearly defined by civilian law. There is no need for a separate system.

Just for the record (and I'm Active Duty military...):

The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) are treated as an addendum to any laws of any Nation in the world.

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.
Article 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER
Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Article 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Article 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
So, there you have it folks. The Supreme Court will not rule on Military rulings because the Military has it's own ruleset that transcends the laws of any Nation. It has to be that way.

Posting her comments was not against the UCMJ. However, doing so and using her rank and position to add weight to her comments is what makes the difference. By posting and signing with her rank and position she is representing the US Military. As a representative of that organization, she is responsible for promoting good order and discipline within the ranks - the exact opposite of what her post promotes. Thus, she is chargeable under the UCMJ.

Not only this, she also violates the other articles quoted here.


(The UCMJ can be found at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm )

Soldiers are subject to a nations laws any time they go overseas. In fact, they are also held responsible to civil law as well (example: they can't run amok violating financial laws)

That's correct. Like I said earlier, they have the potential for double jeopardy. This has been the case since the inception of the UCMJ and has not been struck down as unconstitutional.

You've obviously not been in the military.

By disrespecting the chain of command, you are advocating its breakdown. She, as a commissioned officer, making it public knowledge that she considered her CIC to be incompetant in ever way possible, was defacto encouraging subordinates to not follow lawful orders.

Be that as it may, the point was that there are restrictions on civilians' speech just as there are restrictions on military. The restrictions are different (along w/ that whole separate jurisdiction thing again) but both are there to maintain order.
Let's put it this way: If you're going for the restriction on free speech based on the likelihood that it would create a crime, you're not going to get it. The event has to happen, right then and there, or at least start to happen, or no dice. That's just how it goes. Now, she can be fired for this, and I would almost expect her to be, however I don't expect her to be arrested for incitement to commit mutiny any time soon.

That's correct. Like I said earlier, they have the potential for double jeopardy. This has been the case since the inception of the UCMJ and has not been struck down as unconstitutional.
I'm not saying that you're incorrect. The military courts are an inferior court set up by congress with its own laws and powers, and because the laws are different you can't be held for double jeopardy.

See my post on the previous page, I think it got missed. It has a point on the juristitional matters of this case. Constitutional issues can be heard in the SCOTUS, and any federal court with jurisdiction for that matter.

Meaning, that they do not send people to jail at all, but can request that a Prosecutor examine the case, just like any other. I could report a crime tomorrow and a prosecutor may act on it and a person found quilty by a court may be sent to jail. Are you seriously going to claim that it was I, and not the court, that sent that person to jail?



Nope. It's that whole pesky "land of the free" not being so free and having a flawed two-tier system thing.

And the person is where while it is being investigated?

The military has the same setup.

It's only "flawed" if one chooses to join the military and subject oneself to a separate jurisdiction and then breaks the law.

I'm not saying that you're incorrect. The military courts are an inferior court set up by congress with its own laws and powers, and because the laws are different you can't be held for double jeopardy.

See my post on the previous page, I think it got missed. It has a point on the juristitional matters of this case. Constitutional issues can be heard in the SCOTUS, and any federal court with jurisdiction for that matter.

It is indeed possible for a Military member to be tried in both a military court and a civilian court - ask any Military member who's recieved a DUI or DWI in the past few years...

Military laws are above and beyond civilian laws - and Military members can be tried in both civilian court and a military court for the same offense.

Let's put it this way: If you're going for the restriction on free speech based on the likelihood that it would create a crime, you're not going to get it. The event has to happen, right then and there, or at least start to happen, or no dice. That's just how it goes. Now, she can be fired for this, and I would almost expect her to be, however I don't expect her to be arrested for incitement to commit mutiny any time soon.

Get it? It's already there. The articles have been posted several times.

Mutiny is a whole separate article.

And the person is where while it is being investigated?

Probably in his domicile, unless the crime warrants arrest - again, something that the court decides on, and not I or the military.

The military has the same setup.

It's only "flawed" if one chooses to join the military and subject oneself to a separate jurisdiction and then breaks the law.

It is flawed because it exists and allows for people to be put into such a situation.

Get it? It's already there. The articles have been posted several times.

Mutiny is a whole separate article.
We're talking about mutiny. She isn't going to be charged with that any time soon, nor is this line of conversation about freedom of speech abridgements re: incitement going to be going anywhere.

But how does free speech hinder the military's ability to function?


Because conformity and subordination are vital to a military unit's operation.

Oh, but they are here. And they function very well. Their duties are clearly defined by civilian law. There is no need for a separate system.

So, you can own tanks and heavy bombers and high end exposives? A soldier can walk around on duty dressed anhy way he pleases?

I haven't read all of it, don't know if this can be of any help:
www.au.af.mil/au/cpd/jagschool/press/cldb/chapters/speech.doc

I agree it's horrible getting through martial court for expressing her opinions, but hey, she joined and certainly knew about what would happen. Sounds stupid, sure, but nobody forced her to sign. :(

We're talking about mutiny. She isn't going to be charged with that any time soon, nor is this line of conversation about freedom of speech abridgements re: incitement going to be going anywhere.

You're the one who brought up mutiny. I was talking about maintaining order, discipline, and respecting the chain-of-command. Things that her publicly posted document as a commissioned officer was discouraging.

The person who has expressed her opinion must have known that there would be fall out from soliciting, what amounts to, anti-government propaganda during a time of war.

For someone in any countries armed forces to publicly debase there superiors in a public forum and then to add their name, rank and room number were they posted it is stupidity in the highest degree.

Uniform Code of Military Justice-Punitive Articles
888. ART. 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.

Joining a little late, but just thought I'd say that this is not surprising. Military personnel are alloed to be political, just not 'as' military personnel. So I can put a W sticker on my car but I can't go to rallies in uniform. So when a soldier puts his name and rank on a screed like that (didn't read all of it, I admit), there are problems. For a commissioned officer to do something like that is especially bad. I believe the charge could be something like insubordination, given that the President is at the top of the chain of command.

This officer deserves to be punished - before you partisan hacks jump on me, listen up. Publicly denouncing a superior, no matter how justifiably, sets a horrible example for the enlisted below him and degrades good order and discipline. There is a provision for input up the chain of command, but once a superior makes a decision and issues an order, you are obliged to follow it unless it is illegal. If you feel the order is immoral, you can make yourself feel better by not following, but without illegality you don't have a defence. Posting stuff like this is just encouragement for subordinates to be insubordinate down the road. The attitude spreads, and in combat it will kill people.

You're the one who brought up mutiny. I was talking about maintaining order, discipline, and respecting the chain-of-command. Things that her publicly posted document as a commissioned officer was discouraging.
Someone brought up mutiny here. Anyway, back to the jurisdictional issue at hand? Two pages back now. Can I get a responce re: SCOTUS ability to rule on the limits to the punishment given, or is this conceded?

So, you can own tanks and heavy bombers and high end exposives?

No, but neither can soldiers.

A soldier can walk around on duty dressed anhy way he pleases?

The military itself has its own rules and regulations, and can issue reprimands (such as restriction of duties, demotion, pay-cuts, "peeling potatoes," washing the loos, reassignment, extra laps or push-ups and such things) and dismiss people. It can not prosecute or punish with any sort of punishment that falls within the scope of law - that is what a court of law does.

Probably in his domicile, unless the crime warrants arrest - again, something that the court decides on, and not I or the military.

"House arrest", the same as being on "restriction". The military police and military courts are the same way.

It is flawed because it exists and allows for people to be put into such a situation.[/QUOTE]

In the US, you don't "have" to join the military, it's strictly voluntary. I also feel little sympathy for people who choose to break laws that would be in violation of both systems(ie murder, rape, dui, domestic abuse, etc.)

Someone brought up mutiny here. Anyway, back to the jurisdictional issue at hand? Two pages back now. Can I get a responce re: SCOTUS ability to rule on the limits to the punishment given, or is this conceded?

SCOTUS wont touch the UCMJ in any way shape or form because it has realized that the Military needs the ability to discipline it's soldiers as it sees fit. The UCMJ contains guidelines for sentencing, as well as Military members rights.

SCOTUS wont touch the UCMJ in any way shape or form because it has realized that the Military needs the ability to discipline it's soldiers as it sees fit. The UCMJ contains guidelines for sentencing, as well as Military members rights.
Not when it violates constitutional rights.

Because conformity and subordination are vital to a military unit's operation.

Conformity and subordination in action, not thought and expression.

Someone brought up mutiny here. Anyway, back to the jurisdictional issue at hand? Two pages back now. Can I get a responce re: SCOTUS ability to rule on the limits to the punishment given, or is this conceded?

It wasn't me.

If SCOTUS rules on a civilian jurisdiction case, it applies to the civilian jurisdiction (ie the teacher case). That case does not set precedent for the military jurisdiction. Only a case brought up from a military court of appeals would affect the military jurisdiction.

As they HAVEN'T, at this point, a sentance of jail time from a court martial would be constitutional.

No, but neither can soldiers.



The military itself has its own rules and regulations, and can issue reprimands (such as restriction of duties, demotion, pay-cuts, "peeling potatoes," washing the loos, reassignment, extra laps or push-ups and such things) and dismiss people. It can not prosecute or punish with any sort of punishment that falls within the scope of law - that is what a court of law does.

You're right and wrong. A Military Courts-Martial can indeed punish military members in the same manner as any civil court - including fines, jail time (Leavenworth, anyone?), loss of privileges (driving, etc), etc...

"House arrest", the same as being on "restriction". The military police and military courts are the same way.

Not house arrest, but in his domicile, or skiing or whatever people tend to do in their normal lives as free people. People who have not been found guilty of a crime are usually not put under house arrest. And the house arrest itself, you guessed it, would have to be decided on by the court, and not the military.

In the US, you don't "have" to join the military, it's strictly voluntary.

Yes, and the flaw persists despite that.

Not when it violates constitutional rights.

You dont seem to understand. The UCMJ supersedes the Constitution. Period. End of argument. This is known to EVERY military member.

When has SCOTUS done so for an American military officer? They woulddn't even do it for those Germans.

So the military which upholds the constitution is allowed to violate it whenever it damn pleases?


I think not.

1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." The military is an organ exclusively of the executive branch, and so are its laws. This does not violate the Constitution in any way.

You're right and wrong. A Military Courts-Martial can indeed punish military members in the same manner as any civil court - including fines, jail time (Leavenworth, anyone?), loss of privileges (driving, etc), etc...

And again it seems I must ask another person to read to whole discussion prior to butting in: This is the Swedish military that is being discussed. It has no special penal code and no special "courts-martial."

Conformity and subordination in action, not thought and expression.

expression is action. You will never, ever here of officers complain to their subordinates about the higher ups without some serious retribution.

Not when it violates constitutional rights.

When the SCOTUS rules that jail time, sentanced by a court-martial, for violations of the UCMJ, under freedom of speech issues is unconstitutional, it will be.

Until then, as it has been for well over one-hundred years, it is constitutional.

There are NO absolute freedoms.

1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." The military is an organ exclusively of the executive branch, and so are its laws. This does not violate the Constitution in any way.
What kind of nonsense is this? Congress makes the laws for the military, and appropriates a budget. Besides, 14th amendment states that all protections applicable to congress are applicable to all bodies of government.

You dont seem to understand. The UCMJ supersedes the Constitution. Period. End of argument. This is known to EVERY military member.
What? No, it does not. It clearly does not. Period. End of argument.

When the SCOTUS rules that jail time, sentanced by a court-martial, for violations of the UCMJ, under freedom of speech issues is unconstitutional, it will be.

Until then, as it has been for well over one-hundred years, it is constitutional.

There are NO absolute freedoms.
Yes, there are. All rights are absolute, they can only be restricted by other, just as pressing, rights. If you wish to argue that the precident set by the court that I quoted earlier does not apply to the armed forces, please, make that argument, and cite cases supporting that fact.

Not house arrest, but in his domicile, or skiing or whatever people tend to do in their normal lives as free people. People who have not been found guilty of a crime are usually not put under house arrest. And the house arrest itself, you guessed it, would have to be decided on by the court, and not the military.

Still the same, just w/ a separate jurisdiction.



Yes, and the flaw persists despite that.

In your opinion.

In my opinion, the separate jurisdictions are much more effective in that there is one primary code for all military personnel. They only get doubled when they break the law. No flaw there.

You seem to forget that America does not have homogenous laws across all the states.

This person is not active duty, nor is she in a combat zone.If the person is not on a combat situation...I do not see any valid excuse to take away her constitutional rights

No, but neither can soldiers.

That should have been operate instead of own. They can obviously do things you can't.



The military itself has its own rules and regulations,

And laws.

and can issue reprimands (such as restriction of duties, demotion, pay-cuts, "peeling potatoes," washing the loos,

hard labor

reassignment,

so, send you somewhere you don't want to go. Sounds like a prison sentence.

extra laps or push-ups and such things)

physical punishment

and dismiss people. It can not prosecute or punish with any sort of punishment that falls within the scope of law - that is what a court of law does.

and military tribunals are courts of law here. the problem, is, due to their role, the military can't abide by the same laws as regular citizens. Its not another tier, its a parallel line.

And your system has a huge flaw in it too. So you shouldn't get too comfortable on that high horse.

What kind of nonsense is this? Congress makes the laws for the military, and appropriates a budget. Besides, 14th amendment states that all protections applicable to congress are applicable to all bodies of government.

Bollocks. See for yourself:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

What kind of nonsense is this? Congress makes the laws for the military, and appropriates a budget. Besides, 14th amendment states that all protections applicable to congress are applicable to all bodies of government.

Wrong, The 14th applies to the states and that has been limited by "selective incorporation".

Wrong, The 14th applies to the states and that has been limited by "selective incorporation".
Or enforce. Any action of the federal government that enforces an abridgement of a right is unconstitutional. Oh, and the first amendment is one of those that have been dealt with and are applicable to the states/other powers.

Hint: Article 1, section eight. "To raise and support armies...to provide and maintain a Navy".

Yes, there are. All rights are absolute, they can only be restricted by other, just as pressing, rights.

So they aren't absolute.

If you wish to argue that the precident set by the court that I quoted earlier does not apply to the armed forces, please, make that argument, and cite cases supporting that fact.

The fact that they have sat idly by while its happened for so long is obviously proof.

Why do you think no case like this has ever gotten that far?

So they aren't absolute.



The fact that they have sat idly by while its happened for so long is obviously proof.

Why do you think no case like this has ever gotten that far?
It is not proof. Please cite a case or shut up.

Still the same, just w/ a separate jurisdiction.

Nope. Again, the military has as little do to with it as I would were I the one who reported a crime. Your are simply incorrect about the Swedish military being able to send people to jail - they do not have that authority. The Court does. And the Court has no ties to the military.

In your opinion.

In my opinion, the separate jurisdictions are much more effective in that there is one primary code for all military personnel. They only get doubled when they break the law. No flaw there.

You seem to forget that America does not have homogenous laws across all the states.

The military being a federal device, federal law would apply, but you have your own flawed system of special laws, and this case here is just a sign of how wrong it is, that soldiers can be denied fundamental rights that should be them due and would be them due were they not soldiers. Not something I would consider to be something a "land of free" is able to do, this servitude, but that just brings me back to my original statement of the land not being so free at all.

Yes, there are. All rights are absolute, they can only be restricted by other, just as pressing, rights. If you wish to argue that the precident set by the court that I quoted earlier does not apply to the armed forces, please, make that argument, and cite cases supporting that fact.

If they're restricted, they're not absolute.

Once again, the military is a separate jurisdiction from the civilian. If it wasn't,SCOTUS would have decided that double jeopardy for the military was unconstitutional.

I have already shown that the military follows a separate appeals process than the civilians, that military personnel are applicable to both if a crime is committed in a civilian jurisdiction. Ms. *anonymous* broke a military law while using her capacity as a commissioned officer and is therefore subject to military jurisdiction and the restrictions that it has enacted.

Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

If they're restricted, they're not absolute.

Once again, the military is a separate jurisdiction from the civilian. If it wasn't,SCOTUS would have decided that double jeopardy for the military was unconstitutional.

I have already shown that the military follows a separate appeals process than the civilians, that military personnel are applicable to both if a crime is committed in a civilian jurisdiction. Ms. *anonymous* broke a military law while using her capacity as a commissioned officer and is therefore subject to military jurisdiction and the restrictions that it has enacted.
It is seperate, but the federal court system still has jurisdiction over cases in which they are granted jurisdiction in the constitution.

Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The military being a federal device, federal law would apply, but you have your own flawed system of special laws, and this case here is just a sign of how wrong it is, that soldiers can be denied fundamental rights that should be them due and would be them due were they not soldiers. Not something I would consider to be something a "land of free" is able to do, this servitude, but that just brings me back to my original statement of the land not being so free at all.

Translation: "America Sucks"

www.au.af.mil/au/cpd/jagschool/press/cldb/chapters/speech.doc

III.
Application of the First Amendment's free speech component within a military context involves special rules of restriction, which have arisen over the years. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that, while military members are entitled to enjoy the Constitutional guarantees of free speech, this enjoyment must be restricted in a manner that permits the military to accomplish its critical task of guarding the security of the nation. Similarly, civilians who seek to express themselves will find their freedom of expression on military bases limited so that their words and actions do not undermine the military mission.

IV.
A commander of a military installation may restrict freedom of expression if the restriction prevents a clear and present danger to the orderly accomplishment of the mission or to morale, discipline or loyalty

www.au.af.mil/au/cpd/jagschool/press/cldb/chapters/speech.doc


This is my last post on this thread, if someone argues against that, I don't know what else to say to such a stubborn...

It is not proof. Please cite a case or shut up.

IT IS PROOF! Given SCOTUS' role in interpretting the Constitution and its applications and they have not done one goddamned thing about these issues is obvious they have never seen it as unconstitutional.

All the First Ammendment and civil rights issues brought before the Supreme Court and none of it has been applied to the UMCJ?

Cite where SCOTUS has done so.

Learn to reason or shut up.

That should have been operate instead of own. They can obviously do things you can't.

Not really, no. They follow the same laws as I do.

And laws.

Nope. The Swedish military has no laws of their own.

hard labor

Nope. That's banned by our constitution.

so, send you somewhere you don't want to go. Sounds like a prison sentence.

Nope, unless you are completely ignorant of what a prison is?

and military tribunals are courts of law here. the problem, is, due to their role, the military can't abide by the same laws as regular citizens. Its not another tier, its a parallel line.

Apparantly a flawed such.

And your system has a huge flaw in it too. So you shouldn't get too comfortable on that high horse.

Our system protects the rights of the soldier better than yours that seems to put them in servitude to their military masters, apparently.

IT IS PROOF! Given SCOTUS' role in interpretting the Constitution and its applications and they have not done one goddamned thing about these issues is obvious they have never seen it as unconstitutional.

All the First Ammendment and civil rights issues brought before the Supreme Court and none of it has been applied to the UMCJ?

Cite where SCOTUS has done so.

Learn to reason or shut up.
The US has dealt with many first amendment issues on UMCJ grounds, any time when protestors attempted to get on army bases to distribute leaflets they've done so. It is not proof. Either show a denial of certiorari or quit attempting to use that as an argument.

www.au.af.mil/au/cpd/jagschool/press/cldb/chapters/speech.doc

III.
Application of the First Amendment's free speech component within a military context involves special rules of restriction, which have arisen over the years. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that, while military members are entitled to enjoy the Constitutional guarantees of free speech, this enjoyment must be restricted in a manner that permits the military to accomplish its critical task of guarding the security of the nation. Similarly, civilians who seek to express themselves will find their freedom of expression on military bases limited so that their words and actions do not undermine the military mission.

IV.
A commander of a military installation may restrict freedom of expression if the restriction prevents a clear and present danger to the orderly accomplishment of the mission or to morale, discipline or loyalty

www.au.af.mil/au/cpd/jagschool/press/cldb/chapters/speech.doc


This is my last post on this thread, if someone argues against that, I don't know what else to say to such a stubborn...
Not contested. I am contesting the severity of the punishment in this case.

Translation: "America Sucks"

Nope, instead the correct translation is: This action and this system by and of the US suck.

It is seperate, but the federal court system still has jurisdiction over cases in which they are granted jurisdiction in the constitution.

Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.[/QUOTE]


You admit they're separate. All of the "rules" are stated in the UCMJ. She violated the UCMJ. Therefore she is subject to the punishments meted out by a Court Martial and are constitutional until a SCOTUS decision determines that the punishment is unconstitutional under the military jurisdiction.

Translation: "America Sucks"
Trite.

You admit they're separate. All of the "rules" are stated in the UCMJ. She violated the UCMJ. Therefore she is subject to the punishments meted out by a Court Martial and are constitutional until a SCOTUS decision determines that the punishment is unconstitutional under the military jurisdiction.
Which is the entire point of this discussion, now that we've settled the issue of jurisdiction. The supreme court has jurisdiction in this case, arising under the first amendment and the third article. Now, the question is does it violate the first amendment? I'd be tempted to say yes, if the punishment involves imprisonment, due to the case law I've cited before.

Not contested. I am contesting the severity of the punishment in this case.

Too severe... too much. It's stupid, but it's essential to enforce discipline to maintain a working and strong military. Poor people who just want to embark to help the country, ending up ignored by their Commander-in-Chief.

Did you know you live in a stupid country? I do too... who don't? Who's not crazy?

Next time I play Civilization, I'm gonna conquer the world by diplomacy. Promise. :D

DAMN, sorry, I said it was my last just one post earlier :)

The US has dealt with many first amendment issues on UMCJ grounds, any time when protestors attempted to get on army bases to distribute leaflets they've done so. It is not proof. Either show a denial of certiorari or quit attempting to use that as an argument.


Protestors are not soldiers. Stop citing people who don't fall under UMCJ. We are discussing a uniformed officer who signed her name to a essay disparaging the president (who is in the chain of command) thereby directly violating the code she freely signed herself into. She signed her name, rank, branch and MOS, meaning she meant to reperesent this as an officer in the US military.

Not contested. I am contesting the severity of the punishment in this case.

But there hasn't been a punishment yet.

You've been claiming that an alledged prison sentence under a general court martial would be unconstitutional.

The cases you've cited have not dealt w/ a commissioned officer violating the UCMJ and being jailed for it even though you have finally admitted that the civilian and military are separate jurisdictions that follow separate appeals processes.

Until SCOTUS determines that a prison sentence for violating UCMJ articles by a commissioned officer is unconstitutional, it is constitutional.

Protestors are not soldiers. Stop citing people who don't fall under UMCJ. We are discussing a uniformed officer who signed her name to a essay disparaging the president (who is in the chain of command) thereby directly violating the code she freely signed herself into. She signed her name, rank, branch and MOS, meaning she meant to reperesent this as an officer in the US military.
Protestors matter because what happens on military grounds falls under UMCJ jurisdiction (at least, in this case). We're debating on if the SCOTUS has jurisdiction, which I believe we've settled now in the fact that it does.

But there hasn't been a punishment yet.

You've been claiming that an alledged prison sentence under a general court martial would be unconstitutional.

The cases you've cited have not dealt w/ a commissioned officer violating the UCMJ and being jailed for it even though you have finally admitted that the civilian and military are separate jurisdictions that follow separate appeals processes.

Until SCOTUS determines that a prison sentence for violating UCMJ articles by a commissioned officer is unconstitutional, it is constitutional.
What's the fun in that? The entire point of this board is to debate if that is so. Would you mind citing some case law to back up your point, or do you think that such a punishment would most likely end up being overturned?

Which is the entire point of this discussion, now that we've settled the issue of jurisdiction. The supreme court has jurisdiction in this case, arising under the first amendment and the third article. Now, the question is does it violate the first amendment? I'd be tempted to say yes, if the punishment involves imprisonment, due to the case law I've cited before.

They will have jurisdiction when the case is decided by a general court martial and if the MILITARY court of appeals accepts the case and if they (SCOTUS) accept the case.

Until they decide it is unconstitutional under military law, it is constitutional.

They will have jurisdiction when the case is decided by a general court martial and if the MILITARY court of appeals accepts the case and if they (SCOTUS) accept the case.

Until they decide it is unconstitutional under military law, it is constitutional.
Unless a direct WoC is made, which is always possible.

Which raises the question: are unconstitutional laws unconstitutional from the beginning, and thus must be disobeyed, or are you supposed to obey them. Interesting from the military perspective, such as in a case where, say, you had to kill every fifth man in a town in the united states. No reason, just that order was handed down from on high. Is the order presumed constitutional, and thus must be obeyed?

Finally a man that speaks the truth. I salute you and everything you have said. Really not much more for me to say other than keep sticking it to them...

Unless a direct WoC is made, which is always possible.

Which raises the question: are unconstitutional laws unconstitutional from the beginning, and thus must be disobeyed, or are you supposed to obey them. Interesting from the military perspective, such as in a case where, say, you had to kill every fifth man in a town in the united states. No reason, just that order was handed down from on high. Is the order presumed constitutional, and thus must be obeyed?

That's begging the question. A law is constitutional until determined to be unconstitutional. Your "average joe" doesn't make that decision, that's up to the Supreme court. And even "Constitutional" actions by Gov't can be superceded by certain legislative actions like anti emminent domain laws.

Nope, already an illegal order by art. 118, 133, & 134.

CSW, you are an idiot or are simply attempting to continue an argument and ignore all the reasoning brought forward...

The way she did it, she appeared to be doing it on behalf of the US Army Reserve.
When you state your opinion, you are not supposed to use your rank or any of that. The only ones allowed to do that is the military's Public Affairs Office. They are the only ones authorized to represent the views of the military.
If you are going to present your opinion make sure people know they are just your personal opinion. And if its something of a highly public nature, you are not supposed to speak to the media at all. It is required that you instead refer them to the Public Affairs office because most people in the ranks are not qualified to make comments on public events. At least that's the military's official view.

This LT. set herself up for failure. Though, I wonder how the military found out that she posted what she posted and where she posted. Is it possible that someone on the site had a political ax to grind and turned her in?

If she had left out her rank and the fact she was in the reserves, she would have been safe and there would not have been anything they could have done to her. But by including those, she screwed herself majorly.

Having just taken another look at what she wrote I have a better understanding of what happened.

There is a law against officers of the US military saying anything disparaging against the President of the United States.
A general said something bad about President Clinton during the 90's and was also courtmartialed. If you are an officer in the military it is illegal for you to say that the President is a bad person. Because it creates division within the ranks.
The reason the law exists is to protect democracy. If we allowed officers to talk like this about the leaders they serve, those same officers could end up trying to lead some sort of military coup. It also destroys military morale.

So she deserves to be courtmartialed.

Of course not. Regardless of whether one agrees with the writer, saying that the president is a failure should not be a punishable offense. But this sort of thing is hardly unexpected, given the current bizarre attitude that nonconformity, protest, and individualism are un-American rather than supremely American...
If you are in the military it is a punishable offense. Members of the reserves or of the active military don't have the same rights as those of you in the civilian world. When you join the military you voluntarily agree to give up those rights for the duration of your time in the military. You get them back once your out of the military.

Another blame bush for everything in the world thread.

The whole thing is covered under Section 1 of the UCMJ which covers subversive activities against the United States of America.
And speaking, as a US military officer, in a negative manner against America's President is a subversive act according to the law.

CSW, you are an idiot or are simply attempting to continue an argument and ignore all the reasoning brought forward...
Kindly off neutered sputniks. I just asked a lawyer, and she agreed with my assesment of the jurisdictional issues of this case.

To recap:

Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clearly the supreme court has jurisdiction over cases arising under the constitution, and more to the point, all military courts are inferior to the supreme court. The constitution does not provide for military courts to be exempt from this.

That's begging the question. A law is constitutional until determined to be unconstitutional. Your "average joe" doesn't make that decision, that's up to the Supreme court. And even "Constitutional" actions by Gov't can be superceded by certain legislative actions like anti emminent domain laws.

Nope, already an illegal order by art. 118, 133, & 134.
Re: Kelo, incorrect, the government has the power to exercise its eminent domain rights, but it also has the power to restrict their own rights. Any branch can restrict the rights of that branch, or restrict the powers given to another branch when constitutionally permitted.

Clearly not so, an unconstitutional law is unconstitutional from the moment it is created, because all rights are near absolutes. Again, if a law were to be passed that dissolved the supreme court, and hence the supreme court could not hear any cases challenging it, is it constitutional? Clearly not.

But we've yet to have a lawsuit challenging the validity of the order. All orders must be presumed to be valid until reviewed by a military panel :rolleyes:.

Kindly off neutered sputniks. I just asked a lawyer, and she agreed with my assesment of the jurisdictional issues of this case.

To recap:

Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clearly the supreme court has jurisdiction over cases arising under the constitution, and more to the point, all military courts are inferior to the supreme court. The constitution does not provide for military courts to be exempt from this.

Very true. However, the US Supreme Court has almost never ruled against the US military courts. Except on only one or two occassions. The court recognizes the necessity of having the subversion law and banning anti President speeches in the military. Hint: It has to do with defending liberty.

I think this person should be jailed.

Slander and supporting terrorism = not good.

Hopefully we can see Cindy and Moore in cuffs. They are supporting the deaths of American soldiers.

Kindly off neutered sputniks. I just asked a lawyer, and she agreed with my assesment of the jurisdictional issues of this case.

To recap:

Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clearly the supreme court has jurisdiction over cases arising under the constitution, and more to the point, all military courts are inferior to the supreme court. The constitution does not provide for military courts to be exempt from this.

And yet, the Supreme Court has deferred jurisdiction in all Military Courts-Martial to the Military. When you sign that dotted line (that no one held a gun to your head to make you do), you agree to give up some of your Constitutional rights to promote discipline in the ranks. Every member of the Armed Forces is well aware of this fact.

And I'd love to see your lawyer friend take this one to the Supreme Court and be told that the UCMJ is not only fully Constitutional (by default - if the SCOTUS wont take the case, then the law(s) are Constitutional) but encouraged by the SCOTUS and Congress as it is necessary to promote good order and discipline regardless of a Soldier's location.

This has been explained a number of times, and yet you refuse to admit that the SCOTUS has by default ruled the UCMJ to be entirely Constitutional.

Get your head out of your ass, and stop trying to pick a fight. Or at least be willing to admit defeat.