NationStates Jolt Archive

well, it really doesn't matter if Corneliu can or cannot, wants to or doesn't want to, serve in the military
I am going to assume he is an American
Regardless of his occupational aspirations (yes, the military is an occupation, they are paid for their services), he has the inherit, democratic right to either dissent or commend his government's actions both domestically and abroad.

It is irrelevant if he is in the military or not, because as a citizen of the United States, as a taxpayer, as a constituent, he has the RIGHT, not the privilege, mind you, but the RIGHT to voice his opinion and to hold fast to whatever his beliefs may be, and to express them through his casting of votes and through online forums, such as this.

I may not agree with him, you may not agree with him, but he has the right to believe what he believes regardless of his current status as a citizen, and no one has the right to deny him that, or harrass him over it.

Interesting post, but...
Is there really no pressure/intimidation from the US military targeting dissenting soldiers?

Dissent on the Front

Sept. 3, 2007 issue - Are there consequences for soldiers who write publicly, and prominently, against the war? Eight are finding out. "We have failed on every promise," wrote seven 82nd Airborne paratroopers in a stark dispatch from Baghdad that was the lead Sunday op-ed in The New York Times Aug. 19. Superiors at Fort Bragg were surprised—but not professors at Marquette, where Sp. Buddhika Jayamaha, whose name led the op-ed, had studied. One, Barrett McCormick, said he e-mailed with "BJ" recently. "He was very curious about what was going to happen," he says. "No one knows what the repercussions will be."

Sources: Yahoo/Newsweek/NBC/OccNEWS
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20439108/site/newsweek/
what do you all think?
how probable.. either way?

Interesting post, but...
Is there really no pressure/intimidation from the US military targeting dissenting soldiers?


what do you all think?
how probable.. either way?

Question: did they criticize President Bush in the so call op-ed?

There may not be any. Army policies permit soldiers to write or blog as long as they don't compromise operational security (e.g., troop locations) or challenge civilian leadership. "Until it is established that they violated any regulations, they will not be punished just for their views," said Army spokesman Maj. Tom Earnhardt.

Looks like nothing may happen.

*leaves to sleep*

Question: did they criticize President Bush in the so call op-ed?lets assume they did.. would that make a difference?

lets assume they did.. would that make a difference?

With me it would, since i would respect them more.

Hmm... Hard to judge because the OP seemed boring and thus I didn't read it, but shouldn't there be an apostrophe before the 's' in 'soldiers'?

OD what is up with you and ##? It is annoying.

OD what is up with you and ##? It is annoying.

Maybe it's like Ritlina's schtick or something.

Or they frequent a bunch of different forums, and the # signs are signifiers for use on this forum inparticular?

Well the military isn't a democratic organization believe it or not, and although a 'soldier' is still technically a 'citizen' at the same time, they are still subject to military law which is far different than civil law. So yes their are significant crossovers, it's important to remember that military's do not elect their officers, I spose you could call it a ultra-authoritarian meritocracy.

lets assume they did.. would that make a difference?

Actually...yes it would make a difference. Criticizing the President would be a court martial offense.

Well the military isn't a democratic organization believe it or not, and although a 'soldier' is still technically a 'citizen' at the same time, they are still subject to military law which is far different than civil law. So yes their are significant crossovers, it's important to remember that military's do not elect their officers, I spose you could call it a ultra-authoritarian meritocracy.

All officers are approved by the United States Congress.

It's part of the contractural agreement that both enlisted soldiers and officers sign.

Essentially...during active duty their free-speech rights, among others are curtailed for the benefit of greater stability in the command structure, and overall morale I assume.

Make sense really...you can't have a bunch of guys on a nuclear submarine deciding whether or not to launch based on an "opinion pole".

What they do when they're officially off duty and/or retire however...that's their business and their right as citizens.

...I'd still be careful though...you don't want to return to active duty and find your CO in your room, yelling "What did you say about my mama on NSG!?"

&& While it is vastly different no one is gonna be able to say constitional rights apply in the military. As for affecting civilian leadership, if published and used for arguements that is against the rules as it would be against the war.

The military isn't a "special exemption" to the Constitution.

Rather, like every other organization in which participation is completely voluntary, the military is entitled to require its members to abide by whatever rules it likes.

Don't like the rules? Don't join up.