Because there was a reason I posted mcveigh/lynch's pictures there
How about you address that then
How about I address what? Why you included those pictures? You wanted to prove I don't know the faces of famous army personel? I don't know who is in the army? I have no fucking idea why you posted their pictures.
Like I said, I assumed you posted those pictures because you were saying that some people do represent the entire army. And then I addressed that point. And then you called me a genius and laughed at me.
For the recond, I do not think the entire United States Army wanted to commit demostic terrorism. Saying that Tim McVeigh represented the army is as stupid as claiming Lt. Choi represents the entire army.
According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):
Soldiers are prohibited from the following actions in support of extremist organizations or activities. Penalties for violations of these prohibitions include the full range of statutory and regulatory sanctions, both criminal (UCMJ), and administrative:
Participating in public demonstrations or rallies.
Attending a meeting or activity with the knowledge that the meeting or activity involves an extremist cause.
Fund-raising activities.
Recruiting or training members.
Creating, organizing or leading such an organization or activity.
Distributing literature that supports extremist causes.
Commanders have the authority to prohibit soldiers from engaging in or participating in any other activities that the commander determines will adversely affect good order and discipline or morale within the command. Commanders may order the removal of symbols, flags, posters, or other displays from barracks. Commanders may also place areas or activities off-limits, or to order soldiers not to participate in those activities that are contrary to good order and discipline or morale of the unit or pose a threat to health, safety, and security of military personnel or a military installation. Commanders have options for dealing with soldiers that are in violation of the prohibitions. For example, the commander may use Article 15, bar to reenlistment or other administrative or disciplinary actions.
Commanders must investigate any soldier involved with an extremist organization or activity. Indicators of such involvement are membership, receipt of literature, or presence at an event that could threaten the good order and discipline of the unit. Soldiers should be aware of the potential adverse effects that violation of Army policy may have upon good order and discipline in the unit and upon their military service.
Under the UCMJ, Article 77 through 134:
§ 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 Homeland Security, 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.
§ 889. Art. 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.
§ 892. Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation
Any person subject to this chapter who— (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation; (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
§ 917. Art. 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.
§ 933. Art. 133. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman <- the main one
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.
----
So while I agree and respect Choi's intentions, he's going about it the wrong way. There's more civil, more accepted routes than handcuffing yourself to the White House fence. You're free to exercise your freedom of speech in the military, as long as you do it respectfully and maintain proper customs and courtesies.
And yes, it's pretty much drilled into your head at the lowest level that once you put on the uniform you are a representation of the US military. In a civilian environment, a lone service member wearing the uniform is the direct representation, and must uphold both military doctrine and current policies. Once they take off the uniform, they can pretty much do/or say whatever the hell they want as long as it's within the law.
Edit:
Department of Defense guidelines of acceptable political activity for members of the armed services bars service members from taking part in partisan political fundraising or using the uniform to influence an election. They also prohibit soliciting votes for a particular party and taking part in any radio or television broadcast as an advocate for or against a candidate or cause.
According to my local JAG:
"However, soldiers generally are not allowed to participate in partisan political activity beyond the level of membership and attendance at meetings. Consequently, soldiers may not serve as officers, sponsors, or candidates of partisan political parties or clubs.
This prohibition on certain types of partisan political activity extends to soliciting or receiving contributions, speaking at a partisan political gathering, and taking part in the management of a partisan political campaign.
A good rule of thumb is that any public or outward involvement in or support of partisan political activity by soldiers is likely prohibited."
What a soldier may do:
1. Register, vote, and express personal opinions on political candidates and issues, but not as representatives of the Army (note, however, that Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prohibits the use of contemptuous words against officials, including the president, vice president, secretary of defense, members of Congress, and the governor or legislature of any state).
2. Join a political club or party and attend meetings when not in uniform.
3. Serve in local part-time nonpartisan civil offices if such service does not interfere with the performance of military duties and prior approval is given by the installation commander.
4. Serve as an election official if such service is not as a representative of a partisan political party, is approved by the installation commander, and is performed out of uniform.
5. Sign a petition for specific legislative action or to place a candidate's name on a petition, if it is signed as a private citizen and does not obligate the soldier to engage in partisan political activity.
6. Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing personal views on public issues, if those views do not attempt to promote a partisan candidate or cause.
7. Write a personal letter that is not for publication expressing a preference for a partisan political candidate or cause, but such letters may not be part of an organized letter-writing campaign.
8. Contribute money to a political party or political committee favoring a particular candidate or a group of candidates.
9. Display a political decal on the bumper on his or her automobile (decals containing obscenities, vulgar language, or advocating acts of violence, or in support of extremist groups may not be permitted on a military installation).
May not:
1. Use official authority or position to interfere with an election, affect the course of an election, solicit votes for a candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others.
2. Be partisan political candidates for civil office at the federal, state, or local level. Soldiers also may not engage in public or organized solicitations of others to become partisan political candidates.
3. Take part in the partisan political management of campaigns or make public speeches in support of partisan political campaigns.
4. Make a campaign contribution to another member of the armed forces or to a civilian officer or employee of the United States to promote a political objective or cause.
5. Solicit or receive any campaign contributions to promote a political objective or cause.
6. Publish partisan political articles signed or authorized by the soldier to solicit votes for or against a partisan political party or candidate.
7. Serve in any official capacity or be listed as the sponsor of a partisan political party or club.
8. Speak before a partisan political gathering of any kind to promote a partisan political party or candidate.
9. Take part in any radio, television or other program or group discussion as an advocate of a partisan political party or candidate.
10. Conduct a political opinion survey at the direction of or in support of a partisan political group.
11. Distribute partisan political literature.
12. Use contemptuous words against the president, vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense, the secretary of a military department, or the governor or legislature of any state or territory.
13. Perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political party or committee during a political campaign or on Election Day.
14. Engage in fund-raising activities in federal offices or facilities for a partisan political cause or candidate, including anywhere on a military installation.
15. March or ride in a partisan political parade.
16. Display a large political sign, poster, or banner (as opposed to a decal) on his or her automobile.
17. Take part in any organized effort to provide voters with transportation to the polls (voting place) if it is organized or associated with a partisan political party or candidate.
18. Sell tickets for or otherwise actively promote political dinners and other political fund-raising events.
19. Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Army, even when there is no active participation.
These lists of permitted and prohibited activities are not exclusive. However, they provide specific examples of political activities that a soldier may and may not perform.
Evigilant on
XBL\PSN\Steam\Origin: Evigilant
0
Options
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
edited April 2010
Well, if you just run the numbers, I'd wager the right-wing gunnut racist anti-government yet still oddly in its employ guys in the army outnumber the like other guys/girls folks.
I'm confused as to what this argument is even over. Is it: That Choi should be allowed to protest? In uniform? That his decision to protest was the right one? That Choi is a cock-bag who is endangering the life of his teammates?
so: YES, NO, NO, YES
tinwhiskers on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
For the recond, I do not think the entire United States Army wanted to commit demostic terrorism. Saying that Tim McVeigh represented the army is as stupid as claiming Lt. Choi represents the entire army.
So you're saying Petraeus represents the Army because he's in charge, but no one else does because they're not? Nice cognitive dissonance/buck passing there o_O
So when you're pissed off because an employee at K-Mart does a shitty job ringing you up, who you're really pissed off at is the CEO? And only him? The employee has no representation for his job whatsoever, it's the CEO's fault, then?
The argument I am making in this thread is one low level person in the army doesn't represent the army even if they protest in uniform.
And in the other thread it was, Dan Choi protesting in uniform does not necessarily mean that he has cost people their lives, unless you can prove than more people died without his command than would've died under his command. Or trauma, pain, PTSD as a different definition of "cost lives" if that is what Quid initially meant.
The poor woman who came out and said "uh those jerks beat up some Iraqi doctors and nurses who were helping me during my 'rescue', and I never fired my rifle once FYI because it jammed"?
Actually she wrote a book claiming she was raped when she wasn't but that's neither here nor there
So much fail.
Really the US armed forces should just stick to wacky recruitment videos like the Mars USAF recruitment one, because have they ever done a PR thing that hasn't ended up blowing up in their faces?
Pretty sure that wasn't an official Army PR "thing".
For the recond, I do not think the entire United States Army wanted to commit demostic terrorism. Saying that Tim McVeigh represented the army is as stupid as claiming Lt. Choi represents the entire army.
So you're saying Petraeus represents the Army because he's in charge, but no one else does because they're not? Nice cognitive dissonance/buck passing there o_O
So you're saying Dan Choi represents the Arm because he isn't in charge, but no one else represents the army even if they are in charge? Nice cognitive dissonance/buck passing there O.o
So when you're pissed off because an employee at K-Mart does a shitty job ringing you up, who you're really pissed off at is the CEO? And only him? The employee has no representation for his job whatsoever, it's the CEO's fault, then?
Well I sure as fuck am not pissed off at K-Mart because someone was being a dick. And, yes, I'd probably be just as angry at the person that trained him to be, and did nothing to curb him from, being a dick.
Because he does not represent the entire K-Mart organization, I can't in good faith blame the organization for his actions.
I think you are just agreeing with me at this point.
I never said Dan Choi doesn't represent himself. I said he doesn't represent the army. He doesn't represent Peatraeus, he doesn't represent me, he doesn't represent you, he doesn't represent China.
Burtletoy on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
The argument I am making in this thread is one low level person in the army doesn't represent the army even if they protest in uniform.
But that's illegal, and politicizing the military. I wanted to fucking strangle someone if Palin was allowed to speak at the military post she was scheduled to speak at, because it's the exact same thing in the opposite direction. Are you saying it'd be right then? Would it be right for, say, MG Halverson to show up at a Birther protest in uniform? If not, why are you extending rights to some people in the military and not others? If so, how could I in good conscience work under a commander who doubts Obama's citizenship? How could POTUS trust him to do his job?
For the recond, I do not think the entire United States Army wanted to commit demostic terrorism. Saying that Tim McVeigh represented the army is as stupid as claiming Lt. Choi represents the entire army.
So you're saying Petraeus represents the Army because he's in charge, but no one else does because they're not? Nice cognitive dissonance/buck passing there o_O
So you're saying Dan Choi represents the Arm because he isn't in charge, but no one else represents the army even if they are in charge? Nice cognitive dissonance/buck passing there O.o
Everyone represents the military who is in the military. That's my point.I represent the military as long as I'm in it, and I sure as fuck do when I wear a uniform
The argument I am making in this thread is one low level person in the army doesn't represent the army even if they protest in uniform.
Daniel Choi represent Daniel Choi. Lt. Choi represent the US Army.
To help you tell them apart, the US Army has issued Lt. Choi a uniform.
[QUOTE=Burtletoy;14665864
And in the other thread it was, Dan Choi protesting in uniform does not necessarily mean that he has cost people their lives, unless you can prove than more people died without his command than would've died under his command. Or trauma, pain, PTSD as a different definition of "cost lives" if that is what Quid initially meant.[/QUOTE]
BRB traveling to alternate-relativity to satisfy your standard of proof. All anyone needs to prove is that his behavior increases the likelihood of some bad things happening.Unless Choi is a Gomer Pile esq screw up, that his platoon(?) is at at increased risk(by being down a man) can be taken prima facie. This increased risk is Choi's fault.
okay again I'll ask, since I'm confused on the matter:
Has Choi been discharged/not being deployed because of DADT or because of his protesting in uniform?
EDIT: and if the latter, What was his status before then, because he'd already become a known figure for going on the news and saying he was gay, in the military and that DADT was wrong.
The argument I am making in this thread is one low level person in the army doesn't represent the army even if they protest in uniform.
But that's illegal, and politicizing the military. I wanted to fucking strangle someone if Palin was allowed to speak at the military post she was scheduled to speak at, because it's the exact same thing in the opposite direction. Are you saying it'd be right then? Would it be right for, say, MG Halverson to show up at a Birther protest in uniform? If not, why are you extending rights to some people in the military and not others? If so, how could I in good conscience work under a commander who doubts Obama's citizenship? How could POTUS trust him to do his job?
Okay, it was illegal. And...? Yes, I think it is fine for people to protest things they don't agree with. I don't know who MG Halverson is or what he did, but if he wanted to protest something, that is fine with me. I don't have to agree with your protests for me to think you should be able to do it.
For the recond, I do not think the entire United States Army wanted to commit demostic terrorism. Saying that Tim McVeigh represented the army is as stupid as claiming Lt. Choi represents the entire army.
So you're saying Petraeus represents the Army because he's in charge, but no one else does because they're not? Nice cognitive dissonance/buck passing there o_O
So you're saying Dan Choi represents the Arm because he isn't in charge, but no one else represents the army even if they are in charge? Nice cognitive dissonance/buck passing there O.o
Everyone represents the military who is in the military. That's my point.I represent the military as long as I'm in it, and I sure as fuck do when I wear a uniform
I disagree. You do not represent the military. I don't, because of you and your opinions, think the entire armed forces like to go on message boards and argue with me. Even if you are doing it and you are also in the army. Even if you were doing it, while in the military, AND wearing your uniform. You might think you represent the military, but the majority of people don't think you do. People don't think the army supports the repeal of DADT just because Choi supports its repeal. Even though he wore his uniform while doing it.
And in the other thread it was, Dan Choi protesting in uniform does not necessarily mean that he has cost people their lives, unless you can prove than more people died without his command than would've died under his command. Or trauma, pain, PTSD as a different definition of "cost lives" if that is what Quid initially meant.
BRB traveling to alternate-relativity to satisfy your standard of proof. All anyone needs to prove is that his behavior increases the likelihood of some bad things happening.Unless Choi is a Gomer Pile esq screw up, that his platoon(?) is at at increased risk(by being down a man) can be taken prima facie. This increased risk is Choi's fault.
Exact-fucking-ly. You can't prove he is costing lives, so assuming he is costing lives is your backup? Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in the 80's? Also, no one has shown that his unit will be deployed a man short in his absence, and Quid in fact argued that he would be replaced by a person that had more expirence than him. Also, I fail to see how deploying a unit one man short is anything other than the Armies fault.
And in the other thread it was, Dan Choi protesting in uniform does not necessarily mean that he has cost people their lives, unless you can prove than more people died without his command than would've died under his command. Or trauma, pain, PTSD as a different definition of "cost lives" if that is what Quid initially meant.
BRB traveling to alternate-relativity to satisfy your standard of proof. All anyone needs to prove is that his behavior increases the likelihood of some bad things happening.Unless Choi is a Gomer Pile esq screw up, that his platoon(?) is at at increased risk(by being down a man) can be taken prima facie. This increased risk is Choi's fault.
Exact-fucking-ly. You can't prove he is costing lives, so assuming he is costing lives is your backup? Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in the 80's? Also, no one has shown that his unit will be deployed a man short in his absence, and Quid in fact argued that he would be replaced by a person that had more expirence than him. Also, I fail to see how deploying a unit one man short is anything other than the Armies fault.
Your burden of proof is insane, it explicitly requires knowing the outcomes of 2 mutually exclusive events:
I'm going to drive around drunk from now on. Yes thats stupidly dangerous, put you can't prove I'll end up killing more people than if I wasn't drunk. Therefor you can't criticize my choice, even if it is increasing the chance that I'll kill innocent people, because maybe I'd kill more people if I was sober.
Real life isn't It's A Wonderful Life, you don't know all possible future outcomes.
Is the Army suppose to predict that Choi is going to break the law and have a replacement ready and waiting, or simply change the law to suit Choi's behavioral whims? If he wasn't going to be deployed because he beat up his boyfriend, would it still be the Army's fault?
The argument I am making in this thread is one low level person in the army doesn't represent the army even if they protest in uniform.
But that's illegal, and politicizing the military. I wanted to fucking strangle someone if Palin was allowed to speak at the military post she was scheduled to speak at, because it's the exact same thing in the opposite direction. Are you saying it'd be right then? Would it be right for, say, MG Halverson to show up at a Birther protest in uniform? If not, why are you extending rights to some people in the military and not others? If so, how could I in good conscience work under a commander who doubts Obama's citizenship? How could POTUS trust him to do his job?
Okay, it was illegal. And...? Yes, I think it is fine for people to protest things they don't agree with. I don't know who MG Halverson is or what he did, but if he wanted to protest something, that is fine with me. I don't have to agree with your protests for me to think you should be able to do it.
For the recond, I do not think the entire United States Army wanted to commit demostic terrorism. Saying that Tim McVeigh represented the army is as stupid as claiming Lt. Choi represents the entire army.
So you're saying Petraeus represents the Army because he's in charge, but no one else does because they're not? Nice cognitive dissonance/buck passing there o_O
So you're saying Dan Choi represents the Arm because he isn't in charge, but no one else represents the army even if they are in charge? Nice cognitive dissonance/buck passing there O.o
Everyone represents the military who is in the military. That's my point.I represent the military as long as I'm in it, and I sure as fuck do when I wear a uniform
I disagree. You do not represent the military. I don't, because of you and your opinions, think the entire armed forces like to go on message boards and argue with me. Even if you are doing it and you are also in the army. Even if you were doing it, while in the military, AND wearing your uniform. You might think you represent the military, but the majority of people don't think you do. People don't think the army supports the repeal of DADT just because Choi supports its repeal. Even though he wore his uniform while doing it.
Think of it this way. If a civilian acted like a douche to most people they would say "Man, that guy was a douche." Now, if you act that way while in uniform they will say "Damn, that sailor was a douche." Therefore, when you wear a uniform, you represent the military because people associate you with that organization that you voluntarily joined.
It's entirely proportionate to the claim he was requiring proof for.
That deploying a platoon short an experienced leader(giving Choi the benefit of the doubt) increases the likelihood that something bad will happen to them?
When Choi doesn't deploy the Platoon Sergeant will likely have to perform the duties Choi's duties overseas.
The Weapons Squad Leader will have to step up to fill his slot with little training beforehand.
A line Squad Leader will have to take charge of Weapons Squad.
A team leader will get promoted to squad leader.
A private/specialist will be promoted to team leader.
That's 5 leaders filling roles that they may not be ready for. Not to mention that Choi's platoon now has one less guy to pull security/guard and they may now have a fire team that is combat ineffective due to a lack of manpower.
It's pretty easy to see how Choi's actions could result in a loss of life, and/or trauma while overseas that could've been prevented.
It's entirely proportionate to the claim he was requiring proof for.
That deploying a platoon short an experienced leader(giving Choi the benefit of the doubt) increases the likelihood that something bad will happen to them?
When Choi doesn't deploy the Platoon Sergeant will likely have to perform the duties Choi's duties overseas.
The Weapons Squad Leader will have to step up to fill his slot with little training beforehand.
A line Squad Leader will have to take charge of Weapons Squad.
A team leader will get promoted to squad leader.
A private/specialist will be promoted to team leader.
That's 5 leaders filling roles that they may not be ready for. Not to mention that Choi's platoon now has one less guy to pull security/guard and they may now have a fire team that is combat ineffective due to a lack of manpower.
It's pretty easy to see how Choi's actions could result in a loss of life, and/or trauma while overseas that could've been prevented.
Posts
Yes, I was. Because I assumed the point you were trying to make is some persons do represent the will of the entire army. So I addressed that.
How about I address what? Why you included those pictures? You wanted to prove I don't know the faces of famous army personel? I don't know who is in the army? I have no fucking idea why you posted their pictures.
Like I said, I assumed you posted those pictures because you were saying that some people do represent the entire army. And then I addressed that point. And then you called me a genius and laughed at me.
Soldiers are prohibited from the following actions in support of extremist organizations or activities. Penalties for violations of these prohibitions include the full range of statutory and regulatory sanctions, both criminal (UCMJ), and administrative:
Participating in public demonstrations or rallies.
Attending a meeting or activity with the knowledge that the meeting or activity involves an extremist cause.
Fund-raising activities.
Recruiting or training members.
Creating, organizing or leading such an organization or activity.
Distributing literature that supports extremist causes.
Commanders have the authority to prohibit soldiers from engaging in or participating in any other activities that the commander determines will adversely affect good order and discipline or morale within the command. Commanders may order the removal of symbols, flags, posters, or other displays from barracks. Commanders may also place areas or activities off-limits, or to order soldiers not to participate in those activities that are contrary to good order and discipline or morale of the unit or pose a threat to health, safety, and security of military personnel or a military installation. Commanders have options for dealing with soldiers that are in violation of the prohibitions. For example, the commander may use Article 15, bar to reenlistment or other administrative or disciplinary actions.
Commanders must investigate any soldier involved with an extremist organization or activity. Indicators of such involvement are membership, receipt of literature, or presence at an event that could threaten the good order and discipline of the unit. Soldiers should be aware of the potential adverse effects that violation of Army policy may have upon good order and discipline in the unit and upon their military service.
Under the UCMJ, Article 77 through 134:
§ 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 Homeland Security, 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.
§ 889. Art. 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.
§ 892. Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation
Any person subject to this chapter who— (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation; (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
§ 917. Art. 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.
§ 933. Art. 133. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman <- the main one
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.
----
So while I agree and respect Choi's intentions, he's going about it the wrong way. There's more civil, more accepted routes than handcuffing yourself to the White House fence. You're free to exercise your freedom of speech in the military, as long as you do it respectfully and maintain proper customs and courtesies.
And yes, it's pretty much drilled into your head at the lowest level that once you put on the uniform you are a representation of the US military. In a civilian environment, a lone service member wearing the uniform is the direct representation, and must uphold both military doctrine and current policies. Once they take off the uniform, they can pretty much do/or say whatever the hell they want as long as it's within the law.
Edit:
Department of Defense guidelines of acceptable political activity for members of the armed services bars service members from taking part in partisan political fundraising or using the uniform to influence an election. They also prohibit soliciting votes for a particular party and taking part in any radio or television broadcast as an advocate for or against a candidate or cause.
According to my local JAG:
"However, soldiers generally are not allowed to participate in partisan political activity beyond the level of membership and attendance at meetings. Consequently, soldiers may not serve as officers, sponsors, or candidates of partisan political parties or clubs.
This prohibition on certain types of partisan political activity extends to soliciting or receiving contributions, speaking at a partisan political gathering, and taking part in the management of a partisan political campaign.
A good rule of thumb is that any public or outward involvement in or support of partisan political activity by soldiers is likely prohibited."
What a soldier may do:
1. Register, vote, and express personal opinions on political candidates and issues, but not as representatives of the Army (note, however, that Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prohibits the use of contemptuous words against officials, including the president, vice president, secretary of defense, members of Congress, and the governor or legislature of any state).
2. Join a political club or party and attend meetings when not in uniform.
3. Serve in local part-time nonpartisan civil offices if such service does not interfere with the performance of military duties and prior approval is given by the installation commander.
4. Serve as an election official if such service is not as a representative of a partisan political party, is approved by the installation commander, and is performed out of uniform.
5. Sign a petition for specific legislative action or to place a candidate's name on a petition, if it is signed as a private citizen and does not obligate the soldier to engage in partisan political activity.
6. Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing personal views on public issues, if those views do not attempt to promote a partisan candidate or cause.
7. Write a personal letter that is not for publication expressing a preference for a partisan political candidate or cause, but such letters may not be part of an organized letter-writing campaign.
8. Contribute money to a political party or political committee favoring a particular candidate or a group of candidates.
9. Display a political decal on the bumper on his or her automobile (decals containing obscenities, vulgar language, or advocating acts of violence, or in support of extremist groups may not be permitted on a military installation).
May not:
1. Use official authority or position to interfere with an election, affect the course of an election, solicit votes for a candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others.
2. Be partisan political candidates for civil office at the federal, state, or local level. Soldiers also may not engage in public or organized solicitations of others to become partisan political candidates.
3. Take part in the partisan political management of campaigns or make public speeches in support of partisan political campaigns.
4. Make a campaign contribution to another member of the armed forces or to a civilian officer or employee of the United States to promote a political objective or cause.
5. Solicit or receive any campaign contributions to promote a political objective or cause.
6. Publish partisan political articles signed or authorized by the soldier to solicit votes for or against a partisan political party or candidate.
7. Serve in any official capacity or be listed as the sponsor of a partisan political party or club.
8. Speak before a partisan political gathering of any kind to promote a partisan political party or candidate.
9. Take part in any radio, television or other program or group discussion as an advocate of a partisan political party or candidate.
10. Conduct a political opinion survey at the direction of or in support of a partisan political group.
11. Distribute partisan political literature.
12. Use contemptuous words against the president, vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense, the secretary of a military department, or the governor or legislature of any state or territory.
13. Perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political party or committee during a political campaign or on Election Day.
14. Engage in fund-raising activities in federal offices or facilities for a partisan political cause or candidate, including anywhere on a military installation.
15. March or ride in a partisan political parade.
16. Display a large political sign, poster, or banner (as opposed to a decal) on his or her automobile.
17. Take part in any organized effort to provide voters with transportation to the polls (voting place) if it is organized or associated with a partisan political party or candidate.
18. Sell tickets for or otherwise actively promote political dinners and other political fund-raising events.
19. Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Army, even when there is no active participation.
These lists of permitted and prohibited activities are not exclusive. However, they provide specific examples of political activities that a soldier may and may not perform.
so: YES, NO, NO, YES
So you're saying Petraeus represents the Army because he's in charge, but no one else does because they're not? Nice cognitive dissonance/buck passing there o_O
So when you're pissed off because an employee at K-Mart does a shitty job ringing you up, who you're really pissed off at is the CEO? And only him? The employee has no representation for his job whatsoever, it's the CEO's fault, then?
And in the other thread it was, Dan Choi protesting in uniform does not necessarily mean that he has cost people their lives, unless you can prove than more people died without his command than would've died under his command. Or trauma, pain, PTSD as a different definition of "cost lives" if that is what Quid initially meant.
Pretty sure that wasn't an official Army PR "thing".
So you're saying Dan Choi represents the Arm because he isn't in charge, but no one else represents the army even if they are in charge? Nice cognitive dissonance/buck passing there O.o
Well I sure as fuck am not pissed off at K-Mart because someone was being a dick. And, yes, I'd probably be just as angry at the person that trained him to be, and did nothing to curb him from, being a dick.
Because he does not represent the entire K-Mart organization, I can't in good faith blame the organization for his actions.
I think you are just agreeing with me at this point.
I never said Dan Choi doesn't represent himself. I said he doesn't represent the army. He doesn't represent Peatraeus, he doesn't represent me, he doesn't represent you, he doesn't represent China.
But that's illegal, and politicizing the military. I wanted to fucking strangle someone if Palin was allowed to speak at the military post she was scheduled to speak at, because it's the exact same thing in the opposite direction. Are you saying it'd be right then? Would it be right for, say, MG Halverson to show up at a Birther protest in uniform? If not, why are you extending rights to some people in the military and not others? If so, how could I in good conscience work under a commander who doubts Obama's citizenship? How could POTUS trust him to do his job?
Everyone represents the military who is in the military. That's my point. I represent the military as long as I'm in it, and I sure as fuck do when I wear a uniform
Lt. Choi represent the US Army.
To help you tell them apart, the US Army has issued Lt. Choi a uniform.
[QUOTE=Burtletoy;14665864
And in the other thread it was, Dan Choi protesting in uniform does not necessarily mean that he has cost people their lives, unless you can prove than more people died without his command than would've died under his command. Or trauma, pain, PTSD as a different definition of "cost lives" if that is what Quid initially meant.[/QUOTE]
BRB traveling to alternate-relativity to satisfy your standard of proof. All anyone needs to prove is that his behavior increases the likelihood of some bad things happening.Unless Choi is a Gomer Pile esq screw up, that his platoon(?) is at at increased risk(by being down a man) can be taken prima facie. This increased risk is Choi's fault.
Has Choi been discharged/not being deployed because of DADT or because of his protesting in uniform?
EDIT: and if the latter, What was his status before then, because he'd already become a known figure for going on the news and saying he was gay, in the military and that DADT was wrong.
Okay, it was illegal. And...? Yes, I think it is fine for people to protest things they don't agree with. I don't know who MG Halverson is or what he did, but if he wanted to protest something, that is fine with me. I don't have to agree with your protests for me to think you should be able to do it.
I disagree. You do not represent the military. I don't, because of you and your opinions, think the entire armed forces like to go on message boards and argue with me. Even if you are doing it and you are also in the army. Even if you were doing it, while in the military, AND wearing your uniform. You might think you represent the military, but the majority of people don't think you do. People don't think the army supports the repeal of DADT just because Choi supports its repeal. Even though he wore his uniform while doing it.
Exact-fucking-ly. You can't prove he is costing lives, so assuming he is costing lives is your backup? Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in the 80's? Also, no one has shown that his unit will be deployed a man short in his absence, and Quid in fact argued that he would be replaced by a person that had more expirence than him. Also, I fail to see how deploying a unit one man short is anything other than the Armies fault.
I'm going to drive around drunk from now on. Yes thats stupidly dangerous, put you can't prove I'll end up killing more people than if I wasn't drunk. Therefor you can't criticize my choice, even if it is increasing the chance that I'll kill innocent people, because maybe I'd kill more people if I was sober.
Real life isn't It's A Wonderful Life, you don't know all possible future outcomes.
Is the Army suppose to predict that Choi is going to break the law and have a replacement ready and waiting, or simply change the law to suit Choi's behavioral whims? If he wasn't going to be deployed because he beat up his boyfriend, would it still be the Army's fault?
Think of it this way. If a civilian acted like a douche to most people they would say "Man, that guy was a douche." Now, if you act that way while in uniform they will say "Damn, that sailor was a douche." Therefore, when you wear a uniform, you represent the military because people associate you with that organization that you voluntarily joined.
It's entirely proportionate to the claim he was requiring proof for.
That deploying a platoon short an experienced leader(giving Choi the benefit of the doubt) increases the likelihood that something bad will happen to them?
Yeah thats just full of logical holes.