It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Raising questions about 911 gets Army Sergeant demoted

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
I think you mean "morale", not "moral". Anyway, you are saying that we should lose our freedom of speech when we join the Army? Isn't freedom of speech the stated reason usually given for fighting in the first place? Why should the rest of America be able to speak freely, but not the soldiers, the ones who are actually doing the fighting?

Man, that's some twisted logic you have going there.


You give up certain constitutional rights when you join the military. Some of them are just fundimentally incompatable with military service. You should know this going in, and if this guy was an NCO he for sure knew. My freedom of speech is restricted. I cannot publically support a political candidate without breaking the law- no working campaigns as I did in college, no yard signs, no bumper stickers. The best I can do is an anonymous donation. Its illegal for me to say my boss is an idiot. Its illegal for me to call in sick when I really just need a day off. And its illegal for me to make depreciating statements about the government.

Think about it. I need dicipline in my unit. I can't have one of my soldiers running around saying "WhiteOne's tactics are questionable, lets get an independent investigation started on what is actually happening on the battlefield." I would immeadiately crush this soldier. I give legal orders, they carry them out, no questions asked. Its the same in the big picture.

For those interested, this is the UCMJ Article he violated:
Article 124-12 (Disloyal Statements)
Elements.
(1) That the accused made a certain statement;
(2) That the statement was communicated to another person;
(3) That the statement was disloyal to the United States;
(4) That the statement was made with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection toward the United States by any member of the armed forces or to interfere with or impair the loyalty to the United States or good order and discipline of any member of the armed forces; and
(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Maximum punishment- Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years.

This guy slipped up even more by using a monitored computer. If he waited till he got home he probably would never have got caught.




posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
While I am sympathetic, I feel like the guy was foolish to do what he did.

I have talked to a lot of people in the military, and they all have basically told me that if your political views are not of the squared away hard-right variety, you have to keep your mouth shut and your head down in most cases.

The extreme right has infiltrated the military to the point that their influence can make or break your career. Apparently the worst service in this respect is the Air Force, where the Academy is essentially the domain of very extreme fundamentalist Protestants.

Exactly the ones you want with their hands on the bulk of the nuclear arsenal



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
People, this is BS.

It takes an ACT OF CONGRESS to demote a SFC.

If anyone had read the article they would have noticed that he did not lose rank.

He was a SFC before this and still is.

He was removed from his position and assigned as a Platoon SGT, which is the CORRECT POSITION OF A SFC!

And I think anyone who was ever anywhere near the Army will back me up when I say that no platoon sergeant would EVER do janitorial work like the article claims he is being made to do. Even extra duty for a SFC wouldn’t be manual labor.

Now that said, his action should fall under whistleblower protection act BUT they were right in removing his clearance (and that is coming from a "truther") and therefore his position if it required a clearance.

Now that is only assuming that his email didn’t go out to his subordinates. If it went up the chain or to senior NCOs and above, then he cannot be charged with anything.

The article, BTW did not state that he HAD been charged with anything.

Look, any vet knows what a s**t bag is and knows that this guy has obviously picked up this label and doesn’t like it. I got a lot of crap for being a truther as well, and was denied my secret clearence, a requirement for a scout; I only kept my MOS because every new CO I had gave me a waiver after interveiwing me about my views.

The Army is a popularity contest all the way up through the ranks and this guy lost the contest and is tired of not being treated like the one of the cool kids, which is typically granted to a SFC.

You people get your panties in a twist over the smallest things.


[edit on 25-1-2008 by cavscout]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Someone once told me,"Question everything and the truth will be revealed, because only those who tell the truth welcome questions".

[edit on 25/1/08 by NuclearPaul]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteOneActual

Originally posted by forestlady


For those interested, this is the UCMJ Article he violated:
Article 124-12 (Disloyal Statements)
Elements.
(1) That the accused made a certain statement;
(2) That the statement was communicated to another person;
(3) That the statement was disloyal to the United States;
(4) That the statement was made with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection toward the United States by any member of the armed forces or to interfere with or impair the loyalty to the United States or good order and discipline of any member of the armed forces; and
(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Maximum punishment- Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years.

This guy slipped up even more by using a monitored computer. If he waited till he got home he probably would never have got caught.




Thank you for the excellent post clearly defining his crimes. They are serious and warranted, not some popularity contest like cavscout is trying to downplay this as. He is very lucky he only got reasigned duties instead of the 3 years hard time.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


There's no policy in the military that rewards or punishes those who are conservative or liberal in viewpoints, and I've met people all across the spectrum. What you're not allowed to do is any political activities while representing the military/DOD/US Gov't. Anything you do has to be strictly on your time, without reference to your job or rank, and in civilian attire. You sure as heck can't use a government computer for political purposes, or speaking out against the government.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Popular Mechanics wrote a great article on debunking 9-11?
NOT!

official version of the events is BS


It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation
The article also completely fails to answer why pools of molten yellow metal were found underneath both towers and Building 7 subsequent to the collapses.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
It's not a matter of policy, simply a fact of daily life in the military.
It's something I've been told by several current & former servicemen, and I have no reason to doubt them.

Join the Air Force (especially), admit you're a Democrat or (gasp!) an atheist, and you can expect to get screwed at every turn.

To the far right, either of those is synonymous with "traitor" - sad but true.

BTW thanks to cavscout for clearing up the "demotion" issue with facts.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by cavscout
 


Good call cavscout. Attention to detail. But thats what you get paid for, isn't it?

As he says, its a significant event to demote a SFC. The article says he is in charge of about 40 soldiers, which is a platoon sized element. It doesn't say anything about demotion or any charges.

The dude probably lost just his TS, which I'm sure is necessary for a senior Intel Analyst, or there is something we don't know. There are several possible reasons for a "punitive reassignment." Maybe the dude got a DUI. Who knows. This article is a he said/she said and we're only getting half of the story, if that.

Its real easy to lose a clearance on the computer though. Forget to encrypt a few emails here, put up a few documents on NIPR that belong on SIPR or JWICS there....info spills are a HUGE deal.

All in all, very little information to go on here.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by dshut69
Everyone knows that one plane was shot down - at least if you were positioned in the right place in Nato on the day you'd have seen the order, like my mate was...


That's odd, because if 'everyone knows...' this, as you claim, then why are we always being told by 'truthers' that 'NORAD was STOOD DOWN on the day' ?

So, err...if NORAD was 'stood down', how could F#93 be SHOT down? Who was doing the shooting?



Lets face it, if the "terrorists" needed the threat of slitting the air hostesses throats to get the pilots to open the cabin door, how did a load of Joe Publics get a load of "terrorists" who wanted to kill themselves to open the doors to the cabin after they'd got in & locked them again?


The surviving recordings of telephone calls made by several passengers & crew on f#93 to relatives, plus the cockpit voice recorder recovered from the crash site at Shanksville, strongly suggest that the cockpit door was smashed in by an aisle trolley used as a battering ram by the passengers. Only 4 hijackers were available for #93, so they were short-handed; the pilot was by far the least capable and experienced of the 4; and because the flight was hijacked after the WTC & Pentagon impacts the passengers were made aware of what was being planned, and took desperate measures.


Sorry to say it but I think its clear which one was shot down, & I think the administration called it perfectly right


I think if it had been shot down, I would agree with your view 100%. But the evidence as known does not support your version.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Oh wow.
Now I'm pretty sure that US Embassy will never ever give me an American visa and I will never visit US anymore.
I worked in the US two times and enjoyed it very much but looks like because of myspace profile full of information about UFO's and 9/11 and my membership on the ATS they will put me on the black list.
That sucks.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Wow, this thread drifts quickly.

I agree with Section8, Bunch and the others. We in the military, especially careerists, understand what freedoms we give up when we sign on the dotted line. Using government assets to promote an idea that could undermine the morale (see I was reading) of the organization and bring discredit to it as well, is simply not tolerated. No need to simplify as it has been broken down "Barney style" a couple of times.

I am kicking a dead horse here, but I wanted my .0002 worth in after reading the comments of (summarizing) political views being an inhibitor to moving up in ranks (complete crap) and "baby killing war mongers". Did it ever occur to some that the reason for the relative few "far left" believers is the majority oppose the military, but are hypocrite to cry out that the military didn't do enough when something goes wrong?

Oh, I do believe there is much more that goes on behind closed doors. I am not contesting that at all. I am throwing in my support for those mentioned above regarding this thread.

And I loved General Patton's quote.....



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   


comments of (summarizing) political views being an inhibitor to moving up in ranks (complete crap)


Sorry, but this is something I have been told this repeatedly, by recent veterans whom I have no reason to doubt.

"Keep your head down and your mouth shut" is a phrase I have heard in particular more than once, from Iraq vets specifically.

Maybe it's a new thing, as older vets I know have not said the same thing.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Bugsmasher
The issue here is that he used his government computer. I f he'd done this from home it wouldn't have been a problem. JMHO


How many of our military debunkers around here use their government computers to post on here?

Should they be reprimanded also?

Should Ryan Mackey be fired for writting a debunking letter and posting to JREF from his government computer or time?

Why is there a double standard here?

Yes and yes.

Government employees (not appointed by the graft system) are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to use tax payer funded means to engage in discussion of those opinions. I am quite sure if the NCO in question was championing a hard-line "debunker" view, you wouldn't be nearly so upset. I bet, not at all.

In the military, you do not have the right to criticize whoever you feel like. You, in fact, do loose some rights when you join up. Look, you don't have to like it, or even agree with it, but it is the 'way it is'.

The civilian using taxpayer funded machines to peruse a political and personal agenda? Not acceptable. You (the royal you) don't like that? Find another job and see how private industry feels about you wasting time on their dime.

EDIT:

I am not asking you to agree with me, or even that the NCO was disciplined. I am suggesting, through personal experience as a NCO and soldier for six years, that there are certain rules that you live by as a solider. What I articulated is open for critics, as a policy but, what I articulated is, in fact, the regulations he agreed to when he signed up.

It's a volunteer force guys. Don't like the rules (as I didn't)? Leave (as I did).

I won't agree that he has a right - as an active duty NCO - to say whatever he feels like; he doesn't. As a civilian, on his own time? He absolutely does.

Can you (the royal you) see where I am coming from? It's not a conspiracy issue. It's a good order and discipline issue.

Also, based on personal experience: this guy was a senior NCO. Busting this guy was not an easy thing. It took a field grade general to do it. I doubt very seriously that he was demoted two pay grades over this one incident. There is more here, IMO.


[edit on 27-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by cavscout
 


It does not take an act of congress to demote a SFC.

Seriously - you couldn't get a secret clearance? Secret isn't a big deal - at all. If you were being denied a secret, there is more here than your views on 9-11, IMO.

I expect a complete denial, but to get into the service in the first place, you have to clear a "secret" clearance. Shoot a secret isn't anything more than background check for arrests and easily found statements about subversion of the government.

Before you went to MEPS (SP?) you passed the requirements for "secret".



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


Not lashing out here, just clarifying.

I and others would consider me a senior NCO (SNCO actually). In no place on my fitness reports does it have political views, or opinions as a block to be checked. If I questioned orders on a regular basis I may have lesser marks under things such as loyalty, judgment, leadership, communication, etc.... which WOULD affect a promotion boards opinion of whether or not I would make a good Master/ First Sergeant and therefore pass me on by.

We are not in a business of questioning orders unless it is an unlawful order. Allowing every man/ woman to question every little thing gets people killed. Not every op we do involves killing. Many times we execute the mission in such a way to MINIMIZE the destruction.

Sorry, just the way it is. I and others on this thread made the choice to accept that fact when we made the conscious decision to continue this as a career.

Like I said not lashing out just clarifying.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I understand, I'm not even objecting to this guy's alleged demotion actually.
It sounds like there are legitimate disciplinary reasons why his actions were inappropriate.

And I am sure there is no formal process for denying promotions based on expressed political views

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Humans being what they are, even formalized processes are still subject to human subjectivity, and with things as polarized as they have become in this country (opponents of the Iraq war being routinely labeled "traitors" and the like on these very fora), it appears to be affecting the military.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I thought I read that he hadn't been demoted in rank, just responsibility. I could be wrong.

A point that might be causing the misunderstanding is, many times when sources from outside (although I have heard it among soldiers; Marines avoid this passionately) that any rank with the word Sergeant in it (first sergeant, master sergeant, sergeant first class) is often broken down to just Sergeant. This COULD be a cause of confusion. He might have kept his rank entirely. Not that I am the be all, end all, of info, but after 18 years it is my understanding it requires a Court Martial to demote a SNCO. (he was authorized promotion by Congress, so it makes it a tad more difficult for just anyone to take it away) but I digress.

Oh and it doesn't take anything other than a letter to the promotion board stating you do not want to be considered, or just deny the promotion. (if your political views have justified your desire to no longer move up and possibly affect future decision making)



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Not everyone in the military has a secret clearance. There are many jobs that don't require a clearance. There's a different background check for a clearance, than to just meet the minimum requirements.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Negative.

If you don't have a "secret" clearance you can't be included in mission briefs. I'm not talking about super-squirrel-secret-black-ops that almost none of us have been involved in.

I am talking about simple movement orders. If you don't have a secret (or have passed a secret at/before induction) you can't be included in mission briefings.

"Secret" clearances aren't 'maintained' per se, like a Top. A secret is nothing more than a background check run through FCIC and a review of your records for derogatory info, done locally. That's it.

I agree with you that if you’re a cook (nothing wrong with that, thank you for your service!) I doubt your security clearance has been reviewed since induction.

However, everyone passed a secret at one point (induction, if nothing else).

‘Course, this is based on personal experience between 1994 - 2000. A lot of things have changed since then; like 9-11. Guessing here, but I bet the requirements are actually kept up with now.


[edit on 28-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join