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.
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by cerebralassassins
He is not allowed to voice his political opinion while in uniform, or if away from his Military duties, he can not identify himself as a member of the Military while voicing it. There is some gray area though, in that he can voice his political opinions as long as he does not speak against anyone in his chain of command, I.E the President and SECDEF. In other words, off duty he can be openly supportive of Ron Paul, but can't specifically say anything negative about Obama.
BINGO
Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by cerebralassassins
It is a real shame when the people supposedly protecting our freedom from the "evil terrorists" aren't allowed to exercise those same freedoms they are supposedly protecting for themselves.
I guess the US doesn't want soldiers who actually think and are smart enough to figure out that the real threats to our freedom all come from Capitol Hill.
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
There are some activities that the US military are not allowed to do. These activities are very clearly outlined and stated, and posting online, while on active duty, on any political point is one of them.
Originally posted by AussieDingus
What if a soldier posts a comment saying "Obama is the greatest and doing a great job", will he/she still be punished for voicing a political comment, or will it be ignored because its a 'positive' comment ?
Originally posted by cerebralassassins
Marine sergeant who started a Facebook group that is openly critical of President Obama and posted comments saying he will not follow the unlawful orders of the commander in chief is facing possible dismissal from the Corps.
The Marines on Wednesday told Sgt. Gary Stein — a Camp Pendleton Marine who started the Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party — that he is in violation of Pentagon policy barring troops from political activities.
Stein, a nine-year member of the Corps, said he started the page to encourage fellow service members to exercise their free speech rights. He has also criticized U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for his comments on Syria.
USA-TODA
This is an interesting turn of events and since the policy he signed when he entered prohibits him from voicing his political opinion then i guess the free speech scenario is a non-existent theory. In my opinion if he wanted to voice his political beliefs he should have resigned from the armed forces and entered the civilian life that allows such conduct as a civilian.
Originally posted by Bakatono
Originally posted by AussieDingus
What if a soldier posts a comment saying "Obama is the greatest and doing a great job", will he/she still be punished for voicing a political comment, or will it be ignored because its a 'positive' comment ?
Yes
Depends on who hears you and the context. Everyone in the military has a political opinion regardless of some of the restrictions placed on their ability to express it. If a person were to say something great about a President while on duty and someone within earshot didn't like either the person saying it or the President they COULD make a stink about it. In most cases it shouldn't go anywhere if the comment is positive, but it is the military so a person can be charged for pretty much anything. See article 134, the "catch all" article used to charge military personnel when there is no other applicable article. Basically, you just make stuff up under this one.
Originally posted by MastaShake
Originally posted by WhatAreThey
Originally posted by PFCStryker
An Officer on active duty cannot or may not under any circumstance influence, interfere, campaign or solicit votes for a particular issue weather it's about the current election or topic regarding "the freedom of speech". Once you sign those dotted lines you are acknowledging that you are giving up some of your civil rights to be a subordinate or someone who is under such commands. He should know better.edit on 22-3-2012 by PFCStryker because: (no reason given)
That's just wrong on all levels.
how is that wrong? everything he said is 100% correct. what this guy did is clearly political i support the message hes putting out but it doesnt change the fact that he is in the wrong in this situation. very bad judgement on his part in my opinion.
Subject to any other restrictions in law, a member of the Armed Forces not on active duty may take the actions or participate in the activities permitted in subparagraph 4.1.1., and may take the actions and participate in the activities prohibited in subparagraph 4.1.2, provided the member is not in uniform
Originally posted by PFCStryker
@what they are:
I see that you're a veteran as well, Please accept a pat on the back comrade and I do apologize that the truth doesn't appease you at all. but you and I both know the vile reality of the establishment that we both signed in.edit on 22-3-2012 by PFCStryker because: address response
917. ARTICLE 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
10. Punitive Articles
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.
892. ARTICLE 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
10. Punitive Articles
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 any 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 dire
Originally posted by yourmaker
as much as I dislike the context I just want to put out there that the President is "Commander-in-Chief"
and as a subordinate you do not speak negativity towards your commanding officer. Just saying.
Originally posted by milominderbinder
reply to post by Xcathdra
Yes. Always better to comb the fine print looking for a way to be an apologist for tyranny than to even take the time to find out what the "negative" comment was.