Shout Out

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Are you really saying that our troops, who are defending our rights, are not entitled to those rights?

Are you sure about that?

I would argue that, since they have made it VERY CLEAR that they want jihad, then they are quite pleased with the outcome of the election.

 

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Are you really saying that our troops, who are defending our rights, are not entitled to those rights?</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, and Major B help me out if I am wrong, but no, soldiers do not have the same rights as civilians do. You will remember back in the 90's, this general speaking out publicly against Clinton that was run out of the military. But, specifically, to your question, I did not make any statements about what the soldiers could or could not do until this post. You are spinning.

Are you sure about that?[/QUOTE]

Yes I am. For example, I disagreed with both Kerry and Bush about 527's. I think anybody who is a civilian should be able to spend as much money as they want to say almost anything they want-whether it be true or not.

I would argue that, since they have made it VERY CLEAR that they want jihad, then they are quite pleased with the outcome of the election. [/QUOTE]

No. They have made it very clear that what they want is for us to leave like cowards like Spain did. You know, all those decapitations? UBL repeated all the talking points of the DEMS last week in his video. Arafat endorsed Kerry. Hezbolla financially supported Moore's propaganda film. It is very clear to me who they wanted to win.

Joseph Botwinick

 

While I am not Major B, as a former Military Policeman in the US Army what you say is true. While in conflict or on duty the soldier does not have the right to voice their opinion about their commander and Chief. They are to obey all lawful orders. If they don't lives could be in danger.

Bro Tony

 

Well said, brother!!!

Now here is the group hug:

((((((((((GROUP)))))))))))))

 

On the contrary, I am neither spinning, nor am I bloviating. I am simply quoting you. Notwithstanding this, please show me in the Bill of Rights where there is an exclusion for the military.

 

[Continued]

Here are your own words, posted yesterday @ 8:56 AM:

Now look at what you said in this post:

As you have stated that “soldiers do not have the same rights as civilians do” (remember: those are your words, Joseph), then the soldiers who exposed the prisoner abuses did something “dangerous,” as it was exposed in ” a public forum that is seen worldwide and more than likely by enemies of the USA.”

Are you sure about that?
I seem to recall that they OFFERED to help Front Row Entertainment with the distribution of the film. This is an article from the GOP web page. Remember: you accused me of "spinning."

 

People in the military services do not lose any of their rights, but they are required to follow the lawful orders of their superiors, including the president.

They cannot make political statements in uniform, or in the course of their duties. They can still vote, attend rallies in civilian clothes, etc.

It's a good rule, that keeps the military subservient to civilian control.

 

I meant to refer to American civilians. I think if you read the context of my post that it becomes very clear that is what I meant. However, since it is illegal for the troops to speak out publicly against the CIC, that makes this point moot. As for Abu Graib, they reported the violations to their superior officers or those in charge. This is not the same as going to CBS news and Michael Moore and berating the CIC. Military men don't have the same rights as everyone else as long as they are serving. After they have retired, they may say anything they wish.

Joseph Botwinick

 

On the contrary, I am neither spinning, nor am I bloviating. I am simply quoting you. Notwithstanding this, please show me in the Bill of Rights where there is an exclusion for the military. </font>[/QUOTE]Military men live under the UCMJ. There are some things they can't do that we can.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Somebody went to CBS when they broke this story on 60 Minutes. I wonder why....

Ah, as long as they agree with your point of view, right? Are you saying that you support John Kerry's right to make the statements he did after he returned from Vietnam?

Amazing. Then the people who went to CBS with the story on the torture in Iraq were wrong to do so, despite the fact that it was also against the UCMJ.

 

Galatian,

You seem to be contradicting yourself a bit. If, as you say, they may not make political statements in uniform, or in the course of their duties, then they certainly are giving up some of the rights that we as civilians have. I think it is called the first ammendment of free speech / assembly.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Somebody went to CBS when they broke this story on 60 Minutes. I wonder why....</font>[/QUOTE]I could be wrong, but I think that sources from the Pentagon broke the story to CBS. I really don't know who did that.

Ah, as long as they agree with your point of view, right? Are you saying that you support John Kerry's right to make the statements he did after he returned from Vietnam? [/QUOTE]

John Kerry was still a military man when he made those statements. Why he wasn't court martialled is beyond me. Probably because he was a rich liberal from Massechussetts.

BTW, no, it is not a matter of agreeing with me. It is a matter of the UCMJ which is what governs the conduct of those in the military. I support the right of all military vets to say whatever they want, legally. When the General was thrown out of the military back in the 90's for referring to Clinton as a womanizing draft dodger, I supported the action of the military then also. Even though, I agreed with his assessment of Clinton, he should not have said it in public.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Ah, yes: a rich LIBERAL. Actually, being a LIBERAL had nothing to do with it. I can think of a few rich CONSERVATIVES that were able to miss the Vietnam Coflict completely.

 

BiR,

There you go again. We won. You lost. And now you can't handle it. If you can prove that, then please send Dan Rather another forged memo and do so.

Look. Bush released his records. Kerry didn't.

Tell me. Who was more forthright in their Vietnam Record?

Why wouldn't he sign the standard form 180 if the Swift Vets were lying? What do you think he is hiding?

Joseph Botwinick

 

There I go again? Where did I discuss this in the past? You are borrowing a quote from Rush Limbaugh - one that he borrowed from Ronald Reagan. As for releasing records, that's not exactly true, is it? As I recall, the records were "lost," weren't they? Furthermore, more records keep being "found."

That is easy: John Kerry. Remember: Kerry actually went to Vietnam.

The simple fact of the matter is that John Kerry actually went to Vietnam.

 

But, he did not serve honorably, and he betrayed his nation and fellow soldier upon his return while still in uniform.

Joseph Botwinick

 

One more time, John Kerry actually served in Vietnam.

 

So did Lt. Calley.

But, they both served dishonorably.

His dishonorable service is worthless.

Joseph Botwinick