Desmostylus, I disagree. Reeder threw out a unit designation, and nothing more. He didn’t actually give ANY details of his service. Instead, he seemed to want to get a chattering monkey (me) off his back and threw out a unit designation. That’s NOTHING. And excuse me if I get pissed at someone who appears to be a faker here. I’ve got two uncles on the Wall, and a father who received a Purple Heart. I’ve seen too many people claim they were in when they wern’t. It disgusts me and I refuse to allow it. So, ante up the proof or back down from the statement.
Stemba…you are calling me a liar?
Been called worse by much better people than you.
Hey stem whatever…I see you live pretty close. Drive on up. I’ll show you around. Introduce you to a few real heroes. Grunts who fought for you in Khe San.
Oh, you mean like my uncle, Reeder?
Anyway, before this gets into a big pissing contest over your military record, which I will accept because you said it was so, let’s get back to the gag order on soldiers.
See, the funny thing is that if you say anything, you can get in trouble for potentially giving away something important. I’ve run right on that line right here on this board, and man, had I gone any further I’d be in jail right now. For real.
So, you’re not allowed to say anything, which leaves you in the unenviable position of punking out to your PAO, who doesn’t say anything.
So what does the reporter do? He writes something to the effect that “the soldiers are being uncooperative- they must have something to hide”. Since you were in Vietnam I’m sure you understand that.
Therefore, it’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation, and it’s easier just to set one rule where nobody talks. It’s easier to manage, and it’s much safer to the soldiers still in combat areas. That way the reporters can only screw you over by saying you’re a bunch of “baby killers” instead of telling the enemy what the “baby killers” are doing.
It shouldn’t matter whether Reeder served in the military; that is the same bullshit argument used against Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld for the war (and most likely by Reeder too), but it doesn’t apply in this case either.
Now, on to Reeder’s arguments:
Sir, most assuredly. Last time I checked anyway.
Well as for this bit of misinterpretation: I merely meant to refute your contention that no right (choosing what clothes you wear is a right, if not a constitutional one, no?) can be limited by a government agency for its employees as that right pertains to their employment. Mostly that Franklin statement you (mis)quoted.
However, since you seem to harp on this point, there are a number of ways we can go from here. First, IANA constituational L, but freedom to dress in the way one wants would probably be protected as freedom of speech under the first amendment. I don’t know if it has ever been ruled by the Court as such, but I think the notion that clothing can be a protected form of free expression was at least endorsed in Tinker v. Des Moines. However, I can’t claim for certain that this proves wearing clothes one wants is a constitutional right.
So let us move on to a different example. Say you work for some government agency. Do you honestly think that agency needs a warrant to look through your desk at the office? I mean, what with the Fourth Amendment and all…
But can be willfully ceded as a condition of government employment.
And you still ignore my point that there can’t be a violation if the penalty is within the bounds of the employer-employee relationship.
First, CPA-I has every right to control various contractors, etc. from blithering on like fools. It gives a poor impression.
Second, Reeder’s military service, and indeed the military angle is not relevant to the question. The CPA-I is civilians, in large part, although there are some military folks among them. It really hasn’t much to be with war zones are anything of the sort.
As part of my employment I am routinely asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement. If I don’t sign, I don’t work. Which means I can’t discuss the theoretically crappy quality of products I may or may not have worked on for various un-named software companies. If I go out and give an interview to a reporter about how my company is screwing up, I’ve lost my job. An employer has the right to expect their employees to not bad-mouth the company. If something illegal is going on, I can call the cops. If something goes against my sense of ethics I can demand that it be changed, and/or I can quit. Other than that, I can shut up.
How exactly is this any different?