[QUOTE=flurb]
Any Commandant who said that publicly would and should be immediately dismissed from his post. For a military officer to criticize the enacted policy of Congress violates the fundamental precept that military authority is entirely subservient to civilian authority. It’s one thing (in fact, it’s an obligation) for an officer to provide honest feedback on the effects of a policy through his chain of command. But when the men with tanks start to argue that they know better than the elected leadership. . . welcome to the junta.
[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. Officers discuss military policy all the time. I already referenced General Pace. More importantly, I didn’t say he would need to do so publicly. He could accomplish the same thing in private.
Obviously he wouldn’t use the exact words I quoted. But as you admit, he’s perfectly able to discuss the effects of the policy.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Bullshit. Officers discuss military policy all the time. I already referenced General Pace. More importantly, I didn’t say he would need to do so publicly. He could accomplish the same thing in private.
Obviously he wouldn’t use the exact words I quoted. But as you admit, he’s perfectly able to discuss the effects of the policy.
[/QUOTE]
You didn’t say publicly, and I did not mean to imply that you did. My point is that saying that the military brass needs to stand up and oppose “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a dicey proposition. The American people, through their elected representatives, have decided that this is the proper policy for the military. The Chiefs have a duty to report to the Secretary of Defense their analysis of whether “don’t ask, don’t tell” is harming military preparedness and operations. But if the Secretary tells them to shut up and enforce it, they need to fall in line.
[QUOTE=flurb]
But if the Secretary tells them to shut up and enforce it, they need to fall in line.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. My contention is that public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of open service and that it is the opinions of military leadership that are holding it back. And if they offered their opinion on the effects honestly, not based on personal biases, we’d see changed in short order.
Why is this a hard concept with some liberals? Joining the military versus working in fast food. I was wasting my time and my parents money in college. I was playing video games in a video parlor (early 80’s) instead of studying. In walks this Marine staff sergeant and waits for me to finish my game of Tempest. He was impressive, he had a certain confidence that just was obvious.
He talked me into going to the recruiting station the next morning and we talked about my options. Since I had a few weed charges he was honest and said all I could get was the infantry most likely. Actually that was cool with me, I know bullshit fairly well and he seemed like a genuine guy.
There were no major wars at the time I was in (83-87) I don’t regret serving at all, in fact I’m glad I did. It gave my slacker self a sense of purpose and some dignity. Also it gave me the motivation to go to tech school and get a two year degree in electronics.
When I was job hunting one of the interviewers was looking at my resume and said " this is a big plus" he was referring to my military experience. The president of the company was a former Marine.
Sure enough, I got a call later in the week and said I was hired. That was eighteen years ago, still with the same company. My point is that the military is not a dead end job. Yes you are potentially risking your life but the rewards can outweigh the risks, hell sometimes we all take risks.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Well, gee, John, you might want to take care, some of those Berzerklyites have advanced training in tai chi and aikdo, might be a formidable match even for a bare-knuckle bruiser like yourself…
[/quote]
They were bullies enough to tackle one guy as he was trying to enter and throw him to the ground. Did you take the time to watch the video that Liberal linked to in post #22? For the record, I haven’t been in a fight in my adult life. I’ve never had cause to. But then, I’ve never had a bunch of assholes try to prevent me from getting into my place of business by throwing me to the ground.
Wrong.
Like I said, some of us can deplore both. We’ve had dozens of anti-war threads and many of us have participated in them. When someone takes the time document deplorable tactics used by the other side, I will deplore those, too.
Well, sure, John, all us straight up guys are like that. Some of us are more touchy than others, of course.
But this “thrown to the ground” thing your on about? Are we talking about the same video? About 57 seconds in, the guy with the hood on falls down and the other guy falls on top of him? How do you throw somebody to the ground so that they land on top of you? With a hood on.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Actually, it’s self-evident what the Marines can do on their own-part of the law is “Don’t Tell”. Nevertheless, some people make it their business to know everybody else’s business, and due to the existence of the law they have a statutory right to out people. I’m of the mind that it makes no difference what your orientation is, but until the law is repealed, it gives bigots (who exist everywhere, not just in the military) a way to eliminate people they see as undesirable.
[/quote]
The “Don’t Tell.” part also applies to third parties telling the CoC another soldier is gay. We recently had a guy in our division get a rainbow chit dropped on him and he and the guy who tattled went away. Jackasses who sap good personnel from undermanned divisions in an effort to stroke their homophobia are also bad for morale.
[QUOTE=1010011010]
The “Don’t Tell.” part also applies to third parties telling the CoC another soldier is gay. We recently had a guy in our division get a rainbow chit dropped on him and he and the guy who tattled went away. Jackasses who sap good personnel from undermanned divisions in an effort to stroke their homophobia are also bad for morale.
[/QUOTE]
Oddly, that’s very encouraging, 1010011010. (Mind if I call you “10”?) How prevalant is your (healthy) attitude?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
But this “thrown to the ground” thing your on about? Are we talking about the same video? About 57 seconds in, the guy with the hood on falls down and the other guy falls on top of him?
[/QUOTE]
Nope. He doesn’t fall on top of him. So, first you distort the action by saying it was like touch football, then you distort the footage by saying, well, maybe there was a tackle, but the guy fell on the hooded protester (which he didn’t). Frankly, I think it’s time we stop letting you derail this thread with misrepresentations of the facts and protestations that your fragile sensibilities have been hurt (in the Pit, of all places). And since you’ve admitted to trolling in this thread, I for one am going to stop feeding you. Enjoy the rest of your weekend!
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
My original thought about the funding fight was that it was asinine too - and then it was revealed that these involved airdropped earmarks (you know, the ones the Democrats promised to reform but instead hid). Whatever happens to this money, it will be a $2 million dollar hit, mostly affecting a ferry service, the papers of Robert Matsui, and organic school lunches cooked by Chez Panisse.
I don’t think most people will lose sleep if Berkeley loses these little treats.
Politicians and activists in the Bay Area have just been ratcheting up the antimilitary rhetoric every chance possible, even on matters where it makes them look stupid. The USS Iowa incident, the Blue Angels nonsense, the decision to remove JROTC from the schools, the recruitment disruption at UC Santa Cruz - and now this. I suppose they have a right to do it - but I can’t believe how tone deaf they are to the rest of the country. Even most Democrats are disgusted with this behavior - it wouldn’t fly at all in a place like Pittsburgh or Chicago.
[/QUOTE]
Actually I’m not entirely sure elected officials shouldn’t be punished in some way for trying to interfere with U.S. military recruitment efforts. Citizens have a right to protest and make their voice heard, but local podunk politicians should have no authority to take actions that are directly harmful to the U.S. military.
Federal military priorities should trump municipal politicians, although I’m sure the law as it is now doesn’t agree with me.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
We need to stop framing this as “Berkley vs. the Marines.” It’s Berkely vs. some scumbag recruiters out looking for innocent kids to throw on top of roadside bombs. Fuck those assholes. Regardless of the legal issues involved (and I don’t really give a shit one way or the other), it’s bullshit to say it has anything to do with hostility towards the troops. It’s irritation at being harrassed by assholes looking for bullet sponges.
[/QUOTE]
Society doesn’t work without bullet sponges, moron.
Federal military priorities should trump municipal politicians, although I’m sure the law as it is now doesn’t agree with me.
[/QUOTE]
You would certainly have a legal argument based on the supremacy clause if the city had taken concrete actions to impede recruitment. Just as Maryland can’t tax the national bank, Berkeley can’t pass laws to impede the recruitment of marines.
But here they didn’t pass any laws. They just expressed their sentiments publicly, and gave Code Pink a parking spot.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Actually I’m not entirely sure elected officials shouldn’t be punished in some way for trying to interfere with U.S. military recruitment efforts. Citizens have a right to protest and make their voice heard, but local podunk politicians should have no authority to take actions that are directly harmful to the U.S. military.
Federal military priorities should trump municipal politicians, although I’m sure the law as it is now doesn’t agree with me.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve argued before that if the protests go so far as to actually impede recruitment, it constitutes sedition. Plus the elected officials in question could be considered part of a seditious conspiracy - they have waived protest fees for Code Pink and, as has been mentioned, the cops just stand by and let this stuff happen.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I’ve argued before that if the protests go so far as to actually impede recruitment, it constitutes sedition. Plus the elected officials in question could be considered part of a seditious conspiracy - they have waived protest fees for Code Pink and, as has been mentioned, the cops just stand by and let this stuff happen.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Heh. Sedition, eh? Under which statute?
[/QUOTE]
U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2388.
Activities affecting armed forces during war
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
[/QUOTE]
That isn’t sedition. The sedition sections of that statute–now widely believed to be unconstitutional–are Sections 2384 and 2385.
But more importantly, the statute you cite is not currently in effect because we are not in a declared war. This is why the statute hasn’t been used to prosecute anyone since WWII.
Harold Koh, The Spirit of the Laws, 43 Harv. Int’l L. J. 23, 25 (2002).
Koh is speaking in that section of the pre-Iraq AUMF, but he has said it applies equally to the current AUMF. Even if Koh’s reasoning is wrong (and I’d say Koh is as expert as you’ll find), if you tried to apply that statute today it would likely be found unconstitutional under our modern First Amendment jurisprudence.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Nope. He doesn’t fall on top of him…
[/quote]
Yes, he does. 57 seconds in. And its nothing remotely like being “thrown to the ground.” Your claims of violence are hogwash. The cite given speaks only of singing and strumming. Now, I’ve heard Berkely protest singing and strumming, and its not as bad as waterboarding. But violence? It is not. There are no cites of injuries, arrests, or anything of the sort. (That I’ve seen: you got 'em, bring).
Well, then if I’m distorting, you can surely show proof of all this violence. And my analogy to touch football was sarcastic, which I’m pretty sure you knew, since you are no more a snark virgin than I am. As for the video, anybody who cares enough can go look, see who’s “distorting”.
Cheese Louise, John the guy stomps in an spits in my eye out of the clear blue, haven’t said word one to him! I ain’t delicate, but in my book that rates a stinging rejoinder. You would too if you could borrow one!
And you know I did no such thing! Distortion? Borther, your mind is a funhouse mirror! If you are determined to see these people as violent crazies, go ahead, ain’t nothing wrong iwith it except it just ain’t so.