Are you sure about that? As I said earlier, in a civilian job you could call your boss a dickhead and the worst that could happen would be getting fired. Calling your commanding officer such things would get you in a lot of trouble.
Also, in a thread many months (even years) ago I wondered if “the draft” could be considered indentured servitude or even slavery. I forget who replied, but he said that Congress makes exceptions for special cases such as this.
Basically, in the military, your rights are not the same as they are in civlian life.
Hey, I was wondering when Airman Doors would show up in this discussion.
Airman, has the Supreme Court ruled that you don’t give up any Constitutional rights in the military? (I think you do and I’d like to hear your view on this).
I don’t know whether the Supreme Court has ruled in this regard, but it is true that you give up some of your rights. For instance, my freedom of speech is abridged. I cannot malign the President or my chain of command publicly (and boy, has that line been hard to toe). I do not have the right of free association in that I cannot campaign for people in any official capacity and I cannot attend any rallies in uniform. There are also organizations that I cannot join and jobs that I cannot do.
I also am limited in my ability to travel when I am on active duty. They set a radius (typically 250 miles), and anything beyond that I have to get special permission or take leave. I can also be made to work as long as is required if necessary, which is a violation of standard labor laws.
My quarters can be searched without warning. My property can be confiscated. While on active duty the 4th Amendment is pretty much waived if I am in military quarters or on a military base. I can refuse to allow a search, but the search can be done anyway with the approval of the base commander, so it will be done one way or the other.
Punishment can be administered without a trial and executed immediately (Article 15 of the UCMJ). I cannot have an affair (were I so inclined), as that is punishable by the UCMJ. And, of course, DADT tacitly forbids homosexuality, which needless to say is not a crime in the civilian world but is in the military (sodomy is a punishable offense were they inclined to pursue it), irrelevant to me but still worth noting. I’m sure there are more, but those are the ones that come to mind right now.
None of those are a big deal and are rarely enforced, but the opportunity does exist for a person in the military to get in trouble for doing something that the average person takes for granted. So, do I give up some rights? Absolutely.
While one could argue that the draft is slavery from a moral/ethical standpoint it’s not from a legal standpoint. SCOTUS ruled on it during WWI. Of course it’s been a generation since the draft ended and there’s no way of predicting what would happen if it was reinstated (or what it would take to actually get it reinstated).
Me thinks that if one were to kiss their Sergeant on the neck, and rub his balls, if the Sergeant wasn’t of the persuasion to reciprocate,“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would come into play, and you would not be serving a second term in Iraq.
Yeah, the Constitutional ammendment against slavery specifically exempts the military from such rules, as I recall, making it a legal form of slavery by the government.
At work, so can’t cite right now, but it should be easy to find.
Both the draft (which is not in effect now) and enforcing a military enlistment contract through compulsory means (which is done now, or at least could be) are involuntary servitude.
Involuntary servitude and slavery are prohibited under the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
"The term ‘involuntary servitude’ necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury, or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process.” United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988).
However, the Supreme Court has ruled that there are exceptions, one of which applies to the military. Although the leading cases on the issue don’t have the most thorough analyses of the 13th Amendment question that I’ve ever read, it appears that the reasoning behind this exception is based upon the power granted to the Federal government (elsewhere is the Constitution) to raise armies and provide for the national defense, and coersion is seen as necessary to accomplish this task. Therefore, the 13th Amendment is interpreted in a way to avoid conflicting with these other Constitutional provisions.
So although you’re technically wrong when you say that Congress can make exceptions to the Thirteenth Amendment (Congress can’t do something prohibited by the Constitution), you’ve got the basic idea right.
You are also right to doubt those who have said that members of the military don’t give up (at least some) rights.
“Retirement” from a U.S. uniformed service is a little different from retiring from say, the railroad or General Motors. Those who retire from the railroad or GM get pensions whereas the uniformed services dispense “retired pay” to retired officers which is more like a retainer; accepting it carries with it some obiligations. One is that you can be recalled to active duty. Another is that you cannot receive payment from a foreign government without permission from the federal government. There may be other differences.
As for the original question, the real difference, it seems to me, between breaking an employment contract with the military and with a civilian employer (many of which do spend lots of money up front on training) is the difference betwen the penalties for breaking the contract. Under civil law, the worst that can happen is that you can be forced to give money to employer if you break a contract; under the UCMJ, they can put you in jail. (Can they still shoot you, like in WWII?)
[QUOTE=Yeah(Can they still shoot you, like in WWII?)[/QUOTE]
Even in WWII shooting for that reason was eceedingly rare. I believe there was only one execution in the ETO in WWII, a PVT. Slovik of the 106th Infantry Division during the Battle of The Bulge. About the only think that would get you shot for desertion was doing so “in the face of the enemy.”
I should mention that according to historian John Toland in Battle; Story of The Bulge at the same time Slovik was shot, there were some 10000, or a little more, others on unauthorized absence from their units.
For about the bazillionth time, the basis of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (a code of Federal law which applies uniformly to the Armed Forces, thus the title of the code) is the Constitution of the United States of America. Members of the Armed Forces are not, in any sense of the word, property of the government and thus have the rights guaranteed to them by that esteemed document.
Re the 13th Amenment:
Seems to include involuntary servitude as permissible (I take it to mean that’s imprisonment at hard labor).
Aimran Doors
I knew you’d join the discussion.
I like your explanation (posting #42) of the limited Constitutional rights of persons on active duty in the US Military.
You referenced being forbidden to make public statements about the Commander In Chief. I remember some time ago, a soldier publishing in a military base’s newspaper an editorial that was very critical of President Clinton. (Probably during the Monica Lewinsky scandal). I forget exactly what happend to that soldier, but I know his superiors were not just willng to let it slide so to speak. (No, I don’t have a cite for that. Maybe I can find one although it is an old story.) Basically, it upholds what you stated about your freedom of speech (and the press?) being limited.
Heck I found an article in the Boston Globe Archives. I don’t think I can link to it because you have to ba a Boston Globe subscriber. However here are the details if someone wants to do some further research:
I’m in the Guard, and while I’m not on active duty I’m not under the auspices of the UCMJ, rather I’m controlled by the PCMJ (P for Pennsylvania), which is much less stringent.
However, that does not exactly give me carte blanche to say anything. It can and will be held against me when I am on active duty, so I still use considerable discretion.
So if and when you’re activated for emergency federal service, does the UCMJ kick in? Or are you grandfathered under PCMJ. Aren’t there basic compatability requirements between the UCMJ and State Guard CMJs?
I’d add the obvious thing here that distinguishes a job from military service: the oath or affirmationthe binds you ideologically and ethically to your nation, to the missions, and to your fellow service members. The oath embodies a thread of commitment that goes beyond work for pay.
