Soldiers refuse to salute Clinton
- Thread starter Kodiac
- Start date
Rob Pincus
New member
In a way, as an ex military guy I hope I can get away with this wihout getting flamed, it is also sad that there is that much lack of professionalism and discipline in the ranks. It is one thing for a 3 star to not salute the president, it is quite another for an E-3 be-bopping around the base to blow off the Commander-in-chief, IMHO.
Do you know the circumstances of the incident, Kodiak ??
Do you know the circumstances of the incident, Kodiak ??
the doctor
New member
Sounds like a story on the radio yesterday where it was reported the brass in Washington said troops were not allowed to express negative opinions about Clinton.
I was in the other room from the TV and they were telling the story on channel 12... I came running in to hear it - but missed the details, then they switched to how they are not allowed to express negative opinions...
They have a point, a grunt should not blow off the CNC... but then again, Isnt the military there in the first place to protect the country? One founded on the constitution and Bill of Rights? Freedom of Speech has been ruled as the freedom of expression. Can not the lowest rungs on the ladder, the one who sacrifice the most and work the hardest to protect this country, express his beliefs as can anyone else?
I was a GI trooper - uniformed to the core, high speed, low drag... Every formation a Parade! Did not tolerate the slightest slack. But since I have been out - I think with an open mind... and try to look at every thing from both sides. But this has deep impacting implications that will mean the restructuring of D&C, and protocol. May be it is time? I have seen many an Officer who did not deserve to wear the brass.
If Clinton is the CNC and expects CNC honors - should not he be held to UCMJ standards? His administration has seen several GOOD officers dismissed and there lives ruined for personal indescresions and lesser affairs... And the CNC himself is above the same laws that had them booted? I have a hard time with that. Hiding behind the big desk in the oval office, is not the actions of a real CNC.
Nixon resigned for bringing a bad light into the office... He didn't even steal the tapes - his goons did! Just what have all Clinton's goons done? What has HE done? He has brought massive shame to the office. He has no honor. I make a call for him to commit sepuku in the traditional samuri manner, in order to restore his honor. And let his "Second" be... I dont know... some one ironic.
They have a point, a grunt should not blow off the CNC... but then again, Isnt the military there in the first place to protect the country? One founded on the constitution and Bill of Rights? Freedom of Speech has been ruled as the freedom of expression. Can not the lowest rungs on the ladder, the one who sacrifice the most and work the hardest to protect this country, express his beliefs as can anyone else?
I was a GI trooper - uniformed to the core, high speed, low drag... Every formation a Parade! Did not tolerate the slightest slack. But since I have been out - I think with an open mind... and try to look at every thing from both sides. But this has deep impacting implications that will mean the restructuring of D&C, and protocol. May be it is time? I have seen many an Officer who did not deserve to wear the brass.
If Clinton is the CNC and expects CNC honors - should not he be held to UCMJ standards? His administration has seen several GOOD officers dismissed and there lives ruined for personal indescresions and lesser affairs... And the CNC himself is above the same laws that had them booted? I have a hard time with that. Hiding behind the big desk in the oval office, is not the actions of a real CNC.
Nixon resigned for bringing a bad light into the office... He didn't even steal the tapes - his goons did! Just what have all Clinton's goons done? What has HE done? He has brought massive shame to the office. He has no honor. I make a call for him to commit sepuku in the traditional samuri manner, in order to restore his honor. And let his "Second" be... I dont know... some one ironic.
Rob Pincus
New member
I agree with you 95% Kodiac.
I still feel that the ranks must be diciplined. I think we'd have gotten along just fine in the Army. We would've agreed on a lot of things (okay, there was that one formation, when I was a little bitter, that I showed up without any insignia and no shave and told everyone I had received special orders and had modified grooming standards and couldn't reveal my new unit or even my name, but I had had a very bad night...)BUT, now we have the luxury of looking back and saying "what about freedom of expression?" Well, if I'm going into the *****with someone, I don't give a crap about his expressions, I want him locked on.
I still feel that the ranks must be diciplined. I think we'd have gotten along just fine in the Army. We would've agreed on a lot of things (okay, there was that one formation, when I was a little bitter, that I showed up without any insignia and no shave and told everyone I had received special orders and had modified grooming standards and couldn't reveal my new unit or even my name, but I had had a very bad night...)BUT, now we have the luxury of looking back and saying "what about freedom of expression?" Well, if I'm going into the *****with someone, I don't give a crap about his expressions, I want him locked on.
Kodiac & Rob,
This morning at staff call, a very influential senior Army officer (3-stars) stated the Army's response to media inquiries as to the Army's lack of public statements regarding contempuous statements toward the president:
" Article 88 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice is already published, it works, we use it, therefore we've no need of redundancy."
Article 88 pertains strictly to commissioned officers, whose oath and service is at the discretion of the President. It prohibits contemptuous comment toward several specifically enumerated offices and the respective incumbents, to include the President.
Such indiscretion on the part of the other grades is addressed under Article 134, Acts Predjudicial to Good Order & Discipline.
Having said that, how do I fit it into a firearm forum?
This morning at staff call, a very influential senior Army officer (3-stars) stated the Army's response to media inquiries as to the Army's lack of public statements regarding contempuous statements toward the president:
" Article 88 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice is already published, it works, we use it, therefore we've no need of redundancy."
Article 88 pertains strictly to commissioned officers, whose oath and service is at the discretion of the President. It prohibits contemptuous comment toward several specifically enumerated offices and the respective incumbents, to include the President.
Such indiscretion on the part of the other grades is addressed under Article 134, Acts Predjudicial to Good Order & Discipline.
Having said that, how do I fit it into a firearm forum?
Rob Pincus
New member
According to the RCPIC (Rob's Code for Proper Internet Conduct) all forum posts must have no more that 2 degrees of seperation from the stated topic of said forum or thread. Example:
topic of post: Soldiers refusing to salute Clinton.
stated topic of forum:
Legal and Political
Discussions range from the Bill of Rights, to concealed carry, to general political issues.
This one passes with flying colors, under the "general political issues" clause.
Now, it is possible that a disgression into the personal behavior of certain individuals is a significant variance from the topic of certain soldiers refusing to salute the CIC. But, that would only have one degree of seperation from the stated relevant topic, and as such, still conform to the RCPIC.
Only in an extreme case, where one takes at least two tangetial digressions (neither of which are redundant nor reciprocal nor mutually exclusive) should a post be considered entirely irrelevant.
HOWEVER, according the RCPIC, any post purporting to teach a lesson in Internet Conduct on any disucssion forum except one specifically designed, created and used for that purpose is to be immediately considered irrelevent to the discussion thread and be ignored by everyone.
topic of post: Soldiers refusing to salute Clinton.
stated topic of forum:
Legal and Political
Discussions range from the Bill of Rights, to concealed carry, to general political issues.
This one passes with flying colors, under the "general political issues" clause.
Now, it is possible that a disgression into the personal behavior of certain individuals is a significant variance from the topic of certain soldiers refusing to salute the CIC. But, that would only have one degree of seperation from the stated relevant topic, and as such, still conform to the RCPIC.
Only in an extreme case, where one takes at least two tangetial digressions (neither of which are redundant nor reciprocal nor mutually exclusive) should a post be considered entirely irrelevant.
HOWEVER, according the RCPIC, any post purporting to teach a lesson in Internet Conduct on any disucssion forum except one specifically designed, created and used for that purpose is to be immediately considered irrelevent to the discussion thread and be ignored by everyone.
I have a question and a comment
1) Question: Since this is part of the UCMJ, why then is it making news now? The news media is covering this like its a new edict.
2) Comment: Mykl's quote
"" Article 88 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice is already
published, it works, we use it, therefore we've no need of
redundancy.""
Sounds to me that, at least the Army, is maintaining a dignified stance to remain above the fray. Note the officer states that there is no need of redundancy. Therefore, I wonder if there is some pressure or "movement" originating from the Whitehouse to enact modifications in the UCMJ for a "double" law.....similar to "hate crime laws". Kinda like the "double secret probation" Dean Wormer invented in Animal House?
1) Question: Since this is part of the UCMJ, why then is it making news now? The news media is covering this like its a new edict.
2) Comment: Mykl's quote
"" Article 88 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice is already
published, it works, we use it, therefore we've no need of
redundancy.""
Sounds to me that, at least the Army, is maintaining a dignified stance to remain above the fray. Note the officer states that there is no need of redundancy. Therefore, I wonder if there is some pressure or "movement" originating from the Whitehouse to enact modifications in the UCMJ for a "double" law.....similar to "hate crime laws". Kinda like the "double secret probation" Dean Wormer invented in Animal House?
Rob Pincus
New member
That is a good point DC, though I wonder if the answer was given in response to a question such as:
"Is the Army going to enact stricter/new/additional measures to keep this behavior from being repeated?"
"Is the Army going to enact stricter/new/additional measures to keep this behavior from being repeated?"
DC,
The presence of Art. 88 is not new nor newsworthy. Normally, a personal opinion expressed by an officer would not rise to this level of notoriety, and consequently would normally result in an admonishment or administrative action from a senior commanding officer, citing poor judgment for publishing such opinions. Also, in the past, the publisher's for the "(Service)Times" would not publish such inflammatory rhetoric. These apparently are not normal times, and we can expect some changes to the status quo as a result.
[This message has been edited by Mykl (edited 10-21-98).]
The presence of Art. 88 is not new nor newsworthy. Normally, a personal opinion expressed by an officer would not rise to this level of notoriety, and consequently would normally result in an admonishment or administrative action from a senior commanding officer, citing poor judgment for publishing such opinions. Also, in the past, the publisher's for the "(Service)Times" would not publish such inflammatory rhetoric. These apparently are not normal times, and we can expect some changes to the status quo as a result.
[This message has been edited by Mykl (edited 10-21-98).]
Nestor Rivera
New member
I may be wrong but I thought that uniformed solider only saluted the Flag and Higher ranging personel IN uniform, as I rember it was Regan that started the Salute as a Non-Uniformed.
Heck, we saluted cars if we knew Brass was inside them.
I remember opening up with a mark 19 against an armoured column in training. (Not advisable in real war) I sent an arched stream of 40MM orange practice grenade at the lead tank - an M1A1 no less. (I only wanted the tank crew to pay for enevidably wiping us out by having to scrub all that armour) Just as I released the trigger... and the last grenade headed over there... a Hum-Vee raced around the front of the lead tank. Just before the grenades hit - we noticed the 2 little stars on the plate on the bumper...
I hadn't missed with a single grenade. The over grown jeep was PAINTED ORANGE... I about died. We packed up our ambush and RAN!
Long story - just wanted to share PART of it. You guys don't need to hear about the CHEWING we got or the hours of tooth brush meets toilets.
I remember opening up with a mark 19 against an armoured column in training. (Not advisable in real war) I sent an arched stream of 40MM orange practice grenade at the lead tank - an M1A1 no less. (I only wanted the tank crew to pay for enevidably wiping us out by having to scrub all that armour) Just as I released the trigger... and the last grenade headed over there... a Hum-Vee raced around the front of the lead tank. Just before the grenades hit - we noticed the 2 little stars on the plate on the bumper...
I hadn't missed with a single grenade. The over grown jeep was PAINTED ORANGE... I about died. We packed up our ambush and RAN!
Long story - just wanted to share PART of it. You guys don't need to hear about the CHEWING we got or the hours of tooth brush meets toilets.
1. The President is not subject to the UCMJ because the military is under civilian control. Willie is a civilian. Willie is the Commander-in-Chief of the military because he is the President.
2. The military is wrong if they do not salute him. Period. The UCMJ, MCM, and tradition require respect to the office.
3. I resolved this for myself while I was still an E-3.
a) For officers I despised, I saluted and addressed the rank, eg. "Good Morning, Major".
b) For officers I respected, I saluted my superior, eg "Good Morning, Sir." or "Good Morning, Ma'am."
c) One rather retarded, dangerous egomaniac Captain actually asked me why I called him "Captain" and not "Sir". He asked - I explained. "Captain is an acknowledgement of grade. Sir is a sign of respect, Captain."
Yeah, I got in trouble. But I weathered the storm and it was worth it. The Captain was so dumb he let the troops know what I said. It just tightened us up, made us even more "ship shape".
4) The military must acknowledge the President. They can call him, "Mr. President" and totally avoid use of terms of respect such as "Sir".
Just my 2 centavos.
2. The military is wrong if they do not salute him. Period. The UCMJ, MCM, and tradition require respect to the office.
3. I resolved this for myself while I was still an E-3.
a) For officers I despised, I saluted and addressed the rank, eg. "Good Morning, Major".
b) For officers I respected, I saluted my superior, eg "Good Morning, Sir." or "Good Morning, Ma'am."
c) One rather retarded, dangerous egomaniac Captain actually asked me why I called him "Captain" and not "Sir". He asked - I explained. "Captain is an acknowledgement of grade. Sir is a sign of respect, Captain."
Yeah, I got in trouble. But I weathered the storm and it was worth it. The Captain was so dumb he let the troops know what I said. It just tightened us up, made us even more "ship shape".
4) The military must acknowledge the President. They can call him, "Mr. President" and totally avoid use of terms of respect such as "Sir".
Just my 2 centavos.
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Folks,
This is not the first media attention paid to Article 88. There were reports on it a few months back in regards to comments by some retired officers. Apparently there is some technicalities whereby even retired officers are subject to some sections of the UCMJ. The Marines were getting soggy and hard to light about some retired Marine officer's comments about Willie the Weenie.
In 1974, I was walking across a quad at Ft. Benning without paying attention. Suddenly, I was accosted by a furious black captain who demanded if I had failed to salute him due to his race. Well, I had simply failed to notice him but I just couldn't resist,"NO,SIR! I'm not saluting ANY officers,sir!" The remainder of the day was interesting.
This is not the first media attention paid to Article 88. There were reports on it a few months back in regards to comments by some retired officers. Apparently there is some technicalities whereby even retired officers are subject to some sections of the UCMJ. The Marines were getting soggy and hard to light about some retired Marine officer's comments about Willie the Weenie.
In 1974, I was walking across a quad at Ft. Benning without paying attention. Suddenly, I was accosted by a furious black captain who demanded if I had failed to salute him due to his race. Well, I had simply failed to notice him but I just couldn't resist,"NO,SIR! I'm not saluting ANY officers,sir!" The remainder of the day was interesting.
I agree with Dennis 100% on his post. A troop my not like his superiors, but the rank (in this case the office of the presidency) is to always be respected.
As for the refering to the bozo "0"s by thier rank, it worked quite well for us. The ones refered to as "captain" or "major" instead of "sir" caught on real quick. It amounted to a verbal blanket party, within the bounds of military courtesy, of course.
------------------
Dan
Check me out at:
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/GlocksnGoodies.htm
As for the refering to the bozo "0"s by thier rank, it worked quite well for us. The ones refered to as "captain" or "major" instead of "sir" caught on real quick. It amounted to a verbal blanket party, within the bounds of military courtesy, of course.
------------------
Dan
Check me out at:
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/GlocksnGoodies.htm
Clinton's lack of respect from the military dates back to the beginning of his presidency. I remember reading a column shortly after he took office that told of a banquet that the writer was attending in D.C. A toast was made to the president, at which point everyone stood and lifted their glasses. The writer noticed that a career military officer at her table not only did not lift his glass, but inverted it and set it down on the table. Looking around, she noticed that a number of other officers did likewise. When asked afterward the reason for his actions, the officer simply stated that he could not toast a man he had no respect for.
While there are miltary regulations that require the display of respect, the fact that a growing number of those in service refuse to do so, thereby inviting disciplinary consequences, is only an indication of the level of mistrust that exists in this country for this president. One has to wonder how many of our men and women in the military ask themselves whether this president, who has proven that he can lie to anyone about anything at anytime, would send them into harms way not for any reason that would truly be in the national interest, but for some political advantage that would only serve his personal need.
While there are miltary regulations that require the display of respect, the fact that a growing number of those in service refuse to do so, thereby inviting disciplinary consequences, is only an indication of the level of mistrust that exists in this country for this president. One has to wonder how many of our men and women in the military ask themselves whether this president, who has proven that he can lie to anyone about anything at anytime, would send them into harms way not for any reason that would truly be in the national interest, but for some political advantage that would only serve his personal need.