General Stanley McChrystal

[Colt556]

I liked him when I first heard about it and disliked him when I heard he'd apologized. He's a good military strategist and leader but a poor politician, ala MacArthur.

 

[smitty12b]

I liked him when I first heard about it and disliked him when I heard he'd apologized. He's a good military strategist and leader but a poor politician, ala MacArthur.

I wonder what the world would be like if Patton had become president?

 

[Rob377]

Would any of you care to show me where the Bill of Rights says it doesn't apply to American citizens in the military? I couldn't find it in there. Because the government limiting Freedom of Speech sounds an awful lot like abridged freedom of speech, which the Bill of Rights specifically makes it extremely clear the government is not allowed to do.

When you sign on the dotted line, there are restrictions that go with that. You can't backtalk your superiors without consequences, and you knew or should have known that when you signed up/took your commission. You voluntarily agreed to give up your right to run your mouth or face consequences from your contractual employer among other things.

 

[lashicoN]

When you sign the stack of papers at MEPS, you sign away those rights. Uncle Sam Wants You...call your recruiter today

When you sign on the dotted line, there are restrictions that go with that. You can't backtalk your superiors without consequences, and you knew or should have known that when you signed up/took your commission. You voluntarily agreed to give up your right to run your mouth or face consequences from your contractual employer among other things.

Yes, I'm not arguing if you do give up the right, obviously you do give up your freedom of speech. I'm saying it is unconstitutional for the government to abridge freedom of speech, according to our Bill of Rights. It gives no exemption to military, thus any law created after the BOR, abridging freedom of speech by the government is unconstitutional.

The government forcing military members to give up their freedom of speech upon joining the military is just as morally right as Chicago forcing it's citizens to give up their right to keep and bear arms upon moving into the city, and equally un-American.

 

[kedie]

Well, the good thing is, if you don't want to live by the rules of the UCMJ don't voluntarily join the military.

Those rules are there for a reason. They enforce discipline and a chain of command. Things that peoples lives depend on.

 

[Rob377]

Yes, I'm not arguing if you do give up the right, obviously you do give up your freedom of speech. I'm saying it is unconstitutional for the government to abridge freedom of speech, according to our Bill of Rights. It gives no exemption to military, thus any law created after the BOR, abridging freedom of speech by the government is unconstitutional.

The government forcing military members to give up their freedom of speech upon joining the military is just as morally right as Chicago forcing it's citizens to give up their right to keep and bear arms upon moving into the city, and equally un-American.

The 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about libel, slander or shouting fire in a crowded theater, either. The founders and framers had enough sense to see that the 1st amendment didn't cover that, the same as they knew it didn't cover insubordination in the military. Never has.

 

[smitty12b]

Yes, I'm not arguing if you do give up the right, obviously you do give up your freedom of speech. I'm saying it is unconstitutional for the government to abridge freedom of speech, according to our Bill of Rights. It gives no exemption to military, thus any law created after the BOR, abridging freedom of speech by the government is unconstitutional.

The government forcing military members to give up their freedom of speech upon joining the military is just as morally right as Chicago forcing it's citizens to give up their right to keep and bear arms upon moving into the city, and equally un-American.

When an order is given you don't question it or give your opinion, you do it, it's your job. If that doesn't work for you then don't enlist, you can interpret the BOR and we'll defend it.

 

[lashicoN]

Well, the good thing is, if you don't want to live by the rules of the UCMJ don't voluntarily join the military.

Those rules are there for a reason. They enforce discipline and a chain of command. Things that peoples lives depend on.

It also enforces force without thinking. Freedom of speech is more essential to America (the idea) than the military.

The 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about libel, slander or shouting fire in a crowded theater, either. The founders and framers had enough sense to see that the 1st amendment didn't cover that, the same as they knew it didn't cover insubordination in the military. Never has.

Would you care to type up a list of things you believe the 1st Amendment covers, since you know, the founders didn't think it should cover this or that.

Here is my list - Everything

Did the framers specifically say that we have the right to keep and bear rifles? NO.

When an order is given you don't question it or give your opinion, you do it, it's your job. If that doesn't work for you then don't enlist, you can interpret the BOR and we'll defend it.

There isn't much to interpret. We have the right to speak freely. I don't know how YOU are "interpreting" that, but I take that as we have the right to speak freely.

Just so you know, your line is thinking leads to horrific military actions like the Holocaust. "Just take your orders and do it or you're an elitist?" Are you kidding me? Good to know that Smitty won't hesitate to tear up our Constitution and put a bullet in each of us when he gets the order from our out of control Federal government. He just admitted that he won't question it. You're protecting nothing but the government. Believe what you want.

 

[Rob377]

Great for you, but your "list" wasn't shared by the person who wrote the 1st Amendment, any of his contemporaries, or anyone else for that matter. None of the framers ever, at any time, suggested that the BoR they wrote somehow over-rode existing libel and slander laws, or gave military persons the right to be insubordinate.

This isn't my opinion, or "what I believe" it's the simple facts.

You voluntarily join the military, you voluntarily take everything that goes with it, e.g. speech restrictions (no absolute 1st amendment), following lawful orders, submitting to military justice system in lieu of civilian justice system, etc, etc.

 

[88GT]

ust so you know, your line is thinking leads to horrific military actions like the Holocaust. "Just take your orders and do it or you're an elitist?" Are you kidding me? Good to know that Smitty won't hesitate to tear up our Constitution and put a bullet in each of us when he gets the order from our out of control Federal government. He just admitted that he won't question it. You're protecting nothing but the government. Believe what you want.

Oh, come on now. That's a stretch and fair bit of propagandizing on your part. How--and why--are these ridiculous leaps in so-called logic always made?

ETA: UK Telegraph is reporting that the good general is offering his resignation (as opposed to submitting it). Guess he's not the horrible politician after all.

 

[tradertator]

When an order is given you don't question it or give your opinion, you do it, it's your job. If that doesn't work for you then don't enlist, you can interpret the BOR and we'll defend it.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

Anyone who says anything in support of firing General McChrystal for what he "said" clearly did not read the article and is merely regurgitating an uniformed view.

I read the entire Rolling Stone article on General McChrystal. These claims that he is being insubordinate are a COMPLETE FABRICATION. There is not one single criticism of Obama or Biden by General McChristal himself in the entire article! The article is AWESOME! There is a reason the White House doesn't like it. It shows how much of a MAN General McChrystal is that Obama pales by comparison.

 

[tradertator]

If I trashed my boss publicly, I would expect severe consequences; The same should be true when applied to a Military General speaking to a major publication about his Commander in Chief.

 

[tradertator]

I do however hate seeing the US change leadership again so soon in Afghanistan.

 

[Joe Williams]

Would any of you care to show me where the Bill of Rights says it doesn't apply to American citizens in the military? I couldn't find it in there. Because the government limiting Freedom of Speech sounds an awful lot like abridged freedom of speech, which the Bill of Rights specifically makes it extremely clear the government is not allowed to do.

There is more to the Constitution than the Bill of Rights. Read it all. You'll find what you are asking for. Could just post it, but I'm certain you don't want to be spoon fed.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip
I'm saying it is unconstitutional for the government to abridge freedom of speech, according to our Bill of Rights. It gives no exemption to military, thus any law created after the BOR, abridging freedom of speech by the government is unconstitutional.

The government forcing military members to give up their freedom of speech upon joining the military is just as morally right as Chicago forcing it's citizens to give up their right to keep and bear arms upon moving into the city, and equally un-American.

Oh, but the authority to create special rules and regulations for the military IS, in fact, in the Constitution.

 

[lashicoN]

There is more to the Constitution than the Bill of Rights. Read it all. You'll find what you are asking for. Could just post it, but I'm certain you don't want to be spoon fed.

Oh, but the authority to create special rules and regulations for the military IS, in fact, in the Constitution.

The Constitution was written in 1787. Two years later, the Bill of Rights was written in 1789. The Bill of Rights is a series of the first 10 amendments to our Constitution. The Bill of Rights (which was written after the Constitution, amending the Constitution) says that the government shall not abridge the freedom of speech.

I could post what the word amendment means, but I'm certain you don't want to be spoon fed either.

 

[Garb]

Oh, but the authority to create special rules and regulations for the military IS, in fact, in the Constitution.

Not taking sides here, but didn't you also say in a different thread that every question that the census asked was Constitutional? I find your idea of what is Constitutional to be somewhat warped and scary at times...

 

[Joe Williams]

Not taking sides here, but didn't you also say in a different thread that every question that the census asked was Constitutional? I find your idea of what is Constitutional to be somewhat warped and scary at times...

You mean, you find believing the Constitution AS WRITTEN is law is the law of the land is warped and scary?

That says much about your hatred for this country and our way of life, doesn't it?

 

[Joe Williams]

The Constitution was written in 1787. Two years later, the Bill of Rights was written in 1789. The Bill of Rights is a series of the first 10 amendments to our Constitution. The Bill of Rights (which was written after the Constitution, amending the Constitution) says that the government shall not abridge the freedom of speech.

I could post what the word amendment means, but I'm certain you don't want to be spoon fed either.

Nevertheless, the Bill of Rights did not amend the relevant section. You HAVE looked it up and know what it is, right? Or are you merely talking out your butt?