General Stanley McChrystal

[Captain Bligh]

For me, the bottom line about this matter is the old adage, "you don't sh*t where you eat."

I run a business. My business depends on a certain public image and reputation. If I have an employee saying public things that are derogatory about the business, its policies, or me, he or she would cease to be an employee.

It would be their right to say it. And, it's my right in at at-will employment state to lose my will to keep them on my staff.

I'm okay if they come in my office and tell me their opinion. They can say I'm wrong or misguided if they want. They can get all red in the face and rant until spittle flies out of their mouth. Maybe we'll come to an agreement and maybe we won't. But when the talk is done and the door closes behind them after they leave my office, I don't expect them to go out and say the same things in public. Do it, and you're done.

 

[alfahornet]

I am sad seeing McChrystel go. Petraeus is an excellent replacement best one possible. Whether you like it or not he had to be replaced insubordination is not tolerable in the armed forces especially not from a general officer. I am still sad seeing a competent yet immature officer go.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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.

They joined the military freely and being a General, he was well aware of the actions permitted by his employer. The UCMJ, in the world of a member of a volunteer military, is a code of conduct to which you pledge yourself. If you fail to follow it, (including respecting your superiors, IIRC), you are subject to discipline and punishment for your actions, and as has been pointed out, freedom to speak does not mean freedom from consequences. Being "fired" or forced to resign or whatever is not the same as Congress passing a law against free speech.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Joe Williams]

They joined the military freely and being a General, he was well aware of the actions permitted by his employer. The UCMJ, in the world of a member of a volunteer military, is a code of conduct to which you pledge yourself. If you fail to follow it, (including respecting your superiors, IIRC), you are subject to discipline and punishment for your actions, and as has been pointed out, freedom to speak does not mean freedom from consequences. Being "fired" or forced to resign or whatever is not the same as Congress passing a law against free speech.



Blessings,
Bill

Whether the military is volunteer, or draftee, is irrelevant. Congress does indeed have the authority to regulate speech of military members, along with basically every aspect of military life. The UCMJ is Congress' means of doing this. The military doesn't just write the UCMJ, it is law passed by Congress.

The answer is found in Section 8, which reads in part:

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[Bill of Rights]

Whether the military is volunteer, or draftee, is irrelevant. Congress does indeed have the authority to regulate speech of military members, along with basically every aspect of military life. The UCMJ is Congress' means of doing this. The military doesn't just write the UCMJ, it is law passed by Congress.

The answer is found in Section 8, which reads in part:

True. The reason I pointed out that the military was all volunteer was because it was an association he was not forced into.

As an aside, Joe, I have to chuckle at you quoting "section 8"... That phrase always, ALWAYS brings this picture to mind for me.

Thanks for the laugh!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[E5RANGER375]

The General didnt get to where hes at by not knowing when to keep his mouth shut for the politicians. When you get that high in rank that all you are is a politician so to speak.
The General said EXACTLY what he meant to say and im sure of that. It was no slip of the tongue.

Obama is a jackball and even the Military Leadership can see it. We are being invaded on our southern border now more than anytime in history and Obama is welcoming them in. The sooner i see this guy get impeached the happier i will be.

 

[USMC_0311]

The thing that bothers me the most is not the general losing his job. Can't realy fault obama for that but why isn't the content of what the General said being scruntized by the politicians and media. I think the General said what he wanted to say and probably needed to say. Maybe he did it on purpose to draw attention to the failed policy of the administration.

 

[junglerogue]

Did I miss the part about the general's freedom of speech?

 

[smitty12b]

Did I miss the part about the general's freedom of speech?

Yes

 

[noname1]

I probably would of done the same thing Obama did in this case, but I can't help but think of how hard it must have been for Truman to keep MacArthur around after all the things he did. I guess Truman put up with a lot because he recognized that MacArthur had a talent for killing the Japanese. It would be nice if the mission was bigger than the egos.

 

[T-rav]

I think the General knew exactly what he was doing, for what reason it was we may never know or we may find out very soon. Regardless a man as smart as he is knows what would come of all this. I can respect the man for speaking without fear and being the leader that he was and may continue to be in later ventures in life.

 

[Boilers]

Blood boils at pretender-in-chief lecturing a decorated warrior on such things.
General should sue nobama into proving he's qualified for office, and to be Commander in chief.

Hero

 

[lashicoN]

The main counter-argument to my Freedom of Speech argument is - The military basically gets to make their own rules. I can accept defeat on that point. However, the argument that you have the freedom of speech, but not freedom to keep your job only applies in the private sector. Since the Bill of Rights only applies to the government of the United States, everyone except the government should be able to fire someone over something that was said. The government, on the other hand, shall not abridge the freedom of speech. That's my problem with it. Some will say that he had his freedom of speech, he got to say what he wanted. But, then he was fired for it. That is a way of abridging freedom of speech. It's like saying you have the right to keep and bear arms, but if you do our cops are going to shoot you. You still have the right though.

To me, this incident says a lot about Obama's character, or lack there of. To fire a General because his aids bad mouthed you shows how delicate of a sensibility Obama has. He isn't man enough to take the General's aids words into consideration and adapt his attitude/policy. He also clearly leaves no room for dissent, so now we all know what happens when you disagree with EmperObama. The argument that he would have looked too weak if he had let McChrystal keep his job is false. He already looks weak to them...that's what they've been saying. Now he just looks like a weak jerk.

 

[Joe Williams]

The main counter-argument to my Freedom of Speech argument is - The military basically gets to make their own rules. snip

No, sir. The military does not get to make it's own rules. Congress makes the rules for them.

No professional military member is going to think the President is a jerk for firing a subordinate for publically spouting off the way the General did, and the way he allowed his staff to do, despite the profound lack of love for Obama in the ranks. Flapping your gums with a reporter within earshot is doing so publically. A private doesn't get to spout off about a general to a reporter like that without getting humped, and the General had to have known he'd get canned for doing so. Either he felt his duty required him to make such things publically known, or his ego is so big he felt he could get away with it. One is an admirable example of falling on your sword for the greater good, the other stupid. Generals and admirals have known to fall prey to both duty, and ego.

 

[E5RANGER375]

to be on the presidents cabinet or to even work for the president in ANY direct role, did you know you sign your letter of resignation on the day your hired?? yep thats true. (its like that with MANY high level govt jobs) that way if your an embarasment to the king, he can axe your azz and theres nothing you can do unless you wanna go to gitmo and eat a C*CKMEAT sandwich.

The General knew Obama was a discrace to this nation and his Honor as a man and a Ranger wouldnt allow him to continue to work for the BUM. So he ended it by allowing the BUM to fire him. Technically the way i look at it, it never happened since O isnt a legitimate president. hes just a kenyan refugee, who had 2 options in life: run from lions and become an olypian, OR move to America and become the anti-christ.

 

[lashicoN]

No, sir. The military does not get to make it's own rules. Congress makes the rules for them.

Then it is certainly unconstitutional. If that is your entire argument, then you have no argument. I don't know how you can even argue that it isn't. If Congress passed a law, before the Bill of Rights was created, then that law was AMENDED. If Congress passed that law after the Bill of Rights was created, then it is ILLEGAL.

Here we go again.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now for some definitions -

Abridge: 1 a archaic : deprive b : to reduce in scope : diminish <attempts to abridge the right of free speech>
2 : to shorten in duration or extent <modern transportation that abridges distance>
3 : to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense :

Amend: 1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (as a text)
2 a : to change or modify for the better : improve <amend the situation> b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition <amend a

The Bill of Rights was written after the Constitution, thus amending the Constitution. It doesn't matter if it is written in the Constitution that no American ever has the right to even think about keeping or bearing arms, because the Bill of Rights, which, once again, came after and amended the Constitution says that we do have the right to keep and bear arms.

Now, if you view the military as a separate entity from the government, then they can make up their own rules. Limiting troops speech about where their location is or what their mission is is perfectly fine, if the military passes (which they have) such measures.

 

[Joe Williams]

Then it is certainly unconstitutional.snip.

Nope.

 

[Que]

The General will be working for Haliberton within a year. Like I said before, he knew exactly what he was doing. He'll be back in Afghanistan working side-by-side with Karzai and his half-brother. He'll make millions of dollars on top of his retirement, which is exactly what him and those like him normally do.

He's no leader in my book, because a leader inspires others to do what must be done. He could have retired without the drama. Now, there are soldiers who must SIU&DO after all of this mess. If he cared about the soldiers, he would have just walked away.

 

[Tactical Dave]

Maybe he will buy and run the company formerly known and Blackwater LOL. Considering a 4 star makes like $14,975 month and last I heard they continue to make that after they retire... then figure he will be doing something as a civilian that pay's well............ I bet he could afford it with a descent sized buisness loan.

 

[JBusch8899]

Maybe he will buy and run the company formerly known and Blackwater LOL. Considering a 4 star makes like $14,975 month and last I heard they continue to make that after they retire... then figure he will be doing something as a civilian that pay's well............ I bet he could afford it with a descent sized buisness loan.

As he's regarded as one of the foremost authorities upon the subject of counter insurgency operations, he might just become a high priced consultant to DoD.