Soldier Exercises Free Speech-Gets Arrested

[CurveLight]

"Soldier Exercises Free Speech-Gets Arrested"

See UCMJ... soldiers don't have "free speech", 'nuff said, next case.

I pointed that out in the OP.

 

[chanel]

You caught that too eh?

Yo curve - The topic was a "rap song" and I hear that crap every day at school, but your nuanced "racist" cry was pretty clever and pathetic at the same time.

 

[Liability]

Those statements are hearsay and NOT in the song he was arrested for.

It doesn't have to be in the song. If he was quoted as having said those words, then he is properly charged with a crime. Where the mere saying of a threat is a criminal act, it is necessary to QUOTE the defendant in order to properly charge him.

You are failing to understand what "hearsay" even means, in any event.

You just admitted as of right now those statements have not been proven. That means they are currently hearsay. That was also not the main reason he was charged because it was the song. If it turns out he did make those statements in a sincere manner he should be removed and placed in psychiatric care for evaluation and treatment.

Of course they haven't yet been proved. No charges are ever proved short of trial or a guilty plea.

That doesn't make the allegations "hearsay."

Again, the legal term "hearsay" has a much more precise meaning. The way you use it doesn't correspond to its actual meaning.

If the charging document says he said those words, then it is one of the reasons he's legally in real trouble regardless of what originally made him a blip on the radar screen.

And if he did utter those words (in or out of the song), then it might not be psychiataric help which he is most urgently in need of getting.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

blu
soldiers are sheep for the oil companies and other large corporations. they know this when they sign up and that they are donating their birth rights to some CEOs cocaine & prostitutes fund.

Fuck you blu. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

colin
I'm sure all those enlisting in the US military know that once in, they trade in their Constitutional rights for the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

Not really. As some have said there is very little actually written in that contract and kids fresh from high school have no idea what it means to give up those rights.

PatekPhilippe
Yes. Here's why. No one forced the soldier to volunteer and sign the contract of enlistment. He should have read the fine print.

And..

No. We will focus on the issue at hand. The fact that you think free speech should be allowed in the Military. The fact that it wil never be seems to escape you because apparently before you were sworn in...you didn't read the contract you signed.

I really hate that contract line and you hear it abused in the military all the time. Your so called contract says NOTHING of the sort about all the abuse and shit you have to take in the military and it is changed AT WILL by the military to mean whatever they want. The contract is only one page anyway and it is completely irrelevant.

As to the OP… NO military cannot have access to the protections of the constitution and almost everyone in the military understands this AND why it is necessary. In our jobs it is quite possible I could be ordering solders to die and unit cohesion and effectiveness depend directly on following those orders even if the solders know that it may kill them. You do NOT have the right to question orders and questions like that lead to others questioning those orders. On the other hand, stop loss is another story. I am not so sure they should be enacting stop loss unless they are so desperate that a draft is coming. People who are getting out then stop lossed make for terrible solders.

One page?...we're not discussing enlisting in the Salvation Army....we're discussing enlisting in the Armed Forces of the United States. My enlistment contract was nearly 12 pages long.

Define "abuse" and "shit" YOU had to take.

 

[CurveLight]

You caught that too eh?

Yo curve - The topic was a "rap song" and I hear that crap every day at school, but your nuanced "racist" cry was pretty clever and pathetic at the same time.

I didn't make any racist comment or mention race. If I did then please quote it. I asked why rap was singled out for violent lyrics. Your complaint revealed a guilty conscience.

 

[geauxtohell]

After learning the Military reneged on it's contract to allow Spc Hall out of the Army after serving 4 years he wrote a protest song containing violent lyrics. In response, the military arrested him. Stop Loss has been a quiet thunder for quite a few years. For those who don't know, Soldiers face the ultimate of morose ironies. They voluntarily offer to Sacrifice their lives to defend the Constitution but they themselves have to foreit the Constitution in the process. The UCMJ is the supreme law of their land, not the Constitution. They do not have Freedom of the Press, Expression, or Speech. So the question is this: Should those who Sacrifice their lives defending Free Speech be prosecuted for exercising Free Speech?
Soldier at US base jailed for angry rap song - NewsFlash - al.com

I think the stop loss and involuntary mobilization system is total bullshit. Especially considering that a large percentage of the army has never deployed.

That being said, under the UCMJ you don't have your full 1st amendment rights.

I doubt the specialist gives a damn. What are they going to do, send him to Afghanistan?

 

[MIPS]

"Soldier Exercises Free Speech-Gets Arrested"

See UCMJ... soldiers don't have "free speech", 'nuff said, next case.

I pointed that out in the OP.

Yeah , perhaps you should have read the title of your thread before you did......

Let's review
"Soldier Exercises Free Speech-Gets Arrested"

Any questions? if so please refer to the UCMJ for more details.

 

[geauxtohell]

After learning the Military reneged on it's contract to allow Spc Hall out of the Army after serving 4 years he wrote a protest song containing violent lyrics. In response, the military arrested him. Stop Loss has been a quiet thunder for quite a few years. For those who don't know, Soldiers face the ultimate of morose ironies. They voluntarily offer to Sacrifice their lives to defend the Constitution but they themselves have to foreit the Constitution in the process. The UCMJ is the supreme law of their land, not the Constitution. They do not have Freedom of the Press, Expression, or Speech. So the question is this: Should those who Sacrifice their lives defending Free Speech be prosecuted for exercising Free Speech?
Soldier at US base jailed for angry rap song - NewsFlash - al.com

soldiers are sheep for the oil companies and other large corporations. they know this when they sign up and that they are donating their birth rights to some CEOs cocaine & prostitutes fund.

I don't fully agree with that, but I agree with this:

Smedley Butler on Interventionism

 

[CurveLight]

It doesn't have to be in the song. If he was quoted as having said those words, then he is properly charged with a crime. Where the mere saying of a threat is a criminal act, it is necessary to QUOTE the defendant in order to properly charge him.

You are failing to understand what "hearsay" even means, in any event.

You just admitted as of right now those statements have not been proven. That means they are currently hearsay. That was also not the main reason he was charged because it was the song. If it turns out he did make those statements in a sincere manner he should be removed and placed in psychiatric care for evaluation and treatment.

Of course they haven't yet been proved. No charges are ever proved short of trial or a guilty plea.

That doesn't make the allegations "hearsay."

Again, the legal term "hearsay" has a much more precise meaning. The way you use it doesn't correspond to its actual meaning.

If the charging document says he said those words, then it is one of the reasons he's legally in real trouble regardless of what originally made him a blip on the radar screen.

And if he did utter those words (in or out of the song), then it might not be psychiataric help which he is most urgently in need of getting.

I'm aware of the precise legal meaning but obviously you are not. See, when a poster cites those statements and claims he made them that qualifies as hearsay because the poster does not know if he said them or not.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

You know Curve your BIAS is showing loud and clear. I don't know why but you OBVIOUSLY have a problem with the military so why don't you have some HONESTY and tell us all what your problem is?

 

[CurveLight]

"Soldier Exercises Free Speech-Gets Arrested"

See UCMJ... soldiers don't have "free speech", 'nuff said, next case.

I pointed that out in the OP.

Yeah , perhaps you should have read the title of your thread before you did......

Let's review
"Soldier Exercises Free Speech-Gets Arrested"

Any questions? if so please refer to the UCMJ for more details.

Are you kidding me? Good grief that's a nominee for the dumbest complaint of the month.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

By the way I HATE "stop loss" but I don't HATE the military the way you do Curve.

 

[MIPS]

Are you kidding me? Good grief that's a nominee for the dumbest complaint of the month.

LOL, garbage in-garbage out and just for the record you were the one that was bitching not me, I simply pointed out that you had nothing to bitch about. Got any other inane complaints you would like to air in public? 'cause at the end of the day I'm all for free speech 'cept where personnel that fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice are concerned.

 

[CurveLight]

You know Curve your BIAS is showing loud and clear. I don't know why but you OBVIOUSLY have a problem with the military so why don't you have some HONESTY and tell us all what your problem is?

I have not taken a position on this issue but considering your affinity for accusing people of lying with no reason is showing quite clear. I started this thread with a question about the situation. If I had a solid opinion on it I would have stated it. Can't believe this early in the dialogue someone wants to already ignore the topic and try to focus strictly on a poster. Why don't you start a thread in the flaming zone and bitch about your unfounded accusations there? I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd rather discuss this issue than focus on petty personal issues.

 

[geauxtohell]

Additionally, on the stop/loss and involuntarily mobilization; when you enlist you obligate yourself for a period of active duty and reserve duty. Soldiers that are stop lossed are at the end of their active duty obligation but still have a reserve obligation.

In that vein they still owe the Army time and the military is basically just activating them out of the reserves.

By my understanding you can't be activated past your MSO (which is your total obligation).

I still think it's bullshit, but it's not like those who are stop-lossed were on their way to being completely done with the military.

 

[Liability]

You just admitted as of right now those statements have not been proven. That means they are currently hearsay. That was also not the main reason he was charged because it was the song. If it turns out he did make those statements in a sincere manner he should be removed and placed in psychiatric care for evaluation and treatment.

Of course they haven't yet been proved. No charges are ever proved short of trial or a guilty plea.

That doesn't make the allegations "hearsay."

Again, the legal term "hearsay" has a much more precise meaning. The way you use it doesn't correspond to its actual meaning.

If the charging document says he said those words, then it is one of the reasons he's legally in real trouble regardless of what originally made him a blip on the radar screen.

And if he did utter those words (in or out of the song), then it might not be psychiataric help which he is most urgently in need of getting.

I'm aware of the precise legal meaning but obviously you are not. See, when a poster cites those statements and claims he made them that qualifies as hearsay because the poster does not know if he said them or not.

Proving that you clearly do not comprehend the actual meaning of the term "hearsay."

Thanks for playing.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Additionally, on the stop/loss and involuntarily mobilization; when you enlist you obligate yourself for a period of active duty and reserve duty. Soldiers that are stop lossed are at the end of their active duty obligation but still have a reserve obligation.

In that vein they still owe the Army time and the military is basically just activating them out of the reserves.

By my understanding you can't be activated past your MSO (which is your total obligation).

I still think it's bullshit, but it's not like those who are stop-lossed were on their way to being completely done with the military.

During times of war or national crisis etc. even if your total obligation is up your enlistment can be extended up to 6 months after the war or crisis is declared over. I do believe though you are entitled to compensation for that time that extends past your total obligated service which is an additional 25% tacked on to your total gross pay.

 

[CurveLight]

Additionally, on the stop/loss and involuntarily mobilization; when you enlist you obligate yourself for a period of active duty and reserve duty. Soldiers that are stop lossed are at the end of their active duty obligation but still have a reserve obligation.

In that vein they still owe the Army time and the military is basically just activating them out of the reserves.

By my understanding you can't be activated past your MSO (which is your total obligation).

I still think it's bullshit, but it's not like those who are stop-lossed were on their way to being completely done with the military.

That's the IRR and my view is those soldiers should be called for deployment before keeping someone past their contract. Give them a break from the deployments and let the IRR fulfill their obligations.

 

[geauxtohell]

Additionally, on the stop/loss and involuntarily mobilization; when you enlist you obligate yourself for a period of active duty and reserve duty. Soldiers that are stop lossed are at the end of their active duty obligation but still have a reserve obligation.

In that vein they still owe the Army time and the military is basically just activating them out of the reserves.

By my understanding you can't be activated past your MSO (which is your total obligation).

I still think it's bullshit, but it's not like those who are stop-lossed were on their way to being completely done with the military.

During times of war or national crisis etc. even if your total obligation is up your enlistment can be extended up to 6 months after the war or crisis is declared over. I do believe though you are entitled to compensation for that time that extends past your total obligated service which is an additional 25% tacked on to your total gross pay.

Yeah, and the DOD doesn't want to pay that, especially when they have plenty of other soldiers who have plenty of time left on their MSO.

 

[CurveLight]

Of course they haven't yet been proved. No charges are ever proved short of trial or a guilty plea.

That doesn't make the allegations "hearsay."

Again, the legal term "hearsay" has a much more precise meaning. The way you use it doesn't correspond to its actual meaning.

If the charging document says he said those words, then it is one of the reasons he's legally in real trouble regardless of what originally made him a blip on the radar screen.

And if he did utter those words (in or out of the song), then it might not be psychiataric help which he is most urgently in need of getting.

I'm aware of the precise legal meaning but obviously you are not. See, when a poster cites those statements and claims he made them that qualifies as hearsay because the poster does not know if he said them or not.

Proving that you clearly do not comprehend the actual meaning of the term "hearsay."

Thanks for playing.

When posters repeat those statements as facts they are stating hearsay. It's really quite simple but if it will get your panties untwisted I will say you are completely right and I am completely wrong. Problem solved.