Soldier Exercises Free Speech-Gets Arrested

[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.

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.

Um. I don't think you get it. Active duty soldiers who leave service before 8 years go into the IRR or regular reserves. So if these sodliers weren't stop lossed, they'd go in the IRR and then could be mobilized too. Stop-lossed soldiers aren't being kept past their contract. They still owe time. They are being kept on active duty past their original contract. But what is the difference between that and getting involuntarily mobilized out of the IRR?

I think they both suck, but at least soldiers on active duty who are stop lossed haven't gone into civilian life and have jobs that can get screwed up.

Furthermore, the IRR now basically consists of two types of soldiers: those that are staying in for their retirement and those who have done a tour and are riding their time out. The IRR, at this point and time, is not full of soldiers who are "hiding out".

That would be the active Army and those soldiers who are skilled at pulling non-deployable duty slots.

 

[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.

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.

That's correct. You actually have to apply for that benefit. Also I remember when Clinton said any member of the Armed Forces who is deployed outside CONUS for longer than 180 days would be entitled to compensation of $100 dollars a day beginning on the 181st day. Bush stopped that when he enacted the stop/loss clause in the military member's contracts.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

You know I also have the freedom to not have my phone calls or e-mails read but if I am at my place of employment and using THEIR equipment I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT have that protection.

 

[geauxtohell]

That's correct. You actually have to apply for that benefit. Also I remember when Clinton said any member of the Armed Forces who is deployed outside CONUS for longer than 180 days would be entitled to compensation of $100 dollars a day beginning on the 181st day. Bush stopped that when he enacted the stop/loss clause in the military member's contracts.

Yeah. Thanks W. We can pay Halliburton a shit ton of money to make omelets, but we can't give bonuses to our soldiers who get screwed by the stop loss.

 

[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?

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.

OH PLEASE your bias is OBVIOUS to anybody but YOU! Your post about the military charging a woman for rufusing to deploy shows how much you HATE the military.

 

[geauxtohell]

OH PLEASE your bias is OBVIOUS to anybody but YOU! Your post about the military charging a woman for rufusing to deploy shows how much you HATE the military.

Is the hyperbole really necessary? The fact that CL is concerned about soldiers getting the shaft implies that he doesn't "hate the military". People who "hate the military" don't give a fuck either way.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

OH PLEASE your bias is OBVIOUS to anybody but YOU! Your post about the military charging a woman for rufusing to deploy shows how much you HATE the military.

Is the hyperbole really necessary? The fact that CL is concerned about soldiers getting the shaft implies that he doesn't "hate the military". People who "hate the military" don't give a fuck either way.

I said she HATES THE MILITARY not the SOLDIERS you DO know there's a DIFFERENCE RIGHT?

 

[FA_Q2]

Um. I don't think you get it. Active duty soldiers who leave service before 8 years go into the IRR or regular reserves. So if these sodliers weren't stop lossed, they'd go in the IRR and then could be mobilized too. Stop-lossed soldiers aren't being kept past their contract. They still owe time. They are being kept on active duty past their original contract. But what is the difference between that and getting involuntarily mobilized out of the IRR?

Untrue, stop loss can happen to anybody weather they have fulfilled their 8 years or not.

 

[geauxtohell]

I said she HATES THE MILITARY not the SOLDIERS you DO know there's a DIFFERENCE RIGHT?

Not really.

Military =/= Soldiers?

 

[geauxtohell]

Untrue, stop loss can happen to anybody weather they have fulfilled their 8 years or not.

I can't happen to me. I know, because they tried to MOB me past my MSO and immediately rescinded the orders when they realized their mistake.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

Well....they can't all be Audy Murphy

 

[geauxtohell]

Well....they can't all be Audy Murphy

One thing I respect about the Marine Corps is the "Every Marine In The Fight" mandate from the Commandant.

Too bad it doesn't exist in the Army. There are people in the Army who view it as a corporate job to get their 20 and retire.

I guess if there weren't oxygen thieves, the job might be easier for everyone else.

 

[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.

Um. I don't think you get it. Active duty soldiers who leave service before 8 years go into the IRR or regular reserves. So if these sodliers weren't stop lossed, they'd go in the IRR and then could be mobilized too. Stop-lossed soldiers aren't being kept past their contract. They still owe time. They are being kept on active duty past their original contract. But what is the difference between that and getting involuntarily mobilized out of the IRR?

I think they both suck, but at least soldiers on active duty who are stop lossed haven't gone into civilian life and have jobs that can get screwed up.

Furthermore, the IRR now basically consists of two types of soldiers: those that are staying in for their retirement and those who have done a tour and are riding their time out. The IRR, at this point and time, is not full of soldiers who are "hiding out".

That would be the active Army and those soldiers who are skilled at pulling non-deployable duty slots.

Stop lossed soldiers are kept past their original active duty time. That means if someone signed up for four years and they are stop lossed they are kept on active duty beyond their original contract.

My point about the IRR is this: all of us who joined and served are bound by the IRR commitment no less than those still on active duty. At last check there were over 180,000 soldiers forced to stay on active duty. Why not use the IRR for rotation instead of stressing troops out on repeated deployments? All soldiers should share in the rotation. Why do you want to let IRR out of their commitment but hold active duty soldiers to theirs? As far as risking losing civilian jobs, so what? As many have pointed out all Soldiers are bound to their contracts and that includes the IRR. Furthermore, Federal law states they cannot lose their job. Once they are done serving their IRR time the company must reinstate them at their previous salary and same position or a lateral move in the position.

 

[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.

OH PLEASE your bias is OBVIOUS to anybody but YOU! Your post about the military charging a woman for rufusing to deploy shows how much you HATE the military.

Do you think you can score points by purposefully giving a dishonest statement? You just lost points.

 

[CurveLight]

OH PLEASE your bias is OBVIOUS to anybody but YOU! Your post about the military charging a woman for rufusing to deploy shows how much you HATE the military.

Is the hyperbole really necessary? The fact that CL is concerned about soldiers getting the shaft implies that he doesn't "hate the military". People who "hate the military" don't give a fuck either way.

I said she HATES THE MILITARY not the SOLDIERS you DO know there's a DIFFERENCE RIGHT?

Not that it makes any substantive difference, but I'm a he and not a she. But your accusation I hate the military is your pattern of false personal accusations instead of sticking to the topic. Seems to me when you lack the ability to discuss the thread topic you focus on posters.

 

[geauxtohell]

Stop lossed soldiers are kept past their original active duty time. That means if someone signed up for four years and they are stop lossed they are kept on active duty beyond their original contract.

My point about the IRR is this: all of us who joined and served are bound by the IRR commitment no less than those still on active duty. At last check there were over 180,000 soldiers forced to stay on active duty. Why not use the IRR for rotation instead of stressing troops out on repeated deployments? All soldiers should share in the rotation. Why do you want to let IRR out of their commitment but hold active duty soldiers to theirs? As far as risking losing civilian jobs, so what? As many have pointed out all Soldiers are bound to their contracts and that includes the IRR. Furthermore, Federal law states they cannot lose their job. Once they are done serving their IRR time the company must reinstate them at their previous salary and same position or a lateral move in the position.

I don't know when you served, but now if you enlist you are obligated to eight years of service. Whatever you do active minus eight is your reserve obligation. Soldiers are no longer done with the military when they leave active duty. My point is, there is not much difference between a soldier who is stop lossed and one who is involuntarily mobilized out of the IRR. The only difference I see is if a soldier just got back from combat and is being stop lossed and sent right back over with no break. That shouldn't happen.

The IRR has long ceased to be a back water for people to hide out for 18 years and draw retirement. It is now composed of soldiers who have completed their active obligation and are finishing up their reserve obligation before they are completely off the hook. So if this young man wasn't stop lossed, and was let out into the IRR and then involuntarily mobilized, what is the difference really?

Of all my friends who were in the IRR, I can think of two who weren't served with orders. The IRR is already being heavily leaned on to fill the ranks. IRR soldiers aren't the problem. The problem is that they are already short handed even with the IRR. In fact, the IRR soldiers have a legitimate gripe as well as when most of them signed up, they were told the IRR was a last resort for national emergencies, not an augmentation body for regular optempo.

The Guard and Reserve act looks good on paper, but for many jobs it's un-enforcible. If you have a punch the clock job you are safe, but if you are a small business owner and have clients, you are fucked. The government can't compel your customer's loyalty for a year of deployment. Other examples are people with clients. I know of a lawyer and a stockbroker who both took it up the keester by being involuntarily mobbed. During their deployment, they lost all their clients and portfolios.

 

[Navy1960]

A member of the US Military is only and I repeat ONLY entitled to the Speech allowed them under the UCMJ. The free speech protections granted a civilian under the constitution do not apply to members of the Military. When a person , walks into a recruiters office and takes an oath and enters the Military they have done so of their own free will and as such at that point "Free Speech" ends and the UCMJ begins. In a lot of cases as with Commissioned officers they are even subject to the UCMJ after retirement. If the young man in question violated an Article under the UCMJ then he is subject to arrest.

Article 117
“Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

In short, there is no such thing as FREE SPEECH in the Military.

 

[CurveLight]

A member of the US Military is only and I repeat ONLY entitled to the Speech allowed them under the UCMJ. The free speech protections granted a civilian under the constitution do not apply to members of the Military. When a person , walks into a recruiters office and takes an oath and enters the Military they have done so of their own free will and as such at that point "Free Speech" ends and the UCMJ begins. In a lot of cases as with Commissioned officers they are even subject to the UCMJ after retirement. If the young man in question violated an Article under the UCMJ then he is subject to arrest.

Article 117
“Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

In short, there is no such thing as FREE SPEECH in the Military.

You know. I really thought if I pointed that out in the OP it would reduce the redundancy but I was clearly wrong to assume people would actually...ya know....read the OP. These are the same people that post about political issues and vote. Scary.

 

[CurveLight]

Many responses are what I guessed so my question is this: How is the forfeiture of the Constitution justified? On what grounds do you legitimize removing many of the Rights the Soldiers are giving their lives for? Obviously it would be silly to say they can show up to formation out of uniform. I'm not suggesting abandoning the entire structure in any way at all. What I am asking is about off-duty activities. Why should Soldiers who are off duty be forced to live without the very document they have pledged their lives to Defend?

 

[Zona]

A member of the US Military is only and I repeat ONLY entitled to the Speech allowed them under the UCMJ. The free speech protections granted a civilian under the constitution do not apply to members of the Military. When a person , walks into a recruiters office and takes an oath and enters the Military they have done so of their own free will and as such at that point "Free Speech" ends and the UCMJ begins. In a lot of cases as with Commissioned officers they are even subject to the UCMJ after retirement. If the young man in question violated an Article under the UCMJ then he is subject to arrest.

Article 117
“Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

In short, there is no such thing as FREE SPEECH in the Military.

Civilians just dont get it..