Soldier Exercises Free Speech-Gets Arrested

[Navy1960]

Curve while I won't take this conversation into the realm of gays in the Military, I do think you should read this, because it speaks directly to a a lot of the things in which you are talking about.

§ 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
How Current is This? (a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.
(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.
(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.
(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—
(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.
(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.
(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.
(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.
US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

Young men and women in the military DO serve the very constitution in which they defend and any person in the Military, past and present would be able to answer you the same way. What you wish is to impart a civilian social structure one personnel that when off-duty can basically do, and say as they wish, as if the Military were like working at the local Wal-Mart when it clearly is not.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

It was my mistake to say Ready Reserves do not Drill because the RR contains groups that Drill (Selected Reserve) and those that do not Drill, like the IRR. Not all Ready Reservists drill as seen by the evidence I provided:

"The Ready Reserve consists of the Selected Reserve, Individual Ready Reserve and Inactive National Guard. To learn more about these three subcategories, see the Topics Index on the right."
Military.com Resources


The difference between us is I have no problem admitting when I make an error. Whereas you refuse to make such an admission then try to imply a Combat Vet is lying about his service. Kudos.

Don't play that game with me pal...wearing your alleged status on your sleave looking for empathy from some other board members here....FUCK YOU....you are so fucking stupid you don't even know who or what component of reservists drill...did you take a couple rounds to the head? Is that why your so dense? FYI...I wasn't wrong. YOU were.

It's really very simple. You first claimed Ready Reservists Drill. That has been proven false as the RR is a term used to cover several groups. Some Drill, some do not. When I proved your claim wrong you then tried to change your original claim from "Ready Reservists" to the "Selected Reserves." The SR are a sub-group in the RR category, just like the IRR and ING.

"The Ready Reserve is the category of reservists most often called to active duty. Within the Ready Reserve, there are three categories: Inactive National Guard, Individual Ready Reserve and Selected Reserve."
Guide to Reserve status designations - Military Careers, military training, promotions - Army Times

See the red ink

and where were you in combat? Let's discuss that. We were in around the same time so I'm sure we have some experiences in common.

 

[Yukon]

IDIOTS ! There is no such thing, repeat NO SUCH THING, as free speech in the Military, any military, any where in the world. You do as you are ORDERED to do.

 

[CurveLight]

Don't play that game with me pal...wearing your alleged status on your sleave looking for empathy from some other board members here....FUCK YOU....you are so fucking stupid you don't even know who or what component of reservists drill...did you take a couple rounds to the head? Is that why your so dense? FYI...I wasn't wrong. YOU were.

It's really very simple. You first claimed Ready Reservists Drill. That has been proven false as the RR is a term used to cover several groups. Some Drill, some do not. When I proved your claim wrong you then tried to change your original claim from "Ready Reservists" to the "Selected Reserves." The SR are a sub-group in the RR category, just like the IRR and ING.

"The Ready Reserve is the category of reservists most often called to active duty. Within the Ready Reserve, there are three categories: Inactive National Guard, Individual Ready Reserve and Selected Reserve."
Guide to Reserve status designations - Military Careers, military training, promotions - Army Times

See the red ink

and where were you in combat? Let's discuss that. We were in around the same time so I'm sure we have some experiences in common.

You claimed all RR drill and that is not the case as I've shown too many times already. I see you couldn't resist trying to turn the discussion into focusing personally on me. You should probably start a new thread cause I have no interest and you are absolutely high if you think for one moment I need to answer to you about my Combat Service.

 

[CurveLight]

IDIOTS ! There is no such thing, repeat NO SUCH THING, as free speech in the Military, any military, any where in the world. You do as you are ORDERED to do.

Could that be why I pointed that out in the OP? The thread title was designed to show the inherent irony that the very people Sacrificing their lives to defend FOS don't have that Right themselves. That's like a fire department refusing to put out a fire at a fireman's house.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

It's really very simple. You first claimed Ready Reservists Drill. That has been proven false as the RR is a term used to cover several groups. Some Drill, some do not. When I proved your claim wrong you then tried to change your original claim from "Ready Reservists" to the "Selected Reserves." The SR are a sub-group in the RR category, just like the IRR and ING.

"The Ready Reserve is the category of reservists most often called to active duty. Within the Ready Reserve, there are three categories: Inactive National Guard, Individual Ready Reserve and Selected Reserve."
Guide to Reserve status designations - Military Careers, military training, promotions - Army Times

See the red ink

and where were you in combat? Let's discuss that. We were in around the same time so I'm sure we have some experiences in common.

You claimed all RR drill and that is not the case as I've shown too many times already. I see you couldn't resist trying to turn the discussion into focusing personally on me. You should probably start a new thread cause I have no interest and you are absolutely high if you think for one moment I need to answer to you about my Combat Service.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....that's what I thought....now you wonder why so many people here consider you an untruthful poster.

You will claim the big meanie Patek is picking on the poor little defenseless COMBAT VET but you wont discuss your combat experiences and why it apparently turned you into a pussy! You crack me up!!!!

 

[CurveLight]

Curve while I won't take this conversation into the realm of gays in the Military, I do think you should read this, because it speaks directly to a a lot of the things in which you are talking about.

§ 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
How Current is This? (a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.
(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.
(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.
(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—
(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.
(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.
(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.
(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.
US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

Young men and women in the military DO serve the very constitution in which they defend and any person in the Military, past and present would be able to answer you the same way. What you wish is to impart a civilian social structure one personnel that when off-duty can basically do, and say as they wish, as if the Military were like working at the local Wal-Mart when it clearly is not.

Basically that is interpreting a carte blanche rule which violates several areas of the Constitution and especially taxation without representation.

 

[CurveLight]

See the red ink

and where were you in combat? Let's discuss that. We were in around the same time so I'm sure we have some experiences in common.

You claimed all RR drill and that is not the case as I've shown too many times already. I see you couldn't resist trying to turn the discussion into focusing personally on me. You should probably start a new thread cause I have no interest and you are absolutely high if you think for one moment I need to answer to you about my Combat Service.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....that's what I thought....now you wonder why so many people here consider you an untruthful poster.

You will claim the big meanie Patek is picking on the poor little defenseless COMBAT VET but you wont discuss your combat experiences and why it apparently turned you into a pussy! You crack me up!!!!

As suspected, when proven wrong you try to pretend you didn't make a mistake. Not all RRs Drill as that term covers several groups and some Drill, some do not. I'm grateful you continue to deny your error because it helps explain why you are not to be taken seriously. Thank you.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

You claimed all RR drill and that is not the case as I've shown too many times already. I see you couldn't resist trying to turn the discussion into focusing personally on me. You should probably start a new thread cause I have no interest and you are absolutely high if you think for one moment I need to answer to you about my Combat Service.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....that's what I thought....now you wonder why so many people here consider you an untruthful poster.

You will claim the big meanie Patek is picking on the poor little defenseless COMBAT VET but you wont discuss your combat experiences and why it apparently turned you into a pussy! You crack me up!!!!

As suspected, when proven wrong you try to pretend you didn't make a mistake. Not all RRs Drill as that term covers several groups and some Drill, some do not. I'm grateful you continue to deny your error because it helps explain why you are not to be taken seriously. Thank you.

OK chicken little...please keep parsing words and splitting hairs....

Please tell us of your exploits on the field of battle!!! That's what we all want to hear!!!!

 

[geauxtohell]

That's not protected speech.

After Fort Hood, I think the military is going to have little tolerance for verbal threats against the country or army - at least if you're not a member of a priviledged minority...

What they should do in the future however is have a special disclosure that recruits have to read and sign - acknowledging that the Stop Loss provision would allow the army to unilaterally extend their military term indefinitely.

I agree with the sentiment of the OP - Stop Loss is not fair - but it is legal.

He should stick to his contract, challenge the deployment on the basis iraq is not legal, or get a dishonorable discharge. When he first produced the song last July there was no big hubbub about it. The military is now using it as a weapon against his deployment protest. If the song was that bad they should have charged him with it when they investigated but they did not.

Watada already tried that and failed miserably ("Iraq is illegal.")

 

[geauxtohell]

I'll buy that this soldier is somewhat a victim of circumstance. After Hood, the Army isn't going to fool around with any threats or telegraphs of violence. I don't blame them.

It might not be fair, but life isn't fair. He knew he was putting himself out there when he wrote this and (bizarrely) sent it to the Pentagon.

Had hood not have happened, it might not have been a big deal. But Hood did happen, and now it is a big deal.

He sent the song to the pentagon months before the Hood shooting.

Right. It got traction afterward. Like I said "victim of circumstance" (to a degree).

 

[CurveLight]

I'll buy that this soldier is somewhat a victim of circumstance. After Hood, the Army isn't going to fool around with any threats or telegraphs of violence. I don't blame them.

It might not be fair, but life isn't fair. He knew he was putting himself out there when he wrote this and (bizarrely) sent it to the Pentagon.

Had hood not have happened, it might not have been a big deal. But Hood did happen, and now it is a big deal.

He sent the song to the pentagon months before the Hood shooting.

Right. It got traction afterward. Like I said "victim of circumstance" (to a degree).

I don't think it did, at least not in the way being implied. He never had any disciplinary action for song until he protested deployment. My view is his COC knew he had a loud mouth so rather than let him publicly bitch about stop loss they'd remove his credibility by implying he's Hassan rising.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He sent the song to the pentagon months before the Hood shooting.

Right. It got traction afterward. Like I said "victim of circumstance" (to a degree).

I don't think it did, at least not in the way being implied. He never had any disciplinary action for song until he protested deployment. My view is his COC knew he had a loud mouth so rather than let him publicly bitch about stop loss they'd remove his credibility by implying he's Hassan rising.

Hate to break it to you but the Military is not worried about people complaining about Stop loss. That has been being done for YEARS now with no traction. This guy is no more special in that regard then any other whiner about being retained on duty.

Once again for the slow and stupid. He signed an 8 YEAR contract. With stipulation that the Government could extend his initial 4 years as much as the needs of the service required during the remaining 4 years. It is a standard Contract.

Further it makes perfect sense to keep already active duty personnel on active duty rather then call up some fat slob that has been out for 2 years. The inactive member even if in shape has to be retrained and geared up while the already active duty member is already trained and geared up and the military knows he is in shape.

Now lets do the math. He joined 4 years ago, 2005? The fact the Government was using stop loss was a known fact back then being reported in the press all the time. As the left tried to discredit the Bush Administration. This guy can not even claim he was not aware of stop loss when he joined.

 

[CurveLight]

After Fort Hood, I think the military is going to have little tolerance for verbal threats against the country or army - at least if you're not a member of a priviledged minority...

What they should do in the future however is have a special disclosure that recruits have to read and sign - acknowledging that the Stop Loss provision would allow the army to unilaterally extend their military term indefinitely.

I agree with the sentiment of the OP - Stop Loss is not fair - but it is legal.

He should stick to his contract, challenge the deployment on the basis iraq is not legal, or get a dishonorable discharge. When he first produced the song last July there was no big hubbub about it. The military is now using it as a weapon against his deployment protest. If the song was that bad they should have charged him with it when they investigated but they did not.

Watada already tried that and failed miserably ("Iraq is illegal.")

On the contrary, he completely kicked the military's ass. I knew when this first happened the military would not let his trial go forth and allow the legality become a centerpiece because they knew there was way too much evidence on his side. The judge in his courts martial ruled Watada's defense and stipulations to the Prosecution was tantamount to an admission guilt and could not be resolved in the military judicial system. That caused a mistrial. The military wanted to retry him on other charges but a federal judge ruled that would violate his Double Jeopardy Right so this past September they let him out of the military. He seriously kicked their ass.
cbs5.comnationalEhren.Watada.discharged.2.1210210html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He should stick to his contract, challenge the deployment on the basis iraq is not legal, or get a dishonorable discharge. When he first produced the song last July there was no big hubbub about it. The military is now using it as a weapon against his deployment protest. If the song was that bad they should have charged him with it when they investigated but they did not.

Watada already tried that and failed miserably ("Iraq is illegal.")

On the contrary, he completely kicked the military's ass. I knew when this first happened the military would not let his trial go forth and allow the legality become a centerpiece because they knew there was way too much evidence on his side. The judge in his courts martial ruled Watada's defense and stipulations to the Prosecution was tantamount to an admission guilt and could not be resolved in the military judicial system. That caused a mistrial. The military wanted to retry him on other charges but a federal judge ruled that would violate his Double Jeopardy Right so this past September they let him out of the military. He seriously kicked their ass.
cbs5.com/national/Ehren.Watada.discharged.2.1210210.html

Sure thing RETARD.

 

[CurveLight]

Right. It got traction afterward. Like I said "victim of circumstance" (to a degree).

I don't think it did, at least not in the way being implied. He never had any disciplinary action for song until he protested deployment. My view is his COC knew he had a loud mouth so rather than let him publicly bitch about stop loss they'd remove his credibility by implying he's Hassan rising.

Hate to break it to you but the Military is not worried about people complaining about Stop loss. That has been being done for YEARS now with no traction. This guy is no more special in that regard then any other whiner about being retained on duty.

Once again for the slow and stupid. He signed an 8 YEAR contract. With stipulation that the Government could extend his initial 4 years as much as the needs of the service required during the remaining 4 years. It is a standard Contract.

Further it makes perfect sense to keep already active duty personnel on active duty rather then call up some fat slob that has been out for 2 years. The inactive member even if in shape has to be retrained and geared up while the already active duty member is already trained and geared up and the military knows he is in shape.

Now lets do the math. He joined 4 years ago, 2005? The fact the Government was using stop loss was a known fact back then being reported in the press all the time. As the left tried to discredit the Bush Administration. This guy can not even claim he was not aware of stop loss when he joined.

Not sure who that was directed at. It couldn't have been me because I've already stated he should fulfill his contract and deploy, challenge the deployment on legal grounds, or get a dishonorable discharge. Iv never challenged the legitimacy of the Stop Loss. So who were you trying to send that message to?

As for his being arrested, well if they didn't care about him bitching about Stop Loss why not arrest him for missing movement? They arrested him for the song and threw in the claim he said he was going to whack battalion commanders. Oh, wait. Why the hell do I expect any honesty from you?

 

[CurveLight]

Watada already tried that and failed miserably ("Iraq is illegal.")

On the contrary, he completely kicked the military's ass. I knew when this first happened the military would not let his trial go forth and allow the legality become a centerpiece because they knew there was way too much evidence on his side. The judge in his courts martial ruled Watada's defense and stipulations to the Prosecution was tantamount to an admission guilt and could not be resolved in the military judicial system. That caused a mistrial. The military wanted to retry him on other charges but a federal judge ruled that would violate his Double Jeopardy Right so this past September they let him out of the military. He seriously kicked their ass.
cbs5.com/national/Ehren.Watada.discharged.2.1210210.html

Sure thing RETARD.

Okay boys and girls pay attention. Some times when you state a position and back it up with solid evidence there is a chance you will encounter posters who realize they have no legitimate counter argument so they will respond with name calling. Do not get upset or drawn into their pool of immaturity drowning. Take it as a compliment because their actions are code for:

"It pisses me off that claim is correct and even though I can't address the facts I sure as hell can call people names!"

 

[CurveLight]

That cbs link address couldn't sit still for some reason so let me try another

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada?wasRedirected=true


cbs5.com/national/Ehren.Watada.discharged.2.1210210.html

Courage to Resist - Ehren Watada

 

[geauxtohell]

He should stick to his contract, challenge the deployment on the basis iraq is not legal, or get a dishonorable discharge. When he first produced the song last July there was no big hubbub about it. The military is now using it as a weapon against his deployment protest. If the song was that bad they should have charged him with it when they investigated but they did not.

Watada already tried that and failed miserably ("Iraq is illegal.")

On the contrary, he completely kicked the military's ass. I knew when this first happened the military would not let his trial go forth and allow the legality become a centerpiece because they knew there was way too much evidence on his side. The judge in his courts martial ruled Watada's defense and stipulations to the Prosecution was tantamount to an admission guilt and could not be resolved in the military judicial system. That caused a mistrial. The military wanted to retry him on other charges but a federal judge ruled that would violate his Double Jeopardy Right so this past September they let him out of the military. He seriously kicked their ass.
cbs5.comnationalEhren.Watada.discharged.2.1210210html

C'mon. Watada lucked out that he wasn't prosecuted. That's a far cry from winning on the grounds of "Iraq is an illegal war". Watada got no traction on that issue.

 

[CurveLight]

Watada already tried that and failed miserably ("Iraq is illegal.")

On the contrary, he completely kicked the military's ass. I knew when this first happened the military would not let his trial go forth and allow the legality become a centerpiece because they knew there was way too much evidence on his side. The judge in his courts martial ruled Watada's defense and stipulations to the Prosecution was tantamount to an admission guilt and could not be resolved in the military judicial system. That caused a mistrial. The military wanted to retry him on other charges but a federal judge ruled that would violate his Double Jeopardy Right so this past September they let him out of the military. He seriously kicked their ass.
cbs5.comnationalEhren.Watada.discharged.2.1210210html

C'mon. Watada lucked out that he wasn't prosecuted. That's a far cry from winning on the grounds of "Iraq is an illegal war". Watada got no traction on that issue.

No traction? Are you at all familiar with the case? I'm confident you are not or you wouldn't have claimed he "failed miserably" on the grounds of the war being illegal. Do you know what the court did right after the first time Watada provided experts to testify?