The Cone Of Silence Over Active Duty Members & Civilians

[mudwhistle]

During the Bush Administration the press repeatedly featured active-duty soldiers that were critical of the war in Iraq. These days you never hear of any G.I. critics of Obama. Why is this?

A couple of years ago a Marine was kicked out of the military for openly criticizing Obama. Talking about Obama in any shape or form around active-duty soldiers these days causes a hush to come over the room. They have been directed never to be critical of the president or face charges. Now this threat is beginning to surface in DoD civilian emails.

From: Larson, Angela M CIV (US)
Sent: Friday, March
01, 2013 5:59 PM
To: USARMY RIA JMC List DL All JMC Pers
Subject: Sequestration – Media Tips

To JMC employees,

Because of media interest in sequestration and furlough, you may be approached or contacted by a reporter at some point and asked to comment.

If you don’t wish to speak with a reporter, politely decline.

If you agree to be interviewed, remember that you’re expressing your personal opinion, not that of anyone else – and certainly not the opinion of JMC or the Army.

Avoid giving an answer that might be perceived as criticism of the Commander in Chief or any political party.

If you’re asked to provide an official statement, refer the reporter to

JMC PAO, the official spokesperson for the command. Their number is [REDACTED].

v/r

Stephen D. Abney
Chief, Public Affairs
Joint Munitions Command
DSN [REDACTED]
Read more at U.S. Army: Don?t criticize Obama

We were told last year not to discuss politics at work. We were also threatened that we fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Here's the problem; It was made clear to us when we served that if an officer gives you an illegal or immoral order you don't have to follow it. So being critical of the president's policies shouldn't be grounds for dismissal if you feel he is committing acts that you feel are ether immoral or simply against the law. Is it a punishable offense simply to voice the truth around others?

What do you folks think?

 

[mudwhistle]

Okay......let's just discuss the horrific effects of sequester.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Thats a tough one. I understand their reasoning behind it and they can make a case for it.
Buts thats assuming they are doing it for the right reasons.
If they are doing it because it will give the impression they lack control over the troops or give the impression that obama is anti military I would consider that the wrong reason.
If it was applied to enhance unit cohesion and respect for the office of the presidency I could see it.
I would be inclined to think the former would be true knowing our government.

 

[mudwhistle]

Most Obama critics feel he puts a stain on the office. What other reason is therwe to be critical of him?

 

[jadeX]

You swore under oath that you would support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. President Obama is your Commander-In-Chief. Bottom line, talk at the risk of treason.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Most Obama critics feel he puts a stain on the office. What other reason is therwe to be critical of him?

Oh there's no doubt about that. I thought the question was how we feel about the application of the rule. And why it would or should be enacted. And the rights of servicemen to to disagree with the prez.
Another reason the troops may dislike obama would be cuts in military spending that affects their pay and combat readiness and or safety.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You swore under oath that you would support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. President Obama is your Commander-In-Chief. Bottom line, talk at the risk of treason.

Dont think that rises to the point of treason.

 

[Oldguy]

It's always been against the rules for soldiers in uniform to publicly criticize their commanders or the Commander in Chief. If you don't think so, ask Gen. Stanley McCrystal or Douglas MacArthur. Or, Eric Shinseki or George McClelland.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Yup. There is somewhat of a difference depending on the forum. If this marine had been at a bar in civilian clothes with his buddies saying negative things about Obama its likely nothing would have happened, but putting it out there public while making his military affiliation clear and implying he would only follow orders he deemed constitutional is what did him. Deservedly so IMO.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You swore under oath that you would support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. President Obama is your Commander-In-Chief. Bottom line, talk at the risk of treason.

...defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Guess what, many consider the traitor to be in Office.

 

[SteadyMercury]

...defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Guess what, many consider the traitor to be in Office.

So are you suggesting all the millions of members in our armed forces should just make casual judgement calls on who in their chain of command is an enemy or interpreting the constitution to their liking before following orders?

There is definitely some gray area on following orders but it is a lot smaller than people seem to think, and deciding the president is evil based on some stuff you read online isn't it.

 

[AmyNation]

Who has been "directed to never be critical"? Do you even know any active duty soldiers?

 

[gallantwarrior]

...defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Guess what, many consider the traitor to be in Office.

So are you suggesting all the millions of members in our armed forces should just make casual judgement calls on who in their chain of command is an enemy or interpreting the constitution to their liking before following orders?

There is definitely some gray area on following orders but it is a lot smaller than people seem to think, and deciding the president is evil based on some stuff you read online isn't it.

Actions speak more loudly than words. You are not alone in your blindness. More the shame, really.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

"During the Bush Administration the press repeatedly featured active-duty soldiers that were critical of the war in Iraq. These days you never hear of any G.I. critics of Obama. Why is this?"

THAT was the initial question posed by mudwhistle.

Why is everybody tap-dancing around answering the question, and going off on tangents?

Is it because everybody knows the ANSWER?

 

[gallantwarrior]

It's because they've been threatened with disciplinary action if they open their mouths.

 

[AmyNation]

It's because they've been threatened with disciplinary action if they open their mouths.

1st, its never ok to disparage your CO in a public manner. 2nd, I've never heard of any widespread policy that soldiers that will face disciplinary action if "they open their mouths".

 

[jadeX]

You have to quell the fray, which can easily become violent.

 

[SteadyMercury]

...defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Guess what, many consider the traitor to be in Office.

So are you suggesting all the millions of members in our armed forces should just make casual judgement calls on who in their chain of command is an enemy or interpreting the constitution to their liking before following orders?

There is definitely some gray area on following orders but it is a lot smaller than people seem to think, and deciding the president is evil based on some stuff you read online isn't it.

Actions speak more loudly than words. You are not alone in your blindness. More the shame, really.

So is that a yes or a no?

 

[Misty]

It's ironic that the military fights for our freedoms, including the freedom of speech, yet they aren't allowed to speak freely.

 

[AmyNation]

It's ironic that the military fights for our freedoms, including the freedom of speech, yet they aren't allowed to speak freely.

Why don't you go to your local news and do an interview about how terrible your employer is. Let me know how well that goes over with your boss.