Before everyone starts clutching their pearls, keep in mind it’s against US military regulations for service members to make these kinds of public political statement while in uniform, and it’s been that way for a long long time.
The article even mentions this in the second paragraph
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) contains provisions barring officers from engaging in public political activities that are typically protected for civilians, including criticizing the president and other elected officials.
Typically, that’s why news outlets always get “Retired General XYZ” to give opinions since they’re no longer under the UCMJ. Official statements come from the executive branch.
The right thing to do is either complete your contract or resign commission and make whatever political statement you want, or stay and quietly use your influence to try to better things.
You’re missing the point completely. He made a choice to protest while in uniform. A choice he knew would fuck up the rest of his life.
When someone puts on the uniform, they no longer represent just themselves. The whole purpose of the regulation is to prevent giving the image that one service member’s views represent the views of the entire branch.
Regardless of your politics or morality, he didn’t have authorization to speak for the entire air force, the DoD, or the US, which is exactly what he attempted to do by protesting in uniform.
He may have violated the UCMJ, but since when does that mean that constitutionally guaranteed protections against cruel and unusual punishment (which solitary confinement for 24hrs a day indefinitely without a trial absolutely is) don’t apply?
I believe you are missing the point. No where is anyone denying the charges, they are pointing out the administrations own disregard of the law. He is being punished prior to being convicted.
Only if you interpret it that way would you see him speaking for all branches.
He protested in uniform because it would cause an uproar and he would get in trouble and we’d be talking about it.
He sacrificed his regular everyday life so we’d be having this conversation.
He’s a fucking hero.
He didn’t claim to speak on the behalf of all armed forces personnel he showed the others that the armed force personnel weren’t all blindly in lockstep.
Yes, by wearing the uniform he violated those rules and I don’t think anybody is saying otherwise.
It’s the treatment he’s received because of his actions that indicate why his actions were so necessary.
He should have been held at Bolling instead of extradited to Maryland to be segregated. He shouldn’t have been perp walked in plain clothes. He is afforded specific rights under the UCMJ which are being violated.
Why even wade in to say what you’re saying? What exactly do you think you’re tempering here?
Yeah its kinda anti capitalist to limit its use if you bought it. Its like if you want to limit how its used then it should be some kinda loan. Maybe you can pay a used price when you retire if you want to keep it. Medals and such should be a gift to so that should always be allowed to be worn as the recipient sees fit.
Agreed. A lot of people will hand down rank patches to the rank below so that they don’t have to buy new ones. It’s helpful and usually a sign of respect to your younger troops.
When they break morals they break the contract. Uniform and clothes at no point in time are relevant in that manner to that Soldier fulfilling said contract being broken, snipping properly.
I know. If you read the contract, it’s not the same kind of difficulty, though, because then you know when you can and must say, “No.” Do you play their blame game or swing it like a batter at the softest ball you may not have even noticed being thrown at you?
so one. the issue is solitary confinement. and two all service members take an oath to defend the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. Speaking out is the least he could do for the oath.
I’m not sure what you mean by “right thing” to do.
I think he is doing the right thing, it just has consequences. You don’t deserve all the down votes though, a lot of people don’t understand what the UCMJ is.
They’re still under ucmj, any current or former military personnel at any time can be recalled and made to stand tribunal. If they make statements off duty and out of uniform they can say most anything they want without ucmj applying.
While I accept what you’re saying there, this amounts to torture IMO:
On Friday, Watson’s lawyer, Christopher Mutimer, told CNN that after nearly two months, Watson is “still in solitary confinement 24 hours a day,” which he said amounted to “cruel and unusual” punishment.
The right thing to do is either complete your contract or resign commission and make whatever political statement you want, or stay and quietly use your influence to try to better things.
Or you know, just don’t join the Israeli Colonial Auxiliary Penal Reserve Militia (or whatever the US Armed Forces are collectively called these days) to begin with.
It’s called being a conscientious objector, exacting civil disobedience.
In reasonable societies, this is protected as a right to protest, and although might exclude you from employment in certain institutions, typically only warrants torture when power has bodies to hide.
Before everyone starts clutching their pearls, keep in mind it’s against US military regulations for service members to make these kinds of public political statement while in uniform, and it’s been that way for a long long time.
The article even mentions this in the second paragraph
Typically, that’s why news outlets always get “Retired General XYZ” to give opinions since they’re no longer under the UCMJ. Official statements come from the executive branch.
The right thing to do is either complete your contract or resign commission and make whatever political statement you want, or stay and quietly use your influence to try to better things.
Legality isn’t morality.
You’re missing the point completely. He made a choice to protest while in uniform. A choice he knew would fuck up the rest of his life.
When someone puts on the uniform, they no longer represent just themselves. The whole purpose of the regulation is to prevent giving the image that one service member’s views represent the views of the entire branch.
Regardless of your politics or morality, he didn’t have authorization to speak for the entire air force, the DoD, or the US, which is exactly what he attempted to do by protesting in uniform.
He may have violated the UCMJ, but since when does that mean that constitutionally guaranteed protections against cruel and unusual punishment (which solitary confinement for 24hrs a day indefinitely without a trial absolutely is) don’t apply?
I believe you are missing the point. No where is anyone denying the charges, they are pointing out the administrations own disregard of the law. He is being punished prior to being convicted.
Only if you interpret it that way would you see him speaking for all branches.
He protested in uniform because it would cause an uproar and he would get in trouble and we’d be talking about it.
He sacrificed his regular everyday life so we’d be having this conversation.
He’s a fucking hero.
He didn’t claim to speak on the behalf of all armed forces personnel he showed the others that the armed force personnel weren’t all blindly in lockstep.
Yes, by wearing the uniform he violated those rules and I don’t think anybody is saying otherwise.
It’s the treatment he’s received because of his actions that indicate why his actions were so necessary.
He should have been held at Bolling instead of extradited to Maryland to be segregated. He shouldn’t have been perp walked in plain clothes. He is afforded specific rights under the UCMJ which are being violated.
Why even wade in to say what you’re saying? What exactly do you think you’re tempering here?
It’s taught that you represent the military while in uniform making public statements. You get told this all the time while in the military.
Also, I don’t think this person was trying to disagree with anyone about what the military mans intent was.
I believe reply OP just wanted to highlight that it’s against the UCMJ, which a lot of people didn’t seem to know.
so are you given your uniform or do you have to purchase it. Because if you have to purchase it then that is some BT.
It depends. Enlisted are paid a uniform allowance, Officers are not. Special uniform parts needed for performing your duty are given to you.
Yeah, I agree. Shouldn’t have to pay for something that’s mandatory. Ask Congress about it.
Yeah its kinda anti capitalist to limit its use if you bought it. Its like if you want to limit how its used then it should be some kinda loan. Maybe you can pay a used price when you retire if you want to keep it. Medals and such should be a gift to so that should always be allowed to be worn as the recipient sees fit.
Agreed. A lot of people will hand down rank patches to the rank below so that they don’t have to buy new ones. It’s helpful and usually a sign of respect to your younger troops.
When they break morals they break the contract. Uniform and clothes at no point in time are relevant in that manner to that Soldier fulfilling said contract being broken, snipping properly.
I can’t parse what you’re saying, can you word it differently or explain it for my dumb-brain
Read the contract they signed if you want to understand. It’s not as complicated as apparently no one here bothered to read it anyway.
My dude I’m saying literally your phrasing is hard to understand.
You wrote a sentence that is difficult to parse.
I know. If you read the contract, it’s not the same kind of difficulty, though, because then you know when you can and must say, “No.” Do you play their blame game or swing it like a batter at the softest ball you may not have even noticed being thrown at you?
No, you’re missing the point completely. The objections are more to do with the “solitary” part, and less to do with the “confinement” part.
so one. the issue is solitary confinement. and two all service members take an oath to defend the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. Speaking out is the least he could do for the oath.
The right thing to do is to revolt tbh
Which UCMJ provision says he should be held in solitary confinement before his trial?
The one that says “you can add too, not take away”.
Retired members are still beholden to the ucmj if receiving a pension
I’m not sure what you mean by “right thing” to do.
I think he is doing the right thing, it just has consequences. You don’t deserve all the down votes though, a lot of people don’t understand what the UCMJ is.
They’re still under ucmj, any current or former military personnel at any time can be recalled and made to stand tribunal. If they make statements off duty and out of uniform they can say most anything they want without ucmj applying.
While I accept what you’re saying there, this amounts to torture IMO:
Quoting the UCMJ here has to be irony, right?
Or you know, just don’t join the Israeli Colonial Auxiliary Penal Reserve Militia (or whatever the US Armed Forces are collectively called these days) to begin with.
It’s called being a conscientious objector, exacting civil disobedience.
In reasonable societies, this is protected as a right to protest, and although might exclude you from employment in certain institutions, typically only warrants torture when power has bodies to hide.
I wonder if they would be in the same position had they made a political comment that praised diaper don.