Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 72
  1. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Would you still respect him if this happened during Bush's term? Or if there was another republican in office?
    That's the whole problem. It "looks" political. A General should never be in such a position.

    I respect him - from what I've heard, he's a brilliant leader and his troops love him; but he broke "the golden rule". It's there for a reason.

    A General has to lead warriors in to battle, to risk their lives, and if need be, ask them to make the ultimate sacrifice. Any kinks or flaws in the chain of command threatens to bring the whole structure into chaos.

    There is in fact a defined protocol for redressing concerns you might have about those up and down the chain. This protocol does not include inviting in a reporter from Rolling Stone and voicing your grievances.

    I think that McChrystal screwed up and has to go.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Do you ever get tired of Obama bashing? Those in glass houses...
    I promise to stop Obama bashing within 1 year of him being voted out of office. Whoever is in office at that time, the issues will be theirs to deal with.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrloserpunk View Post
    anyone read the why behind the article? How about you clem? He was drinking the entire day of the interview on a bus to berlin during the volcano... He got drunk and ****ed on his boss... Spin it how ever partisan you will... Lame. Coulda happened to anyone I suppose, but go ahead and make it some "deep" thing, like you have any idea what your talking about....

    I guess some are just totally clueless as to how the military actually works, dosent surprise me.

    the commander in chief is the head of all the armed forces, that means he earned his "respect" from the military with a winning electoral college vote. That's how it works. Disagree? Move somewhere else, cause its enshrined in the constitution.
    Um no, "respect" is not received by simply getting elected. Respect must be earned. Does the General have to follow the commands of the President? Well, he better! Does he have to respect him? No. Please tell me where it says in the Constitution that the military must respect the President? I'll just wait for that link. So unless you can show me where respecting the President is "enshrined in the Constitution", then yes, I disagree with you.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    The Uniformed Code of Military Justice is what demands the military show proper respect to the duly elected President of the United States.
    I have never read this document, and it may say exactly what you say it does. However, I will stick to what I was replying to and that there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the military to "respect" the President. There is a difference between following the commands of the President and respecting the President. So, do you agree that there is no requirement in the Constitution that demands he be respected? If you disagree, could you please tell me where in the Constitution I can find this. Thanks! I am always trying to learn from you as you seem to have an amazing mind.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #25  
    "Showing respect", and "having respect for" are two different things. One is an outward display, the other is earned.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. #26  
    My two cents - he has to go.

    It's an unfortunate situation...and one not made better by administration officials (esp. Biden) floating strategic and tactical ideas to which his command must then respond in the press, but none of that forgives the offense. From what I have read, his comments were fairly tame, but he also allowed a culture of inappropriate public criticism of the administration by his aides...and that decision shows poor leadership and extremely questionable judgment.

    Frankly, in our American society, we cannot allow our senior military to criticize publicly the civilian authority over them...regardless of who that authority is and whether or not they like and/or respect them. Doing so severely erodes our checks and balances between military power and civilian authority. Sounds strange to folks who may not have been in the military (or who haven't watched Seven Days in May), but it is necessary...even in a country with our First Amendment.

    I'm not a Bush basher, nor am I a rabid Obama supporter. I am also not someone who criticizes the military without perspective. I was a forward observer in the 101st...and I still think the man needs to go. Frankly, I think he needs to be fired...not resign. I cannot fathom what he was thinking...and I personally have lost significant confidence in his judgment.
  7. #27  
    The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces, UMCJ (not surprised you've never read it clemgrad85) It pertains to those who have served in any capacity in the armed forces....

    Micael, that was the best way to put it. While you don't have love him, you do have to show respect to him. The respect may be for his position, and not for his policy... but if you do not show that respect, you can be 86'd. Do you have to respect the judge in your criminal proceedings? Well, you have to follow all of his directions.... or else....

    Since the constitution makes him the commander in chief, his duties and the requirement of the armed services to RESPECT the commander and chief are enshrined in it.

    As long as he is the commander and chief, ALL of the armed services have to show the president respect.

    Consider the tiger. Now if you encountered a tiger in wilds of India I suspect that you would treat the cat with instant respect. Why? Power. Tigers are fast, strong, and can do a person great harm. Fortunately there are no wild tigers in America. Our tigers are in the zoo where they pace in front of us enclosed by glass and metal. Caged cats merit little respect or at least that was the theory of some zoo patrons last winter in San Francisco. They enjoyed teasing and taunting the tiger who they assumed was helplessly trapped in the exhibit. Unfortunately they were wrong, the tiger wasn’t trapped. The cat escaped and earned the respect she was denied by killing one patron and injuring two others.

    What lesson do we learn from this cautionary tale? Don’t taunt the tiger! Respect is ultimately grounded in power. Although we’ve lost the fancy titles of Lord and Lady our country is still one where power is concentrated in the hands of the few. We’ve adapted to this reality by establishing institutions and traditions that act like the cages in a zoo to shelter bystanders from the raw force of that power. We are incredibly blessed to live in a society where one administration leaves and another assumes power without bloodshed. We should not take this for granted. The checks that restrain the powerful are not invincible. Respect is important because it nurtures the structures that prevent differences from being solved by brute force. Force that is likely to lead to mutual destruction. Like it did for the tiger.

    Here I think it is important to differentiate between respect and admiration. The bank teller is likely to respect the armed thief demanding cash but not admire him. This respect will manifest itself by the teller handing over the money and not vocalizing all the foul epithets on the tip of the tellers tongue. The wise teller knows not to escalate the situation with needless taunts though he may hand over marked bills or press a silent alarm. I’m not sure this is the best example, but the points I would like to draw are these. Respect does not mean you support or admire the object of your respect. Respect does not mean that you offer no opposition to for example, the President. Instead minimal respect means acknowledging the realities of power and not escalating the situation, putting yourself and others at risk, by spreading slander, cursing, or thoughtlessly disregarding decorum and the law.
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #28  
    UCMJ Article 88 - Contempt toward officials

    Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    Elements.

    (1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;

    (2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;

    (3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and

    (4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element

    (5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.


    Explanation.

    The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, adverse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.

    Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    "Showing respect", and "having respect for" are two different things. One is an outward display, the other is earned.
    Aaaaand i repeat:

    Quote Originally Posted by dbd
    No matter what any of you guys' political preferences are, it has to be looked at like this:

    The "parents" should never let the "children" see them bickering with each other. They should show that they believe in each other in public whether they do or not.
    The "parents" have to show that they are united.
    Otherwise, the "children" will lose any respect they have for them.

    You married w/children people know what i'm talking about.
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #30  
    It's official. Petraeus is in.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrloserpunk View Post
    Since the constitution makes him the commander in chief, his duties and the requirement of the armed services to RESPECT the commander and chief are enshrined in it.

    As long as he is the commander and chief, ALL of the armed services have to show the president respect.
    Total BS mrloser.....you said it was enshrined in the Constitution that they (military) must respect the President. If something outside the Constitution says they should show respect to the President, that is totally different from it being said in the Constitution. I would agree that he showed poor judgement....that was not the issue....my issue was that you said it was in the Constitution that he must show respect for the President. At best, by the Constitution making the Prez the Commander in Chief, it says the military better listen to what he says. But respect him? No. I will agree with you and tc that the other document apparently requires that they respect the President (not going to read it, but apparently it says that). You can twist the issue all you want, but the Constitution says nothing about respecting the Prez.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    You obviously have no idea how the military works.
    Or, maybe I'm not referring to the military, but rather RiverNole's post that the office needs to be respected? BARYE seems to have posted in the interim while I was looking up a movie quote, or it would have been more obvious, I suppose.
    In the military, it is strictly forbidden to disobey or disparage your commanding officer, and the president, aka, the "Commander In Chief" is his commanding officer. The military is not the place for personal politics.
    Nor did I say it was. I'm familiar enough with the UCMJ. Had McChrystal violated an article, it seems he'd be up on charges. That being said, in reading the article, McChrystal did not seem to say much directly about Obama.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrloserpunk View Post
    anyone read the why behind the article?
    How about reading the article?
    How about you clem? He was drinking the entire day of the interview on a bus to berlin during the volcano...
    The article was written over the course of more than one day.
    He got drunk and ****ed on his boss... Spin it how ever partisan you will... Lame. Coulda happened to anyone I suppose, but go ahead and make it some "deep" thing, like you have any idea what your talking about....
    Speaking of spin, can you point out the direct quote from McChrystal that supports it?
    I guess some are just totally clueless as to how the military actually works, dosent surprise me.

    the commander in chief is the head of all the armed forces, that means he earned his "respect" from the military with a winning electoral college vote. That's how it works. Disagree? Move somewhere else, cause its enshrined in the constitution.
    No, it's not. The thing winning the electoral college vote gets him is obedience/subordination, completely different from respect. Also, it's enshrined in the UCMJ, not the Constitution.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. #34  
    It's Mccrystals commander to determine charges.. Do you understand how ucmj works? Its not like civilian law, the "charges" start at his bosses desk. That would be the SECDEF. He gets to decide, and as political as these positions can be, a court martial is rarely the way to handle it. Your assumption that he would be face a court martial if he violated a article is incorrect and does not reflect how the uniform code works. Often a commander will have his own form of punishment as opposed to a 32 or general court martial. That's how it works.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    How about reading the article?

    [URL= article[/URL] was written over the course of more than one day.

    Speaking of spin, can you point out the direct quote from McChrystal that supports it?

    No, it's not. The thing winning the electoral college vote gets him is obedience/subordination, completely different from respect. Also, it's enshrined in the UCMJ, not the Constitution.
    I think your having trouble with your reading comprehension.

    The constitution makes the president the commander in chief. That is "enshrined" there, that's to say its a protected status. All members of the military salute the president. Look up the definition of a hand salute and try and find one that doesn't say "respect" in it.

    oh and telling someone your boss "is intimitated" by subordiantes is disrespectfull. But since your having trouble with the word respect, I can understand why putting a few more letters on it makes it more confusing.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrloserpunk View Post
    It's Mccrystals commander to determine charges.. Do you understand how ucmj works? Its not like civilian law, the "charges" start at his bosses desk.
    Could you point to the section which explains how this should work?
    That would be the SECDEF. He gets to decide, and as political as these positions can be, a court martial is rarely the way to handle it.
    Then how does the UCMJ dictate that it should be handled given the facts at hand?
    Your assumption that he would be face a court martial if he violated a article is incorrect and does not reflect how the uniform code works.
    The article that Micael posted is a punitive section. It only applies to punitive actions resulting from a court martial.
    Often a commander will have his own form of punishment as opposed to a 32 or general court martial. That's how it works.
    Isn't the purpose for a Uniform Code to dictate guidelines for how certain things should be handled?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #37  
    yeah, if the commander brings up charged. If he doesn't he may choose another form of punishment, the soldier can request a court martial if he doesn't like the other punishment. To say someone committed an offense that could result in court martial doesn't automaticaly mean they will be. So someone could commit an offense and the commander could decide resignation is sufficient.

    if you find that definition for a military salute that doesn't have "respect" in it, feel free to post it.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrloserpunk View Post
    I think your having trouble with your reading comprehension.
    You think my having trouble with my reading comprehension what?
    The constitution makes the president the commander in chief.
    Yes, it does, originally of the Navy since that was the only standing military at the time, later of the other branches as they were created.
    That is "enshrined" there, that's to say its a protected status.
    Sure. But that has nothing to do with respect.
    All members of the military salute the president. Look up the definition of a hand salute and try and find one that doesn't say "respect" in it.
    Most of them will surely say 'display respect' or 'display of respect'. Of course, none of those definitions are enshrined in the constitution. They're much more recent creations, like 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance.
    oh and telling someone your boss "is intimitated" by subordiantes is disrespectfull.
    Yes, because 'sources familiar with the meeting' are the ultimate authority on what he thought.
    But since your having trouble with the word respect, I can understand why putting a few more letters on it makes it more confusing.
    People in glass houses....
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrloserpunk View Post
    yeah, if the commander brings up charged. If he doesn't he may choose another form of punishment, the soldier can request a court martial if he doesn't like the other punishment.
    So, are you saying you can't point to the section that defines what the offense is and the options to handle it?
    To say someone committed an offense that could result in court martial doesn't automaticaly mean they will be.
    I think my having trouble with my reading comprehension again.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    It can be reasonably argued that because the duly elected President of the United States is the Commander in Chief under the Constitution, and that the UCMJ serves as the legal mandate for all military personnel, all uniformed personnel are aware that at all times, public and private, they are to demonstrate respect. Where military personnel are concerned, there is no distinction between "showing respect" and "having respect". Otherwise, they are subject to prosecution.
    All reasonable arguments. Now, let's extend that question to whether or not those personnel are required to extend that display of respect to other subordinates of the CiC.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions