Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, we're talking about a man who take actions that saved lives. He fired back at a terrorist on American soil, he should be given a medal not be charged. I was in the military, and s**t like this makes me thank the gods that I got out. No one up the CoC has any balls or any spine. Generals are political animals and they see a way to score points with an anti-gun President. Meanwhile plenty of Americans just sit back and say "well rules are rules after all." We're so conditioned to just un-critically accept that every rule should be followed it is amazing. If we lived in Revolutionary times it would never happen these days, too many citizens would be fretting over the fact that Washington, Franklin, etc. were breaking the rules they would **** themselves.
Also the Oath of Office for Commissioned Officers is this:
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Navy of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
It says NOTHING about following petty DoD rules during an active terrorist attack. In fact had he NOT fired upon the terrorist I would charge him with not "supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Let me touch on the oath issue first. That's the oath for officers, but I'm under the impression that all officers have also taken the oath of enlistment, which reads the following:
Quote:
"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I know for sure that persons going to OCS or OTS without prior military service take this oath, and I'm pretty sure that people at the academies/ROTC take this oath as well (though I could be wrong here, but as I discuss below, that doesn't change what I wrote above). Regardless of whether you're ultimately sworn in as an officer, this oath still stands.
Even if one was to argue that the oath of enlistment doesn't stand (or if not everyone who is going through officer training has taken the oath), the officer oath still covers what I wrote earlier. Indeed, in agreeing to "support and defend the Constitution . . . and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter," one swears to obey laws of Congress, including laws that authorize the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and laws that establish the officer ranking system and bind officers to obey the law and prohibit firearms on military bases, the orders of the POTUS, etc. (indeed, Congress gets is authority to set these laws from the Constitution and the POTUS is the commander in chief), the officers agree to do all I mentioned above.
As to your other point: Congress and the president (and his political appointees) set ultimate military policy, not generals, etc. Regardless of whether one agrees or doesn't agree with the military policy, laws, etc., does not give one, especially a member of the military, the right to disregard those policies/laws. What "spine" should officers up the CoC have that would allow them to disregard the rule of law?
Yes your gleeful rule following is indicative of someone who has been conditioned for slavery. It is a very passive and a very un-American state of mind and borderline soulless. After America falls people will look around and wonder "what happened?" Our weak mindset and soullessness will be the answer. America has become spiritually weak and dead on the inside. I'm sure you'll be there cheering on the Feds as they raid houses of "political agitators" and "enemies of the state." Hey, rules are rules after all.
One thing that is cool about America is though our public school system isn't very good, it's good enough so that our dimmest bulbs learn how to type and can string together some words and phrases they learned from a Facebook chain letter.
However, if the same people had bothered to pay more attention in school, perhaps they would know that when a nations standing army starts doing whatever it feels like, it doesn't end up well for the rest of the citizenry.
Let me touch on the oath issue first. That's the oath for officers, but I'm under the impression that all officers have also taken the oath of enlistment, which reads the following:
I know for sure that persons going to OCS or OTS without prior military service take this oath, and I'm pretty sure that people at the academies/ROTC take this oath as well. Regardless of whether you're ultimately sworn in as an officer, this oath still stands.
Even if one was to argue that the oath of enlistment doesn't stand (or if not everyone who is going through officer training has taken the oath), the officer oath still covers what I wrote earlier. Indeed, in agreeing to "support and defend the Constitution . . . and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter," obeying laws of Congress, including laws that authorize the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and laws that establish the officer ranking system and bind officers to obey the law and prohibit firearms on military bases, etc. (indeed, Congress gets is authority to set these laws from the Constitution), the officers agree to do all I mentioned above.
As to your other point: Congress and the president (and his political appointees) set ultimate military policy, not generals, etc. Regardless of whether one agrees or doesn't agree with the military policy, laws, etc., does not give one, especially a member of the military, the right to disregard those policies/laws. What "spine" should officers up the CoC have that would allow them to disregard the rule of law?
Have you ever been in the military? The "rule of law" gets disregarded regularly. Almost everything comes down to your CO's discretion. Like I said, some General smells the opportunity to score political points. They might not set the law, but they do get promotions based on the POTUS, so exploiting something like this is a good way to gain favor with a decidedly anti-2nd Amendment President.
The Navy is not compelled to bring charges unless someone up the chain wants to. Sure it is the law, but honestly in a sane world no one would care if the Navy used their discretion to decline to press charges. Only the sheep here in America get joy out of following the rules so thoroughly without question. We really do live under slave morality and ethics.
Have you ever been in the military? The "rule of law" gets disregarded regularly. Almost everything comes down to your CO's discretion. Like I said, some General smells the opportunity to score political points. They might not set the law, but they do get promotions based on the POTUS, so exploiting something like this is a good way to gain favor with a decidedly anti-2nd Amendment President.
The Navy is not compelled to bring charges unless someone up the chain wants to. Sure it is the law, but honestly in a sane world no one would care if the Navy used their discretion to decline to press charges. Only the sheep here in America get joy out of following the rules so thoroughly without question. We really do live under slave morality and ethics.
Just because violations of the rule of law are not always reported to the appropriate authority (DoD inspector general, among other oversight bodies) does not excuse them or somehow justify the disregard of those rules/laws here. And I seriously doubt that any general is pushing this prosecution without the OK (or even direction) or a civilian political appointee; but, then again, the general is ultimately responsible for adhering to the lawful directives of civilians in the chain of command over him or her.
And, sure, the Navy isn't compelled to bring charges in this case; the Navy has prosecutorial discretion here just as many civilians prosecutors would. But, I and at least one other in this thread, am not arguing for a prosecution (we've condemned it). But that doesn't mean we think that the officer should get off free as a bee either.
I guess that makes me a sheep. "Baaaaaaaa" (in my sheep voice).
One thing that is cool about America is though our public school system isn't very good, it's good enough so that our dimmest bulbs learn how to type and can string together some words and phrases they learned from a Facebook chain letter.
However, if the same people had bothered to pay more attention in school, perhaps they would know that when a nations standing army starts doing whatever it feels like, it doesn't end up well for the rest of the citizenry.
I can picture in the 1960s cheering as the police arrested Rosa Parks for breaking the rules. I can picture you in the 1940s in Germany turning in Jews because well they are breaking the rules after all. If you really believe that the Navy declining to press charges against a man who fired upon a terrorist who was attacking a military installation on American soil is the same as a military coup you are even more stupid than I initially thought.
You can hide behind your sissy little passive aggressive taunts all you'd like but deep down you know I struck a nerve. You are weak minded and dead on the inside. You're not even a slave because slaves at the very least resent the chains they wear. Voltaire was not lying, it really is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. You so gleefully and unquestioningly follow the rules and then wet yourself at the thought that some people do not. Then you make the asinine and utterly ridiculous leap that somehow declining to pursue charges against a hero for breaking petty DoD regulations somehow= a bakufu shogunate.
America as a nation has the soul and spirit of a catamite.
Just because violations of the rule of law are not always reported to the appropriate authority (DoD inspector general, among other oversight bodies) does not excuse them or somehow justify the disregard of those rules/laws here. And I seriously doubt that any general is pushing this prosecution without the OK (or even direction) or a civilian political appointee; but, then again, the general is ultimately responsible for adhering to the lawful directives of civilians in the chain of command over him or her.
And, sure, the Navy isn't compelled to bring charges in this case; the Navy has prosecutorial discretion here just as many civilians prosecutors would. But, I and at least one other in this thread, am not arguing for a prosecution (we've condemned it). But that doesn't mean we think that the officer should get off free as a bee either.
I guess that makes me a sheep. Baaaaaaaa (in my sheep voice).
Why? Seriously, why the f**k not? There goes any chance that anyone will ever do the right thing even if it's "illegal" in the future. Better off just keeping your gun in the holster whilst the terrorist slaughters your brothers in arms rather than facing the school marmish military CoC. I hope one day that some of you are placed in a situation where doing the right and moral thing is illegal.
This cannot stand... sign the petition.. email hannity and van susteren... they will shine the light on this crap
Obama could stop it right now...but he won't
I can picture in the 1960s cheering as the police arrested Rosa Parks for breaking the rules. I can picture you in the 1940s in Germany turning in Jews because well they are breaking the rules after all. If you really believe that the Navy declining to press charges against a man who fired upon a terrorist who was attacking a military installation on American soil is the same as a military coup you are even more stupid than I initially thought.
You can hide behind your sissy little passive aggressive taunts all you'd like but deep down you know I struck a nerve. You are weak minded and dead on the inside. You're not even a slave because slaves at the very least resent the chains they wear. Voltaire was not lying, it really is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. You so gleefully and unquestioningly follow the rules and then wet yourself at the thought that some people do not. Then you make the asinine and utterly ridiculous leap that somehow declining to pursue charges against a hero for breaking petty DoD regulations somehow= a bakufu shogunate.
America as a nation has the soul and spirit of a catamite.
Give me a break. As if Stormfront guys like you care about Rosa Parks or the Jews.
It's pointless to have a conversation or argue with psychos like you because in your mind everyone who doesn't agree with you is a sheep or slave deserving of their imminent slaughter. Don't think for a minute you are fooling anyone intelligent that you're some kind of patriot or care about anyone else's freedom. What people like you want is a breakdown of law and order and a return to some sort of neo-reactionary wild west environment where the only thing that matters is who shoots first.
Let me introduce you to the concept of rule of law:
The man broke a rule. By breaking the rule, he saved a lot of people.
Navy has no other choice than to charge him. Because if they didn't, other people would start thinking the rule does not apply anymore. Charging does not mean conviction, it just means rules are enforced and the man will probably be cleared at a hearing.
Simple. Elegant. Rules are still enforced, a hero is cleared. Everybody happy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
