Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   It turns out that when you join the military, there are limits on both your speech and your personal freedom to make choices. Who knew?   (finance.yahoo.com) divider line 295
    More: Followup, personal freedoms, Facebook, Gary Kreep, United States Justice Foundation, Timonium, commissioned officers, Marine Corps, sergeants  
•       •       •

11373 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2012 at 11:18 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



295 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-26 01:14:45 AM  

onestr8:

To be clear here though, this asstards idea of what is legal or not is pretty dubious. It has to be clearly and obviously illegal not an "i think" judgement call. Things like the Geneva convention are pretty clear.


It's pretty clear in US law, too. It says explicitly that the decision to not follow orders as unlawful is at the peril of the inferior member. That means you better be right, because when they go back and look at it, they're going to assume the order was lawful.
 
2012-04-26 01:15:14 AM  

Rent Party:

They call that "situational authority." It's what allows the infantry corporal to tell the captain journalist to "go over there so you don't get shot." And that is only going to apply in combat. If you tried that in the mess hall, you'd get laughed at.


I would not say it is only in combat, but it is, well, situational.

An orderly in a hospital unit can tell an officer to move out the way so they can proceed with health care measures.
A enlisted computer operation can tell an officer to leave a server room or to not touch the shiny buttons on the SAN.
A mess NCO can tell a higher rank to take his dirty self out of his kitchen.

Naturally, this can be done with or without tact. Most members of the military will see the sense in such situations and comply without arguement. If they do argue and cause problems, well, that is what your chain of command is for. Document the incident and bring up your chain.
 
2012-04-26 01:16:35 AM  
Poor baby didn't read his pocket UCMJ.

There.
Is.
No.
Freedom.
Of.
Expression.
In.
The.
Service.

...anyone who argues differently has never served.

i651.photobucket.com

Enjoy that 'bad-conduct' discharge you get to write down on every job application for the rest of your life.
 
2012-04-26 01:17:12 AM  

redhook:
If a private goes to another post he falls under that posts chain of command while there.


Uh, no. Your CO is your CO until you are re-assigned to a new CO. That is your chain of command, period.

What would happen is the general you just pissed off would ask "What unit are you with?" and then call your CO, who would then procede to dry fark you for pissing off the general.
 
2012-04-26 01:19:54 AM  

wingnut396: Rent Party:

They call that "situational authority." It's what allows the infantry corporal to tell the captain journalist to "go over there so you don't get shot." And that is only going to apply in combat. If you tried that in the mess hall, you'd get laughed at.

I would not say it is only in combat, but it is, well, situational.

An orderly in a hospital unit can tell an officer to move out the way so they can proceed with health care measures.
A enlisted computer operation can tell an officer to leave a server room or to not touch the shiny buttons on the SAN.
A mess NCO can tell a higher rank to take his dirty self out of his kitchen.


Yep. It is specifically taught when you are going through military trainer schools. I may be teaching a class full of silver oak leaves, but I'm still in charge of the class. It doesn't mean you get to be a dick to the superior, or just boss his ass around because you feel like it, though.

Same thing applies to sentries guarding a post. If his standing orders from his CO are "No one gets through, period" then that's what that means.
 
2012-04-26 01:20:54 AM  

Somacandra: gaslight: I wonder when he'll be running for election under the GOP banner?


gaslight: I wonder when he'll be running for election under the GOP banner?


gaslight: I wonder when he'll be running for election under the GOP banner?


gaslight: I wonder when he'll be running for election under the GOP banner?

==

Next midterm election if President Obama is re-elected.

You heard it here first.


Actually I called this in the first thread about this idiot.
 
2012-04-26 01:22:28 AM  

9beers: Anybody higher ranking that you can tell you what to do whenever they want as long as it's a lawful order. The reason they don't is because most officers aren't out there power tripping. The few that might want to are smart enough to realize that there's always somebody who outranks them.

I was in charge of a detail one time putting up tents for an event. I was a SSG in charge of a bunch of privates who got assigned to a post detail. My directions were that all the tents had to be up before the detail was dismissed. Being a bunch of lazy asses, they were screwing around, having been told by somebody that the detail would end at a certain time.

When that time came, they all started complaining and telling me that they had to go. Of course I refused and kept them working. About an hour later, a SFC comes and tells me that he's taking his soldiers back because they have other duties to take care of. I explained that the detail wasn't finished and that they couldn't be released. He pulled rank and took them anyways.

I called the officer of the day who called the battalion commander who called somebody else and within an hour, I had my detail back. They stayed until the detail was done and I never saw that SFC again.

Never pull rank because there's always somebody out there to put you in your place.


Aha, you're (or were) a Staff Sergeant? No wonder you're such a dick. Nobody is as much of an asshole as the guy who has to make a bunch of grunts do something they don't want to do. Never never mess with the SSGT.
 
2012-04-26 01:23:07 AM  
Someone forgot this lesson:

27.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-04-26 01:32:41 AM  
Guys an idiot who doesn't understand that you don't discuss politics while in uniform.

/thread over
 
2012-04-26 01:33:47 AM  

foo monkey: This guy was enlisted. He's not allowed to decide if an order is legal or not. Only officers can do that.


While I don't agree with this asshat in TFA, you are completely incorrect. Front-line personnel are trained in what is or is not legal in combat. Is is not only a right, but a duty to refuse to follow an illegal order as interpreted as a subordinate. You just better hope to hell you're right.
 
2012-04-26 01:34:39 AM  
If you read the farking contract you signed when you joined the farking military, you would KNOW dumbasses!

/retired military.
//knew when to shut my farking mouth and keep my stupid ass opinions to myself
///not like now.
 
2012-04-26 01:35:19 AM  

TheJoe03: holdeestrufs: What I DO recall being trained on was LAWFUL orders. We were under no obligation to follow UNLAWFUL orders. We were expected to be able to discern the difference despite our lack of law degrees or commissions.

So what unlawful orders has Obama forced upon the military? Dude was just a partisan hack and an idiot.


WHAT THE FSCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????

My post had absolutely nothing to do with the dumbass in the article or Obama. You got a case of the tender ass apparently. Good luck with that.
 
2012-04-26 01:36:56 AM  

Eric The Pilot: Someone forgot this lesson:


HE WAS ON A BREAK!
 
2012-04-26 01:37:36 AM  
Government Issue Joe. pwnd.

Seriously, like most people here have said, military is a team sport. If we ever enter another major ground war, I would only want the people who want to be there on my team. Anyone who has doubts I do not want guarding my back. It isn't important, in war, if you believe in the cause, only that you defend your mates. Have your philosophical debate in peace time, might make less war that way too.
 
2012-04-26 01:39:16 AM  

Gecko Gingrich: JerseyTim: I don't. The dumbass tag is for the guy.

I've heard far too many Republicans claim -- with a straight face -- that Sgt. Stein got railroaded and his rights were trampled to believe that subby wasn't being serious.


Vote every one of those dumb shiats out of office. Be sure to hand them a copy of the UCMJ first.

No active duty military personnel, in any branch of service, has the Constitutional right to free speech or assembly, particularly while in uniform. We're told that in about the first three days of basic training and it's reiterated about monthly.

This Marine got what he deserved and politicians (and anyone - in Congress, the press, or armchair quarterbacking - who has never worn a uniform) need to STFU.
 
2012-04-26 01:45:19 AM  
This dude couldn't criticize his elected leaders' policy either....

upload.wikimedia.org

One of the biggest issues I have with the "partial non-political service member" approach is that there is a fine line between generic biatching, (which troops do A LOT), and legitimate issues that should be made public. I understand the intent, however, the silence and mindless loyalty demanded by ANY regime, is far more dangerous in the long run.

Our troops have the "out", as they are told they do NOT have to obey unlawful orders, however, all it takes is congress to pass some farked up law, and our troops are required to abide. That's farking dangerous, and by the time the supreme court unfarks a stupid law, it could very well be too late.

Joe: "Sir, why are we illegally searching and incarcerating U.S. citizens?"
Officer Yesman: "Do what you're told soldier, congress has authorized us to do this!"
Joe: "Sir, this isn't right!"
Officer Yesman: "SILENCE! You will do as you are told or get a g'damn court marshal!"
Joe: "Jawohl, Herr Kommanduer!"
 
2012-04-26 01:45:47 AM  

Gecko Gingrich: RexTalionis: I think the submitter was being facetious.

I doubt it.



Are you seriously that sarcasm-impaired that you take "Who knew?" literally?? It is only ever used sarcastically.
 
2012-04-26 01:47:39 AM  

buckler: foo monkey: This guy was enlisted. He's not allowed to decide if an order is legal or not. Only officers can do that.

While I don't agree with this asshat in TFA, you are completely incorrect. Front-line personnel are trained in what is or is not legal in combat. Is is not only a right, but a duty to refuse to follow an illegal order as interpreted as a subordinate. You just better hope to hell you're right.


Indeed.. but loudly saying you don't intend to obey orders from a specific officer, the president no less, and by the way screw him, is only going to end one way isn't it? A protection from being forced to commit war crimes is not a protection from acting in a manner that can only be called gross insubordination.
 
2012-04-26 01:49:48 AM  

Aigoo: politicians (and anyone - in Congress, the press, or armchair quarterbacking - who has never worn a uniform) need to STFU.



Yes, because no public oversight of the military is needed. They should answer only to themselves, set all their own policies, and handle everything internally. The public has no right to know what the military is doing, why they are doing it, or what the consequences might be.
 
2012-04-26 01:52:13 AM  

Eric The Pilot: Someone forgot this lesson:


I'll take Video Military 'Courtesies' for $1000, Alex.

[27.media.tumblr.com image 400x446]

What do you do when there are enemy snipers in your AO and you really, really, really hate your boss?
 
2012-04-26 01:54:07 AM  
If the military wanted you to have an opinion, they would give you one. Don't speak until they tell you what to say. You knew this going in, you don't get to biatch. Ever.
 
2012-04-26 01:58:41 AM  
Proptip:
If you make a facebook post saying you refuse to do what your boss tells you, your boss may fire you.
 
2012-04-26 02:07:52 AM  

Gecko Gingrich: Who knew?

Every service member who bothers to read the rules of conduct that they must adhere to while serving.


I knew it and I've never been in the military nor have I read the UCMJ.
 
2012-04-26 02:16:16 AM  

Hagenhatesyouall: This dude couldn't criticize his elected leaders' policy either....

[upload.wikimedia.org image 530x600]

One of the biggest issues I have with the "partial non-political service member" approach is that there is a fine line between generic biatching, (which troops do A LOT), and legitimate issues that should be made public. I understand the intent, however, the silence and mindless loyalty demanded by ANY regime, is far more dangerous in the long run.

Our troops have the "out", as they are told they do NOT have to obey unlawful orders, however, all it takes is congress to pass some farked up law, and our troops are required to abide. That's farking dangerous, and by the time the supreme court unfarks a stupid law, it could very well be too late.

Joe: "Sir, why are we illegally searching and incarcerating U.S. citizens?"
Officer Yesman: "Do what you're told soldier, congress has authorized us to do this!"
Joe: "Sir, this isn't right!"
Officer Yesman: "SILENCE! You will do as you are told or get a g'damn court marshal!"
Joe: "Jawohl, Herr Kommanduer!"


img.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-26 02:17:15 AM  

Dennis_Moore: UCMJ Art. 134
"Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."


TLDR: "Anything we do not like is against the law."

"That's some catch...that catch 22"
 
2012-04-26 02:29:06 AM  

gaspode: buckler: foo monkey: This guy was enlisted. He's not allowed to decide if an order is legal or not. Only officers can do that.

While I don't agree with this asshat in TFA, you are completely incorrect. Front-line personnel are trained in what is or is not legal in combat. Is is not only a right, but a duty to refuse to follow an illegal order as interpreted as a subordinate. You just better hope to hell you're right.

Indeed.. but loudly saying you don't intend to obey orders from a specific officer, the president no less, and by the way screw him, is only going to end one way isn't it? A protection from being forced to commit war crimes is not a protection from acting in a manner that can only be called gross insubordination.


Then we're in complete agreement. This idiot pre-judged orders he hadn't been, and may never have been given. In essence, he announced his intent to commit insubordination after being warned several times not to. He chose...poorly.
 
2012-04-26 02:29:46 AM  

Hagenhatesyouall: This dude couldn't criticize his elected leaders' policy either....

[upload.wikimedia.org image 530x600]

One of the biggest issues I have with the "partial non-political service member" approach is that there is a fine line between generic biatching, (which troops do A LOT), and legitimate issues that should be made public. I understand the intent, however, the silence and mindless loyalty demanded by ANY regime, is far more dangerous in the long run.

Our troops have the "out", as they are told they do NOT have to obey unlawful orders, however, all it takes is congress to pass some farked up law, and our troops are required to abide. That's farking dangerous, and by the time the supreme court unfarks a stupid law, it could very well be too late.

Joe: "Sir, why are we illegally searching and incarcerating U.S. citizens?"
Officer Yesman: "Do what you're told soldier, congress has authorized us to do this!"
Joe: "Sir, this isn't right!"
Officer Yesman: "SILENCE! You will do as you are told or get a g'damn court marshal!"
Joe: "Jawohl, Herr Kommanduer!"


That got me to laugh.
 
2012-04-26 02:49:09 AM  

holdeestrufs: My post had absolutely nothing to do with the dumbass in the article or Obama. You got a case of the tender ass apparently. Good luck with that.


Calm down buddy, I thought it did, you don't have to lose your shiat over it.
 
2012-04-26 02:49:43 AM  

safetycap:
Enjoy that 'bad-conduct' discharge you get to write down on every job application for the rest of your life.


Actually everything I've seen about this guy has said 'other than honorable' discharge. While I certainly wouldn't fault them for a dishonorable, I suspect this really means he's just getting a 'general'.

Yeah, that was some fun paperwork to draw up... I got to assist once on a Col.'s d-bag son who made the bright decision to do a line of cocaine at a party... and then we had a drug test at next drill. Don't care who your daddy is, you're done, kiddo. I still believe 'daddy' had something to do with withholding the dishonorable.
 
DuX
2012-04-26 02:50:11 AM  
You know what the chain of command is?
 
2012-04-26 03:02:23 AM  

Point02GPA: "That's some catch...that catch 22"


Well played.
 
2012-04-26 03:08:08 AM  
Did the Marine Core soldier blame his wife?
 
2012-04-26 03:19:09 AM  
This thread is hilarious. So many people who are saying this is a good thing are the same people who defended soldiers who criticized Bush and said they would refuse to deploy because Bush started an "illegal war".

Military members bad mouthing Republican presidents = good
Military members bad mouthing Democrat presidents = bad

Gotcha.
 
2012-04-26 03:24:46 AM  

DuX: You know what the chain of command is?


As Dad used to say, they're in command and you're in chains.
 
2012-04-26 03:30:03 AM  
This guy was enlisted. He's not allowed to decide if an order is legal or not. Only officers can do that.


That is very not true. You can't order a Private to kill unarmed prisoners and expect him to follow that order blindly. In fact even Privates are briefed on their duty to disobey unlawful orders. But an order to refrain from dishonoring the military by representing yourself as an official spokesman of the US military and making pusillanimous statements is hardly controversial. This man is an ass, and we can argue about how his actions constitute pusillanimity if you like, but they were stupid and wrong, and he was lucky to get away with just an "other than honorable" discharge. And you really have to try HARD to get an "other than honorable."
 
2012-04-26 03:36:17 AM  

taurusowner: So many people who are saying this is a good thing are the same people who defended soldiers who criticized Bush and said they would refuse to deploy because Bush started an "illegal war".


If I remember correctly, we said it was honorable to serve time in Leavenworth rather than go to a war you thought illegal.
Not that they shouldn't be punished for disobeying orders.

But if you have a citation, we're Ferengi.
 
2012-04-26 03:36:57 AM  

Stile4aly: Did the Marine Core soldier blame his wife?


Wtf is the Marine "Core"? It's spelled "Corps".
 
2012-04-26 03:37:05 AM  

taurusowner: This thread is hilarious. So many people who are saying this is a good thing are the same people who defended soldiers who criticized Bush and said they would refuse to deploy because Bush started an "illegal war".

Military members bad mouthing Republican presidents = good
Military members bad mouthing Democrat presidents = bad

Gotcha.


You are so full of shiat your eyes are brown. I hated dubya with the fire of a thousand suns, but I never defended any servicemember who refused to deploy. In fact I recommended a firing squad.

Fnck you, cnnt.
 
2012-04-26 03:39:05 AM  

redhook: Stile4aly: Did the Marine Core soldier blame his wife?

Wtf is the Marine "Core"? It's spelled "Corps".


It's an old internet joke about some poser who claimed to be a member of the Marine Core[sic].
 
2012-04-26 03:44:26 AM  

redhook: Stile4aly: Did the Marine Core soldier blame his wife?

Wtf is the Marine "Core"? It's spelled "Corps".


Not on Fark!

(Ask nicely and someone will probably post the link for you. I would, but I do not have it bookmarked!)
 
2012-04-26 03:50:49 AM  
How about a "duh" tag
 
2012-04-26 03:53:37 AM  

Mock26: redhook: Stile4aly: Did the Marine Core soldier blame his wife?

Wtf is the Marine "Core"? It's spelled "Corps".

Not on Fark!

(Ask nicely and someone will probably post the link for you. I would, but I do not have it bookmarked!)


Found it myself but the linked article is gone.

Link
 
DuX
2012-04-26 03:56:45 AM  
Protip: When serving in the armed forces, DON"T drink the hand sanitizer before posting your carefully crafted and insightful arguments online.
 
2012-04-26 04:13:00 AM  

DuX: Protip: When serving in the armed forces, DON"T drink the hand sanitizer before posting your carefully crafted and insightful arguments online.


Post whatever you like, as long as your account is not explicitly connected to the US military. That's hardly rocket surgery. And I say that as a rocket surgeon.
 
2012-04-26 04:15:20 AM  

redhook: Mock26: redhook: Stile4aly: Did the Marine Core soldier blame his wife?

Wtf is the Marine "Core"? It's spelled "Corps".

Not on Fark!

(Ask nicely and someone will probably post the link for you. I would, but I do not have it bookmarked!)

Found it myself but the linked article is gone.

Link


You're probably looking for this and this.

/Semper Fib!
 
2012-04-26 04:15:54 AM  

Hagenhatesyouall: Our troops have the "out", as they are told they do NOT have to obey unlawful orders, however, all it takes is congress to pass some farked up law, and our troops are required to abide. That's farking dangerous, and by the time the supreme court unfarks a stupid law, it could very well be too late.


The US invaded a tiny sovereign nation that posed no threat at all to our national security. Killed about 4000+ of our guys and 100,000+ of theirs, including civilians. "Too late" was long ago. Oh - Congress wasn't even involved - it wasn't a declared war.
 
2012-04-26 04:18:59 AM  
But he can get on there and tell the world how he likes to have his boyfriend fark him up the keister.

What a twisted farked up world we live in today.
 
2012-04-26 04:21:16 AM  

syrynxx: Hagenhatesyouall: Our troops have the "out", as they are told they do NOT have to obey unlawful orders, however, all it takes is congress to pass some farked up law, and our troops are required to abide. That's farking dangerous, and by the time the supreme court unfarks a stupid law, it could very well be too late.

The US invaded a tiny sovereign nation that posed no threat at all to our national security. Killed about 4000+ of our guys and 100,000+ of theirs, including civilians. "Too late" was long ago. Oh - Congress wasn't even involved - it wasn't a declared war.


Keep telling yourself that. Or perhaps you should read the authorization Congress make back in 2002. Idiot.

PUBLIC LAW 107 - 243 - AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Iraq War Resolution

"The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq."
 
2012-04-26 04:42:59 AM  

gaslight: Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

I'm in the private sector, and if I badmouth my boss in public, I'd expect to get sacked. I see no reason why the military should be any different. I am sure, however, he'll go to his grave howling about mean and nasty other people were to him. I wonder when he'll be running for election under the GOP banner?


This.

I was army active duty. One of the first things they told us was not to bad mouth our chain of command outside the proper channels. Obama is the top spot on the current chain of command structure. I voted for Obama (regrettably) and served under him and bush. I kept my mouth shut unless in private. That marines opinion really is the majority though.
 
2012-04-26 04:55:32 AM  
Iraq 2003 was the inevitable result of Bush the first's decision to take back Kuwait in 1990, and his lack of spine to carry on and take out Saddam. Personally, after 15 years in the Gulf and extensive experience with Kuwaitis, I would be just as happy with a decision to let Saddam keep Kuwait in 1990.

That said, the REAL motivation for Bush the first was protecting his Saudi overlords. People in the US don't have a clue how badly the entire Persian Gulf was shiatting their knickers when Saddam took Kuwait. Since 1990, the UAE has bought more French main battle tanks than the French army owns. It is pure calumny that the Emiratis bought French tanks because they are as fast in reverse as they are going forward. After all, it's not even Emiratis who man those tanks, it's Omanis. And they use French tanks because the French use an autoloader for the main gun, reducing crew size. Guess why the US does not use an autoloading cannon on the M1. Go ahead, guess.
 
Displayed 50 of 295 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report