REAMOND
|
posted on July 19, 2003 11:49:35 AM new
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/07/18/MN248299.DTL
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on July 19, 2003 11:53:23 AM new
It should read "will punish" instead of "may". They broke rules and now need to pay the price.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND... 
|
REAMOND
|
posted on July 19, 2003 12:05:15 PM new
I wonder what they were thinking when they allowed their indentities to be used ?
|
CBlev65252
|
posted on July 19, 2003 01:47:46 PM new
Let me get this right. Freedom of speech applies to everyone EXCEPT when it makes an already bad person look worse? And we know who I'm talking about now, don't we? They have every right to speak out. They have not divulged military secrets unless the fact that they are miserable and have been lied to is a military secret. How close are we to becoming a fascist country? Or, are we already there?
Cheryl
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on July 19, 2003 02:05:07 PM new
The whiners should be busted down a pay grade and the immediate chain of command should be reprimanded.
|
davebraun
|
posted on July 19, 2003 02:19:58 PM new
We are there.
|
tomyou
|
posted on July 19, 2003 02:19:59 PM new
Cheryl I am guessing you have no idea about the military code of conduct required by soldiers. When times are the toughest is the most important time to not show weakness, remorse or complaints. It gives the enemy morale a bolster and harms friendly morale and creates potential in fighting. Complaints and issues should be handled internally. It is pretty easy to see why regardless of your feelings on this particular war. It is no different than any war or conflict from the past in those regards. Showing a sign of weakness and disatisfaction puts your fellow soldiers more in harms way.
|
Fenix03
|
posted on July 19, 2003 02:40:45 PM new
Ah - but the Pentagon is not only punishing the soldiers in question... they have also tried to smear the reporter that filed the story by outing his sexual preference and nationality. Am I the only one that is thoroughly disgusted by this?
The commanding officers are realistic about the situation - everyone complains. The pentagon onthe otherhand is so desperate to whitewash everything that they will smear the reporter rather than deal with the situation that the report resulted from. The Pentagon has unfortunately forgotten that they have yet to create the perfect synthetic soldier and that there are real men and women with real feelings and frustrations out there and that you can only kick the most well behaved of animals so many times before it turns around and takes a chunk from your ankle.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
~ Formerly Neonmania on Vendio ~
[ edited by Fenix03 on Jul 19, 2003 10:39 PM ]
|
clarksville
|
posted on July 19, 2003 03:29:20 PM new
Here are some Uniformed Code of Military Justice articles that may be used to discipline the soldiers:
Article 88 - Contempt toward officials
Article 89 - Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer
Article 117--Provoking speeches or gestures
Here are some that the military officials may be avoiding in further unrest amongst the military personnel:
Article 81—Conspiracy
Article 85—Desertion
Article 86 - Absence without leave (AWOL)
Article 90 - Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer
Article 92—Failure to obey order or regulation
Article 94--Mutiny and sedition
Article 99--Misbehavior before the enemy
Article 104--Aiding the enemy
Article 116--Riot or breach of peace
Article 133--Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman
We were told never talk with the press about certain things. BTW there is no "off the record" comments, folks. Everything one says to a reporter or like, can and sometimes is used with name printed.
Personally, I would never talk with a reporter. Period.
Military servicemembers have no "freedom of speech."
There is an AR -Army Regulation that also adds to the soldiers conduct, in and out of uniform, on duty and off duty.
For instance, one needs to be careful when in uniform, not to protest the war or other like functions.
I think that the officials were waiting until names were linked with the comments. And they jumped on it.
They don't want disorder over there when it would be so easy for a soldier to defect to the Iraqi anti-American side.
Look at the Sgt who was assigned with the 101st that was loyal to the other side. Is there more soldiers like him in the ranks or even on the borderline? It wouldn't surprise me one bit.
Matter of fact when the Sgt killed and maimed his brothers, that didn't surprised me. It saddened me, but it didn't surprise me. It is times like that, that I wish I was wrong.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on July 19, 2003 03:38:28 PM new
I don't believe that it's appropriate for members of the armed services to make such disparaging remarks on national TV during a war. That could be interpreted as similar to Bush's statement, "Bring it on". In other words, bring it on, we're weak and disillusioned. But, whether it's announced to the enemy or not, the terrible fact remains that the troops have lost a sense of trust in their leaders.
"If the people have no faith in their leaders, they cannot stand."
Confucius
Helen
|
CBlev65252
|
posted on July 19, 2003 05:01:29 PM new
tomyou
Thanks for the information. No, I don't know anything about military code of conduct. I do now.
Cheryl
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on July 19, 2003 05:43:32 PM new
Clarksville, you are quite correct and that is why we had a rule against talking to any press of any kind.
One thing people do not understand, is that as in the military you are protecting the constitution and all its freedoms, you are no longer allowed to enjoy many of those same freedoms... especially because military members need to follow lawful orders without question.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
|
davebraun
|
posted on July 19, 2003 07:23:32 PM new
The military granted access to reporters for open interviews throughout the Iraq invasion and allowed them to speak candidly they enjoyed the press early on when the going was good. It seems to bother the administration now as the troops are seeing the failures caused by lack of planning close up and are vocalizing their concerns to anyone that will listen. Basically they do not trust their chain of command as they have been lied to more often than not.
The open policy fostered in this campaign regarding access to the press has turned into a pandoras box.
|
clarksville
|
posted on July 19, 2003 09:01:04 PM new
davebraun
There were reporters in Viet Nam, too. The current servicemembers need to use discretion.
They need to buckle up and do their jobs like the people who went before them did.
When they signed on the dotted line, did they think they were going to club med? They probably weren't complaining when they got the money for college or got their paychecks and other benefits.
They may not respect their superiors, but they must respect the rank/position.
[ edited by clarksville on Jul 19, 2003 09:02 PM ]
|
davebraun
|
posted on July 19, 2003 09:05:32 PM new
The military had granted permission to speak freely. They seem to have now revoked it as the don't like the spin that is coming out. They have a real problem as the troops are deployed to thinly with no replacements on the horizon.
|
gravid
|
posted on July 19, 2003 10:55:38 PM new
When you sign up they own you more than a dog owner owns his mutt. If you can't live with it don't sign up. I'd never put myself in that position where I can be told how I'll be treated medically with no choice and can literally be told to march into a river with 90 pounds of gear on that will make you drown by some gung ho fruit cake.
|
austbounty
|
posted on July 19, 2003 11:18:53 PM new
So this is how troops are treated.
As I see it, they are specialised men and women whose purpose is complicated, confused, & even endangered by compelling them to partake in the composition of distorted spin like propaganda, and then punish them for not doing their job in spining.
If they don’t want soldiers reporting to media, why then make them report.
Let the soldiers finish their job and bring’em back.
Or set up a special B.S.Battalion. and have their statements vetted by a Ministry for Information before publication.
The P.N.A.C. are really scraping the barrel for propaganda here.
For the pnac; most Americans and even soldiers are nothing more than assets, which shall be milked for whatever they can.
|
austbounty
|
posted on July 20, 2003 03:38:24 AM new
Perhaps there should be a caveat under all millitary reports to the public.
"A good warior's word can't be trusted'.
|
CBlev65252
|
posted on July 20, 2003 04:41:45 AM new
There should be a way for the soldiers (all soldiers) to air their grievances in a way they feel they are being heard. Sometimes just getting those things off your chest makes you feel better. Allowing them to carry this resentment with them has to affect the jobs they are doing in some way. Moral is a big issue. Whem moral is low, more mistakes are made. You aren't as effective in your job. It sounds to me like depression is setting in and how can that be ignored. Lying to them about when they are going home or anything else only compounds the feelings of frustration and anger. These are mostly young kids who have probably never dealt with this kind of stress and they are going to make mistakes dealing with it.
I agree that they have different rules they must follow than the rest of us. However, like everyone else they need an outlet for the anger and frustration. Surely there are some suggestions out there as to how they can accomplish this without involving the media.
Cheryl
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on July 20, 2003 04:47:50 AM new
They can say anything they want to their comrades in arms...
Talking to your friends and others around you allows you to get it off your chest... you also can request to see a Chaplain if you really need to "confess" something.
Talking to those outside your unit, is not smart at all.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
|
Helenjw
|
posted on July 20, 2003 08:54:03 AM new
Good Grief!!!
The White House Retaliates
Some folks in the White House were apparently hopping mad when ABC News
correspondent Jeffrey Kofman did a story on Tuesday's "World News Tonight"
about the plummeting morale of U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq.
So angry, in fact, that the next day, a White House operative alerted cyber-gossip
Matt Drudge to the fact that Kofman is not only openly gay,
he's Canadian.
"Yesterday Drudge told us he was unaware of the ABC story until "someone from the
White House communications shop tipped me to it" along with a profile of Kofman in
the gay-oriented magazine the Advocate. On Wednesday, for 6 hours 38 minutes, the
Drudge Report bannered Kofman's widely quoted ABC story -- in which enlisted people
questioned the Army's credibility and one irked soldier went on camera to call on Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign -- and linked to the Advocate piece with the understated
headline "ABC NEWS REPORTER WHO FILED TROOP COMPLAINT STORY IS
CANADIAN."
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on July 20, 2003 10:32:30 AM new
Good Grief is right, figures he was a canadian... probably french-canadian.
..and also queer... probably jealous he wasn't allowed in the military.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
|
profe51
|
posted on July 20, 2003 10:43:52 AM new
Drudge...the Neo-con tool...
___________________________________
What luck for the leaders that men do not think. - Adolph Hitler
|
Fenix03
|
posted on July 20, 2003 12:55:21 PM new
Didn't I mention that yesterday and when I asked if I was the only person disgusted got zero response?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
~ Formerly Neonmania on Vendio ~
|
Helenjw
|
posted on July 20, 2003 01:26:40 PM new
LoL Fenix, Are you saying, "I told you so?"
~Formerly Hjw on AuctionWatch~
|
Fenix03
|
posted on July 20, 2003 01:55:01 PM new
Naw - I'd never do such a thing  . I actually saw a report on this one on (slightly ashamed to admit watching it) Celebrity Justice Thursday night. I was not shocked but I was completely disgusted. I mean if nothing else, does this White House really want to present itse;f publicly as homophobic? That's a lot of voters and a lot of money to kick in the teeth just to whitewash bad moral in the military.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
~ Formerly Neonmania on Vendio ~
|
clarksville
|
posted on July 20, 2003 03:59:24 PM new
In my perspective, if the higher ups "allowed" the lower ranking soldiers to talk with the media I think it would be the individual soldier to use good judgement in what they say.
In my mind, it is similar to when in the heat of the battle, a superior gives an order that is against the UCMJ, Hague/Geneve Convention or other guidelines and laws governing war or even just a morale thing, the lower rank is to ask the superior to repeat the lawful order. This gives the superior a chance to think about what they are ordering and the lower rank doesn't get into trouble about disobeying an order.
The last person on the bottom is the one responsible. Therefore, even if the White House, Pentagon etc is allowing the soldiers to talk with the media, it is the soldiers' responsibility to use good judgement.
Soldiers need to have the sound judgement as humanly possible otherwise, they would just go wild and burn villages.
And Bush did say that soldiers who stepped out of line would not be hand-slapped.
That is what a soldier/sailor/airman/? is to do. Even if the Commander in Chief is a dimwit (Bush, Clinton etc) the servicemembers are to go where they are sent and do the best they can within the laws governing the situation.
One doesn't need to like the person, but they must respect the rank/position.
That is why I support the soldiers.
BTW the military does have counselors as well as fellow soldiers and chaplains for the soldiers to talk with.
They can also talk with their chain of command (squad leaders, platoon Sgts, platoon leaders, 1Sgts, etc.), with the squad leader being the first and prime person to talk with. Even though they are allowed, at times to skip some steps in the chain, to the person they want to talk with. It is strongly recommended to go through the steps to talk with the person.
There are plenty of people the soldiers can talk with.
However, from my experiences of the many interviews I have had with reporters, they do try to get people worked up so they can scoop a story. This is probably what happened.
|
NativeAmerican
|
posted on July 20, 2003 04:34:32 PM new
( clarksville ) I have to agree with you on this one ( Twelvepole ) I even agree with some of your comments on this thread also.
H--l it was hot and muggy in counrty to and we took it. There is entirely to much media in the in wars now days. Sometimes i wonder whos side they are on. The only question I have is why didn't we take all this time and money we are spending in Iraq and finish what we started With Osama. Where is he ???
|
NativeAmerican
|
posted on July 20, 2003 04:36:53 PM new
It seams like the Bush family never finishes what they start.
|
CBlev65252
|
posted on July 20, 2003 04:40:21 PM new
We might ask where is Saddam Hussein while we're at it.
Cheryl
|
