Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Military Vets' started by breakingcontact, Nov 1, 2013.
It is about time someone cleaned out the rat's nest.
Not that I like Obama or his cohorts.
The Armed Forces got corrupted under the Clinton regime (Don't Ask, Don't Tell).
Not one General ever resigned in disgust over disagreement with policy.
Had they resigned, they would have forfeited their pension and future access to military facilities.
Cowards, every one. Should have resigned in protest.
Obama knows that, and gave them a fat retirement instead.
Worse now, IMO, and it was no picnic back then either.
[h=1]Pentagon training manual: white males have unfair advantages[/h]http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/31/pentagon-training-manual-white-males-have-unfair-advantages/
Huh? Had they resigned they would simply have stopped increasing the years of service which weighs into the overall retirement....so they could have resigned/retired (and they all get to keep retired ID cards to get access to the Base BX/PX or whatever).
anyway, yes....the military services have way too many careerists wearing stars: Self over Service. Selfishness and tribalism are rewarded, integrity is punished.
Resignation ... not Retirement.
A letter of Resignation means no retirement, no ID card: It sends a strong message -- I don't like what you are doing so shove it. It is a complete break with the Service and declination of future military benefits.
I have known Officers who "Resigned in Lieu of Court Martial." They got no pension, no PX, Hospital, or Commissary privileges. It was a "Plea Deal" that saved them jail time and resulted in an "Other than Honorable" discharge.
Resignation on principle has not happened since WWII. Charging General Officers with Court Martial offenses has only resulted in early retirement, not resignation.
DOD must quit plea deals for dirty officers and honest officers should quit without benefits to protest stupid policies.
"Top generals?!?" That article quotes two sources, both general officers, one that retired in 2007 and another in 1993; and one of which, Boykin, is well-known to be an assclown!
And an "exclusive" of the WND? Could you pick are more unreliable source? Or are you one that believes everything they read online?!?
In case you hadn't heard, the military is in a down-draw and we had more GOs than we did during WWII, so the fact that the Pentagon is reducing the number of flag officers is not news nor is it the actions of the current president.
By the way, Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice states: "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.”
Violations are punishable by dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement for a year.
These retired officers still hold their commissions, much like I do, and while it is rare that a retired military member be brought back to active duty to be prosecuted under this article, it is possible. Commissioned officers have a duty to be politically impartial and should not violate the trust between the military and civilian leadership, as such comments by these two retired GOs do. It's bad form and sets a lousy example for junior officers.
And before anyone starts quoting the First Amendment, it is one of the numerous rights military members forfeit when they put on the uniform according to the Supreme Court...
There have been several cases of a military member convicted by court martial of Art 88 violations, the First Amendment notwithstanding; and everyone in the military is aware of the consequences of such actions. During the Clinton administration there was a big crackdown by DoD leadership on contemptuous language toward the President. Basically we were told o keep our pie holes shut, with charges of violating UCMJ articles 88, 92, 133, 134, etc. being threatened toward us.
Generals are just politicians in uniform now days. Good night Chesty!
Lot of words to say something so wrong, constitutionally and morally. Did you or did you not take an oath? You probably agreed that SS officers were "just following orders." Sure, it would be wrong to criticize the Fuhrer.
Do you even know what the commissioned officer's oath of office entails? Have you ever served as a commissioned officer in the United States military? If not, then maybe you ought to stick to topics that you know something about, as you are clearly out of your element here...
Leave the facts out of this!!!!