What about freedom of speech?

 

Doesn't exist in the military. If it did then don't ask don't tell never would have been allowed either.

I know several people in the military that post very negative things about the POTUS on their Facebook page. I always thought that was a no no.

 

Sounds like they've not yet been caught.

I know several people in the military that post very negative things about the POTUS on their Facebook page. I always thought that was a no no.

 

From reading the article it isn't neccessarily a no no unless they're commissioned officers.

Doesn't exist in the military. If it did then don't ask don't tell never would have been allowed either.

I can tell you from experience how it is. Once I almost got in trouble for helping a boot shave his head. I was told that what I did was destruction of government property.

 

From reading the article it isn't neccessarily a no no unless they're commissioned officers.

 

I didnt read the article and I didn't know that. :lol:

 

And the people I know are not commissioned officers.

I didnt read the article and I didn't know that. :lol:

 

And the people I know are not commissioned officers.

 

I always thought it was everyone in the military.

I always thought it was everyone in the military.

 

I did to.

I can tell you from experience how it is. Once I almost got in trouble for helping a boot shave his head. I was told that what I did was destruction of government property.

 

 

 

Haha I believe it. It's the truth and so many people don't realize that, and what kills me is it's often times over opinionated people from both political parties.

I always thought it was everyone in the military.

 

I did to.

 

I'd say that like a lot of things in life it's probably who you offend and how much they care. I doubt President Obama was really that offended but someone felt it was not in the right so it was dealt with accordingly.

My understanding is that when you are enlisted or drafted to the military, you sign away certain rights that you would otherwise have at a citizen. One of those rights is your right to speak freely and openly about secured (e.g. - confidential & top-secret) matters. Another of those rights that you wave is your ability to speak negatively about your superiors. Yet another one of those rights is your right to a trial by jury - court-martials and military law are completely different from the normal U.S. and state laws. This guy broke a rule, and was punished.

My understanding is that when you are enlisted or drafted to the military, you sign away certain rights that you would otherwise have at a citizen. One of those rights is your right to speak freely and openly about secured (e.g. - confidential & top-secret) matters. Another of those rights that you wave is your ability to speak negatively about your superiors. Yet another one of those rights is your right to a trial by jury - court-martials and military law are completely different from the normal U.S. and state laws. This guy broke a rule, and was punished.

 

 

Actually military members have a right to a trial by jury (technically called a panel in the military) and specifically a right to a trial by their peers. As a prosecutor, I had several cases where the enlisted defendants insisted on a panel of their peers (ie, only enlisteds and no officers). Dumbest mistake ever made. Enlisted, particularly senior non-comm enlisteds, were tougher on the enlisted defendants than officers would have been.

 

The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) gives military defendants in court martials a lot of rights. Many legal experts consider the UCMJ to be a fairer system towards defendants than the civilian system. For example, military defense counsel is provided free of charge regardless of whether the defendant can financially afford to pay for his/her defense counsel. Furthermore, within certain limitations, a military defendant can request a specific military defense counsel regardless of where that defense counsel is stationed throughout the world. Defense counsel wants an expert defense witness? Govt pays for it, which is completely unheard of in the civilian world.

 

Biggest criticism of military trials is concern about command influence (ie the commanding officer will improperly influence the panel members). In all of my court martials, I can honestly say that I never once saw any indication of command influence. Had I, I would have moved to have the panel dismissed. Commanding officers are strongly told not to exert influence and that doing so was the quickest way to have one's career terminated.

 

When you join the military you do give up certain rights. A right to a fair trial is not one of them however. To the contrary, from everything I experienced, a military defendant is more likely to get a fair trial than a civilian defendant.

Actually military members have a right to a trial by jury (technically called a panel in the military) and specifically a right to a trial by their peers. As a prosecutor, I had several cases where the enlisted defendants insisted on a panel of their peers (ie, only enlisteds and no officers). Dumbest mistake ever made. Enlisted, particularly senior non-comm enlisteds, were tougher on the enlisted defendants than officers would have been.

 

The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) gives military defendants in court martials a lot of rights. Many legal experts consider the UCMJ to be a fairer system towards defendants than the civilian system. For example, military defense counsel is provided free of charge regardless of whether the defendant can financially afford to pay for his/her defense counsel. Furthermore, within certain limitations, a military defendant can request a specific military defense counsel regardless of where that defense counsel is stationed throughout the world. Defense counsel wants an expert defense witness? Govt pays for it, which is completely unheard of in the civilian world.

 

When you join the military you do give up certain rights. A right to a fair trial is not one of them however. To the contrary, from everything I experienced, a military defendant is more likely to get a fair trial than a civilian defendant.

 

:thumb: Thanks for educating me. So would you know if the drumhead court-martial exists, or if it has ever existed in the US military? I've always been curious of that.

Actually military members have a right to a trial by jury (technically called a panel in the military) and specifically a right to a trial by their peers. As a prosecutor, I had several cases where the enlisted defendants insisted on a panel of their peers (ie, only enlisteds and no officers). Dumbest mistake ever made. Enlisted, particularly senior non-comm enlisteds, were tougher on the enlisted defendants than officers would have been.

 

The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) gives military defendants in court martials a lot of rights. Many legal experts consider the UCMJ to be a fairer system towards defendants than the civilian system. For example, military defense counsel is provided free of charge regardless of whether the defendant can financially afford to pay for his/her defense counsel. Furthermore, within certain limitations, a military defendant can request a specific military defense counsel regardless of where that defense counsel is stationed throughout the world. Defense counsel wants an expert defense witness? Govt pays for it, which is completely unheard of in the civilian world.

 

Biggest criticism of military trials is concern about command influence (ie the commanding officer will improperly influence the panel members). In all of my court martials, I can honestly say that I never once saw any indication of command influence. Had I, I would have moved to have the panel dismissed. Commanding officers are strongly told not to exert influence and that doing so was the quickest way to have one's career terminated.

 

When you join the military you do give up certain rights. A right to a fair trial is not one of them however. To the contrary, from everything I experienced, a military defendant is more likely to get a fair trial than a civilian defendant.

 

I've got to ask this: Are you really Lt. Caffey? Did you work on a case with Demi Moore once? :lol:

Stein's latest post on facebook: Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial. AFTP joins the Oath Keepers in drawing a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders.”

Stein's latest post on facebook: Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial. AFTP joins the Oath Keepers in drawing a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders.”

 

So he's saying the govt has ordered martial law? Did the liberal media not report that story?