Skip to main content

In fact, it's disgusting, conspiratorial asshattery. Conduct unbecoming for uniformed personnel -- Tea party style.

I think Obama is wrong on Syria.

But this is not the way to express dissent.

It appears someone agrees.

Not much more to say.

Tea Party Troops Protest Syria Strike On Facebook, Raise Questions About Military Code Of Conduct
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I did join (42+ / 0-)

    And when I did join, I swore an oath to uphold the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic . Not to any administration nor any political party.

    Use the change of command properly or go to the JAG and make your case, especially for the willful disregard and criminal violations of the constitution. Use the law to make your case.

    Otherwise just keep your head down, do as your told and STFU.

    Posting pictures on FB or other social media is just acting out  unprofessionally (and is dishonorable) and could get you kicked out with a dishonorable discharge.

    When I encountered criminal behavior by superiors while I served, I used the chain of command and the rule of LAW. Of course that was 30 years ago when the law had more meaning.

    I'm a new, inexperienced writer trying find my voice, and where to place commas correctly.

    by theRoosterMan on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 01:24:36 AM PDT

  •  Didn't I read that was a Syrian Electronic Amry (7+ / 0-)

    highjack?

    Yep:
    http://www.slate.com/...

    It spread out from there.

    Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

    by Just Bob on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 01:28:52 AM PDT

  •  actually, somebody needs a sign that says: (39+ / 0-)

    I DIDN"T JOIN TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LIVES OF INNOCENT PEOPLE.

    those in the military are not serving democracy or the citizens of this country. imo. they are being exploited and we are paying for it.

    “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

    by pfiore8 on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 01:31:47 AM PDT

  •  We don't know if they are actual active (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mkor7, US Blues, JesseCW

    duty personnel.  If so, it is against the rules.
    -------
    As to the argument about Syria:
    The Uniform Code of Military Justice makes disobeying a lawful order a crime.

    But, is it a lawful order to instruct our soldiers to  participate in an illegal attack on another country like Iraq, Afghanistan and like Syria will be (if we do so without UN authorization)?

    •  legally? no, a soldier may not make her own (14+ / 0-)

      determination of the legality of a particular war.  (see, eg, Michael New v United States.  a discussion of procedural bars to using the illegality of a war as a defense to failure to follow orders is in the district court habeas decision:

      https://bulk.resource.org/...

      •  But they are also required to refuse (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RageKage

        illegal orders. So they're in a bit of a bind. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that our government has never found any of our wars to be illegal and as such it's pointless to ask whether individual soldiers have a legal right to make that determination. They most certainly have a moral responsibility to do so.

        •  Illegal according to ... international law? (0+ / 0-)

          I'm just asking a question here, so don't bite my internet neck off.  

          I know that our country's laws are binding, but I didn't know that our military is bound to international or other laws beyond our country.

    •  The entire legality in this case (5+ / 0-)

      is determined by the President and Congress.  Soldiers have sworn to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief.

      "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

      by anonevent on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 05:59:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You sound like an Oathkeeper here. (11+ / 0-)

      Officers are obligated to the chain of command when they feel an order is unlawful.

      Enlisted have less lee-way.

      It's one of the reasons why I hate seeing enlisted get prison time for infractions like those at Abu-Ghraib and we don't see officers accepting responsibility for their troops.

      As I wrote in my diary on the same topic two days ago:

      There are plenty of men and women who are willing to serve our nation without questioning the politics or policies of the Commander-in-Chief. They are willing to trust in the system and believe that our leaders will do the right thing. Therefore, it is OUR job, yours and mine, to make sure our President makes the right decisions. That's how it should work in a Democracy. The People should hold the President accountable.
    •  While getting UN authorization would be nice (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, melfunction

      Can we please stop with this trope that this particular attack needs UN authorization? The legality and illegality of this situation are different than Iraq for very specific reasons. Humanitarian intervention has generally never been approved by the UN Security Council (notable exception with Lybia). The geopolitical realities of this situation make getting a UN Resolution authorizing the use of force impossible no matter how justified it might be (assuming the US had a strike plan that would indeed cripple and effectively punish Syria without killing a single civilian). Russia and China will veto it consistently in the Security Council because Russia is the major arms supplier to Syria and maintains it's only Mediterranean naval base in the country.

      The legality of this will have to be determined outside the UN and within the court of public opinion, as I highly doubt we are going to see an Acheson Plan situation arise with this. This situation is no where near as clear cut as "it either has or does not have UN authorization."

      •  Tell Ban Ki Moon to stop with that "trope". (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea

        "But the traitors will pretend / that it's gettin' near the end / when it's beginning" P. Ochs

        by JesseCW on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 07:25:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  or, just ignore him. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, vcmvo2

          Ban Ki Moon isn't the King of International Law, so it doesn't really matter what he thinks.

          His reading is likely correct, but his position gives him no special insight or authority.

        •  What do you expect the Secretary General (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, melfunction

          of the United Nations to do? I mean yeah he is going to call for the UN to be used and for all members to agree, but Russia and China will not back off from support (vis use of the veto) of the Syrian government. If not mistaken he has also called the UN Security Council to take action, and this fact finding mission just to determine if chemical weapons have been used will offer no proof beyond that as they are not mandated with assigning blame.

          •  It is more damning to the UN... (5+ / 0-)

            that a violation of the Geneva Conventions is not bringing about any form of sanctions or action from the Security Council nor are they even allowing for a condemnation to be passed.

          •  In this instance, wouldn't the primary nations (0+ / 0-)

            that need to "unite", in order to sue for peace, be The USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States? It seems that is mainly  where money and weapons are coming from. Could these outside players agree to pressure their Syrian clients toward a cease fire?

            What might motivate any or all of them to do so?

            Syria needs a government. Of some sort. It will not do, to simply topple Assad and then see what happens. The fate of Syrian minorities in such a case would be problematic to say the least. Saudis would gain more influence and power than would be good for anyone in Syria. Iran would be weakened of course.

            But is this not what America really wants, after all? The geopolitical endgame of our foreign policy gurus? God help the Syrian people, if such is the case.

            •  I think the big problem is (0+ / 0-)

              Saudi Arabia and Russia (to a good extent now the US). I have no doubt Russia could pull some leverage over Assad and the Saudis with the rebels but with this latest point we might have hit a point of no return for this. While peaceful settlement is more welcome part of me gets the feeling now that neither side is going to back down in this civil war. And any moves for leverage will either embolden the otherside or being us back to square one.

              This looks very much like an insanely sticky situation with no good or even okay answer, just a whole lot of bad ones.

      •  We agreed to and signed the Charter for the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wu ming, Enzo Valenzetti, native

        United Nations.  We are legally bound by the terms of that Treaty, as per the Constitution.

        So, since when do we promote shredding the Constitution to attain military objectives again?

        Did the Constitution get rescinded and no one told me?

        Included in that Treaty is "A Crime Against World Peace"...more specifically any aggressor that take unilateral military actions against another State without UN authorization.

        We become a Rogue Nation at that moment and the world would be legally bound to punish us and destroy our ability to wage war.

        The only exception to this if we are directly attacked, we have the right to self-defense.

        Since we haven't been attacked and the UN hasn't authorized military force, it would be illegal AND unconstitutional for us to do so, period.

        It doesn't matter what Congress says in this matter and they could, when they approve "the use of force" be tried as well for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, in our own country for a direct violation of the highest law of the land, which includes the UN Treaty.

        It would be impeachable offenses for all of them.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 07:47:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I would advise you to check out (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, melfunction, vcmvo2

          Article 7 and 8 of the UN Decleration on the Definition of Aggression which also points to the Decleration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

          The Charter which you so wish to refer to also calls the UN to act on a matter of this nature in Article 1 section 3. Not to mention parts of the charter specifically Article 42 which have never come into existance, nor does the UN have any authorized enforcement mechanism aside from the Security Council (which refuses to act on this matter) or the General Assembly via the Ascheon Plan (which will not be used in this matter).

          Not to mention your idea of the UN Charter having effective force on domestic principles via the Constitution is misguided as the UN Charter specifically states it has no reach, nor can it, on domestic matters within a state. IE, if Congress authorizes this and action is taken they can not be tried, impeached, or whatever by a US court based on Article 2 section 7 of the UN Charter, which would include a domestic vote to strike Syria on humanitarian grounds. In fact, it was specifically that provision which had the major and minor powers sign the Charter because it protected domestic matters from jurisdiction of the UN Charter, which only covers, loosely, international matters.

          Once again, for this situation it is a trope. A demand for UN authorization for the use of force in all circumstances completely and totally ignores geopolitical realities which make such a move impossible. It was precisely because of the geopolitical moves that the General Assembly had to institute the Ascheon Plan because the USSR blocked any and every attempt at Security Council resolutions for the UN to exercise it's powers for military intervention in Korea.

          Russia and China blocked action in Kosovo and yet it is generally believed to be case in point for successful humanitarian intervention.

          •  You can split hairs all day long, unless the UN (0+ / 0-)

            approves of military action, we cannot do it alone and not be the illegal aggressor here.

            I'm not the one flaunting and "Ignoring geopolitical realities" that the UN is the final say in this matter because it makes "such a move impossible".

            Orwellian doublespeak.  "We can't do it because the UN won't let us so we'll just ignore the UN and claim it's "humanitarian aide".

            Sorry, I don't believe you.

            As for the UN Charter and your misdirections.  We agreed to be bound by it, as a nation.  It makes it equal to and part of the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

            If and when the UN approves military measures, then the US Congress would be authorized to decide if we will participate. We are not bound to participate for or against. Putting the cart before the horse is not a legitimate legal position in this case.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:30:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It isn't a misdirection... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              melfunction

              I have the UN Charter right in front of me

              "Nothing contained in this present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII."

              In other words the UN has no jurisdiction within a state, but can exercise international jurisdiction via the Security Council and General Assembly. A US court can not try Congress for voting for war based on the UN Charter, application of treaties based on the Constitution is also interesting as the Constitution says almost nothing on treaties aside from the President can make them and the Senate approves them.

              Article 7 of the Definition of Aggression by the UN:

              "Nothing in this definition, and in particular Article 3, could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the Declaration on the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination; nor the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and to seek and receive support, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration."

              This isn't Orwelian double speak, it's pointing out the massive nuance in this situation. It isn't black or white, have to have UN approval or you don't. It's a massive shade of gray. Kosovo is considered illegal by people who think NATO needed UN authorization (namely Russia and China), others don't due to political reason Russia opposed. That doesn't make what took place in Kosovo bad, in fact it was quite good.

              •  This isn't Kosovo. (0+ / 0-)

                And those "shades of gray" are important when justifying actions.  If our government didn't believe GW could be legally charged for his crimes against humanity, then our current DOJ wouldn't be pushing to give him immunity.

                This is no different.  They can be held accountable for their lies, propaganda and illegal wars that kill (or will kill) millions.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 09:58:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  This is more like Kosovo (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vcmvo2, jncca

                  In relation to UN authorization than it is Iraq. Also the push for the DOJ to prosecute GW was in his use of torture which is not only against international law but also forbidden by US domestic law, and to an extent forbidden by the US constitution. Trials for crimes against humanity are tried by the ICC a court which the US does not recognize.

              •  What do you think in that (0+ / 0-)

                supports you?

                Cuz none of it does.

          •  Look you don't like the UN Charter (0+ / 0-)

            but it is the highest form of International Law and a Syrian involvement as planned would violate the Charter.

            That's really not arguable.

            So much for that "international norm."

            So let's stop invoking international norms then ay?

            •  Never said I don't like the UN Charter (0+ / 0-)

              Nor did I say I am arguing for international norm or if I even support a strike into Syria. I am arguing against the idea that the UN "has" to authorize this for it to be "legal." This is just a situation where the way the UN was set up brings about a broken political situation. It is untenable that the UN Security Council can't even pass a letter of condemnation (this isn't the only situation where the UN process is broken). No one state should no more be able to go rouge then another is able to stop collective international action for a situation like this. Comparisons to Iraq don't do this situation justice. It is much more like Kosovo. An intervention that was never authorized by the UN because of the same two players.

              I also wouldn't exactly call the UN the highest form of International Law. International Law doesn't exactly work in that manner, most centralized sure, highest is just, ehh. Most of the provisions that would have made it that never came about.

              And as I did point out, people rebelling against oppressive regimes are allowed to seek assistance and other nations are allowed to help. And we do have Salmin Idris asking/wanting US and international aid. As I keep saying, the legality of this question can not, with this situation, rest in the Security Council. The politics of this situation make it where no action can be taken, even that which is non-military and limited in scope.

              The Security Council is out on this one, it was before this began. And as I have said there is no way the Ascheon Plan is going to be used and that, as well, is for political reasons.

      •  vbn, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, Johnathan Ivan
        Can we please stop with this trope that this particular attack needs UN authorization?
        No, I'm sorry. You can't just wish away another illegal war.
      •  It is not a trope (0+ / 0-)

        In fact it is an easy reading if the UN Charter.

        •  See above statements (0+ / 0-)

          Kosovo not authorized by legality is debatable (not automatically considered illegal). India into East Pakistan (Bangladesh) the same, Vietnam into Cambodia is the same (never would have been authorized because it was for all intents and purposes a satellite state of China, so much so China had skirmishes with Vietnam in retaliation for deposing Pol Pot). A case could also be made for Tanzania intervening in Uganda (though Tanzania was attack first). None of these were authorized by the UN, and were vetoed by the Security Council.

          All of these have way more in common with this situation than do Iraq which was extremely more clear cut. It is a trope to suggest that this has to be authorized by the UN in a situation where the UN will never authorize it. It's like asking someone to turn on a light with no switch, it makes no sense and is nothing more than a fall back argument. It is also amazingly hypocritical to bemoan the veto the Big 5 have while at the same time knowing that political considerations by Russia are the only reason the Security Council is doing nothing on this matter via the veto (not saying you have, but I have seen a lot of people on Kos do it).

          This whole situation, and other like it, speak to a fundamental flaw in the UN system with regards to the Security Council. The question isn't "is this legal or illegal based on the stance of the UN" as that stance was known well before the question was asked. The real question is "should a violation of international law have no form of punishment because of how the UN is structured?" with a follow-up of "Considering the structure of the UN and it's inability to act, should there be fundamental changes to the Security Council or a strengthening of the Ascheon Plan?" Those two questions are just as fundamental as "Do states have the right if political considerations block the UN from acting in any capacity to take action to punish a state that violates international law?" followed by "What oversight mechanism should be set in place that would restrict such action from being abused via multilateral frameworks."

          I keep saying, this will be decided in the court of public opinion both domestically and internationally not in the Security Council, that is where it has to go because that is where it is being forced to go.

          Also, if you were wondering my dream job is to actually work at the UN specifically in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (a department that was, ironically, viewed by many on the Security Council to be illegal upon creation because it was created by the Secretariat via the General Assembly and considered to be a breach of the UN Charter).

    •  Active, Reserve, Guard, doesn't matter. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      markthshark

      If you're a service member and you do that in uniform, you're in violation of service regulations and, as a result, subject to UCMJ action as well.

      If you REALLY want to get picky, you can't even do this as a retired member of the service.  If you're drawing retirement pay, you are STILL subject to the UCMJ.  It's true that retired personnel are rarely recalled for the purpose of UCMJ action--it hasn't happened since the 1970s, if memory serves--but that is the current law.

      The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

      by wesmorgan1 on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:10:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I disagree with you. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mkor7, gerrilea, Enzo Valenzetti, RageKage

    Sort of like Manning and Snowden.   How do you dissent in the military without ending up in the brig?  You don't.   The military does not permit dissent.

    Your argument is like saying Snowden should have stuck around to get hung just to save our sorry asses.

    I have three politically incorrect, straight, white male, grandchildren; and I don't care if you think they're important or not.

    by dkmich on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 04:23:21 AM PDT

    •  And there's a reason for not allowing (20+ / 0-)

      military members to dissent in uniform (you can protest as long as you don't try to use your military position in any way):  Because, in the United States, the military is run by civilians, not the other way around.  Very much like religion and politics, we should keep politics out of the military, because otherwise we will turn into states where the military is the ultimate arbiter of laws in the country (Turkey, Egypt, and China for example).  It is up to the people, and their representatives, to make the decisions about when to use the military.  

      "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

      by anonevent on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 06:11:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Beautiful idealism, we don't live in that reality. (2+ / 0-)

        Nuremberg made clear that "just following orders" is no defense.

        I do not want automatons in our "all volunteer" military.  

         

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 07:24:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ao you... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, jncca

          Would rather have a military that can pick and choose where they serve?

          "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

          by cardboardurinal on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 07:52:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hey, that's exactly what we had for the first 130+ (0+ / 0-)

            years of our existence as a nation.

            See War of 1812,  many States and militia members refused to fight.  Hell Connecticut outright refused to fight in "Madison's War".  Hell, New Hampshire, New York, etc refused to participate.

            Vietnam comes to mind more recently.  Hundreds of thousands refused to fight.

            So, I'd say its very American for our military not to engage when they do not agree.

             

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:43:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes. I would very much like a military (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea

            where soldiers refused to fight. It's the only way we're going to put an end to war.

            •  I think that... (0+ / 0-)

              your idea would have unintended consequences.  A military that can openly challenge its civilian leadership is a military that can no longer be controlled.  While it is possible that it could end wars, I worry more about the other direction it could go in.  

              "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

              by cardboardurinal on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 12:00:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't mean the brass, for the record (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea

                I mean that I support soldiers refusing to go to war with other countries. I want a military where the soldiers refuse to fight, not one that speaks on political matters.

                •  Not going to war... (0+ / 0-)

                  would be a political matter.  

                  "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

                  by cardboardurinal on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 01:28:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Actually it wouldn't. (0+ / 0-)

              Because you make what I would have to say is a rather naive assumption that all soldiers in all nation states would refuse to fight.

              War is always inevitable because humans in general are a violent breed.

              I'm sorry to break it to you.

              •  I didn't say anything would do anything (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea

                I said that the only way to put an end to war is for soldiers to refuse to fight.

                And war is not inevitable, I'm sorry to break it to you. War is a result of the system we've set up, or had imposed. There's other ways to do it, despite the declarations of "realists" otherwise.

                •  Thank you, they make war the only solution (0+ / 0-)

                  acceptable.  Had we spent the $5 trillion plus GW used in Iraq on building homes, water systems, education and feeding people, you know raising their standard of living, there would be peace today.  

                  The petty dictators couldn't exist because the people wouldn't need them, ever.

                   

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 09:35:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Idealism? Hardly. (0+ / 0-)

          When you entrust service members with weapons of high lethality and/or great destructive force, as well as force multipliers, political dissent is not something one wishes to foster.

          Given that it's extremely difficult to temper/limit such dissent, it's far better to prohibit it entirely.

          The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

          by wesmorgan1 on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:50:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course not, can't have critical thinkers (0+ / 0-)

            in our armed forces.  They may understand what they're being told to do is a crime with those Weapons Of Mass Destruction.

            I suspect that's why we're moving to remote controlled drones to wage war.  They don't have brains, just programming.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 09:49:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So, you think that... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PsychoSavannah, vcmvo2, jncca

              ...soldiers ordered to enforce integration (back in the day) should have been free to "opt out" of those orders?

              ...soldiers politically opposed to the recent repeal of DADT and the SCOTUS decision on DOMA should feel free to "opt out" of military regulations resulting from those actions?

              ...soldiers politically opposed to "helping out those welfare-sucking moochers" should be allowed to "opt out" of orders for disaster relief operations in the US?

              ...soldiers who politically oppose the presence of women in the military should be able to "opt out" of orders/regulations on that topic?

              ...soldiers who politically oppose the notion of humane treatment of prisoners should be free to ignore orders/regulations on that subject?

              Come on - you can't go partway on this one...and you can't limit it to causes/notions you happen to support at the time.

              The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

              by wesmorgan1 on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 10:38:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Engaging in strawman doesn't win anything (0+ / 0-)

                It shows me the shallow nature of your position.

                I'll go through it with you:

                1.  The "soldiers" were the National Guard, huge difference.  These men/women aren't bound by the UCMJ.

                2.  Can't "opt out" of something you don't participate in or are not directly involved with.  DADT & DOMA.  Are all service members homosexual?  Are all service members married?  How could they "opt out"???  By not getting married to their partner???  I seriously can't understand this strawman.  

                3.  Again, the National Guard "helps in disaster relief", they are not bound by the same rules.  They did illegally disarm Americans in Katrina by going door to door.

                4.  They already do so and much worse:

                http://www.cnn.com/...

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

                http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

                http://www.commondreams.org/...

                5.  Chelsea Manning's Revelations to the American People prove that yes torturers and war crimes will go unpunished.  Furthermore, if a soldier stands up and tells the truth about those crimes, they're the ones put in jail.

                Now that I've been forced to address your strawmen, it's even more clear that soldiers can do whatever they want with impunity.

                So, why are you so bent out of shape because I support soldiers whose only infraction is to speak out against fighting in another war???

                Your demagoguery belies the cold hard facts.

                 

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 10:16:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  It's true that our military is run by (0+ / 0-)

        civilians, as it should be. But these particular civilians happen not to be serving primarily the interests of the public they are meant to represent. Instead, they are serving the interests of, and often being directed by, the very military/industrial concerns they should be in charge of.

        These "civilians", who are supposedly controlling our military, are in fact only quasi-civilians --  because they are often paid either directly or indirectly, by industrial behemoths whose profits are enhanced by war, more war, and continual war. Whose very existence, in some cases, depends upon war.

        And these quasi-civilians, our representatives, are paid very well indeed to sanction and promote the logic of empire, which is militarism. There is no doubt that the logic of empire benefits corporations like Bechtel and Raytheon, et.al. far more than it benefits Americans. If it benefits Americans at all.

        So this is the context within which a few of our soldiers are protesting, albeit illegally, and perhaps improperly.

    •  You can disagree all you want. (0+ / 0-)

      But if you are wearing the uniform, you know the code.

      Break it and you will be served the consequences.  That's all.

  •  Bullshit. (5+ / 0-)

    These soldiers have as much a right to protest tyranny as any other citizen. And if I thought the Commander in Chief had been bought out by the MIC, I would say so. In fact, that's exactly what I think.


    No longer Hoping for Change. Now Praying for a Miracle. 🍞 & 🎪

    by CitizenOfEarth on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 04:50:47 AM PDT

  •  Did anyone notice how similar (10+ / 0-)

    the opening sentence of most of these notes is?
    Hmmmmm...

    Love or hate the President all you want -- but we have GOT to retake the House and hold the Senate in 2014!

    by mwm341 on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 05:34:09 AM PDT

  •  As a veteran (31+ / 0-)

    I agree 100%. This trend is dangerous. It is subversive to unit cohesion and a threat to the command structure. It is also a direct challenge to military tradition AND law.

    These sign holders must be outed and brought up on charges. Civilians may not understand this and cry "free speech!" It does not work that way folks in the military. When one signs that dotted line, one voluntarily defers certain Rights during the course of his/her service.

    I'm just Double Tapped the hell out.

    by pajoly on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 05:59:37 AM PDT

  •  This highlights what I hated most (8+ / 0-)

    about military service and why I did not re-enlist. Loosing your voice, and soul, even if you volunteered. And at 18 I thought I understood but I didn't.

    I don't give a shit what these folks are doing, but reading through this comment thread has confirmed for me that I did the right thing by not re-enlisting.

    "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

    by just another vet on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 06:12:36 AM PDT

  •  I have to wonder how many of those (7+ / 0-)

    anonymous photos are of active duty personnel. Uniforms are not hard to come by.

    I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

    by blue aardvark on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 06:21:27 AM PDT

  •  The Only Reason The GOP Is Against Doing (7+ / 0-)

    something in Syria is because the POTUS is a democrat.  All this crap about other reasons the GOP is giving is just crap pure and simple.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 06:42:05 AM PDT

    •  And the only reason many Dems oppose it... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lawrence, Deep Texan

      Is because we have been humbled as a nation by our misadventure in Iraq.

      The problem is, any intervention in Syria is going to look a lot more like Bosnia, Kosovo, or Libya, as long as we're not waging a land war or angling to remove Assad from power through brute force...so Iraq isn't really an apt comparison, as convenient as the fact that it borders Syria, was Ba'athist, and was accused of something to do with WMD is for the sake of comparison-making.

      Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.

      by SaoMagnifico on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 06:47:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The geopolitical realities of this situation are.. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan, SaoMagnifico

        also different. History suggest attempting to get a UN resolution for this has as much chance as a snowball surviving in hell (which generally means stop saying the UN has to authorize this, it won't and generally never does humanitarian missions of this nature). This situation is quite a bit more complex then Iraq so using that as a comparison oversimplifies this situation way too much.

        There was a right and wrong answer for the Iraq situation, this one is a WHOLE lot grayer.

        •  I don't understand how the ability to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SaoMagnifico

          get a UN resolution makes it less important. It really strikes me as the equivalent of saying that it's justified to break the law when you're speeding because the speed limit was too low.

      •  most congressional dems opposed iraq, actually (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT

        and the ones that were for the iraq war were by and large the same hawkish moderates who are for a syrian war today, with some notable exceptions.

        •  That isn't the point, though (0+ / 0-)

          With Syria, there is a much more justifiable case for intervention.

          President Bush and his cronies sold the country a bill of goods in Iraq -- which was both a preemptive strike (Syria hasn't attacked us, but it has behaved erratically, firing into allied Turkish territory several months ago and now demonstrating a disturbing mastery of chemical warfare as well as an even more disturbing willingness to use chemical weapons in mass-casualty attacks) and an invasion/occupation (Syria operations would not involve ground troops and would be conducted entirely from the air and sea, according to the administration and the Senate AUMF).

          Yet even when faced with a far more compelling case in Syria -- where the smoking gun has come not in the form of a hypothetical "mushroom cloud" based on wobbly intelligence of possible Iraqi contacts with a Nigerien uranium supplier (or however BushCo's little fantasy story went) that many of our allies publicly doubted, but rather in the form of hundreds of dead kids with no wounds on their bodies and evidence of sarin, a chemical weapon long banned under international law and which the post-Cold War and post-9/11 United States has declared a policy of zero tolerance for, in multiple areas around the capital Damascus -- people can't stop thinking about Iraq when they think about Syria, right next door to Bush's fiasco. Liberals, regardless of whether they voted for the Iraq War and now feel guilty or whether they saw through the phony case for a bloody land war in Iraq, are hyperattenuated to signs that we could end up with another drawn-out Middle Eastern war on our hands. And so they're predisposed to oppose action in Syria, even though they probably would have seen immensely good reason for it before the Iraqi misadventure.

          Republicans, on the other hand, just want to humiliate President Obama and play to their increasingly xenophobic base. It may seem strange that people like Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Steve King, who clearly dislike and distrust Muslims, may not be jumping at the opportunity to bomb a Muslim country again, but hey -- they're already killing each other in Syria, so what's the need?

          Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.

          by SaoMagnifico on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 05:43:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I think there's also the racism (0+ / 0-)

      They would be fine with this if they didn't equate Arabs with terrorists.

  •  here's the latest insane, stupid-moron-idiot thing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sawgrass727, Gary Norton, Deep Texan

    Okay, so my right-wing co-worker  (who is a paranoid lunatic with an IQ slightly higher than that of pudding, and a maturity level somewhere below that) made one of her famous frantic-calls-to-her-mother just a minute ago.  And this is the wisdom she had to impart:

    "Obama's trying to start a war with Syria so he can do like DR and suspend elections and get a third term!  That's exactly why he's doing it!"  
    So, it's all so clear now.   That's the way people should be criticizing Obama -- total paranoid theories that a five-year-old would reject as too fucking stupid to be feasible, even as he awaits the arrival of the Easter Bunny.

    Oh well, that's a better frantic-phone-call-to-her-mother than the one from yesterday, where she got enraged because our boss said hello to me first, which she of course interpreted as the-boss-likes-me-better-and-hates-her-and-so-this-job-is-hell-now, as any reasonable person would.    This woman's in her fifties and still running to tell mama, when what she oughtta be doing is taking some freakin' meds.

    "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

    by Front Toward Enemy on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 07:17:03 AM PDT

  •  You are not allowed to wear uniform while (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bonsai66, Radiowalla, BachFan

    making a political statement. They're hiding their faces for a reason.

  •  Now if the shoe were on the other foot and these (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, Bonsai66, AoT, markthshark

    were soldiers advocating something the right disagreed with, Rush would be insisting that these anonymous "soldiers" were simply MSNBC personalities in Camo.  "Yeah," he would say, even with a sign in front of her face, I recognize Maddow.  I'm as sure of it as I am that Obama is a Communist Muslim Nazi Kenyan/Part time Indonesian Antichrist."

    Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity -- George Carlin

    by ZedMont on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 07:53:49 AM PDT

  •  They sure don't know U.S. military history (5+ / 0-)

    Do they think they would be the first ones to obey orders that they disagree with?   Do they not understand how many draftees fought in the Vietnam War even though they didn't believe in the purpose of the war?  

    Assuming these protestors are legitimate, their crime is more than just being anonymous while making a political protest while in uniform.  

    They hide their faces clearly because they are afraid of the consequences.  In effect, they are too cowardly to stand behind their message, but they are willing to abuse their uniforms.  

    If they had shown their faces, I've at least have more respect for their integrity. But they have no integrity.  Keep the masks and take away those uniforms and what's left?  

  •  See a... (0+ / 0-)

    CPO casts some doubt on this...a senior enlisted (E-7) sailor should know fucking better than undermining his chain of command.

    "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

    by cardboardurinal on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:06:56 AM PDT

  •  Understand your point (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt, shopkeeper

    And  agree with and grant you that position. I know personally I take my own duties and moral code very serious and would refrain from that activity, if that was what I had said I would do.

    I believe that oaths, duties are sacred and meaningful.

    However. As we have seen, with previous and current CinC and those who have a duty to uphold and protect the constitution and follow the rule of law ...well...just take a look at looking forward and not back w/ regard to the Cheney administration, drone policy, Torture, NSA abuses, lying to Congress, DOJ enforcement of the laws/ rules.

    The lack of our ruling class to fulfill and uphold those sacred duties and oaths starts at the top and with all our political leaders including cabinet members and LE agencies etc. The political ruling class elites set the example. And many would argue (myself included) the failure to prosecute for these abuses in the past have led to the rot in this country we see now.

    So I can understand how military members doing this feel conflicted about upholding their duties and oaths and would do this. Especially in context of what they have seen their own leaders act and how those above them and how they have upheld their own oaths. This is exactly what those who argued feared would happen when leaders abuse their power, fail to uphold their own duties or are negligent, and act above the rules/laws.

    Some oaths/ duties/ responsibilities apparently are more sacred than others.
    Two sets of rules, two sets laws.

    Government of, for, and by the wealthy corporate political ruling class elites. We are the 99%-OWS.

    by emal on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:34:18 AM PDT

    •  One thing does not have anything to do (0+ / 0-)

      with the other.  You break the law, there are consequences.  Now if you think the CoC is breaking the law, then the people need to hold him ccountable.

      The fact that we often don't doesn't give credence to random soldiers breaking the code.

      •  My point is (0+ / 0-)

        Leaders are IMHO supposed to set an example. If individuals see and watch their leaders skirt the rules and the laws with impunity, or fail to uphold their duty, well then maybe others may say well eff it.

        I can see that point of view.

        IMHO they most certainly do have something to do with one another. You feel otherwise. We disagree.

        Enjoy your evening,

        Government of, for, and by the wealthy corporate political ruling class elites. We are the 99%-OWS.

        by emal on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 02:37:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I disagree with you strongly. (5+ / 0-)

    Because none of them is refusing to go.
    They're saying this is wrong, and it's not what they were sold:  allying with America's enemies who have actually attacked us so that we can pursue some dim and undefined goal of punishing a guy halfway around the world and making him sorry for having killed his own people.

    I disagree very strongly with the gentleman in the picture at the end of your diary, who is misrepresenting his fellow soldiers.

    The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:47:05 AM PDT

    •  OK, one of them is refusing to go. The same (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BigAlinWashSt, AoT

      one who is calling them "Obama's al Quaeda."

      The rest are not.

      The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 09:02:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think the opposite (0+ / 0-)

      If they were refusing to go I would support that. I will always support soldiers who refuse to deploy to a war, whatever the reason. It's the best way we have to end war.

      •  I'm just saying that I'd like to stick (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT

        to the facts, y'know?

        If we're going to support them, support them for what they're actually saying and doing. If we're going to reject them, reject them for what they're actually saying and doing.

        The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 02:39:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You can disagree all you want. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BachFan

      The soldiers cannot express their political or moral opinions in this way.  Period.  That is why they are hiding their faces, but if they think they cannot be traced, they are sadly mistaken.

      You may agree with WHAT they are saying, but it doesn't mean that they can use their uniforms in this way.

      Although I think their real reason is that they don't want to follow any orders of this current CiC.

      For the obvious reasons.

      •  I never said they could (not and remain (0+ / 0-)

        on the right side of the law).

        Check my comment history.

        What I'm saying here is that apart from one guy they have not said they won't deploy when ordered to. Nor, except for that one guy, have they particularly involved Obama (though as Tea Party, they probably do hate his guts).

        I would just like to stick to the facts.

        This war has already almost smothered factual debate with hyperbole and accusations of disloyalty and "lacking a moral compass" and having a Munich moment and all the rest of it.  We don't need to pour gasoline on that fire.

        The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 02:42:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  No, it is not disgusting, conspiratorial (0+ / 0-)

    asshattery.

    It is against the rules for active military.

    That is all.

    The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:57:37 AM PDT

    •  That's your opinion. (0+ / 0-)

      That's your right.

      I personally think they are cowards.

      •  That's the one thing they obviously aren't. (0+ / 0-)

        Unless they're also dumbfucks.

        Holding the paper over their face isn't going to mean butt or kiss if they posted that stuff on FB.

        FB will be getting the info on the accounts that posted those pictures, every bit of data FB has on them, to the government STAT, you can bet your bottom dollar on that. Mr. Zuckerberg loves to give user information away--it's really where the value of his business comes from. Well, from selling it, I guess.

        Whether he would be able to sell it to a government that was furious I don't know, but he's hardly some heroic figure that would protect the data.

        So if these guys are cowards they must have no understanding of how FB works. I guess that's possible.

        The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 02:35:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Actually, this is absolutely one of them (0+ / 0-)

    for anyone who isn't uniformed military.

    There are two issues here:

    Is it true?

    and

    Should uniformed military be posting these pictures?

    Separate issues, and you're letting your reaction to one mischaracterize the other, to the detriment of the overall debate IMO.

    The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 09:10:05 AM PDT

  •  Disagree. I'm a vet, USN on a submarine. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shopkeeper

    They're absolutely right.
    If Obama proceeds with his war in Syria and uses the US military, they are going to be helping Obama and Kerry and their regime commit war crimes.   Just because people go into the military doesn't mean they lose their minds.

  •  When I was in the Service, we called people... (0+ / 0-)

    that refused to serve one word; cowards.

    You don't get to pick and choose where and what you will do when you are in uniform.  You do what you are told and shut the fuck up until you are out of uniform.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 09:28:05 AM PDT

  •  Oh, come on, folks... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smoothnmellow, vcmvo2

    ...can we get back to being the reality-based community?

    Let's put the question of "political dissent" within the US military to a few OTHER specific tests:

    Should individual soldiers be allowed to ignore orders/regulations resulting from the repeal of DADT and the SCOTUS ruling on DOMA, just because they disagree with the political positions behind them?
    I'm guessing that most folks here would answer "No."
    When the Little Rock schools were integrated, the Governor of Arkansas called up part of the Arkansas National Guard to prevent integration.  President Eisenhower responded by Federalizing the rest of the Arkansas National Guard to enforce integration.  Do you think that service members on both sides should have been allowed to disobey orders because of their "political dissent"?
    I'm guessing that most folks here can picture the chaos that would have resulted in such a situation.
    Should commanders be allowed to ignore orders/regulations on the subject of sexual discrmination/abuse/maltreatment  if they exercise "political dissent" on whether women should be in the military at all?
    Yeah, this is a near-ludicrous example, but--again--I'm guessing that this question receives a "no, and what ARE you smoking?" response from most of us.

    Now, it should be clear that political dissent in the military is not a "spectrum" or range of responses; there's no way you can expect to field a military force in which individual soldiers have any sort of ideological/political veto over the orders they receive.

    There IS a process for refusing to obey unlawful orders; public statements of a priori refusal are not part of that process.

    It's a binary system - the switch is set and locked in the "off" position, and that's how it not only should be, but must be.

    The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

    by wesmorgan1 on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 09:40:15 AM PDT

    •  Refusing to go to war (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      markthshark

      is entirely different than any of those things. I support people refusing to go to war.

      Now, it should be clear that political dissent in the military is not a "spectrum" or range of responses; there's no way you can expect to field a military force in which individual soldiers have any sort of ideological/political veto over the orders they receive.
      Soldiers have a moral obligation to refuse immoral or illegal orders. And there is a system, as you note, but at this point trusting in the rule of law strikes me as hopelessly naive.

      All that said, the people in these pictures are breaking the law, and a good law. They always have the ability to refuse orders, they should not be using the uniform to spread a political message.

      I bet it wouldn't be too hard to find quotes from Limbaugh himself on former soldiers speaking out against war and how evil and wrong he thinks it is.

      •  Interesting tidbit re: conscientious objectors (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT

        From a 2007 PBS report:

        Since the run-up to the Iraq War in 2002, 405 service members have applied for conscientious objector (CO) status. 179 of those requests have been granted.
        So, almost half (45%) of the folks who requested CO status in 2002-2007 were successful.  I had no idea...and I wonder what the numbers are since 2007...

        The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

        by wesmorgan1 on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 01:46:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I didn't join the military to support (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Satya1, AoT, Johnathan Ivan

    radical religionists, war profiteers, oil maggots, or the neoliberal economic consensus.

    Of course, I didn't join the military at all.

    War is still a racket.  What did you think you were signing up for?

    Reasonable suspicion? How can being wrong 98.6% of the time ever be reasonable?

    by happymisanthropy on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 10:15:00 AM PDT

  •  Thank you. (0+ / 0-)

    It's called the military for a reason.  Once you join, you don't get to choose and if they cannot follow orders (chain of command), then why the hell did you sign up?

    This makes me very angry because it's not about Syria at all.  This is about the CIC.

  •  I'm of 2 minds on this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BachFan, markthshark

    It is an expression of viewpoint and I'm loathe to limit that.

    But military personnel  agree voluntarily (no draft anymore) to sign some of their expressive freedom away while in the service.

    I don't think it an outrage, but I think they don;t get to do it in conformance with their obligations.

    •  My perspective is not so much on the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smoothnmellow, markthshark

      code of  conduct or however one describes the ban of politics in military dress.

      My observation is that if one joins the military and has ANY iota of US historical knowledge, then that person has to be aware that they can be sent into harms way for no particular or justifiable reason at all.  As far as I am concerned this is nearly 100% true since Vietnam.

      You join the military and in whatever "cause" you're told to fight in, you're playing a lottery (that's the good case) or you're making a deal with the devil (worst case).

      And for those thinking about joining the military, I hope they aren't just thinking about  putting their lives at risk but also take time to consider that their job will involve killing other people.  And it war there are always innocents caught in the middle.

      I pray for all our young people who choose to serve.

      I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

      by Satya1 on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 11:13:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They can say all of this out of uniform (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BachFan, markthshark

      with no restriction. I don't want the military involved in politics as much as it is, much less openly involved.

    •  What I consider an outrage... (0+ / 0-)

      is the vile, racist and conspiratorial screeds published every day on the source of that photo, i.e., the Armed Forces Tea Party Facebook page. This is Glenn-Beck-y-becky-stan-stan land I'm talking about here.

      I don't think it an outrage

      'Cuz freedom can't protect itself ~~ EFF ~ EPIC ~ ACLU

      by markthshark on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 05:06:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Amen you server your country (0+ / 0-)

    not yourself. Thank you.  btw. I am a liberal interventionist.

    "We need a revolution away from the plutocracy that runs Government."

    by hangingchad on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 11:04:27 AM PDT

  •  they are coming to understand (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    markthshark

    what the most decorated and highest ranked Marine of his time came to understand. War is a racket.

    Every american should be made to read about and study Smedley Butler. He should be a household name, of course if he was, we wouldnt have the MIC.

    It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
  •  Syrian electrnc army hacked marine site & posted.. (0+ / 0-)

    these same--or similar--pictures,    along with text saying that

    ...This is a message written by your brothers in the Syrian Army...
    While the tea party types may be circulating these pictures, I wonder if they are aware that...
    A collection of pro-Syrian government hackers apparently defaced a Marine Corps recruitment website Monday.

    The Syrian Electronic Army, which has hacked a series of websites, posted a letter on the Marines.com website arguing the Syrian government is “fighting a vile common enemy...”

    “...The Syrian army should be your ally not your enemy,” the letter read. “Refuse your orders...

    The hack also includes pictures of people wearing U.S. military uniforms holding signs in front of their faces reading “I will not fight for Al Qaeda” and “I didn’t join the Marine Corps to Fight for Al Qaeda in a Syrian civil war.”

    The Syrian Electronic Army has claimed responsibility for hacking the New York Times, the Washington Post and other websites...

    Though it's possible that US military members posted similar pictures, since the pro-Assad Syrian Electronic Army posted these same/similar pics (which can be viewed at the above link), it seems more likely that the pics are not those of actual US military personnel.

    More about the SEA:

    Syrian Electronic Army revealed: Anonymous hacks SEA website, dumps data

    As the United States and other world powers continue to debate a possible military intervention in Syria, the hacker collective Anonymous has gone ahead with its own intervention, taking on its Syrian counterpart — the Syrian Electronic Army.

    It's a shadow war happening online between two amorphous, grassroots groups. And Anonymous dealt the first blow...

    While the Syrian Electronic Army is mostly made up of supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and may receive some material support from the regime, the organization does not appear to have any official relationship the government...“I imagine them as an Assad cronies' notion of the Chinese Cyber Army, on a shoestring budget,' one Anonymous member, involved in the analysis of the data, told GlobalPost...

    •  This photo is just part & parcel of what can be... (0+ / 0-)

      found on the website it was originally posted on.

      I am aware of what the SEA has posted but I have yet to find a connection (beyond the similar text) between their efforts and this particular website.

      It's been around for awhile.

      'Cuz freedom can't protect itself ~~ EFF ~ EPIC ~ ACLU

      by markthshark on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 05:17:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There's irony in the last picture. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    markthshark
    Now quit making signs and get the fuck back to work.
    Indeed.

    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

    by HairyTrueMan on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 12:16:10 PM PDT

  •  Are you arguing that Al Qaeda (0+ / 0-)

    will not benefit in the civil war if the U.S. incapacitates Assad?  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site