• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Service members anonymously protest potential war against Syria on Facebook

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,507
Reaction score
16,299
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
While I am against the war in Syria I do think soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen bitching about going to war amounts to traffic cops complaining about writing speeding tickets, garbage men taking out trash, prison guards having to guard prison inmates, kindergarten teachers complaining about teaching 4-5 year old kids or someone else complaining about doing a job they knowingly signed up for. They signed up for a warfare occupation, that means they are in the business of going to war and if they didn't want to go to war then they shouldn't have joined the military in the first place. And last I check there was no "pick what ever war you want to fight in" sign on bonus.


Service members anonymously protest potential war against Syria on Facebook  - NY Daily News
Soldiers protesting military strikes against Syria are taking to Facebook to voice their opposition to a war.
"I didn't join the Marine Corps to fight for al Qaeda in a Syrian Civil War," one Marine in uniform declared, in a message written on a piece of paper he held strategically to block his face and conceal his identity.

In another message, a man donning fatigues holds up a paper with "I didn't sign up to kill the poor for the rich," written out.
The Armed Forces Tea Party, a loose affiliation of veterans who align with the conservative movement, is collecting snapshots of military members holding up written statements slamming Obama's plan to ask Congress for authorization to use force against Bashar Assad's regime.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
While I am against the war in Syria I do think soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen bitching about going to war amounts to traffic cops complaining about writing speeding tickets, garbage men taking out trash, prison guards having to guard prison inmates, kindergarten teachers complaining about teaching 4-5 year old kids or someone else complaining about doing a job they knowingly signed up for. They signed up for a warfare occupation, that means they are in the business of going to war and if they didn't want to go to war then they shouldn't have joined the military in the first place. And last I check there was no "pick what ever war you want to fight in" sign on bonus.


Service members anonymously protest potential war against Syria on Facebook* - NY Daily News
Soldiers protesting military strikes against Syria are taking to Facebook to voice their opposition to a war.
"I didn't join the Marine Corps to fight for al Qaeda in a Syrian Civil War," one Marine in uniform declared, in a message written on a piece of paper he held strategically to block his face and conceal his identity.

In another message, a man donning fatigues holds up a paper with "I didn't sign up to kill the poor for the rich," written out.
The Armed Forces Tea Party, a loose affiliation of veterans who align with the conservative movement, is collecting snapshots of military members holding up written statements slamming Obama's plan to ask Congress for authorization to use force against Bashar Assad's regime.
First, there isn't anything anonymous about the internet.

Second, if they feel they didn't join the military to follow the orders of their superior officers, or the POTUS (Commander-in-Chief) regardless of what those orders are, then they need to look back at the oath they swore when they joined.

Third, I don't blame them for feeling that way. I felt similarly right after I got blown up in Somalia, but that was more of a "I didn't sign up for this..." thought after being injured. It wasn't a political thought, but more of a "This isn't supposed to happen to me, it's supposed to happen to others" type thought. These folks, if they are in fact REAL members of the military, are putting themselves in legal trouble.

Fourth, the UCMJ strictly prohibits such public statements.

Lastly, there are other threads on this board that discuss this... Just FYI.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
First, there isn't anything anonymous about the internet.

Second, if they feel they didn't join the military to follow the orders of their superior officers, or the POTUS (Commander-in-Chief) regardless of what those orders are, then they need to look back at the oath they swore when they joined.

Third, I don't blame them for feeling that way. I felt similarly right after I got blown up in Somalia, but that was more of a "I didn't sign up for this..." thought after being injured. It wasn't a political thought, but more of a "This isn't supposed to happen to me, it's supposed to happen to others" type thought. These folks, if they are in fact REAL members of the military, are putting themselves in legal trouble.

Fourth, the UCMJ strictly prohibits such public statements.

Lastly, there are other threads on this board that discuss this... Just FYI.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
They are to defend the Constitution. The Constitution is what the President is supposed to defend. Syria doesn't fit the bill, so the soldiers are in good standing to complain about this. They are American Citizens first, soldiers second.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They are to defend the Constitution. The Constitution is what the President is supposed to defend. Syria doesn't fit the bill, so the soldiers are in good standing to complain about this. They are American Citizens first, soldiers second.
Have you ever taken the military oath? If so, you may want to read it again. If not, here it is:

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Considering I quoted it in my post.......
It wasn't there the first time I looked at your post. Sorry for the quick draw.

As to the oath, it doesn't say to interpret and states to "Constitution of the United States against all enemies" and the POTUS is not an enemy. It also states "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." The UCMJ defines what a "lawful order" is and is not. It also defines what acceptable speech is and is not, for members of the military. The military doesn't have Free Speech.

Have you read Article 88 of the UCMJ?
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It wasn't there the first time I looked at your post. Sorry for the quick draw.

As to the oath, it doesn't say to interpret and states to "Constitution of the United States against all enemies" and the POTUS is not an enemy. It also states "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." The UCMJ defines what a "lawful order" is and is not. It also defines what acceptable speech is and is not, for members of the military. The military doesn't have Free Speech.

Have you read Article 88 of the UCMJ?
No I haven't actually. However, if the POTUS orders the killing of innocents, should the military then comply because he said so? No. The Constitution comes BEFORE the President.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Travelsonic

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
327
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
First, there isn't anything anonymous about the internet.
Log on to public computer, say in a library or whatnot, create a free e-mail address, use that to make a fake Facebook account w/ fake name, etc, post a comment.... and do so through a dozen proxy servers. How do they trace it back to you?

IMO, there is a difference between WHAT is posted on the internet being anonymous or not, and the PEOPLE themselves doing the posting being anonymous or not.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Log on to public computer, say in a library or whatnot, create a free e-mail address, use that to make a fake Facebook account w/ fake name, etc, post a comment.... and do so through a dozen proxy servers. How do they trace it back to you?

IMO, there is a difference between WHAT is posted on the internet being anonymous or not, and the PEOPLE themselves doing the posting being anonymous or not.
There may be a few that know to do that. I doubt they all do. All it takes is telling one guy what you did, and you're busted.
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It wasn't there the first time I looked at your post. Sorry for the quick draw.

As to the oath, it doesn't say to interpret and states to "Constitution of the United States against all enemies" and the POTUS is not an enemy. It also states "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." The UCMJ defines what a "lawful order" is and is not. It also defines what acceptable speech is and is not, for members of the military. The military doesn't have Free Speech.

Have you read Article 88 of the UCMJ?
If the POTUS has taken overt acts against the Constitution, that makes him a domestic enemy of the document and its principles.

For example, if he routinely dishonors and violates the Fourth Amendment, he attacks the document and is by definition a domestic enemy thereof.

If he were to abolish Habeas Corpus by signing illegitimate legislative product, then both he and the legislators have violated the document, and are by definition, domestic enemies thereof.

Nobody has an obligation to obey the orders of domestic enemies of the Constitution.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If the POTUS has taken overt acts against the Constitution, that makes him a domestic enemy of the document and its principles.

For example, if he routinely dishonors and violates the Fourth Amendment, he attacks the document and is by definition a domestic enemy thereof.

If he were to abolish Habeas Corpus by signing illegitimate legislative product, then both he and the legislators have violated the document, and are by definition, domestic enemies thereof.

Nobody has an obligation to obey the orders of domestic enemies of the Constitution.
That all could be true, but that argument will not standup in all the Courts Martial that would follow.

The same thing happened during the Iraq War, and those poor slobs are in Fort Leavenworth even today.
 

Surtr

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
7,017
Reaction score
2,980
Location
The greatest planet in the world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A) War is a Service Members job, if they can't do that, they can gtfo.

B) While I'm sure some of these people are Service Members, I don't think it's too far fetched to say that a lot of these pictures are just dumb asses playing dress up to promote their political ideology.

C) It's juvenile, and won't change anything.
 

chromium

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
16,968
Reaction score
3,770
Location
A2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From my understanding, there won't be boots on the ground. What i'm wondering is why they don't just send the drone army. Drones can't protest after all.
 

Surtr

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
7,017
Reaction score
2,980
Location
The greatest planet in the world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
From my understanding, there won't be boots on the ground. What i'm wondering is why they don't just send the drone army. Drones can't protest after all.
Their operators can still protest, and human beings have a much broader spectrum of capabilities than glorified RC airplanes. If the mission is to recover and destroy chemical weapons, then a large number of people are going to have to physically go in and confiscate these weapons.
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That all could be true, but that argument will not standup in all the Courts Martial that would follow.

The same thing happened during the Iraq War, and those poor slobs are in Fort Leavenworth even today.
Ehren Watada 1Lt USA is not in Leavenworth. He hired civilian lawyers, the UCMJ judge screwed up badly, and he prevailed.

But I completely agree with you that UCMJ proceedings are not at all about justice, but ONLY about military discipline.
 

Travelsonic

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
327
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
There may be a few that know to do that. I doubt they all do.
Even still, it is legitimate - as long as you keep it secret of course - as you said, blabbing to the wrong person would disastrous for you.

At least you didn't pull a "Oh, track the IP address!" thing some people do, which ignores that IP addresses are linked to the computer/router, not the person using it, making it even less reliable for tracking someone on a public computer. :D
 

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,790
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Though I largely agree with what everyone on here has said I do think it's worth asking when it is appropriate for a soldier to refuse orders. At one point is that judgement call necessary or legitimate?
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Personally, I think everybody who is legitimately in Uniform who does something like that is a douchebag, and I do not want to be anywhere near them.

Look, if you are in the military it is your right to participate in any protest you want. March around with Code Pink or the NAACP or the Anarchists United as far as I care, just do not do it in uniform.

As far as I am concerned, this says it all, and nothing further is really needed:



And she is right on there. My own opinions of the war have no bearing on the fact this is completely wrong, and against regulations. I see it as blatently political, and that always disgusts me because our military should not be political at all.
 

Ontologuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,325
Reaction score
1,797
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Sadly, even our serviceman (other than the joint chiefs and intelligence officers) simply don't know what's being talked about in the security chambers and internationally over the hotlines between leaders.

Until the bombs actually drop, a lot of the U.S. and other-nations' rhetoric is simply posturing.

Now it appears Russia is ready to become involved to round up Syrian chemical weapons and if Assad allows that, "then the U.S. won't launch".

So .. we were the "bad cop" and the Russians are the "good cop", and it took a number of closely calculated days for it all to play out, including Obama saying he'll launch even if Congress doesn't approve, for added effect upon Assad.

Meanwhile, those who don't know what's going on, including lower-level military personnel, understandably refuse to support the al Qaeda-laden rebels, and understandably so.

It eventually becomes evident that the international "debate" is really just a clever collusion to get illegal weapons out of play for both sides.

Then Assad and his rebels can resume their war .. though by now so much attention has been focused on the matter that U.N. peace-keeping people will descend and try to put an end to the fighting.
 

SBu

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,523
Reaction score
636
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
While I am against the war in Syria I do think soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen bitching about going to war amounts to traffic cops complaining about writing speeding tickets, garbage men taking out trash, prison guards having to guard prison inmates, kindergarten teachers complaining about teaching 4-5 year old kids or someone else complaining about doing a job they knowingly signed up for. They signed up for a warfare occupation, that means they are in the business of going to war and if they didn't want to go to war then they shouldn't have joined the military in the first place. And last I check there was no "pick what ever war you want to fight in" sign on bonus.


Service members anonymously protest potential war against Syria on Facebook* - NY Daily News
Soldiers protesting military strikes against Syria are taking to Facebook to voice their opposition to a war.
"I didn't join the Marine Corps to fight for al Qaeda in a Syrian Civil War," one Marine in uniform declared, in a message written on a piece of paper he held strategically to block his face and conceal his identity.

In another message, a man donning fatigues holds up a paper with "I didn't sign up to kill the poor for the rich," written out.
The Armed Forces Tea Party, a loose affiliation of veterans who align with the conservative movement, is collecting snapshots of military members holding up written statements slamming Obama's plan to ask Congress for authorization to use force against Bashar Assad's regime.
Agree, donning a uniform and making a statement intended to be public is not good and poses some legal questions. Not because they are not allowed to have an opinion, but to speak publicly while in uniform about controversial political matters is akin to speaking on behalf of the military which they are not authorized to do. They need to find a more anonymous outlet and ditch the uniforms and speaking as military members vice private citizens.

All that being said, I understand their frustration...although that's not an excuse to use the military as your personal soap box.
 

lolabird

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
642
Reaction score
114
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
They are to defend the Constitution. The Constitution is what the President is supposed to defend. Syria doesn't fit the bill, so the soldiers are in good standing to complain about this. They are American Citizens first, soldiers second.
Did invading Iraq fit the bill?
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Did invading Iraq fit the bill?
Not sure how it is relevant, but the country as a whole agreed with the war in Iraq at the time if you recall. And if they did have WMD and WERE training Al Queda then yes, it did fit the bill.
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Not sure how it is relevant, but the country as a whole agreed with the war in Iraq at the time if you recall. And if they did have WMD and WERE training Al Queda then yes, it did fit the bill.
What about when WE were training AQ?

Are you still actually wondering if they had WMD? Egads!

The whole country agreed with invading Iraq because it was utterly deceived by a false flag operation meant to involve us in Iraq, Israel's mortal enemy. Hmmm.....:confused:
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Though I largely agree with what everyone on here has said I do think it's worth asking when it is appropriate for a soldier to refuse orders. At one point is that judgement call necessary or legitimate?
It applies ONLY to a soldier who has not surrendered his conscience to the government, and to a soldier con cojones!
 
Top Bottom