Comments for Contempt towards officials... We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2007 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:05:18 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2008 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification Contempt towards officials... In the H&I Fires above, Bill notes Yankee Sailor's noting of a another Sailor who is, shall we say, *not* a fan of the current administration. Go visit the Online Magazine Formerly Known As Rob's Blog and you'll see why. Apparently the attention from the Castle and Yankee Sailor has caused a spike that Rob is (at the time of this writing) at a loss to explain. I'm not a JAG officer, but I believe Bill correctly points to the only article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that Chief Rob might be in violation of - the number... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:51:20 -0600 Comment from Rob on 2006-03-29 FARK.com should be the link above. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43250 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43250 Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:37:18 -0600 Comment from Rob on 2006-03-29 here (pops), here (pops), and here (pops). (For those who don't frequent FARK.com, "(pops)" indicates the link will open in a new window, or tab in the case of tabbed browsers.) ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43249 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43249 Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:34:35 -0600 Comment from Yankee Sailor on 2006-03-29 here. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43213 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43213 Wed, 29 Mar 2006 07:53:02 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-03-29 There are several among us who have more takeoffs than landings, Rob. Of course, I think subs are cool, too, though I think I would prefer my travels in one to be SEAL delivery boats... as a SEAL. All the kewlness of submarining with more fresh air and the opportunity to shoot things. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43207 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43207 Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:07:21 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-03-29 I'm truly sorry it broke this way, Rob. Politics aside, I hope the winds hold fair. *dons officer hat* Once a complaint was made/observation put forward, this was inevitable, and does not mean that it will go south, though there is always that risk. And, regardless of the outcome, we'll have had some more definition put to the reg, though hopefully without any folding, spindling, or mutilating of anyone during that process. *removes officer hat* It really sucks that it happened before you had the chance to bring it up, too. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43206 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43206 Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:03:55 -0600 Comment from WillyShake on 2006-03-29 [I posted this on Yankee Sailor's blog and so I might as well chime in here too] Yankee Sailor and Seaspook, First, a full disclosure: I probably DISagree with most of Rob's politics. I think I can read enough between the lines of your comments here to say that you're well-meaning, good guys who are concerned about the opposition of the far Left and what that's doing to our national security. Fine, I'm with you on that. But please take a moment and consider that we can challenge guys whose politics we disagree with in the "arena of ideas" without invoking the UCMJ. My plea is for rigorous argumentation, not calling in the "grown ups". Does that make sense? Do you really think that Rob's blog is enough of a threat to merit the time and expense of a JAG investigation? You've stated that ad hominem attacks are deplorable--and I agree--but such a criminal investigation seems to me an ad hominem attack par excellence! Perhaps my submariner loyalties are driving my defense of a guy whom I would otherwise disagree with, but I don't think so. I hate to see intellectual laziness substitute for meaningful arguments. If you want to defeat him, do it with the hard work of debate--show him specifically where you think he's gone wrong, but don't drop the dime on him. For crying out loud, he's now under JAG investigation! That just doesn't seem right to me. That's my two cents. Thanks for letting me share my thoughts. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43204 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43204 Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:43:23 -0600 Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2006-03-28 Rob - I hope when the dust settles, you'll still have your station, your stripes and your on-the-job reputation for professionalism intact. Let us know how things shake out... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43200 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43200 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:13:56 -0600 Comment from AFSister on 2006-03-28 Whoa. Rob... sorry to hear that, but sometimes, when you exercise your right to free speech, it will be challenged. Especially when you're talking trash about the boss, no matter if you're in the military or private sector. Good luck. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43199 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43199 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:06:15 -0600 Comment from Rob on 2006-03-28 Typos are all good, but you are one of those crazies who jumps out of a perfectly good airplane? Man, you're off your rocker! :) *ducks* (Granted, this is coming from a guy who, to some folk's opinions, goes to sea and does half the job of sinking the ship for 'em...what they forget is that you can't sink what you can't find! :) http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43198 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43198 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:37:03 -0600 Comment from BloodSpite on 2006-03-28 Hate to hear that Rob. I think most of the Denizens will agree that while we may not agree with everything you say, we will fight like hell for your right to say it. And that fact that way you say (thus far in our presence anyway), is rational discourse versus mud slinging and name calling, earns you many points. Around here least ways. But I'm the Black Sheep of typo's, bad jokes and Airborne, so don't take my word for it :) Good luck! http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43196 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43196 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:23:32 -0600 Comment from Rob on 2006-03-28 bringing up the issue to my command today. The boat does PT on Tuesday and Thursday mornings, and gives us an hour to shower/change and get to the boat (we're in the shipyard) following PT. I showered and picked up my Chief (he carpools with me), and on the way told him I had an issue to bring up and briefed him on it. We planned to talk to the XO, my department Master Chief, and the COB (Chief of the Boat, submarine-ese for Command Master Chief) right after the morning officer/leading petty officer meeting (which I attend as a leading petty officer). Well, guess what topic got brought up at the officer/LPO meeting? Yep...the issue (no names mentioned) of Internet postings by sailors. Following the morning meeting, before I had a chance to pull the Master Chief aside, he found me and my Chief and took us aside. Appears someone got ahold of our local JAG on the base (subs don't have a JAG aboard), and by the time we mustered this morning after PT there was an investigation already underway. Oddly enough whomever contacted the JAG apparently didn't contact my command, as from what I heard the first indication they had of it was the call from the JAG this morning. I'd have appreciated the opportunity (as I'd planned to do) of giving my command the cut on it first. At least I'd have liked to give them a heads up...no skipper likes to hear about this from the outside, I know that (I may not be an officer, but I'm senior enough and have been around long enough to know a few things). And frankly I'd have appreciated at least the professional courtesy of being afforded the opportunity to address the issue myself (which, as I'd pointed out before in my own comments and in this discussion, several posts above, I'd planned on doing). I don't know who called our JAG here, but I believe it was an outgrowth of the discussions on "Yankee Sailor", the SailorBob forum (which I don't have access to, so I don't know what was said/done there), and that spilled over to here. I'll let you know how it shakes out. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43194 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43194 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:45:35 -0600 Comment from BloodSpite on 2006-03-28 AFSis and BS - you engage in mutual obfuscation (isn't that illegal in some parts of the world? I dunno, I can't spell it so it must be illegal somewhere :D]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43187 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43187 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:03:23 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-03-28 AFSis and BS - you engage in mutual obfuscation (isn't that illegal in some parts of the world? Oh, wait, if it was, jails would be full of government officials, politicians, and CEOs). Spelling it sargent, sergint, seargeant in the same piece may be attributable to hasty typing or the deleterious effects on the brain of certain chemicals... but spelling it Seargeant three times in a row, whatever it is, ain't brain-outpacing-fingers! http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43183 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43183 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:56:54 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-03-28 And Yankee Sailor shows up with another JAG and another opinion... Like I said, it's up to his commander and his JAG to decide. Rob certainly skates to the line. As for JMH's comment - the same is true in the US military, and I suspect for Rob to go far up the chain, he's going to have to be head-and-shoulders above his peers in performance. All us contarians are like that. It wasn't just falling apart physically that prevented the Armorer from flying a red flag outside his office door. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43182 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43182 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:52:21 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-03-28 The turn this discussion took is the turn I was after, Maggie. In some respects, the discussion you were after is self-evident - many, if not most of us, agreed with Yankee Sailor on the issue of tone. What interested me was the dicussion of legality. Yankee Sailor clearly thought that Rob should get hauled in front of his superiors and brow-beaten over his tone. I was addressing the "dry legality" of it. Because, in fact, due to the nature of military service, the "dry legality" is what is going to drive how that discussion occurs. And the fact that Rob is enlisted is actually a key component of the discussion. Were Rob a commissioned officer, I would have pulled him in a ripped him a new one. Officers are not permitted the luxury of that style of discourse. If you read Rob's blog and some of his commentary here - he's well aware that his view is not popular, and he doesn't always express it "at work" simply to avoid the flak he takes for it. I am not going to make this space a place to crusade against military people who don't like this President and say so publicly, unless they are officers and do so in a arguably criminal matter. But buried in all this discussion, Maggie, *is* a discussion on why, in some respects, what you were looking for didn't occur. As a commander, when things like this veer to the political - there are more restrictions on me, the senior, than there are on Rob, the junior. And all that acculturation snapped into place as I started talking about it. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43180 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43180 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:44:37 -0600 Comment from AFSister on 2006-03-28 I tent to type, not look back and ask questions later hehe.... Thank *GOD* I'm not the only one around here getting snarked for quick-thinking-even-quicker-typing! John catches me all the time.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43177 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43177 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:58:44 -0600 Comment from Yankee Sailor on 2006-03-28 DoD Directive 1344.10 that extends prohibitions on speech by all members:
E3.3. EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES In accordance with the statutory restrictions in 10 U.S.C. 973(b) (reference (b)) and references (g) and (h), and the policies established in section 4., above, of this Directive, a member on active duty shall not: ... E3.3.11. Use contemptuous words against the officeholders described in 10 U.S.C. 888...
Those officerholders are "the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present..." Thus, while it may not be a violation of Article 88 of the UCMJ for an enlisted member to use such terms, it may be a violation of a lawful regulation and punishable under Article 92. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43176 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43176 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:07:44 -0600 Comment from Yankee Sailor on 2006-03-28 DoD Directive 1344.10 that extends prohibitions on speech by all members:
E3.3. EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES In accordance with the statutory restrictions in 10 U.S.C. 973(b) (reference (b)) and references (g) and (h), and the policies established in section 4., above, of this Directive, a member on active duty shall not: ... E3.3.11. Use contemptuous words against the officeholders described in 10 U.S.C. 888...
Those officerholders are "the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present..." Thus, while it may not be a violation of Article 88 of the UCMJ for an enlisted member to use such terms, it may be a violation of a lawful regulation and punishable under Article 92. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43175 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43175 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:07:28 -0600 Comment from J.M. Heinrichs on 2006-03-28 Relax Maggie, If Rob's situation is as stated, then one must accept it. Other units might be less forgiving. Rob, I just looked at my guidance on writing PERs for PO1s, and your blog remarks can be used as part of an assessment. Cheers JMH http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43174 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43174 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:15:10 -0600 Comment from BloodSpite on 2006-03-28 Oh - and Bloodspite? The reason you got out a Staff Sergeant is because you couldn't spell Sergeant. I checked. Lamblastedrubble pffft!!! You got me! Damn it. My spelling sucks lol. I admit it freely. Mostly I fear because my fingers move faster than my mind I think. I tent to type, not look back and ask questions later But you got me!]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43169 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43169 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:53:02 -0600 Comment from Maggie on 2006-03-28 I have read the posts and comments here and elsewhere and I might be missing something, but my problem with Rob is his tone. I have a problem with his disrespect for the CinC. What's the rule here? Attack the message, not the messanger? Rob didn't follow that rule (on his blog, not here). Isn't it possible to express dismay with certain policies without going into attack mode. I am not speaking about legal vs. illegal here, just plain respect vs. disrespect. President Bush isn't just anyone. I believe you have to show respect for the office. Rob cites anecdotes regarding shipmates and their opinions of Clinton, etc. Does that make showing disrespect to another President right? No. I expect to see that sort of contempt at certain websites, not a milblog. I may be wrong but I expect better of someone who thought enough of their country and the Constitution to take an oath to serve. I'm not talking about always agreeing with the Administration. I'm not talking about quashing dissent. I just think the contempt he shows the Administration in general and W in particular is beneath a milblogger. There's a line, and in my eyes that line is in a different place for the military. I have never served, but I have someone who does and every once in a while I kiss him goodbye and send him eight time zones away. I am very disappointed that this turned into a dry legal debate on his right to dissent. Of course he has the right to dissent. Maybe he even has the legal right to do it in a crude (i.e. the pics on his website) manner. But is it right? The turn this discussion took pulled attention from his poor behavior. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43168 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43168 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:34:12 -0600 Comment from AFSister on 2006-03-28 Bill, That's what I mean- it was a very reasonable debate which I really enjoyed reading. But you have to admit... it's one of the only times John (or anyone here) has written a post targeted at a person and their viewpoint, where the targeted person remained calm and reasonable. very cool. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43164 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43164 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 07:21:07 -0600 Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2006-03-28 straw boaters, let alone had a sport involving bashing 'em... *tossing john a duct tape refill*]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43160 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43160 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:47:55 -0600 Comment from Bubblehead on 2006-03-28 This debate has been very reasoned. It's over at Yankee Sailor's place that us submariners are engaged in the name-calling and skimmer bashing... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43159 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43159 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:19:49 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-03-28 I credit the calming effect those of us in the rotary-wing community exude... *rapidly duct-tapes head to keep it from exploding due to the paradox thus presented*]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43158 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43158 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:13:20 -0600 Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2006-03-28 John - It's Title 32, not 18. And I retired subject to the same conditions as you did. 'Cept I'm in better overall condition--I'm only 30% disabled... AFSis - Rob wasn't subjected to a full-frontal assault, he was a participant in a reasoned debate. He stayed on message, stayed cogent, raised valid points and maintained good order. I credit the calming effect those of us in the rotary-wing community exude... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43157 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43157 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:05:49 -0600 Comment from AFSister on 2006-03-28 Rob, I'm impressed by your ability to remain level-headed in the middle of a full-frontal assault. THIS is the kind of debate I enjoy reading here, devoid of name calling and too much emotion. Very interesting comment thread. Since I'm not in the military, I don't keep up on the rules you guys are all citing, so I don't have anything intelligent to add on that note. I do, however, believe there is a fine line between freedom of speech and the responsibility to support your President and Secy of Def, especially in times of war. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43156 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43156 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 05:31:37 -0600 Comment from Rob on 2006-03-28 John, on a side note I farkled up the trackbacks (got an error message, clicked two more times, ended up filling up your trackback with duplicates). Sorry...I blame Haloscan!! :) Could you delete the dupes, please. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43154 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43154 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:16:42 -0600 Comment from Rob on 2006-03-28 John, your update was great. I'm a bit relieved that the opinion that I was breaking the rules and should be hauled off in chains (OK, I'm exaggerating) was in the minority. I did worry a little (I was clicking away tonight thinking "did I miss something???!!") At any rate, your comments on the oath to uphold the Constitution were very, very right on the money. I'd turn in my dolphins if I couldn't seperate my opinions from doing my duty, and the fish are still on. I've taken orders from many in my time that I didn't like, and carried out orders I disagreed with...it's all part of the job, and as cliched as it sounds I was fully aware of it when I signed up. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43153 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43153 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:51:28 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-03-28 Oh - and Bloodspite? The reason you got out a Staff Sergeant is because you couldn't spell Sergeant. I checked. ;^D I don't normally snark spelling. Well, much. But that was so bad and after the whaling I'm taking for the farking caption... Oh, and Bubblehead? We know how chummy you submariners are. Really. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43152 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43152 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:36:14 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-03-28 And Bill - the bit you cite refers to officers of the regular components. You reservists are safe. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43151 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43151 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:16:51 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-03-28 I believe, for us retired ossifers, there is an issue of which title we fall under. While I am subject to the UCMJ, there are limits because of the nature of titles 10 and 18 (I think it's 18). And actually, Bill, we Regulars can be recalled up to, and including, after we die (there is no limit in law, only policy). Hence the medical 06 who agreed to a voluntary recall when he was... 70. Under policy, as I understand it today, run of the mill officers are subject to deployable recall for up to five years after retirement, non-deployable recall up to age 60. Specialist officers are subject to when they are needed (hence the doc). However, it's only guidance, not law. I took advantage of my time in the tunnel today to trap a JAG. I'll put the results of that in an update to the post. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43150 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43150 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:52:35 -0600 Comment from cw4billt on 2006-03-28 Heh--I can see the citation: "It gives me, the President of the United States, great pleasure to promote you--I mean, me--" And then there's the whole issue of C-in-C. How would you order yourself to report to Andrews for duty flying Air Force One and then list yourself on the passenger manifest? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43149 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43149 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:34:29 -0600 Comment from Rob on 2006-03-28 :) That would be a funny situation, indeed. I suppose he could just appoint himself to a higher rank... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43148 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43148 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:24:10 -0600 Comment from cw4billt on 2006-03-28 Alternative history: POTUS recalled to active duty as a lieutenant. Think of the ramifications... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43147 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43147 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:15:49 -0600 Comment from Rob on 2006-03-28 Hmm...I wasn't aware of the commission issue (I knew it was different for you O-gangers, but not how it was different). Bush hits the 60 mark in July of this year, BTW. I don't know if he ever submitted his resignation or not. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43146 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43146 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:04:14 -0600 Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2006-03-27 Rob - You raise a good point about LG Boykin appearing in uniform. If he was there in an official capacity, he should have kept his remarks official; if he was there in an unofficial capacity, he shouldn't have worn the uniform. However, an officer, honorably discharged, who has not offically resigned his commission--in writing--and had that resignation accepted by the military, still retains that commission. It's a sticking point that allows the military to recall officers who have fulfilled their military obligation but have not yet reached sixty years of age. There two exceptions to the age rule: general officers and senior warrants. I'm not off the hook until I reach sixty-three. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43144 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43144 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:24:01 -0600 Comment from Rob on 2006-03-27 Remember the uproar back in 2003 when LG William Boykin announced, at a prayer breakfast, that the Army was fighting Satan in Afghanistan? He was speaking his personal opinion (I don’t know of any unit that had standing orders to take down the Prince of Darkness) but the media lockstepped with "the general commanding US forces in Afghanistan said..." The good general also made his comments a) in uniform and b) on camera. I'd submit that's a little more blatant (and much more visible). His making statements on film in uniform made his comments very clearly appear to be "official". No disclaimer, no caveat, any casual passerby saw an Army general making those statements. People may see my blog and note I'm a Navy sailor, but (aside from my small profile pic) I keep the Navy pretty much out of it, and I make it clear that the content is mine and mine alone. Bush was, by the way, honorably discharged in 1973. While I (an enlisted man) don't know all the ins and outs of commissions I think he's fully out of the Guard. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43143 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43143 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:39:22 -0600 Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2006-03-27 ...of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces..."--and rather than rehash previous comments, I'll cut to the chase. That phrase addresses the dichotomy that the man and the rank are conjoined but separate, and most people have difficulty distinguishing the difference. Civilians have a tendency to see the man (or woman) in uniform as the uniform itself, and, by extension, the service branch. Remember the uproar back in 2003 when LG William Boykin announced, at a prayer breakfast, that the Army was fighting Satan in Afghanistan? He was speaking his personal opinion (I don’t know of any unit that had standing orders to take down the Prince of Darkness) but the media lockstepped with "the general commanding US forces in Afghanistan said..." A milblogger faces the same problem, regardless of the number of disclaimers on his site. People seldom say, "Chuck Z had a good post about hybrid motorcycles," but they will say, "Captain Z had a good post about hybrid motorcycles." The sticking point, in a nutshell, is that even though you are speaking your personal opinion, people will have a tendency to see you doing it in uniform. And your commander can use that to your detriment, if he so chooses. And speaking of superior officers, did President Bush ever resign his commission in the Guard? JAG types love that sort of thing. Bubblehead - There's nothing theoretical about it: Article 2(a)(4) specifically states that retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay are subject to the UCMJ. *grin* Worms, can of, one each...]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43142 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43142 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:52:26 -0600 Comment from Bubblehead on 2006-03-27 blogged last year about how, theoretically, Art. 88 also applies to retired officers. (Since we're drawing pay, we're still subject to the UCMJ.) If we want to be consistent, maybe we should go after Wesley Clark for saying bad things about the President -- or Oliver North for saying bad things about a former President. Rob's done his homework, he's made his decision about what's important to him. He's also made it very clear (for those of us who have read his blog for a while) that he is able to separate his political beliefs from his work; plus, he does offer solutions -- naive solutions in many cases IMHO, but they're there. Let's thank him for his service and defend his right to free speech as he's defending ours. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43141 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43141 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:28:29 -0600 Comment from Bubblehead on 2006-03-27 Ultraquiet No More, so all of us sub-bloggers have Rob's back. Commence tracking Sierra 1, make all tubes ready in all respects. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43140 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43140 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:07:22 -0600 Comment from Rob on 2006-03-27 AW1 Tim, if I'm being evaluated on my opinions (and I'm not naieve enough to believe people don't do that sort of thing) then I suppose that would be to my detriment. Like BloodSpite I've never been one to hold my opinions just because they may offend someone's sensibilities. I can relate quite well to the "shut up and watch the damn video" analogy :) As to being able to count on me...I believe if you knew anything about me you'd know that I can be counted on 110%. I've had my rocky times in the Navy (the PRT and I don't get along too well), but you can ask any of my chiefs or officers I've served under and I'd wager they'll tell you that I'm above all else dependable. I've been in for 15 years now, and I'm the first to work and the last to leave...I've done things in the military quite often that I personally disagreed with, but I'm adult enough and have enough of a sense of duty to understand that I signed up for a job that I don't have to like. I don't agree with the Iraq war, for example, but I was right there at battlestations when we shot T-hawks, doing my best to make sure the ship performed at it's best and the mission was done and done right. I don't question orders with a "do I politically agree with this"...I do my job, my duty. My philosophical/political issues don't put on the uniform, they are a personal view. The guys in my division (I'm an LPO on a submarine) actually get irritated because I'm such a stickler for "the military thing" and doing things right, even when people don't agree with them. If my opinions are what people base my loyalty on, they are making a bit of a mistake...I don't base my opinion of my CO on the music he likes, I base it on what kind of skipper he is. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43139 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43139 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:58:10 -0600 Comment from Rob on 2006-03-27 http://tinyurl.com/zq4um defines military officers: (b) Personnel Generally.— The following definitions relating to military personnel apply in this title: (1) The term “officer” means a commissioned or warrant officer. (2) The term “commissioned officer” includes a commissioned warrant officer. (3) The term “warrant officer” means a person who holds a commission or warrant in a warrant officer grade. (4) The term “general officer” means an officer of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps serving in or having the grade of general, lieutenant general, major general, or brigadier general. (5) The term “flag officer” means an officer of the Navy or Coast Guard serving in or having the grade of admiral, vice admiral, rear admiral, or rear admiral (lower half). (6) The term “enlisted member” means a person in an enlisted grade. (7) The term “grade” means a step or degree, in a graduated scale of office or military rank, that is established and designated as a grade by law or regulation. (8) The term “rank” means the order of precedence among members of the armed forces. The UCMJ also refers to civilian personnel (i.e., the President, SecDef, etc.) in quite different terms (i.e., "President", "Secretary of Defense", "secretary concerned", and so on). Also, the elements of article 89 and it's explanation refer to the "superior commissioned officer" as being in the "armed forces". ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43138 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43138 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:42:45 -0600 Comment from BloodSpite on 2006-03-27 I agree with AW1 Tim. You may be perfectly within the boundires of all laws and restrictions, but on the same token you may never go beyond your current rank or rate because of your voice. Not being critical, just stating fact. Its one of the reasons I never made it past E-6. I had a nasty habit of actually voicing my opinions on things, like...sexual harrasment training.. "But Sir...it wasn't an enlisted man who got caught sleeping with subordinates wives in lieu of promotions or assignments...!" "Shut up Seargent and watch the video.." "But sir, if it was an enlistedman he'd be *under* the brig instead of given full retirement with benefits under a "General" discharge..." "Shut up Seargent and watch the video...." "But.." "Shut UP Seargent and watch the damn video..." "Yes sir" http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43137 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43137 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:15:02 -0600 Comment from AW1 Tim on 2006-03-27 Comrades, My shipmate Rob fails to grasp the all important part of criticism here: It's all well and good to be critical of things, as long as you offer a reasoned assesment and constructive solutions to the problems you perceive. Simply calling out POTUS and SECDEF doesn'y cut it, no matter how much you hate them, because they are your superiors in rank, and may well have to call upon you to risk your life in defense of the nation, the Constitution, or in a mission of National Importance. They need to know that they can count on you to follow through, and it's hard to fathom how you can be trusted after reading your opinion of our elected leadership. How can the President count on you to complete the mission, when he can see plain as day that you doubt everything he is doing? The answer is that he cannot trust you, and for someone with your security rating, that's a difficult position to be in. Sea lawyers or not, Rob, you place yourself in a precarious position. Your Div Officer writes your evals, and they go up to the skipper. Kep it up and you may well find yourself signing a set of punitive evals on your way out of the Navy. I often thought that the best thing the country could do would be to hire the world's finest proctologist, and send him up Jimmy Carter's butt to see if he could locate Carter's head. I still think it's a good idea, but when I was on active duty, I certainly wasn't stupid enough to voice such an opinion. Respects, AW1 Tim http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43136 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43136 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:08:17 -0600 Comment from J.M. Heinrichs on 2006-03-27 I'd get a legal interpetation of the phrase "superior commissioned officer" before I would make strong critiques of civilians who are in the chain of command. As I understand it Mr Rumsfield is appointed SecDef by the President, with the consent of the Senate, and that could be defined as a "commission". Likewise the President (regardless of political stance) is "commissioned" by the citizens of the US as President. I think section 2 of Article II of the Constitution could apply in this matter. Cheers JMH http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43135 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43135 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:17:56 -0600 Comment from Rob on 2006-03-27 addressed the issue myself. It may seem a bit sarcastic (it probably is), but it wasn't intended as a flame...I am just, by nature, rather sarcastic in my writing (and I was feeling a bit prickly when I wrote it...). I read the rules (specifically the aforementioned UCMJ articles, as well as DoD Directive 1344.10) when I started "shooting my mouth off" in a political way. I have enough sense of self-preservation to not want to run afoul of the regs, and I sincerely don't believe I have. I know that members of my chain of command have viewed my site (I did slip up once, mentioned a going-on aboard the boat in regards to some gossip about a former CO...it got noticed by my XO's next door neighbor). My XO and COB ("Chief of the Boat", like a Command Master Chief but on submarines) have both read over my site and neither had an issue with my postings (aside from the one I mentioned, which I deleted...it was an honest mistake). I have no problem with my CoC reading my blog as it is now, and in fact I make it very, very clear that it's personal opinion and not "official". And I can assure you my political views don't spill over at work, nor am I (honest self-assessment time here) sowing dissent or undermining morale. While I don't want to pat myself on the back, I am known for being one of the more "by the book" types on the ship. I'm not trying to be combative here...far from it. I think some folks have a different opinion than I do of what is "over the line", but I assure you I keep the rules firmly in mind when I "post political". I keep a printout of the DoD Directive on my desk at home, in fact. Given the attention y'all are driving to my blog, I'm going to ask that "the powers that be" check it out again. I'm sure in my mind that I've not gone afoul of the law here, but I'll get an expert take on it, just 'cause your (and Yankee Sailor's) posts have brought the issue up. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43134 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43134 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:43:53 -0600 Comment from Pogue on 2006-03-27 Is the regulation from the Clinton years still in effect? I had the impression that was as much because of the quantity of negative comments at the time as the content of them. As lowely enlisted scum, it seems to me that the President is in my chain of command and as such I probably shouldn't publish any opinions about him that I wouldn't feel comfortable saying about my current commanding officer. There is plenty of room to disagree with policy or government actions without crossing that particular line. OPSEC aside, the military really appears to be bending over backwards not to interfere with the freedom of speech of its members. That's not to say there haven't been some local excesses. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43132 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43132 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:15:17 -0600 Comment from Barb on 2006-03-27 You confused me for a minute there with your use of Negative and Positive, but I caught up. I agree with not letting something blindside your boss, that's a given. (Even if you don't like 'em, letting 'em get blindsided like this would be a ba-a-d idea) The rest sounds reasonable. One question - does it matter to you if OPSEC was violated willingly (if it was) vice not being clear on the limits? My concern would be that the first is an indication of insubordination, while the second causes concerns for the thinking process. Either seems bad - but willful would be worse to me, and no matter how small the leak, would make me very unwilling to keep the person around at all. Then again, I'm a civvie - what do I know? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43131 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/03/contempt_towards_officials.html#comment-43131 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:03:51 -0600