|
Home | Rules & Guidelines | Register | Member Rides | FAQ | Members List | Social Groups | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
LOUD NOISES A place for political mudslinging, Pro/Anti legalization, gay marriage debate, Gun control rants, etc. If it's political, controversial, or hotly debated, it goes here. No regular Off-Topic stuff allowed. READ THE RULES BEFORE POSTING! |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
09-13-2010, 04:29 AM | #1 |
Zilvia Addict
|
DADT Unconstitutional?
I think anyone who follows the news will know about the new issue. Apparently current military policy on don't ask don't tell is unconstitutional. Which may be true. My question is after you start declaring military policies unconstitutional where does it end? When military servicemen/women are just civilians in uniforms? Wtf happens to article 125? If you read through the UCMJ there is alot going on there that stands to be modified/removed if they do succeed in deeming dadt unconstitutional.
I don't think anyone considered(or even cared to) the repercussions of setting this precident. |
Sponsored Links |
09-13-2010, 04:31 PM | #2 | |
Post Whore!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Diego WOOT
Age: 36
Posts: 4,722
Trader Rating: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
|
What else are they? You can't go around having a branch of the government exempt from the rules that they are protecting.
Going through and modernizing a set of rules is hardly a horrible set of repercussions to deal with and certainly shouldn't be a major deciding factor on any issue. Obviously article 125 isn't something used that often. If every soldier got court martialed for getting a BJ we would probably not be at war right now.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
09-13-2010, 06:03 PM | #3 |
Zilvia Addict
|
^ Have you been educated on the UCMJ? Service members are held to a much more stringent set of laws than yourself. We are almost/generally regarded as pieces of government property. When was the last time your employer was allowed to imprison you for insubordination? My fear is that many of these laws could be found unconstitutional like the Dont ask dont tell policy.
|
09-13-2010, 06:48 PM | #4 | |
Zilvia FREAK!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: I'm somewhere where I don't know where I am!
Posts: 1,549
Trader Rating: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
|
Quote:
Article 125 is retarded anyway. The only time it's ever invoked is in conjunction with some other charge (like rape). I don't see what the big deal is. Homosexuals have been serving in the military since the beginning of time. Mission, not sexual orientation, is paramount. I don't see an inherent reason why a homosexual service member is less able to accomplish an assigned mission than a heterosexual one. I say get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". |
|
09-14-2010, 04:28 AM | #5 |
Zilvia Addict
|
My qualm isn't with don't ask don't tell. IMO who gives a shit at this point. My concern is that we are declaring parts of military law unconstitutional. Once you've set that legal precedent you have opened a very serious can of worms. You can't just say oh well that was don't ask don't tell thats different.
By declaring don't ask don't tell unconstitutional you open the door to saying anything in military law that is unconstitutional can be declared so. I just don't think this is the right way to modify the UCMJ. |
09-14-2010, 08:45 PM | #6 | |
Post Whore!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Diego WOOT
Age: 36
Posts: 4,722
Trader Rating: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
|
So military law shouldn't be bound by the constitution?
__________________
Quote:
|
|
09-14-2010, 09:35 PM | #7 | |
Zilvia Member
|
Quote:
|
|
09-15-2010, 12:27 AM | #8 |
Post Whore!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix AZ
Age: 36
Posts: 10,287
Trader Rating: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
|
yes, it's absolutely unconstitutional. it's offensive archaic bullshit.
the military is just another business. i believe people who have served deserve respect for doing so, but, same as the police, they shouldn't be above the law. it shouldn't be an issue that we're SUGGESTING they do ignorant things. it should just be determined whether or not they do, and then we move on.
__________________
|
09-15-2010, 04:59 AM | #9 |
Zilvia Addict
|
I need help from someone that has been in. The UCMJ doesn't mean you are governed by less stringent laws. It doesn't mean you are above the law. It means you have more laws! People in the military must abide by all the US laws, the laws of the territories they are in, and the UCMJ! It is a higher standard. Not a lower standard. Military members are held to the constitution plus additional laws.
That being said I fear some of those additional laws may be found unconstituational. Service men and women forfeit several civil liberties via the UCMJ when they enlist. Alot of those laws are important to militay operation. Like I said if you take the UCMJ and its higher constraints away then sevicemen are just civilians in camoflauge. When you get mad at your boss you can tell him to fuck off and go home and only repercussions is getting fired. Picture that in a war zone. A dozen infantry engaged by opfor and they decide they've had enough and go home. How effective do you think the military would be? I don't think I need to explain the effects of revoking the article on malingering, adultery, DUI, Carnal knowledge. This country has to expect its servicemen to be held to the highest standard. What stops another judge from declaring another part of the UCMJ unconstitutional? Now DADT is different from these other laws. I can't really justify myself why it is still in place. But I stand firm on my opinion that declaring it unconstitutional is the wrong way to repeal it because it sets a dangerous precedent. And in the end the armed forces is about protecting civil liberties not enjoying them....jk |
09-15-2010, 05:12 AM | #10 | |
Zilvia Member
|
Quote:
You would not offer up an argument that just because DADT was declared unconstitutional, that the rest of the book is. Military law does have a lot more restrictions, however, they are still constitutional. Depending on whether you are in war, or training, or living on base. Just out of curiosity, what else do you think would be deemed unconstitutional based on this decision? |
|
09-15-2010, 05:28 AM | #11 |
Zilvia Addict
|
How is killing someone for insubordination on the battlefield constituational? Where's the trial? Judge? Jury?
How is docking pay/demoting for any number of civil/criminal infractions constituational? Jailing for exercising freedom of speech? Those are just a couple examples, but the UCMJ is all encompassing(even has a catch all article..134 i believe). Things that are considered constitutional for a civilian but are seen as unbecoming of a serviceman can be punished. maybe I'm ignorant to certain clauses in the constitutional but I see some gaps Entrance requirements very narrowly skirt being constitutional. The staffing computers are very much gender biased. Carrying things over from our other conversation... if you don't have a clear anatomical gender they won't even let you in. Women are held to a different physical standard than men, even if they share the same career. I haven't taken time to mull over the repercussions of removing many of the questionable parts of the UCMJ. All I know is that the US has the best(however you want to define it) armed forces in the world hands down and it has alot to do with the higher standards its members are held to. |
09-15-2010, 03:57 PM | #13 | |||||||
Zilvia Member
|
Quote:
Quote:
No one said there would be no consequences for exercising your freedom. You are not allowed to just say "Fuck" on the evening news, or you will be fined by the FCC. Again, this is a delegation of powers, by congress, to an agency. You also can not sue a previous employer for firing you on the basis of having crude language. Again though, you do, in a sense get some "due process" I would imagine (like a disciplinary board review or something). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
09-15-2010, 08:18 PM | #14 | |
Nissanaholic!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Murrieta,CA
Age: 35
Posts: 1,648
Trader Rating: (1)
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
|
Quote:
|
|
09-16-2010, 05:02 AM | #15 | |
Zilvia Member
|
Quote:
|
|
09-16-2010, 05:35 AM | #16 | ||||
Zilvia Addict
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There is a barrage of differences between the military and civilian life. I personally am just worried overall that this generation's qualms with unfairness will have more serious repercussions than foreseen(not just military, all encompassing). I appreciate the inisghts. |
||||
09-16-2010, 05:47 AM | #17 |
Nissanaholic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 2,071
Trader Rating: (9)
Feedback Score: 9 reviews
|
Who cares if gays are in the military or not?
More firepower. And if I was in a fox hole. I'd rather be in it with a gay guy who thinks I have a cute ass and will fight to keep my ass from being shot or blown up. lol (Line from a comedian, but changed a lil to my own words.) Wouldn't mind having a huge butch chick in a huge melee battle either. Watch her chuck a hadji through a wall. I still laugh that this is even a problem.
__________________
1986 Porsche 944 Turbo (951) 1995 Nissan 240sx (S14) Miss ya. |
09-16-2010, 10:12 AM | #19 | |||
Zilvia Member
|
There must be some extent of due process given though. Just an accusation will not be justified in taking someones life. Obviously, and even in the rare case, it must be investigated.
Docking pay? If you are payed less/docked more than white counterpart for no other reason than being Black. Or male/female. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
09-16-2010, 10:17 AM | #20 |
Admin Asshole
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Retired
Age: 41
Posts: 20,394
Trader Rating: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
|
bb4 96, are you in the Military yourself?
What branch? How old are you? How long have you served? Where are you stationed? The answers to these questions will decide my further comments on this topic. Thank you.
__________________
"Speak softly,..." -Pres. Teddy Roosevelt "Be polite, be professional, ..." -Gen. James Mattis |
09-16-2010, 10:29 AM | #21 |
AFC #1
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 昨晩あなたのお母さんの家
Posts: 20,181
Trader Rating: (3)
Feedback Score: 3 reviews
|
UCMJ is federal law which falls under the supreme courts jurisdiction. It only covers internal military justice matters.
125? what about 120? I don't think all those single servicemen are keeping it in their pants.
__________________
Comments should be taken as Opinions not as Statements of Fact |
09-16-2010, 10:36 AM | #22 | |
Post Whore!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix AZ
Age: 36
Posts: 10,287
Trader Rating: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
|
Quote:
you're a US citizen. we're US citizens. you are not better.
__________________
|
|
09-16-2010, 10:41 AM | #23 | |
Admin Asshole
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Retired
Age: 41
Posts: 20,394
Trader Rating: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
|
Quote:
I just want to get a feel for where his argument is coming from before I waste my time.
__________________
"Speak softly,..." -Pres. Teddy Roosevelt "Be polite, be professional, ..." -Gen. James Mattis |
|
09-16-2010, 10:45 AM | #24 | |
Post Whore!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix AZ
Age: 36
Posts: 10,287
Trader Rating: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
|
Quote:
i'm just assuming you are, because every time there's a thread criticizing the military on pretty much any forum i'm on, the military guys all act that way.
__________________
|
|
09-16-2010, 10:48 AM | #25 | |
AFC #1
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 昨晩あなたのお母さんの家
Posts: 20,181
Trader Rating: (3)
Feedback Score: 3 reviews
|
Quote:
__________________
Comments should be taken as Opinions not as Statements of Fact |
|
09-16-2010, 10:53 AM | #26 | |
Admin Asshole
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Retired
Age: 41
Posts: 20,394
Trader Rating: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
|
Quote:
It would be a waste of my time to over-explain things if it is not required. Sorry, but you're not going to fit me into your ignorant stereotype quite that easily.
__________________
"Speak softly,..." -Pres. Teddy Roosevelt "Be polite, be professional, ..." -Gen. James Mattis |
|
09-16-2010, 10:56 AM | #27 | ||
Post Whore!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix AZ
Age: 36
Posts: 10,287
Trader Rating: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
|
Quote:
Quote:
but since you ARE actually in the military, i'd like to hear your opinion anyway.
__________________
|
||
09-16-2010, 11:11 AM | #28 | |
Zilvia Member
|
Quote:
I think the op was just asking questions, not necessarily arguing. For people with little to no experience with the legal system, these type of things are extremely confusing (not that having experience helps all that much!). They are tough to explain, and even tougher to comprehend. |
|
09-16-2010, 11:17 AM | #29 | |
AFC #1
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 昨晩あなたのお母さんの家
Posts: 20,181
Trader Rating: (3)
Feedback Score: 3 reviews
|
Quote:
For people that aren't upto speed: Don't ask, don't tell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
Comments should be taken as Opinions not as Statements of Fact |
|
09-17-2010, 05:24 AM | #30 |
Zilvia Addict
|
2 tours. 2 branches. aviation mechanic. May or may not be serving presently. With my posts I'm sure you understand my vagueness.
As many classes as I've had on UCMJ, military law, etc. I hope I know at least a little bit about the way things work. My only real concern is that the standard that's been established long before my time will begin to erode because of the egg shells we're being required to walk on. DADT revoked will have repercussions and I don't how servere they will be but I do know that if its declared unconstitutional there will be no reversing it if things go poorly. I don't care about gays serving in the military but I'd want to hear about it really. I'm no more comfortable listening to a gay man's private affairs than a straight man's. I don't want to hear about any of it and now there will be nothing I can do about any of it. Because if I complain to my supervisor I'm likely to be repremanded. As far as civilians weighing in. I don't mind. I like the perspective but at the same time its like California weighing in on Arizona's thoughts on the border in a way. You saw how the first two posts in the thread went lol. I didn't realize that the general populous thinks servicemen are above the law. I fear change in the Military. I hate to see _______(insert word) sensitivity impair the military like it has the nation. I'm not so ignorant as to not see that much change has occurred in years past. I just like the idea of military being a model for the nation and not the other way around. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|