• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Picking on Barack ..............

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
........... e-mail forward from a state trooper friend!

This picture captured on the back of a Marine's jeep


untitled.jpg


I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into

prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-- Winston Churchill
untitled1.jpg
This is so good !!!
Hwy 59 at Hwy 43 - across from Marshall High School

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sign at Hutchinson, KS, 35 miles SE of Wichita


Obama's honeymoon is over !!

Would love to know the Patriot who paid for this sign!

W O W !!!


I wonder how long this will be allowed to stand?
Sign POSTED on Hwy 61, Hutchinson , Kansas ..



untitled2.jpg
E-mail and
pass this around keep it going let the countryknow that we cannotafford Obama or his CHANGE!!!
IF you don't agree, delete it!
That is "one" of the few rights we still have left.


 

mak2

Active member
Why would it matter? Don't believe in freedom of speech? Ain't derogatory anyway!

You cannot be disrespectful in any way to a superior officer. The superior officer gets to decide it is disrespectful in word or bearing or not, it has been 30 years I cannot remember the exact words. Free speech? Never been in the service, huh?
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
You cannot be disrespectful in any way to a superior officer. The superior officer gets to decide it is disrespectful in word or bearing or not, it has been 30 years I cannot remember the exact words. Free speech? Never been in the service, huh?

Surely our liberal minded president would not think that was disrespectful, that's just open thinking.
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
You cannot be disrespectful in any way to a superior officer. The superior officer gets to decide it is disrespectful in word or bearing or not, it has been 30 years I cannot remember the exact words. Free speech? Never been in the service, huh?
What exactlly is disrespectable on that billboard ? Hell he even said thanks mr president . :doh:

Brings to mind Jack Nicholsons famous words . " TRUTH !! You can't handle the truth !!! " :smile:
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
Once again , what is disrespectfull about that saying . sounds like an honest opinion to me . Just because one has served in the military does not mean they do not have a right to an opinion thats no worse then the I voted for Obama bumper stickers IMO .

Which BTW I doubt if many still exsist these days on anyones vehicles , except maybe those in the walmart parking lots . :whistling:
 

mak2

Active member
I said if he is still on active duty he will and should get an article 15. If he is out of the servicve he doesn't have a CIC unless he is married. But if u note the haircut in the mirror ii bet he is still in.
 

loboloco

Well-known member
You cannot be disrespectful in any way to a superior officer. The superior officer gets to decide it is disrespectful in word or bearing or not, it has been 30 years I cannot remember the exact words. Free speech? Never been in the service, huh?
I disgree totally Mak. First, 'disrespect' means derogatory speech to an individual, and no, the superior does not 'get to decide'. The UCMJ lays out specific categories for derogatory speech, and a sign posted on the back of a jeep reminding a civilian of the constitution and law does not qualify, irregardless of the civilians position.
 

AAUTOFAB1

Bronze Member
SUPER Site Supporter
kinda like this...No sir, in my opinion i think your being an ass, is not actually calling some one an ass just stating your opinion . all though you may end up running a few extra miles some time in the neer future...
 

mak2

Active member
I have heard this one explained by SgtMaj's and First Shirts a hundred times. Fall back and regroup Lobo. This is from the first source that pops up and states it exactly as I remember it. Language and deportment. Come on man, I remember one young Marine getting office hours for the way he said "aye, aye sir" the Marine was disrespectful in deportment, kinda like military bearing or the way a Marine behaves. Just because you dont like Obama done mean he aint Commander in Cheif. If the guy is out he can act like me and say anything he wants. I just dont care for the crude disrespect, but that is just me.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm89.htm



“Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused did or omitted certain acts or used certain language to or concerning a certain commissioned officer;

(2) That such behavior or language was directed toward that officer;

(3) That the officer toward whom the acts, omissions, or words were directed was the superior commissioned officer of the accused;

(4) That the accused then knew that the commissioned officer toward whom the acts, omissions, or words were directed was the accused’s superior commissioned officer; and

(5) That, under the circumstances, the behavior or language was disrespectful to that commissioned officer.

Explanation.

(1) Superior commissioned officer.


(a) Accused and victim in same armed force. If the accused and the victim are in the same armed force, the victim is a “superior commissioned officer” of the accused when either superior in rank or command to the accused; however, the victim is not a “superior commissioned officer”of the accused if the victim is inferior in command, even though superior in rank.

(b) Accused and victim in different armed forces. If the accused and the victim are in different armed forces, the victim is a “superior commissioned officer” of the accused when the victim is a commissioned officer and superior in the chain of command over the accused or when the victim, not a medical officer or a chaplain, is senior in grade to the accused and both are detained by a hostile entity so that recourse to the normal chain of command is prevented. The victim is not a “superior commissioned officer” of the accused merely because the victim is superior in grade to the accused.

(c) Execution of office. It is not necessary that the “superior commissioned officer” be in the execution of office at the time of the disrespectful behavior.

(2) Knowledge. If the accused did not know that the person against whom the acts or words were directed was the accused’s superior commissioned officer, the accused may not be convicted of a violation of this article. Knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(3) Disrespect. Disrespectful behavior is that which detracts from the respect due the authority and person of a superior commissioned officer. It may consist of acts or language, however expressed, and it is immaterial whether they refer to the superior as an officer or as a private individual. Disrespet by words may be conveyed by abusive epithets or other contemptuous or denunciatory language. Truth is no defense. Disrespect by acts includes neglecting the customary salute, or showing a marked disdain, indifference, insolence, impertinence, undue familiarity, or other rudeness in the presence of the superior officer. (4) Presence. It is not essential that the disrespectful behavior be in the presence of the superior, but ordinarily one should not be held accountable under this article for what was said or done in a purely private conversation.

(5) Special defense—unprotected victim. A superior commissioned officer whose conduct in relation to the accused under all the circumstances departs substantially from the required standards appropriate to that officer’s rank or position under similar circumstances loses the protection of this article. That accused may not be convicted of being disrespectful to the officer who has so lost the entitlement to respect protected by Article 89.

Lesser included offenses.

(1) Article 117—provoking speeches or gestures

(2) Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment.

Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

Next Article> Article 90-Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer >

Above Information from Manual for Court Martial, 2002, Chapter 4, Paragraph 13
 

mak2

Active member
kinda like this...No sir, in my opinion i think your being an ass, is not actually calling some one an ass just stating your opinion . all though you may end up running a few extra miles some time in the neer future...

You're kidding, right?
 

AAUTOFAB1

Bronze Member
SUPER Site Supporter
just a different way of looking at it .. the jeep did not state any thing directly at the president. the consequences of stating your opinion may be more severe than that in the service ,i don't know,i don't think id try it.:ermm:
 

loboloco

Well-known member
a) the President is not 'in the Armed Forces'.
b) Under other sections of the UCMJ, and depending on how it is done, you can call an officer " a cowardly piece of crap" and then have the legal right to shoot him. Pusillanimous conduct in the face of the enemy, for example. Yes, I spent 21 years in the Army. Stood a Court once for just the above, and was exonerated. I know the limits, and that particular sign does not cross it.
However, if he had called him a socialist S>O>B, he could be court martialed, as calling him an S>O>B would be derogatory.
 

AAUTOFAB1

Bronze Member
SUPER Site Supporter
as you can guess ....no, and being a civilian i don't understand why some things are the way they are, i ment no disrepect,but i do understand the structure needed to run things as smooth as posible,just trying to under stand.
 

mak2

Active member
a) the President is not 'in the Armed Forces'.
b) Under other sections of the UCMJ, and depending on how it is done, you can call an officer " a cowardly piece of crap" and then have the legal right to shoot him. Pusillanimous conduct in the face of the enemy, for example. Yes, I spent 21 years in the Army. Stood a Court once for just the above, and was exonerated. I know the limits, and that particular sign does not cross it.
However, if he had called him a socialist S>O>B, he could be court martialed, as calling him an S>O>B would be derogatory.

That is true you can be disrespectful to a superior officer, but the circumstances have to be a hill to die on, cause usually you will. Last time I disagreed with you about something I just didnt understand what you were trying to say, so I will make sure I understand this time. The young Marine with a derogatory statement on the back of his vehicle, about his Commander in Cheif, would be, by any reasonable persons definition, being disrespectful to a superior officer( which the CIC is). What part of this are you disagreeing with?
 

mak2

Active member
as you can guess ....no, and being a civilian i don't understand why some things are the way they are, i ment no disrepect,but i do understand the structure needed to run things as smooth as posible,just trying to under stand.

That is ok, it is kinda hard to understand unless you go to boot camp. I really did not mean to be nasty with you. Sorry.
 

loboloco

Well-known member
AAUTO, basically, an enlisted or officer is allowed to have and express a political opinion as long as he does not advocate refusing orders or participates in 'public events' detrimental to good discipline. In other words, as long as any comment are addressed to the Presidency in general, and not the CIC, he can say whatever he wants, as long as he does not cross the detrimental line. Since the sign expressed an opinion of his civilian performance it would be allowable.
If it had directly insulted the President, as in calling him a derogatory name, it would have been actionable.
Also, the spouse of an officer or enlisted has no restrictions placed on their freedoms of speech.
The problem with any action against the marine would be that they would have to show detriment to discipline rather than an attempt to limit free speech, and that the marine rather than a spouse had installed or written the sign.
 

loboloco

Well-known member
That is true you can be disrespectful to a superior officer, but the circumstances have to be a hill to die on, cause usually you will. Last time I disagreed with you about something I just didnt understand what you were trying to say, so I will make sure I understand this time. The young Marine with a derogatory statement on the back of his vehicle, about his Commander in Cheif, would be, by any reasonable persons definition, being disrespectful to a superior officer( which the CIC is). What part of this are you disagreeing with?
First, it is not derogatory to the CIC, it is addressed to the President, and is a statement on his demeanor in the 'civilian' office. That is legal under UCMJ. Especially since it is not derogatory, just a statement of personal belief.
 

AAUTOFAB1

Bronze Member
SUPER Site Supporter
That is ok, it is kinda hard to understand unless you go to boot camp. I really did not mean to be nasty with you. Sorry.

Its cool, if i was ever drafted i would try to be the best that i could be and would serve as long as needed,i have the utmost respect for the men and women that have allowed me to live free in this great country and i would like to say thanks to all that have served:flowers:
 

mak2

Active member
OK. Ithink you are wrong but I was never in an Office Hours or a Courts Martial with that exact circumstance. But I bet he would get busted.
 

loboloco

Well-known member
OK. Ithink you are wrong but I was never in an Office Hours or a Courts Martial with that exact circumstance. But I bet he would get busted.
Mak, if I were his NCOIC, I would have him remove it while on post or in uniform. But, given the changes that have occurred in the military since I joined, and the time I retired, I doubt very much anything would, or even could, be done to him.
I served during Clinton's time in office, and it was actually very hard for units other than the Presidential Guard to find soldiers who would willingly provide honor guards or greeting committees for him. Only twice were actions taken against officers or enlisted because of actions, not comments, that were considered detrimental to discipline. Don't know about the jarheads, they are a totally different proposition, but the UCMJ is applicable across all branches.
Oh, out of curiosity, I ran this one past my brother, who was Judge Advocate for a division for a time. He thought this would be unactionable, because of the way it was worded.
 
Top