Lejeune worker sues over car ban

[JohnP]

Lejeune worker sues over car ban (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...otest_111808w/)


JACKSONVILLE, N.C. — Jesse Nieto doesn’t wear his emotions on his sleeve.

Instead, the retired gunnery sergeant uses car decals to express his contempt for the terrorists who killed his son, Engineman 2nd Class Marc Ian Nieto, along with 16 other sailors in the Oct. 12, 2000, attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen.

But the stickers maligning Islamic terrorism, which have adorned Nieto’s car for more than seven years, were recently deemed “offensive material” under a base order at Camp Lejeune, N.C., where he has worked in the Electrical Distribution Shop since 1994.

Military police removed some of the stickers in August, before the base magistrate ordered Nieto to remove the rest. The former infantryman, who served two tours in Vietnam, refused and now he is contesting the order’s legality in federal court.

Claiming a violation of his First and Fifth Amendment rights, Nieto is suing Lejeune’s commander, Col. Richard Flatau, and the base magistrate, Lt. Col. James Hessen. The complaint was filed Nov. 10 in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina.

On the advice of his attorneys, Nieto declined to speak with Marine Corps Times, although he did allow his maroon Scion XB — with its remaining stickers — to be photographed.

The base order prohibits vehicles from displaying extremist, indecent, sexist or racist messages. Nieto’s ride, which sports a North Carolina license plate reading “USS-COLE,” featured some doozies: “Islam = Terrorism,” “Disgrace my country’s flag and I will sh-- on your Quran,” and an image of the popular cartoon character Calvin urinating on a Muslim.

Base MPs, who had written Nieto a traffic ticket for displaying “offensive material,” peeled those off his car Aug. 1. Two weeks later, Hessen ordered Nieto to remove the rest, according to the complaint filed by Nieto’s attorneys.

When he refused, Hessen issued a written order banning Nieto’s vehicle from all federal installations until the stickers are removed. Now he cannot drive his Scion onto Lejeune — or Arlington National Cemetery, where his son is buried.

Lejeune’s Equal Employment Opportunity office received “several third party complaints” about Nieto’s decals in July, base spokesman Maj. Nat Fahy said in a written statement.

“While he did remove several offensive stickers ... he refused to remove all of the offending stickers,” Fahy said. “At no time has Mr. Nieto been personally banned from his place of employment. It is important to note that prior to having his stickers removed, Mr. Nieto had ample opportunity to remedy the situation on his own and [was] given an opportunity to be heard in three formal administrative venues.

“While the commanding officer does not govern the activities of base employees once they leave the installation, he does have the responsibility and authority to promulgate policies and enforce good order and discipline for anyone living and working aboard Camp Lejeune.”

Nieto’s lawyers argue there are no objective criteria for determining what is offensive, giving Lejeune officials “unbridled discretion to determine which political viewpoints are permitted and which are prohibited,” according to the complaint.

They’ve documented other vehicles on base with stickers or decals that could be considered offensive, including an image of the Confederate flag with the words “If this offends you … you need a history lesson.” Another reads “When ya’ have ’em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow,” and brass testicles hanging from trailer hitches.

“There’s a constitutional issue involved here,” said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which is representing Nieto. “Why are they picking on the stickers that were on Mr. Nieto’s car when there are all kinds of offensive stickers on cars all over that base? This is not a content-neutral policy that the base is enforcing. It’s allowing certain stickers on vehicles, but disallowing other stickers, depending on what the message is.”

Nieto’s attorneys filed a Freedom of Information Act request asking, in part, whether the base order had been enforced against anyone else there within the past five years. The answer was “no.”

“It’s a First Amendment issue and it’s equal protection under the laws,” Thompson said. “If his stickers are offensive, why not the ‘Marine Corps Hymn,’ which celebrates the Marine victory over Islamic forces in the Barbary Coast War and the Battle of Derne?”

Most of the stickers that remain on Nieto’s Scion are tame compared with those removed by the base MPs. The rear windshield, for example, features two Eagle, Globe and Anchor logos, a Combat Action Ribbon, a “Remember the Cole” tribute and a Gold Star flag.

Dead center, however, is a large Islamic symbol, circled with a red slash through it. “We died. They Rejoiced,” it reads.

For now, Nieto drives his wife’s car to work.

I got this from the Marine Corps times and also found it on the Military forum in the Air Force Times on line. I thought it worthy of discussion on this little site.

So what do you think? Should there be a ban on bumper stickers on military bases? By banning bumber stickers, does that violate Freedom of Speech?

Comments?

[HairyEyeball]

Since you ask, I think Col. Flatulent might benefit from some old-fashioned 'wall to wall counseling': Obviously his head and @$$ are no longer wired together. I also think that the M.P.s who vandalized his vehicle - and whomever gave/passed the order - should be formally prosecuted under Articles 109 and 134 for vandalism and criminal mischief.

There may, somewhere in the vastness of the universe, actually exist a proper venue for 'political correctness' (although I gravely doubt it). The heart of a warfighting establishment is not that venue.

[03_SHOOTER]

:devil:W.T.F. OVER?!?!?!?!!??:devil:

Has the Commander of Camp Lejune, the Base Magistrate, the MP's, and everyone else involved in this abortion completely lost their minds, and forgotten, if they ever even knew, that their respective Oaths of Office compel them to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States...", including the First Amendment, regardless of whether they like it or not?????

Given that the terms "offensive", "extremist", "indecent", "sexist" and "racist" are completely subjective, and totally dependent upon the mindset of the one viewing them, ANY such order is unlawful on it's face. As Justice Stewart said in Jacobellis v Ohio, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it,... in this case is not that." Now, if the Supreme Court of the United States cannot come to a consensus on what the term "pornography" means, what insurmountable degree of hubris and arrogance must the Commander of Camp Lejune possess to believe that he is capable of making the determination as to what "offensive", "extremist", "indecent", "sexist" and "racist" are??

I would also like to discover under exactly what regulation the MP's are authorized to engage in the destruction of private property, on non-military personnels POV's, and under what authority did the Base Magistrate order the further destruction of personal property on the aforementioned POV? Also, under what authority did the Base Magistrate issue an order effecting every other military installation in the United States? Are we to assume that each and every Base Magistrate has the authority to issue rulings concerning every other base in the DoD, without consulting with those individual bases Magistrates??

Oh, and the base EEOC office received several complaints about his car? And exactly who were the individual who made these complaints, and exactly how far were their heads SHOVED UP THEIR FOURTH POINTS OF CONTACT??? Are we to believe that the United States Marine Corp is now so "PC" that they are unaware that we are at WAR with islamofascist extremists, or are we to believe that given the deafening silence from the rest of the "peace loving" Islamic community relating to the wanton acts of terrorism being planned and executed by their "Mosque mates", that the rest of us are not supposed to not take note of the fact that the singular common thread these terrorists share with the rest of the "peace loving" Muslim society is the fact that they all pray to a LYING, CHEATING, THIEVING, PEDERAST, RAPIST, PEDOPHILE, and MURDERER (P.B.O.H.)? :devil: Whatever happened to Marines "happily wading waist deep through the blood and guts of our enemies while singing jaunty songs"? Do they even exist any longer, or has the Corps become systemically infected with the same sort of individual I referenced in another thread?

HAIRY!!! I believe it's LONG past time you made a trip back East, and gave some of these young Marines a LONG overdue education is "old school", because it sounds like a LOT of somebodies down there need a hard swift kick to their brain housing groups with a size 12 jump boot being worn by someone who knows how to properly administer the aforementioned kicking!!

[DaveIn3D]

Whatever happened to Marines "happily wading waist deep through the blood and guts of our enemies while singing jaunty songs"? Do they even exist any longer, or has the Corps become systemically infected with the same sort of individual I referenced in another thread?

HAIRY!!! I believe it's LONG past time you made a trip back East, and gave some of these young Marines a LONG overdue education is "old school", because it sounds like a LOT of somebodies down there need a hard swift kick to their brain housing groups with a size 12 jump boot being worn by someone who knows how to properly administer the aforementioned kicking!!

I take offense to those comments.

All this crap can be summed up with this :

"While the men are away, the paper pushers play."

There is no infection in the Corps. There might be a slight red mark but that is it. Lumping all Marines in the same boat as this jackass is a bad move on your part. Marines STILL happily wade waist deep in blood and guts and still sing jaunty songs commemorating the situation. We are still the most feared group of men on the planet. I got a size 12 boot for your 4th point for even suggesting my beloved Corps has a systematic infection.

And sending Hairy TAD out east to kick some butts into gear would be a bad idea. First..if you are not willing to do it yourself, dont volunteer someone else. Second..Marines are as highly trained as we have ever been in the entire history of the Corps. You dont need a drill instructor pounding some recruits face in to make him/her a good Marine. Striking recruits is not allowed not only because 'Mothers of America' doesnt like it. It is not allowed because it has been shown to be an ineffective technique for training.

Now if you want to send a delegation to Quantico and discuss the finer points of military instruction to officer candidates, then by all means, do so. I am sure your extensive experience in these areas would be well accepted by the cadre there. You can express to them your displeasure at the product they are producing. You can tell them about all the high quality, war fighting officers produced by the Air Force who would never think of putting P.C. before their troops.

I understand where you are trying to go with your comments, but you need to word them better. It sounds like you are trying to say all Marines are like that officer. I seriously hope that is not the case.


-3D

[03_SHOOTER]

I take offense to those comments.

All this crap can be summed up with this :

"While the men are away, the paper pushers play."

There is no infection in the Corps. There might be a slight red mark but that is it. Lumping all Marines in the same boat as this jackass is a bad move on your part. Marines STILL happily wade waist deep in blood and guts and still sing jaunty songs commemorating the situation. We are still the most feared group of men on the planet. I got a size 12 boot for your 4th point for even suggesting my beloved Corps has a systematic infection.

Dave, when one of the two Basic Schools for Marines has the infection, it cannot help but spread to the rest of the Corps. It's that whole "logic" thing, you know, where "A" is followed by "B", which is followed by "C", so if you take "offense" at my comments, you are more than welcome to try to put a size 12 boot up my fourth point of contact. You won't be the first to try (as JohnP can attest), and I doubt you'll be the last. Just be sure to bring a ladder, some help, your chow, and plan to stay ALL day, and into the night.

And sending Hairy TAD out east to kick some butts into gear would be a bad idea. First..if you are not willing to do it yourself, dont volunteer someone else. Second..Marines are as highly trained as we have ever been in the entire history of the Corps. You dont need a drill instructor pounding some recruits face in to make him/her a good Marine. Striking recruits is not allowed not only because 'Mothers of America' doesnt like it. It is not allowed because it has been shown to be an ineffective technique for training.

I'm not sending Hairy because I'm not willing to do it, I just didn't think it would do much for Marine Esprit de Corps to have their A$$ ripped off and handed to them by an old SAC troop! Some things are better handled by one of YOUR OWN. As for your "smacking the troops around isn't effective" canard, I have a question for you, HOW THE **** WOULD YOU KNOW? Have YOU been in the Service for more than 30 years? It seemed to be pretty damned effective for over 200 years until the "touchy-feely" let's all sit around in a circle (jerk), holding each other and singing Kumbya crap got started.

Now if you want to send a delegation to Quantico and discuss the finer points of military instruction to officer candidates, then by all means, do so. I am sure your extensive experience in these areas would be well accepted by the cadre there. You can express to them your displeasure at the product they are producing. You can tell them about all the high quality, war fighting officers produced by the Air Force who would never think of putting P.C. before their troops.

The only way I'm even the slightest bit interested in "expressing my displeasure" with them is by smacking them upside the suck hole and TELLING them to extricate their craniums from their fourth point of contact!

I understand where you are trying to go with your comments, but you need to word them better. It sounds like you are trying to say all Marines are like that officer. I seriously hope that is not the case.


-3D

Well it's unfortunate that your "PC" sensibilities have been offended by this mean old SAC troop, and to be honest, the unfortunate thing is that an old SAC troop COULD "offend" a Marine, but more importantly what I want to know is why aren't YOU "offended" by this Officers actions, or haven't you read the Constitution lately?

[PhilK]

Just to add fuel to the fire...

Here is the Ft. Hood policy letter on "Use of Indecent and Offensive Language"

http://www.hood.army.mil/policies/SJA-02.pdf

Although vague in many areas, if it was to be enforced...you would have a similar situation as above.

[03_SHOOTER]

Just to add fuel to the fire...

Here is the Ft. Hood policy letter on "Use of Indecent and Offensive Language"

http://www.hood.army.mil/policies/SJA-02.pdf

Although vague in many areas, if it was to be enforced...you would have a similar situation as above.

Well, I guess it IS systemic after all, NOBODY has read the Constitution, or understood what it MEANS! :devil:

[wukong]

Gunnery Sergeant Jesse Nieto is wrong and he will lose this indecent quest.


Colonel Richard Flatau is not only well within his authority but he is doing the right thing for the integrity of the Marine Corp and the entire US Defense establishment

Nieto’s ride, which sports a North Carolina license plate reading “USS-COLE,” featured some doozies: “Islam = Terrorism,” “Disgrace my country’s flag and I will sh-- on your Quran,” and an image of the popular cartoon character Calvin urinating on a Muslim.

I would bet that there are many Marines at Lejeune that are Muslims by faith as well as service members of our sister services. Neither Col. Flatau or the DOD can allow this type of behavior on our military installations. This is not a First Amendment issue but a matter of military discipline. Nieto has a right to his opinion and can sport it all he wishes in a civil setting. He does not have the right to insult other Marines or service members on US military installations.

[03_SHOOTER]

Gunnery Sergeant Jesse Nieto is wrong and he will lose this indecent quest.


Colonel Richard Flatau is not only well within his authority but he is doing the right thing for the integrity of the Marine Corp and the entire US Defense establishment



I would bet that there are many Marines at Lejeune that are Muslims by faith as well as service members of our sister services. Neither Col. Flatau or the DOD can allow this type of behavior on our military installations. This is not a First Amendment issue but a matter of military discipline. Nieto has a right to his opinion and can sport it all he wishes in a civil setting. He does not have the right to insult other Marines or service members on US military installations.

Sorry to disagree Wukong, but you've overlooked the most salient aspect of this story, the good Gunny is RETIRED, and it is that fact that makes it a First Amendment issue! The Commander may well have been within his rights to ban any vehicle from the post displaying "offensive" stickers, but the fact that he has failed to do so in any other cases, and the fact that he authorized the MP's to destroy the private property of a "civilian" once it had already been allowed on the installation is flat out WRONG! If there is going to be a 'standard', it must be an unambiguous standard, and the fact that he has allowed Confederate Flag stickers on the post, especially given the large number of Blacks in the Corps today, and the fact that the regulation had not been utilized at any time in the past 5 years simply screams "apologist".

Also, the bit about offending Muslims on base is a canard of the worst sort. Where was all the hue and cry about offending devout teetotaler Christians and Jews for the past 200 years by allowing drinking, smoking, cursing, and using the Lord's name in vein on military installations? Where was the concern about offending German and Italian Americans during WWII when every troop was calling them "Krauts" and "Wops", including the ones in their own units?

Simply put, all of this drivel about "offending" Muslims is nothing but mental gymnastics and apologist non-sense brought on by the leftist defeatists who are all the way through the looking glass, and they're trying to drag the rest of the nation along with them.

When the day comes that our military is populated solely with "PC", "non-offensive" troops is the day that the French will KICK OUR ASS! Is that what you REALLY want?

EDIT: Oh, and one other thing, with the possible exceptions of transmitting classified information, or being disrespectful to a superior, exactly how is the Constitution in any way incompatable with "Good Order and Discipline"? We all understand that while we are in uniform, that we do give up some small portion of our Rights in the interest of "Good Order and Discipline", but that does not mean, in any way, that we surrender ALL of them, including the Freedom of Speech, and once we're NOLOAD we are no longer under any restrictions.

[DaveIn3D]

http://ramblingbob.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/marine-corps-drill-instructors-abuse/

ABUSE BY DRILL INSTRUCTORS

Along about July I was called to my attention that several drill instructors were to stand court marshall for abusing recruits. Since my grandson had just went active in July I have followed the case as closely as possible. In last Sundays paper a small article appeared in which the verdict of one Sgt. was relieved and the findings of the second told.

A Sgt. Jarrod Glass had been found guilty of striking recruits with a tent pole and a heavy flashlight, he also forced one recruit to jump into a trash can head first then pushed him farther into the can.

His verdict was eight counts of cruelty and maltreatment of recruits, destruction of personal property, assault and violating orders on how to properly treat recruits.

Sgt. Glass was sentenced to six months in the brig, a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and reduction in rank to private.

A second Sgt. Brian Wendel was found not guilty of abuse but convicted of failing to report abuses committed by others. He was also found guilty of drinking beer in the drill instructors offices while off duty.

He faces a maximum sentence of a year in the brig, a dishonorable discharge and reduction in rank to private. His sentence was to have imposed this last Monday, but I have not seen any thing further in the paper.

A third Sgt. is awaiting charges and court marshal.

When I was first made aware of these charges in July the news paper article stated that a Marine Corps source stated that a average of six abuse cases are investigated each year. The source also stated that every effort is made to weed out these abusive Drill Instructors, as these Kids are at their mercy and are trained t view these men as gods, and are powerless when faced with this type of behavior.

Now here is where I have my gripe, I visit several web sites that are Marine Corps related. Every time something like this surfaces, there are always a few individuals who rush in and scream WHAT ARE THEY DOING TO MY CORPS? the mothers of America are ruining the Corps by interfering with the Marine Corps Boot Camp. back in my day we——.

Crap back in my day 50+ years ago you could not beat the hell out of a recruit then without discipline. Any action that places a young man at risk for injury is not allowed. A damaged recruit is of no use to anyone. Sure we were pushed to the limit and then past it but we were not hurt.

The other thing I often see is, keep these damn civilians out of the Marine Corps workings. These Sgt.s were tried by a Marine Corps Court Marshal convened and juried by Marine Corps Officers who know Marine Corps Law. There is no civilian interface involved.

I was just over on one of my favorite sites tonight and read a article by a man who just attended his grandsons graduation from boot camp in San Diego and he was decrying how easy his grandson had it in boot camp and whether they were turning out Marines as good as in his day fifty years ago. He needs to sit down with his grandson and learn what he has absorbed in his thirteen weeks of training. It was a eye opener for me I too felt that boot camp was softer than in MY DAY. A term the old guys like to use. My grandson learned more in his thirteen weeks than I ever did. their first-aid training is out standing and they ran farther than we did and Lord we did not even have any hand-to-hand teaching at all they had forty hours of it.

No it is right that we give these kids to protection they need, we are not making boot camp soft by weeding out abusers. In every organization there are abusers, be it Police, or any area of authority there are some bad apples even in marriage. Hell look it it we are afraid to let our children walk down the street any more. So when we send our young people off to train to defend our country we need to know that we are trusting them ot people of high quality and trust. Do not get me wrong I hold the Marine Corps Drill Instructor in high regard. Hell a couple I know had a hand in making me the man I am today. Their job is hard and demanding and they often are hated but the respect that a Marine has for his Instructor later in life if legendary.



You can find testimonials like these all over the net. Being rough with recruits in the course of training is one thing. Beating your recruits is another. To put it best...'beating a recruit in the face with a flashlight is not the same as training him to handle an AK to the face.' This issue isnt PC. This issue is common sense. The Marines do not have 200 years of experience roughing up recruits. They have 200 years experience training young men to be killers. The recruit depots werent even around until about 95 years ago. Before then, Marines were trained locally and to the varying standards of their parent units.

I have had the pleasure of attending two boot camps. My father has attended navy boot camp and army boot camp. My brother is coast guard. My grandfather was a corpsman in Korea and his older brother was a Marine at Iwo Jima. My family and myself have had extensive experience with the military. You can take that 30 years crap and shove it. My great uncle was not abused in boot. Before he died last year, he told my father that he was surprised his "candy-ass, chair force son made it through the 'new' Parris island." He said that the new boot challenged recruits more than he had ever been challenged and he was was being sent to war immediatly after training.

Discipline is enforced by physical pain. You do not need to hit someone to achieve that. Having someone pick up a full footlocker and hold it in front of them at a half squat is how you instill discipline through pain. The DI's at both MCRDs are well versed in the art.

Also, I am personally offended by what the Commander in question did. But when you are on base you are subject to his whims and he felt like he had to do something. I dont really agree with what he did or how he did it but he was within his right to do it. The civilian was on his base which means that civilian is subject to his rules.

I am not usually offended by missile babysitters like yourself, but you took a shot at my fellow Marines. I take strong offense to anyone who would dare question the actions of this Brotherhood of war. The balloon went up and you missed it. Dont take your anger out on these warriors.

-3D

[03_SHOOTER]

And that has precisely WHAT to do with the Commander of MCRD Camp Lejune violating the First Amendment Rights of a retiree?

Come on Dave, get with the program here, and leave your Red Herrings for the "kiddie pool".

[03_SHOOTER]

Now, getting back to the original topic, and given the information offered by another member in another thread (thanks fjer), according to DoD Directive 1344.10, 4.1.1.8 (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf), the application of political bumper stickers on a POV is perfectly acceptable, and in my opinion, the Gunny (Ret.) is merely expressing his POLITICAL opinion as it relates to our enemy.

[JohnP]

I'll give you one more for the road,

I was in a part of the world where the two way rifle range was in effect but you're not allowed to talk about it. I was with a group of zoomies atop this hill, surrounding a radar site when we starting receiving fmj insects striking our surrounding bunkers. I spotted a likely target, and attempted to place several rounds of 5.56 into the center mass. After the 3rd shot and the target had not dropped, I announced, with much dismay, "Why won't this C**k-S****r go down?" A well placed 40mm solved my problem for me. When we had returned to garrison, I was presented with an Article 15 for using vulgar language around an AF E-8! This bean counter happened to be on the site when the incident went down and was near my position when I made my declaration and he had overheard me. (Mind you, at times of stress I do get a little loud.) He said that it was unprofessional for anyone to cuss in a combat zone and more especially around women. (Yes, to the little hand raised in the back of the room, there were women present and more importantly, they, too, were putting lead downrange.)
My boss made the paperwork disappear, but the singularity of this incident struck me like a slap in the face. Perception. It is not that what I did was right or wrong in my eyes, it was how it was perceived in the eyes of someone else.
Anyone who knows me will tell you that I'm not a tree-hugging, hold hands in the showers till the wee hours of the morning type of guy. But the perception of this bumper sticker incident raises some valid questions:
Did the base commander act appropriately? In his opinion, he was attempting to defuse a situation before it happened.
Did the MPs act accordingly? They were following orders; albeit, orders that should have been questioned and done under written protest to save them from their own hot water.
Should all bumper stickers come under scrutiny? It should, otherwise you place yourself under even more scrutiny with opportunities for a civil liberties suit.
I have a good friend in Dallas, who is a litigation lawyer, when I emailed him this incident; he wished that this would've happened in TX. This way he could pay for his new house in Boca.
The notice brought into play by my esteemed colleague from Austin is the way this should've been handled. If one can't play with the ball, nobody plays with the ball.

[DaveIn3D]

Camp Lejeune. MCRD Parris Island and MCRD San Diego. I think those are the places you are thinking of o3. I have never heard of MCRD Camp Lejune. But I would expect nothing less of you.

JohnP summed it all up best. The base commander might be a tree-huggin, paper pushin', bleeding heart lib, but he had the right and the authority to do what he did. I think maybe he picked on a soft target though. Telling a retiree to take down some not so very nice stickers is easy. Enforcing the rule to include all 'potentially inflammatory' bumper stickers would be hard. Can you imagine (well i guess o3 cant..) going into 10th MARINES and telling the gun bunnies that everyone with a confederate flag sticker has to remove it? How do you think that would fly at one of the Infantry Companies? This guy took the easy way out. He should be an wing or group commander at Lackland and not a base commander of the Marines.

WWCD?

-3D

[03_SHOOTER]

Camp Lejeune. MCRD Parris Island and MCRD San Diego. I think those are the places you are thinking of o3. I have never heard of MCRD Camp Lejune. But I would expect nothing less of you.

I happily stand corrected, and will not repeat the error.

JohnP summed it all up best. The base commander might be a tree-huggin, paper pushin', bleeding heart lib, but he had the right and the authority to do what he did.

The authority yes, the 'right', I still don't believe so, but that will be borne out by the results of the lawsuit.

I think maybe he picked on a soft target though. Telling a retiree to take down some not so very nice stickers is easy.

That sir, is an understatement, or at least he thought that he was picking on a "soft target".

Enforcing the rule to include all 'potentially inflammatory' bumper stickers would be hard. Can you imagine (well i guess o3 cant..) going into 10th MARINES and telling the gun bunnies that everyone with a confederate flag sticker has to remove it? How do you think that would fly at one of the Infantry Companies? This guy took the easy way out.

Not only can I not imagine it, even if the same 'order' had been issued to me, I not only would have objected on the grounds that I believed the order to be unlawful, and demanded that it be put in writing, and witnessed by at least one other Officer and 2 SNCO's, with a copy put in my 201 file, but I would have kept the original secured in my bank safety deposit box, and a copy on my person while complying with it, and shown it to anyone and everyone I transmitted the order to so that they would know exactly who the Mongolian Clusterf*** was that issued it so that they could direct their ire in an appropriate direction.

He should be an wing or group commander at Lackland and not a base commander of the Marines.

If it were up to me, I wouldn't allow him to be in command of a group of Girl Scouts!

[JohnP]

If it were up to me, I wouldn't allow him to be in command of a group of Girl Scouts!

Finally a military unit to be proud of!

3D - Have you made it up to the NTA? I spent 6 months up there as an instructor. I miss that place....

Enough of the flash back; - '03 I think you pointed it out nicely, retired Gunnys are not soft targets. I'm just aghast that he hasn't personally, placed his size 12 in someone's 4th point.

Marine question - What is the plural of Gunny? My spell check drew a blank.

[03_SHOOTER]

Thanks JohnP.

Ok, here's the crux of the problem. The first five words of the Bill of Rights are "Congress shall make no law...", and one of those things that Congress is prohibited from making any laws about is our freedom of speech. As Congress is the only Constitutionally authorized body with the clearly enumerated power to "make all laws", either Congress has once again engaged in a very clear violation of the Constitution by allowing the Commander of Camp Lejune to issue such an order, or he has taken it upon himself to abrogate a right that is clearly authorized ONLY to the Congress, but whatever the case, either under duress, or of his own free will, he engaged in a clearly unconstitutional action.

Now, most of us are at least vaguely aware of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famous (or infamous depending on your point of view) statement that freedom of speech does not extend to someone "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing a panic", and at first this may sound a bit presumptuous of me, especially considering that I don't even play an attorney on television, and Justice Holmes was a very experienced jurist, but the fact remains that he and the rest of the court were WRONG. Now, before you all get out your torches and scythes you should also be aware that Holmes's decision was heavily modified in Brandenburg v Ohio 395 US 444 (1969) in which the "fighting words" condition was applied. In essence, unless the verbiage used presents a very clear and present danger of inciting "imminent lawless action" the freedom of speech is sacrosanct, and while this decision is much closer to the Founding Fathers original meaning of "freedom of speech", not unlike the recent decision in Heller, it still fails to completely meet the very clear verbiage used in the First Amendment, and thus I am left at a loss to explain what is so difficult to comprehend about "Congress shall make no law...", that the Congress, and the courts, cannot seem to comprehend that very simple concept.

To put this in the simplest terms possible, nobody has the right to, in any way, infringe on anybody else's freedom of speech, to any degree. It doesn't matter how "offensive", "vulgar", "extremist", "indecent", "sexist" and "racist" that speech may be. Most of us voluntarily stood up and swore an Oath to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States...", and whether we be Active Duty, Reserves, National Guard, Retired, or NOLOAD, and unless something has changed in the quarter of a century since I went NOLOAD, we are all still bound by that Oath, and as such it is our duty to stand up and defend, whether we like it or not, or whether we agree with it or not, the very speech of any American though we most vehemently disagree with that speech, even when that speech is coming from our most ardent enemy, because if we refuse to do so, or engage in sophistry and prevarication to shirk that duty, then we ourselves have no expectation of our Rights being defended.

If we as a nation decide that "offensive", "vulgar", "extremist", "indecent", "sexist", or "racist" speech can no longer be tolerated, then there is a very simple way of addressing that without subverting the Constitution, and that method is very clearly addressed in Article V of the Constitution, it's called an AMENDMENT, but until such time as such an Amendment is ratified by a 3/4 majority of the States, nowhere in the Constitution does it permit a "Saxbe fix", or say that it's alright to infringe on the freedom of speech if it presents an "imminent lawless action", instead it clearly states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...", and as such, everyone involved in this debacle is in clear violation of the Constitution.

[PhilK]

But the person in question did not violate a "law" they violated a "policy" which usually does not have the same implications.

Break a law, and you commit a crime, get charged, do time, etc.

Break a policy and you have some sort of sanctions brought against you, but you are never charged with a crime.

Am I splitting hairs? Sure. But a law is a law while a policy is "guidelines"...usually.

Go back and read the policy letter from Ft. Hood. Notice that at which point the Soldier would fall under the UCMJ. (Only after he was ordered to be silent.)

And only as a last resort were civilians on post threatened with legal action.

No one is arresting Nieto, no one is charging him with breaking a law. The post commander is simply enforcing a post policy.

Also, as a civilian employee on that post, Mr. Nieto should be aware that he falls under all post policies that refer to post employees whether he wears a uniform or not.

[wukong]

PhilK, you are 100% right. Mr. Nieto is not being denied any rights that he may constitutionally enjoy. A military facility commander is not only well in his legal right but is obligated to maintain good order and discipline within the post of his responsibility. I find the displays offensive as a Christian.

Also Mr. Nieto is not being denied the opportunity to visit his son's grave. He can visit the "stolen property" as often as he wishes as long as the conducts himself with proper decorum. He is only being denied the privilege of making an ass of himself to the detriment of other service members on military controlled property.

[JohnP]

I find the displays offensive as a Christian.

We again fall back on my favorite word, "Perception."

Having served as an advisor in the Sand Box prior to the first Gulf War, then serving in the line during the aforementioned contest, I can for a fact state, I never met a rag head that I liked. I personally see no problem with these or any other bumper stickers which take shots at our current enemy. Given an opportunity, I would not have a problem with turning that entire area into a glass parking lot.

Having said that, I am a Christian too, Wukong, having spent more time there than I care to remember; They have no problems in protesting our actions, burning our flag, and restricting our access to practice our religion openly. In the unit that I was assigned to "train,” I was not allowed to wear, carry, or display anything of a religious nature because it was against the Koran. I was not allowed to engage in verbal debate that had to do with anything derogatory with the Muslim beliefs, and don't even say the word "Jew." That would send them into a gun shooting tizzy. I spent 2 days in the desert, without support, because they "suspected" I might be a supporter of Israel.

I still have friends in the sand box, I have a close friend preparing to deploy again for the 5th time. I even have buddies over there that are contractors. They have no problems announcing their displeasure of that group and would happily stand up and support Gunny Nieto.

As the gentleman from Austin correctly pointed out, it is against a base regulation to display inflammatory items, but we still have a problem. How come no one else has been treated with the same disdain? How come there have been no other incidents called in to the base PIO? Can this one person on this whole camp be the only one with derogatory or “off-color” bumper stickers? Why is it that in the last 5 years, no other person has been cited, disciplined or had their bumper stickers removed? I see this as not a case of someone not following this regulation; I see this as a case of personal prejudice against Gunny Nieto.

“But then again, this is just my opinion. I may be wrong.” – Dennis Miller

[03_SHOOTER]

But the person in question did not violate a "law" they violated a "policy" which usually does not have the same implications.

Break a law, and you commit a crime, get charged, do time, etc.

Break a policy and you have some sort of sanctions brought against you, but you are never charged with a crime.

Am I splitting hairs? Sure. But a law is a law while a policy is "guidelines"...usually.

Go back and read the policy letter from Ft. Hood. Notice that at which point the Soldier would fall under the UCMJ. (Only after he was ordered to be silent.)

And only as a last resort were civilians on post threatened with legal action.

No one is arresting Nieto, no one is charging him with breaking a law. The post commander is simply enforcing a post policy.

Also, as a civilian employee on that post, Mr. Nieto should be aware that he falls under all post policies that refer to post employees whether he wears a uniform or not.

Gentlemen, with all due respect, any "rule", "policy", "guideline", or anything else you care to call it that in any can way carries any sanction whatever against an individual is a de facto law, whether it be criminal law or civil law, and as such, it's authority must be grounded in the Constitution by having originally been passed by Congress and signed into Law by POTUS. Now, if the Post Commander had elected to enforce a zero tolerance policy for ALL bumper stickers on the post, then as the 'law' stands at this point in time (regardless of how far it has strayed from the pure Constitutional meaning), he would have been in complete compliance with the law. This is a case that would fall within the realm of "civil law", but that does not in any way make it any less a law, therefore your "hair splitting" has been duly noted, and overruled.

As Officers, take a look at each and every policy that you have, or currently do enforce, and the legal foundation for those policies, and you will discover that they are all a direct result of a Law that contains the signature of POTUS, which means that Congress originally drafted that foundational Law. The question then becomes, did Congress violate the Constitution by making that law, or has someone else along the line taken it upon themselves to misuse the authority that the law grants, and themselves violated the Constitution. In this case I cannot say, as I do not have a copy of the Order issued by the Commander, nor the foundational documentation upon which he based the Order.

This is no different than the case in Washington State where the Governor had elected to allow a Nativity scene to be displayed, and as a result was compelled to allow an atheist display as well. If she had elected to allow NO displays, then the issue would have been moot, but you cannot selectively allow some speech and quash other speech simply because you 'don't like' it because if you do, then who will stand up for you when YOUR speech is that which is to be selectively quashed?

Wukong, you say that you are a Christian, and find his display "offensive". Do you not find the current policies that prevent school children from praying over their lunch "offensive"? Do you not find the constant and pervasive abrogations of the Right of We The People to express our First Amendment Rights to install displays of the Nativity, Christmas trees, and other displays celebrating the birth of Jesus, even on their own property, to be "offensive"?

Well Sir, I find your intolerance, and blatant disregard for this man's RIGHT to express his complete contempt for those that MURDERED HIS SON be "offensive". How would you like it if I, as a Moderator in this Forum, were to forbid you, and nobody else, from exercising your freedom of speech because I find your expressions to be "offensive"? It would be a very simple thing for me to simply delete each and every one of your posts, thereby effectively silencing you. Would you like that? NO? Then I would suggest that you not attempt to impose on anyone else that which you would not want imposed on you.

[03_SHOOTER]

And once again, you have hit the nail on the head JohnP. We are twisting and turning ourselves into positions that a professional contortionist can only marvel at in order to not "offend" these sheet heads, and I for one am not only not interested in offering any further consideration toward them, I believe that it's long past time they either extricated their craniums from their fourth points of contact, and joined the rest of us in the 21st century, or they all were immediately dispatched back to their respective sand piles and told to STAY THERE!

If they are going to be Americans, then they need to understand that part of that deal is that they must respect everyone elses right to not only not give a tinkers damn about that LYING, CHEATING, THIEVING, PEDARAST, FELCHING, BIGAMIST, PEDOPHILE, MURDERING SACK OF FLAMING FECES (P.B.O.H.) that they pray to, but to openly point and laugh at them for doing so.

[SlightlyCatholic]

If they are going to be Americans, then they need to understand that part of that deal is that they must respect everyone elses right to not only not give a tinkers damn about that LYING, CHEATING, THIEVING, PEDARAST, FELCHING, BIGAMIST, PEDOPHILE, MURDERING SACK OF FLAMING FECES (P.B.O.H.) that they pray to, but to openly point and laugh at them for doing so.

Am I reading this correctly? It seems like you're attributing your colorful adjectives to Allah. The supreme being they worship has nothing to do with their interpretation of his words and the actions that follow from that interpretation. Also, I think if we're going to talk about Islam, we need to be careful that we don't group radical Jihadists with practicing followers of Islam. They're not the same thing. These radicals are the ones who twist the passages of their respective scriptures and use that as a basis for irrational action and violence. There are good followers of Islam who want nothing to do with the thought processes or heinous acts of their "counterparts" and we need to be careful not to throw one blanket over two very distinct groups.

[03_SHOOTER]

Am I reading this correctly? It seems like you're attributing your colorful adjectives to Allah. The supreme being they worship has nothing to do with their interpretation of his words and the actions that follow from that interpretation. Also, I think if we're going to talk about Islam, we need to be careful that we don't group radical Jihadists with practicing followers of Islam. They're not the same thing. These radicals are the ones who twist the passages of their respective scriptures and use that as a basis for irrational action and violence. There are good followers of Islam who want nothing to do with the thought processes or heinous acts of their "counterparts" and we need to be careful not to throw one blanket over two very distinct groups.

I am in fact directing my "colorful adjectives" toward the followers of Muhammed their "prophet", whom they pray to, and I openly ridicule them for doing so, and consider anyone who would willingly follow anyone as contemptuous and base as Muhammed to be beneath contempt. I do not consider Islam to be a true religion, but a cult of murderers, and as such something to be destroyed.

As for lumping them all into one group, I do, and I do not apologize for it. The deafening silence of the entire Muslim world towards the attrocities committed in the name of their religion, and the fact that they have not, as a people, joined forced and worked to defeat these terrorist scum-bags, is evidence of their, at least tacit, if not open approval of those actions, and as such, they are just as guilty as those who actually commit those acts.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Pope Urban II, 1095: Part of the Speech at the Council of Clermont

Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

This speech is a little over 900 years old. It seems to me, Shooter, that you think that we should have some sort of crusade. Should Rome issue a similar statement in the near future asking Christians to take up arms and head over to the Middle East?

[wukong]

We again fall back on my favorite word, "Perception."

Having served as an advisor in the Sand Box prior to the first Gulf War, then serving in the line during the aforementioned contest, I can for a fact state, I never met a rag head that I liked. I personally see no problem with these or any other bumper stickers which take shots at our current enemy. Given an opportunity, I would not have a problem with turning that entire area into a glass parking lot.

You seem to have a very broad definition for "current enemy." Do you include the Albanians, Turks and Kurds. Whether you believe it or not, the Iranian government has a huge problem with a large population that goes to great efforts to secure access to the US and US culture.

Having said that, I am a Christian too, Wukong, having spent more time there than I care to remember; They have no problems in protesting our actions, burning our flag, and restricting our access to practice our religion openly. In the unit that I was assigned to "train,” I was not allowed to wear, carry, or display anything of a religious nature because it was against the Koran. I was not allowed to engage in verbal debate that had to do with anything derogatory with the Muslim beliefs, and don't even say the word "Jew." That would send them into a gun shooting tizzy. I spent 2 days in the desert, without support, because they "suspected" I might be a supporter of Israel.

We have protesters and flag burners here in the US, do you categorize your fellow citizens as the enemy? You live in the US not Saudi Arabia, do you support insulting other US citizens because of their religion. 400 to 600 years ago our European fore bearers were slaughtering each other over religious differences, would you prefer to live in this environment? You evidently did not enjoy the restrictions placed upon your religious freedom, why would you tolerate the blatant insults to the religious practices of your fellow comrade at arms?

As the gentleman from Austin correctly pointed out, it is against a base regulation to display inflammatory items, but we still have a problem. How come no one else has been treated with the same disdain?

Perhaps most people are sensible and don't make an ass of themselves to attempting to prove a point.

How come there have been no other incidents called in to the base PIO? Can this one person on this whole camp be the only one with derogatory or “off-color” bumper stickers? Why is it that in the last 5 years, no other person has been cited, disciplined or had their bumper stickers removed? I see this as not a case of someone not following this regulation; I see this as a case of personal prejudice against Gunny Nieto.

Not true. Several years back the commander of Fort Bragg prohibited the display of KKK symbols and literature, would you defend these nut cases?

In 1983 I was an "enforcer" within the Student Squadron at Laughlin AFB. Lieutenants for some reason seem to enjoy photos of naked women. The base commanders policy was, "If he is on it or in it, its pornography." Most kept their "Art." A few lost their treasures. None were jihadist to the extent to challenge the authority of the lord of the realm. I doubt you will find any officer of any service branch that will criticize the Colonel of Marines.

“But then again, this is just my opinion. I may be wrong.” – Dennis Miller[/QUOTE]

You are entitled to your opinions, you are not always entitled to gratuitous insults of others. As far as the Texas lawyer, I doubt Mr Nieto would be happy with the legal billing if he was able to recover the cost of the damaged or seized bumper stickers. The Marine Corp would not be unhappy with the cost of the bumper stickers from their "meager" budget.

[Javelin66]

Shooter, you are usually so well informed, articulate, and cogent in your discussion. Today, sadly, you are way off mark.

This situation does not surprise me at all. Around here, Marines aren't even allowed in the NEX unshaven, with caps on or untucked shirts, piercings, etc. One bumper sticker with graphic language and another depicting a bodily function? I bet this guy was stopped several times before the MPs took the sticker off. Based on the article provided, I would surmise that the commander did not single the Gunny out, but rather the MPs were simply trying to enforce his policy and were faced with an irate and uncooperative retired staff NCO.


As both the person who recently informed us all that we do not have the right to vote, and a former 'SAC Cop', you should know that no one has the 'right' to enter a military installation. The commander is well within his authority to dictate the conditions under which any individual enters or leaves the installation. As far as a legal foundation, look under Title 10 service responsibilities to 'Protect the Force'.

By the way, while the COL is a Quartermaster officer (I think the naval services would call him a Supply Officer), I doubt seriously that your depiction of him is accurate. He is no war hero, but he has close to 25 years of service, to include tours in Somalia and Iraq. I am sure that this was a difficult decision for him.

The bumper stickers are offensive, especially if they used foul or graphic language or images. Aside from that, as was pointed out earlier, there are no doubt Muslim Marines or family members on the installion. The Gunny's stickers are not only offensive to them, but would tend to erode the discipline that the garrison and other commanders are trying to uphold.

This is exactly the kind of mentality that led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, which have not only embarrassed our nation but prolonged this conflict and cost us dearly in blood and treasure.

What is particularly troubling is that this mentality is bred of ignorance, not only of Islam but also of the nature of the conflict we are engaged in.

Muslims do not worship Muhammed. They worship Allah, the God of Abraham, which is the God of Judaism and Christianity. To a Muslim, Muhammed was a prophet, as were Jesus and Moses (both of whom they revere, by the way), and he is not divine.

[wukong]

Wukong, you say that you are a Christian, and find his display "offensive". Do you not find the current policies that prevent school children from praying over their lunch "offensive"? Do you not find the constant and pervasive abrogations of the Right of We The People to express our First Amendment Rights to install displays of the Nativity, Christmas trees, and other displays celebrating the birth of Jesus, even on their own property, to be "offensive"?

Well Sir, I find your intolerance, and blatant disregard for this man's RIGHT to express his complete contempt for those that MURDERED HIS SON be "offensive". How would you like it if I, as a Moderator in this Forum, were to forbid you, and nobody else, from exercising your freedom of speech because I find your expressions to be "offensive"? It would be a very simple thing for me to simply delete each and every one of your posts, thereby effectively silencing you. Would you like that? NO? Then I would suggest that you not attempt to impose on anyone else that which you would not want imposed on you.

I normally as a policy do not respond to rants from the mentally challenged such as Captain Killer, but something should be done or consideration should be given to his condition. Since I am not a Psychiatrist, I am not qualified to suggest whether he suffers from some Psychosis or is perhaps a Bi-polar off medication. In any case he is certainly an example of failure within the Air Force Human Reliability Program which would tend to suggest that there are indeed Dr Strangeloves in our nuclear weapons programs.

I certainly deny an responsibility for personally preventing a grieving father from exercising any constitutional right. I live in fear of this demigod.

[03_SHOOTER]

Shooter, you are usually so well informed, articulate, and cogent in your discussion. Today, sadly, you are way off mark.

You are certainly well withing your Rights to your opinion.

This situation does not surprise me at all. Around here, Marines aren't even allowed in the NEX unshaven, with caps on or untucked shirts, piercings, etc. One bumper sticker with graphic language and another depicting a bodily function? I bet this guy was stopped several times before the MPs took the sticker off. Based on the article provided, I would surmise that the commander did not single the Gunny out, but rather the MPs were simply trying to enforce his policy and were faced with an irate and uncooperative retired staff NCO.

Again, as I have stated repeatedly, if they wanted to restrict his vehicle from the base due to the "offensive" stickers, that is a viable option. However, what they (the Commander or the MP's) may NOT do is compel him to remove them from his vehicle, and they went completely over the line when THEY removed them. These are blatant violations of the UCMJ, and are punishable under Article 77 "Principles", as well as Articles 109 "Property other than military property of the United States—waste, spoilage, or destruction", and 134-48 "Soliciting another to commit an offense" as HairyEyeball pointed out.

As both the person who recently informed us all that we do not have the right to vote, and a former 'SAC Cop', you should know that no one has the 'right' to enter a military installation. The commander is well within his authority to dictate the conditions under which any individual enters or leaves the installation. As far as a legal foundation, look under Title 10 service responsibilities to 'Protect the Force'.

Again, he would have been well within his rights to deny the presence of the vehicle on the base, but that does not give him the authority to destroy private property once it is on the base. Also, if you're going to quote Regs, you might want to make sure that you're quoting the correct ones. In this case as it relates to denying the vehicle admittance to the base, that's specifically the "Internal Security Act of 1950", as well as 50 USC 797. That's why all the signs on the perimeter fencing say:
WARNING
It is unlawful to enter this installation without permission of the installation commander
Internal Security Act of 1950, 50 USC 797


The bumper stickers are offensive, especially if they used foul or graphic language or images. Aside from that, as was pointed out earlier, there are no doubt Muslim Marines or family members on the installion. The Gunny's stickers are not only offensive to them, but would tend to erode the discipline that the garrison and other commanders are trying to uphold.

And again I ask the question, since when did the United States military start worrying about "offending" people? Silly me, but I was under the impression that the duty of the United States Armed Forces was to KILL PEOPLE AND BREAK THEIR SH*T, and you cannot resolve the conflict of training people to kill, and expect them to be concerned about "offending" anyone. Are we now going to get rid of all of our nuclear weapons because they "offend" someone? Are we going to abandon all of our weapons because they "offend" the bunny-lovers and tree-huggers, or are we simply worried about offending Muslims? What about all of the teetotaling Christians and Jews that have always been "offended" by smoking, drinking, and cursing? Where is your "outrage" at them being "offended"? Methinks that you are speaking out both sides of your face at the same time. Now, this may simply be the result of the training that you've received, and the current policies, and the fact that you haven't sat back and considered the utter HYPOCRISY of the current trend, but the fact is that no matter what you do, you're going to "offend" someone, thereby making any policy designed to prevent the aforementioned "offending" utterly futile.

This is exactly the kind of mentality that led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, which have not only embarrassed our nation but prolonged this conflict and cost us dearly in blood and treasure.

Firstly, NO, putting a group of untrained personnel in charge of the prison, and having their leadership abrogate their responsibilities by placing their personnel under the control of civilians is what led to Abu Grabass. The Reserve MP Company at Abu Grabass had never been trained to operate a prison, their Commander placed her personnel under the control of the CIA, and the CIA interrogators told those personnel to "keep them up all night". When questioned about how they were to accomplish that, they were told "you figure that one out".

Secondly, Abu Grabass and Gitmo have not prolonged this conflict, it merely gave the jihadists specific "cause celebre`" to justify their attacks. Since you have obviously forgotten, the attacks on our troops began BEFORE Abu Grabass, including the ambush and murder of the Blackwater contractor in Fallujah, so that canard simply won't wash.

As for your "blood and treasure" comment, that is simply another canard promulgated by the lamestream media and liberal gutless surrender monkeys. Look at your history! In the 7 years since 9-11, and the beginning of the GWOT, we have lost just over 4,700 KIA and another 6,000 battle injuries. Compare than to D-Day alone in which we lost over 6,600 KIA on that ONE DAY, and that's not counting British, French, or German casualties!

What is particularly troubling is that this mentality is bred of ignorance, not only of Islam but also of the nature of the conflict we are engaged in.

Muslims do not worship Muhammad. They worship Allah, the God of Abraham, which is the God of Judaism and Christianity. To a Muslim, Muhammad was a prophet, as were Jesus and Moses (both of whom they revere, by the way), and he is not divine.

No, it is not "ignorance", it is CLARITY. Muslims DO pray to Muhammad, as well as Allah, and their "religion" is not only a false one, it is also not a "religion of peace". And that's not counting the fact that Muhammad was a LYING, CHEATING, THIEVING, BIGAMIST, PEDERAST, PEDOPHILE, AND MURDERER.

Secondly, the nature of the conflict we are engaged in began long before you were born, and it is men like me who were warning that an attack against the US was imminent even back in the 70's and 80's. Just because you're new to the whole idea doesn't mean that I am, or that I'm in any way "ignorant". Just ask JohnP, we were talking about this very thing, often, back "in the day".

[03_SHOOTER]

I normally as a policy do not respond to rants from the mentally challenged such as Captain Killer, but something should be done or consideration should be given to his condition. Since I am not a Psychiatrist, I am not qualified to suggest whether he suffers from some Psychosis or is perhaps a Bi-polar off medication. In any case he is certainly an example of failure within the Air Force Human Reliability Program which would tend to suggest that there are indeed Dr Strangeloves in our nuclear weapons programs.

I certainly deny an responsibility for personally preventing a grieving father from exercising any constitutional right. I live in fear of this demigod.

Now, THAT's certainly not a very "Christian" thing to say! You must be one of those "Christians" that's only a "Christian" when it serves your purposes.

Wukong, you certainly do not disappoint, and are a living example that being an Officer is no guarantee of being a "gentleman", or of even being intelligent. Nothing like resorting to Red Herrings and Ad Hom attacks when faced with overwhelming evidence that your position is totally ungrounded and based on an extremely faulty comprehension of the Constitution that you obviously haven't even read.

[DaveIn3D]

And again I ask the question, since when did the United States military start worrying about "offending" people? Silly me, but I was under the impression that the duty of the United States Armed Forces was to KILL PEOPLE AND BREAK THEIR SH*T, and you cannot resolve the conflict of training people to kill, and expect them to be concerned about "offending" anyone. Are we now going to get rid of all of our nuclear weapons because they "offend" someone? Are we going to abandon all of our weapons because they "offend" the bunny-lovers and tree-huggers, or are we simply worried about offending Muslims? What about all of the teetotaling Christians and Jews that have always been "offended" by smoking, drinking, and cursing? Where is your "outrage" at them being "offended"? Methinks that you are speaking out both sides of your face at the same time. Now, this may simply be the result of the training that you've received, and the current policies, and the fact that you haven't sat back and considered the utter HYPOCRISY of the current trend, but the fact is that no matter what you do, you're going to "offend" someone, thereby making any policy designed to prevent the aforementioned "offending" utterly futile.


Nice advice from someone who doesnt know what the military actually does. It is true our mission is to break stuff and kill people. What you apparently refuse to understand is that is also the miltary who fixes the aforementioned broken items. We bend over backwards not to offend anyone because for every mooj we offend, is more time we have to spend away from our families. We didnt wipe the Germans off the face of the earth nor did we treat the Japs badly just because they fought us. We broke their shiite, then fixed their shiite (despite constant growing pains) and now we have two very loyal allies.

There will be another Vienna. You just have to be patient. We will not allow some hotheaded, prior air force silo babysitter to encourage the enemy. We are already in countless muslim lands taking the fight to them. Chances are we will be in some more before this whole thing ends. What more do you want? More dead American soldiers and Marines to satisfy your bloodthirst? You are starting to sound like you are advocating genocide against a religion. Picking on a warfighting Col of the Marines for making a decision not to allow some retiree to piss off a population segment of HIS base is the wrong battle.

Das Fuhrer wants his way of thinking back.

-3D

[03_SHOOTER]

Nice advice from someone who doesnt know what the military actually does. It is true our mission is to break stuff and kill people. What you apparently refuse to understand is that is also the miltary who fixes the aforementioned broken items. We bend over backwards not to offend anyone because for every mooj we offend, is more time we have to spend away from our families. We didnt wipe the Germans off the face of the earth nor did we treat the Japs badly just because they fought us. We broke their shiite, then fixed their shiite (despite constant growing pains) and now we have two very loyal allies.

Young man, has reading comprehension got you down? I know precisely what they've got the military doing today, but that was not the question. The question was "since when..."? This is the second time, in this thread, that you've made the error of going off on some wild tangent and addressing things you "imagined" I said, all because you failed to comprehend the written word. Please do try to pay attention, because words DO have meaning, and I generally tend to use them very carefully.

Considering your failure to comprehend basic English, I'm also not all that surprised that your knowledge of our dealings with the Germans and Japanese following WWII is as faulty. The US military did NOT rebuild Germany and Japan, we occupied those nations, and the American State Department provided the means by which the German and Japanese people could rebuild their OWN nations.

Now, I admire loyalty as much as anyone else, but you're constant refusal to acknowledge that he has even done anything wrong makes me seriously question whether or not you even understand what's going on here. This "former air force silo babysitter" (and it's Air Force, unless of course you want me writing Marines as marines), was a Security Policeman, and as such I had to be VERY familiar with not only the UCMJ, but also the MCM, which means that I know a bit more about the subject than you (and apparently your Colonel or the base Magistrate) do, and the fact remains that his order was illegal as it relates to any destruction of the private property of a civilian, and it is punishable under the UCMJ. Fortunately for him though, it appears that this is going to be handled in a civilian court where it probably won't result in any serious damage to either of their careers.

It also appears that you really know nothing about the enemy, because if you did, you would know that they don't need any encouragement! So long as one American is on their "Holy" soil, or anyone "insults" their jihadist idea of how "special" they and their religion should be treated, they will continue in their attacks, so by your appeasement you acknowledge that fact, and have chosen surrender rather than victory. Since you obviously missed it, we're not dealing with a rational nation State, we're dealing with radical Muslim fundamentalism, and their only goal is to subjugate, by the sword if necessary, the entire world under their false religion. The fact that you would even consider infringing on the First Amendment Rights of a retired Gunny who really does "get it", a Marine who has given more to this country than you have, in an effort to be "Politically Correct", makes me wonder where your loyalties really lie. Where is your loyalty to the Gunny? Where is your loyalty to the Constitution that you swore to "...support and defend...", because the last time I checked, that was where your primary fealty was supposed to be.

I am not now, nor have I ever advocated genocide against Muslims, that is solely an invention of your own mind. What I AM advocating is that while they are here, that THEY comport themselves as Americans, and that they stop acting like they're something "special", and demanding that everyone else bend over and kiss their a$$ every time they get "offended". Frankly, I equate them with teen-aged girls, because like teen-aged girls, they seem to spend a goodly portion of their lives being "offended" and in some damned tizzy or another over some perceived slight. Having raised girls, I am quite familiar with this syndrome, and therefore I can, from a position of experience, recommend that when they do start acting like that, that we, as a nation, smack them on their a$$, and send them to their rooms until such time as they can act like rational human beings!

Oh, and Neville Chamberlain wants HIS way of thinking back.
.
.
.
.
.
.
PS, you might want to run a SpellCheck on your posts before hitting the "Submit Reply" button. It really doesn't do much for your argument when you spell like a GRADE SCHOOLER!!!

Late Edit:
I also note that you don't know your German either. It's "DER Fuhrer", not "Das Fuhrer". "Der" is the masculine, "Das" is the Feminine.

[Javelin66]

Shooter, please do some research. 'Das' is gender neutral. 'Die' is the feminine or plural.

In addition, Muslims DO NOT WORSHIP MOHAMMED OR PRAY TO HIM. In fact, that is a great sin in Islam, as it is essentially polytheism to them.

You've made several off-hand references to my training and that of others. I confess that I am a product of my training, education, and experience, as you are of yours. My opinions about training, command, leadership, and how we are (and should be) fighting this war are shaped by these. For the record, I have commanded, led men in combat, and trained Iraqis. I have served in Army, Joint,and Multinational organizations. I know something about this topic.

Title 10 of the US Code establishes the roles and missions of the services, to include the concept of command. The services establish their own policies and regulations for how this is carried out. Therefore, the authority of a service to maintain an installation and the authority of the commander originates in Title 10. Here's how the Army defines it in AR 600-20:

"A commander is, therefore, a commissioned or warrant officer who, by virtue of grade and assignment, exercises primary command authority over
a military organization or prescribed territorial area that under pertinent official directives is recognized as a "command.""

Command means many things, but here is a great summation, also from AR 600-20:

"b. Elements of command. The key elements of command are authority and responsibility. Formal authority for
command is derived from the policies, procedures, and precedents presented in chapters 1 through 3.
c. Characteristics of command leadership. The commander is responsible for establishing leadership climate of unit and developing disciplined and cohesive units. This sets the parameters within which command will be exercised
and, therefore, sets the tone for social and duty relationships within the command. Commanders are also responsible for
the professional development of their Soldiers. To this end, they encourage self-study, professional development, and
continued growth of their subordinates’ military careers."

In other words, the installation commander has a responsibility to create an environment in which the assigned units can become disciplined and cohesive, as well as support the policies and directives of his leadership.

The Gunny made a choice to take actions that were counter to this. First, he knowingly violated a policy. That shows not only a lack of discipline on his part, but set a poor example to the young Marines on the installation. Second, his divisive views would directly hinder the cohesiveness of the Marines assigned. He, like you, are viewing this as a free speech issue. The commander does not have that luxury.

I think we all realize that the news article probably leaves out some important facts on both sides of the argument. I really cannot imagine that an MP on patrol simply scraped those stickers off the first time he saw them. More plausible, I think, is a scenario in which the Gunny was asked, advised, then directed, orally and in writing, to remove the stickers if he wanted to drive the vehicle on post. I agree with you that the commander does not have the right to remove the stickers, but should have had the vehicle escorted off post.

I am amazed by your steadfast refusal to accept the fact that information operations are an essential element in this conflict. Let me give you a scenario, based on what is called a 'Close Encounter', the interaction between our forces and the locals: A young Marine sees the Gunny's sticker, and being a product of public education, does not question it because it is the Gunny's. Six months later, he is on patrol in Iraq when he makes a disparaging remark about Mohammed. The locals, who speak pretty good English, hear him and soon the new 'truth' in the neighborhood is that the Americans are here to force them to convert. The next week, a homegrown jihadi group decides to plant a few IEDs. The locals, knowing now that the ultimate American goal is forced conversion, decide not to take the risk of reporting this to the HET when it comes through. In fact, some of the young men make a point of talking to these strangers to find out how to become part of the movement. The following day, a patrol is hit by an IED, and someone loses a leg, someone has TBI, and someone is dead. For the next several weeks the muhalla is a red zone, and eventually we find the IED cell, putting a few in jail, a few in the ground, all at the price of several dead civilians and a few more dead and wounded Marines.

On the other hand, had that Marine had the discipline to consider carefully what he has to say or just keep his mouth shut, the patrol leadership may have had the opportunity to establish a better rapport with the locals, who may have not only turned in the Jihadis when they planted the IED, but maybe identify them even earlier so the Marines could target some collection and take them out before they took hold. Fewer civilians are put at risk, but more importantly, we kill or capture the whole IED celland collect intel. Since we choose the time and place of the DA mission, the risk to force is much lower. Now we have a good news story for the next muhalla.

There are hundreds of 'Close Encounters' in Iraq every day, and in each and every one of them we are dealing with a variation on that theme. On one hand a careless and ignorant word leads to conflict and death, on the other, a disciplined unit can gather information and conduct precision operations at a time and place of their choosing with minimal civilian casualties or destruction of property.

You compare our losses to D-Day and imply that they are miniscule and insignifigant, but as you rightly point out, we are not at war with a Nation State. Do you have a certain number of dead and wounded in mind?

This is not a war between the West on one side and the Islamic world on the other. The vast majority of Muslims want what everybody wants: peace, freedom, and prosperity. We cannot kill/capture our way to success.

[03_SHOOTER]

In addition, Muslims DO NOT WORSHIP MOHAMMED OR PRAY TO HIM. In fact, that is a great sin in Islam, as it is essentially polytheism to them.
The Sharqiya Secondary School (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/08/news/teens.php?page=2)
in Baghdad began the day one recent Thursday with a prayer. The new headmaster, a religious Shiite, took the unusual step of telling the entire student body, several hundred girls, that "the first way we hail the Iraqi flag is by giving prayers to Muhammad and his family," referring to the Prophet Muhammad and his family members, whom Shiites consider to be holy. Three Armenian Christians raised the flag.

Praying Directly to Muhammad (http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/serve_besides_allah2.htm)
In the five daily Islamic prayers Muslims perform what is commonly referred to as the tashahhud, the part of the prayer where a Muslim testifies concerning his belief in Allah and Muhammad. What makes this rather interesting is that this practice involves praying to Muhammad!

The rise of Ghazi Hassan Ranabandeyri Manikfan (http://www.maldivesculture.com/history/thareekh_tariq_maldives_history_chapter03.htm)
Of all the gentlemen in Male', there was no one to compare in courage, talent, intelligence and interpersonal skills with Hassan Manikfan the son of Vazir Mohamed Manikfan and grandson of Vazir Hura Hussein Daharada Kaleyfan. After reciting the prayers to Muhammad and others, he was put in charge of Maldives' military forces. While all this was happening, Aminath Kabafan went to Addu with Ali Manikfan the son of Mohamed Bodu Doshimeyna Takurufan and grandson of Addu Kudabandeyri Takurufan.

OOPS!!!

<snip for brevity>In other words, the installation commander has a responsibility to create an environment in which the assigned units can become disciplined and cohesive, as well as support the policies and directives of his leadership.

No question, however when the Commander violates the US Constitution in doing so, he is subject to being pranged just like any other citizen is.

The Gunny made a choice to take actions that were counter to this. First, he knowingly violated a policy. That shows not only a lack of discipline on his part, but set a poor example to the young Marines on the installation. Second, his divisive views would directly hinder the cohesiveness of the Marines assigned. He, like you, are viewing this as a free speech issue. The commander does not have that luxury.

Again, the Gunny is RETIRED, and working in a CIVILIAN capacity on the base. If the Gunny were still in the service, whether it be AD, Reserves, or National Guard (while under Title 10 authority), I wouldn't be questioning this at all, however as the Gunny is retired, and working on the base in a civilian capacity, the UCMJ, MCM, and Title 10 do not apply to him, and as such, the destruction of his personal property is not to be sanctioned.

I think we all realize that the news article probably leaves out some important facts on both sides of the argument. I really cannot imagine that an MP on patrol simply scraped those stickers off the first time he saw them. More plausible, I think, is a scenario in which the Gunny was asked, advised, then directed, orally and in writing, to remove the stickers if he wanted to drive the vehicle on post. I agree with you that the commander does not have the right to remove the stickers, but should have had the vehicle escorted off post.

As I have gone to great lengths to very clearly state, denying his vehicle access to the base is, and was, well within the purview of the Commander, but at no time, regardless of any "orders" or "directives" were the MP's authorized to remove any of the "offending" stickers from his vehicle, and the fact that no other vehicle, in the past 5 years has received this attention, and particularly those vehicles belonging to military personnel displaying the Confederate Flag, or any of the other "colorful" stickers Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen are known to adorn their vehicles with, this smacks of "selective enforcement", and that is a violation of the Constitution.

I am amazed by your steadfast refusal to accept the fact that information operations are an essential element in this conflict.

I don't refuse to accept it, I simply find appeasement to be a precondition of surrender, and THAT is unacceptable to me. As to your scenario, it is moot because as we have all seen, these jihadi's don't need any "prompting" to plant IED's other than our mere presence on their "Holy" lands. We can spend decades contorting ourselves into all kinds of positions to ensure that we don't "offend" any of these brain-dead morons, but that's not going to stop them, and in fact by doing so, we are in fact encouraging them by telling them that by their actions, they can effect our policies! In fact, by this very action, the Commander may very well have done far more harm than the Gunny ever could, because by his actions he has given "aid and comfort to the enemy" by very loudly proclaiming that THEY have now set the ground rules, thereby giving them a victory in America that they never could have achieved by force of arms!

You compare our losses to D-Day and imply that they are miniscule and insignifigant, but as you rightly point out, we are not at war with a Nation State. Do you have a certain number of dead and wounded in mind?

I NEVER even implied that our losses were "miniscule and insignificant", those are YOUR words. I consider the loss of each and every one of my brothers and sisters in uniform to be a tragedy, but I also recognize that in the past 7 years, our losses have been so light in comparison to every other major campaign in our history that the constant wailing, crying, and gnashing of teeth of the limp-dicked, left-wing, surrender-monkey nutcases is nothing but an utterly disingenuous and intellectually bankrupt canard.

This is not a war between the West on one side and the Islamic world on the other. The vast majority of Muslims want what everybody wants: peace, freedom, and prosperity. We cannot kill/capture our way to success.

You say that they want "peace, freedom, and prosperity", but what you fail to understand, or if you do understand it, to acknowledge, is that they only want "peace, freedom, and prosperity" on THEIR terms, which include the total subjugation of our way of life and acceptance of theirs. If I may be so bold as to remind you of an interesting bit of evidence that you may have overlooked; When asked "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the Muslim ambassador replied "It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."

That was in 1786 when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to try to negotiate with the Tripolian Ambassador, so I'm afraid that this problem with them is not new, nor will it be solved by appeasements, "understanding", or even "kindness". In fact, Jefferson noted that the conversations with the Ambassador were "more suitable to A.D. 1100 than 1786", and things haven't gotten any better in the ensuing 222 years! It was the utter and complete failure of our policy of "appeasement" in our national infancy that eventually led to that very part of the Marine Corp Hymn that reminds all of us, and especially Marines of the victory over these same said Muslims on "...the shores of Tripoli..."! Are you going to try to convince me that today, the greatest nation on the face of the Earth is incapable of defeating an enemy that we defeated over 200 years ago when we were a small "backwater" upstart?

They are today every bit the threat that the former Soviet Union was during the Cold War, if not more so, and if we are to continue as a nation, then we must deal with them in a manner that leaves no question in their minds that we WILL destroy them, to the last if necessary, to preserve ourselves because that's all they understand. It's up to you to decide if you want to live in an America that the Founding Fathers intended for us, where We The People have a Constitutional Republic or if you want to live in an America ruled by a Caliph, and subject to the same Sharia laws that the Taliban instituted in Afghanistan before 9-11. The decision is yours.

[Javelin66]

“There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet”
-The ‘Shahada’, essentially the Muslim profession of faith, depicted on many Arab flags, most notably that of Saudi Arabia.

While interesting, your citations do not refute the fact that Islam is a monotheistic religion, the deity in question is Allah, and that to mainstream Muslims, Mohammed, while a great prophet, was just a man. I would have thought that in your quest for all of those obscure and completely unconvincing references that you would have come across at least one authoritative source on Islam. I have to ask, do you really believe this?

Understanding your enemy and undermining his efforts to garner support from the population is not surrendering, it is good strategy. On the other hand, creating more support for his cause while encouraging ever greater numbers to actually fight, while perhaps satisfying on some level, is bad strategy.

Do you actually believe that our victory in Tripoli constituted a defeat of all of Islam? If so, I am interested to hear your definition of victory. I would especially like you to explain how deterrence works on a non-state actor that not is not only willing to die, but also considers the death of their own innocents to be a path to martyrdom.

[03_SHOOTER]

“There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet”
-The ‘Shahada’, essentially the Muslim profession of faith, depicted on many Arab flags, most notably that of Saudi Arabia.

While interesting, your citations do not refute the fact that Islam is a monotheistic religion, the deity in question is Allah, and that to mainstream Muslims, Mohammed, while a great prophet, was just a man. I would have thought that in your quest for all of those obscure and completely unconvincing references that you would have come across at least one authoritative source on Islam. I have to ask, do you really believe this?

So now you're a Mullah? The fact remains, as my references clearly showed, that as far back as the mid 1700's Muslims did in fact, and continue to do so to this day, pray to Muhammad, thereby proving my earlier point. Now are you going to concede that my statement was in fact correct, or are you going to continue with the Red Herrings?

Understanding your enemy and undermining his efforts to garner support from the population is not surrendering, it is good strategy. On the other hand, creating more support for his cause while encouraging ever greater numbers to actually fight, while perhaps satisfying on some level, is bad strategy.

I DO understand the enemy, but what is plainly obvious to me is that you, and a lot of other people have over-thought the problem. You're dealing with simple people, who utilize simplistic rationale, and you're trying to apply some kind of advanced logic to the situation when it simply doesn't apply. Without comprehending the fact that they have been living under an extreme dictatorship for over 40 years, and that it is impossible to go from total dependency to independence overnight, you're simply setting yourself up for failure. These people are not accustomed to being able to make independent judgments, but rather being told what they will do, when they will do it, and how they will do it, and without that continual guidance they are completely lost. Look, this is all basic Psych 101 stuff, if you didn't take the courses while you were in college, look it up, it's all there, and it's self explanatory.

Do you actually believe that our victory in Tripoli constituted a defeat of all of Islam? If so, I am interested to hear your definition of victory. I would especially like you to explain how deterrence works on a non-state actor that not is not only willing to die, but also considers the death of their own innocents to be a path to martyrdom.

Still picking at nits I see. Fine. Our victory at Tripoli was a decisive one, but only temporary, as the vacuum during the War of 1812 again gave the Ottomans the impression that they could resume their piracies. Following the War of 1812, we once again had to "smack them around" a bit, just to remind them why they really shouldn't mess with us, and by 1815, they got the message, and eventually were taken control of by various European powers which essentially kept their insanity in check for the next 130 or so years until after WWII.

As far as your concerns about dealing with a "non-state actor", give them what they want, and SEND THEM TO ALLAH! By the bushel basket full if necessary, until the ones that aren't so eager to go see Allah get the message, and start turning them in, or dealing with them themselves. Just make sure and tell everyone what the deal is. YOU take care of them, or WE WILL! It's all about "peer pressure" Javelin, and when their peers get sick and tired of having their neighborhoods blown up, they'll start taking care of the malcontents themselves so that we won't have to.

[O.O.O.]

03 Shooter,

"Dave, when one of the two Basic Schools for Marines has the infection, it cannot help but spread to the rest of the Corps. It's that whole "logic" thing, you know, where "A" is followed by "B", which is followed by "C", so if you take "offense" at my comments, you are more than welcome to try to put a size 12 boot up my fourth point of contact. You won't be the first to try (as JohnP can attest), and I doubt you'll be the last. Just be sure to bring a ladder, some help, your chow, and plan to stay ALL day, and into the night."

No offense meant here, but I did have to smile a bit when I read this.

How about a 62 year old, 5"10" 175 pound. size 9 1/2 Redleg. And I can assure you I won't need either a ladder or a lunch.

Not to say that I am disagreeing with you, or anything along those lines. I guess you would have to meet me and get to know me to understand why I am posting this, but in my mind, the possibilities are intriguing.

[Billyd]

I think some of you are fixated on the difference between the Gunny's right to free speech as expressed by the various and sundry labels and stickers on his POV, and the Commander's responsibility to maintain good order and discipline on his installation.

The real problem is that the Commander and the Magistrate were complacent in the damage of personal property of the Gunny. As were the MPs that carried out the obviously illegal order to remove same from the Gunny's vehicle. We all agree that the installation commander can inform a member of the base community that he/she may not drive a particular vehicle on the installation when said vehicle is displaying "offensive or vulgar" adornments. That is not what this about.

This case, from what I have been able to glean, is about the blatant disregard the members of the installation community had for the personal property of the Gunny. Retired or not, he has a right to display whatever he wants on his vehicle. The commander can permit or deny entry to the installation. He (the commander) did NOT have the right to order the destruction of the Gunny's personal property. All he could do was tell the Gunny to take the vehicle off base until the Gunny decided to remove the "offensive and vulgar" adornments.

The commander, IMNSHO, has started down a slippery slope, and along with the Magistrate, has conspired to limit the free speech of one particular member while letting others continue. There are some that find the confederate flag offensive as well, yet there seems to be a number of vehicles displaying that particular adornment. Are we to now tell young service members that they are not allowed to adorn their vehicles with various and sundry accouterments simply because someone MAY be offended? I didn't spend 20+ years in uniform to permit that.

I hope the Gunny is successful in his endeavor and this installation commander is sanctioned for his utter and complete disregard for the Gunny's personal property. He should be instructed to issue a public apology as well.

[HairyEyeball]

Well said.

One might also speculate, given that as one reaches the 0-5 and 0-6 levels, one's future tends to rely more on political considerations, and Colonel Flatulent may well have 'stars in his eyes' and is acting - at least in this instance - in a manner he believes the incoming administration may find noteworthy and pleasing. While we do know that his commission - as that of every officer - is at the pleasure of the President, we do not know him nor his history, nor any more than we have gleaned from that 'reported'. We can only judge his actions, not him, and consider that while those actions are governed by the UCMJ, the Gunny's are governed by the Constitution: The Colonel's 'domain' is 'his' installation and those troops he commands, it does not extend to those 'incidental' civilians legitimately aboard the installation, and it does not grant him the prerogatives to exceed his authority.

This was clearly a bad decision, but how many of us have made 'bad decisions' and refused to retract them because of pride, or the presumption that doing so would weaken the perception of our authority or presumed 'infallibility'?

[wukong]

Well said.

One might also speculate, given that as one reaches the 0-5 and 0-6 levels, one's future tends to rely more on political considerations, and Colonel Flatulent may well have 'stars in his eyes' and is acting - at least in this instance - in a manner he believes the incoming administration may find noteworthy and pleasing. While we do know that his commission - as that of every officer - is at the pleasure of the President, we do not know him nor his history, nor any more than we have gleaned from that 'reported'. We can only judge his actions, not him, and consider that while those actions are governed by the UCMJ, the Gunny's are governed by the Constitution: The Colonel's 'domain' is 'his' installation and those troops he commands, it does not extend to those 'incidental' civilians legitimately aboard the installation, and it does not grant him the prerogatives to exceed his authority.

This was clearly a bad decision, but how many of us have made 'bad decisions' and refused to retract them because of pride, or the presumption that doing so would weaken the perception of our authority or presumed 'infallibility'?

Hairy, if you are going to speculate you should at least do so from a firmer legal foundation than from assuming evidence contrary to fact.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

Very little happens in this world in a vacuum. I would venture to guess that Mr. (Gunny) Neito was warned not once but probably several times to remove the offensive displays before any action was taken by the MPs. In due deference to this Retirees service, the MPs probably considered the removal of the stickers the least punitive of the alternative of impounding the vehicle and requiring the Retiree to have the vehicle commercially removed under wrap or other impediments at a substantial cost to the offender.

This "Champion" of the patriotic may indeed be indemnified for the cost of the stickers, but any future head butting with the installation commander of any military facility will probably entail a substantial cost.

The Colonel made a very judicious decision in this matter as we would expect from an officer with not only an enormous responsibility but also of enormous state power. Rather than excoriation from this community he should be commended for the sensitivity shown to a person who has clearly challenged military authority and has violated his oath of service.

[HairyEyeball]

One might wonder through what source it has been ascertained what facts another may be in possession of, and should such mechanism exist we would all profit by being made privy to the secret. One might also consider the credibility of someone who presumes to 'interpret' what was clearly stated as speculation on a third person as a personal affront.

As to the 'judiciousness' of the Colonel's decision, he violated both the law and good judgment: He was well within the scope of his authority to bar the vehicle from 'his' installation - nobody should question that. Simply instructing gate personnel to do so would have been both legal and justifiable. He exceeded his authority under both military and Constitutional law when he illegally ordered his subordinates to perform acts of vandalism, and their 'Nurenburg Defense', should they be charged, is just as invalid now as it was when first introduced.

Whether the Gunny, the Colonel or both were foolish enough to get into a pissing contest (which this appears, based on current information, to be) is secondary:This was more than just a 'bad call' by the Colonel and the Base Magistrate - this was a criminal act and should be prosecuted as such.

[wukong]

Whether the Gunny, the Colonel or both were foolish enough to get into a pissing contest (which this appears, based on current information, to be) is secondary:This was more than just a 'bad call' by the Colonel and the Base Magistrate - this was a criminal act and should be prosecuted as such.

Hairy, you surprise me. What crimes have been committed and under what criminal codes. In law in order to prosecute a crime there must be a criminal penalty. What is the criminal penalty for violation of the First Amendment cite for "free speech?" What is the criminal penalty for violation of a perceived Fifth Amendment right? Violation of constitutional rights only result in a cease and desist order or in the case of the Fifth Amendment, "just compensation."

No court in the land will issue a directive to a military commander delineating what constitutes "discipline and good order" or what constitutes "safety and security."

For someone who puts a great store in BTDT, you have given Neito credit for the the most extreme explanation of a possible action yet denied the Colonel of what we all know to be the most rational behavior of a military base commander in similar circumstances. I'm surprised at the great length that the Colonel went to mollify Neito. The CG at MCB Butler in the 80's would not have issued 3 warnings before taking punitive action.

[HairyEyeball]

"What crimes have been committed?" I apologize, I was laboring under the obvious misapprehension that you had actually bothered to read the entire article:

Military police removed some of the stickers in August...

Base MPs...peeled those off his car Aug. 1. (emphasis added)

I also imagined you had given the entire thread at least a cursory glance: On 04DEC I specified "vandalism and criminal mischief" - both crimes punishable under the UCMJ.

That is where 'criminal prosecution' comes in.

Further,

The base order prohibits vehicles from displaying extremist, indecent, sexist or racist messages.

but

...base magistrate, Lt. Col. James Hessen...issued a written order banning Nieto’s vehicle from all federal installations until the stickers are removed. Now he cannot drive his Scion onto Lejeune — or Arlington National Cemetery, where his son is buried.

...which clearly exceeds his authority.

The question of what may be considered 'extremist' is as open as what may be considered 'pornography' - your next-door neighbor might have a vastly different interpretation from yours, or the Colonel's, or your (and just to be clear, that's a 'general' your) wife's. Those of us who have served are fully cognizant of the fact that while we are serving, what the CO likes is what the CO gets - until there's a new CO, with his own preferences.

Again, those who have followed the entire conversation are cognizant of the fact that while I think the Colonel is dead wrong, and was a bigger fool for getting into a pissing contest, for as long as it's 'his' base, he makes the rules for it. His - and his magistrate's - authority is, however, 'absolute' only to the confines of the base - not to the area outside the base*, not to other bases and commands, and certainly not to the Gunny's son's grave.

* - And just to forestall any budding sea lawyer, when a commander declares an off-base 'recreational facility' to be 'off limits', his order has no effect on any personnel other than those under his command. Locals, even servicemembers outside of his purview, are not affected.

[03_SHOOTER]

Hairy, if you are going to speculate you should at least do so from a firmer legal foundation than from assuming evidence contrary to fact.

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

While true for the MCM, you neglected to account for the fact that this gentleman is a retired Marine, and therefore subject to the JAG-MAN, and as such no retiree may not be recalled to active duty for the imposition of NJP, and no retiree may be recalled to active duty without prior authorization from the Secretary of the Navy. Further, Rule 0123(a)(3)(d) "reserved component personnel" are only chargeable for offenses committed while on active duty, or inactive duty training. (JAG-MAN Part C, Sub-Part C1, 0123) (http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/JAGMAN2004.pdf)

Just thought you'd like to know. ;)

[Javelin66]

Shooter, it is you that are the fishmonger here (red herrings, get it?). Seriously, an article about the 18th century in the Maldives? Come on, tell the class, what did you learn when you went to an actual authoritative source on Islam...?

Which brings me to my next point:

You have not analyzed this enough. By the way, do you really think the US defeated the Ottoman Empire?

In one thing you are correct (don't get used to this, I'm sure it will be a while before it happens again): We cannot dissuade the terrorists, we can only kill them or capture them.

However, this is not just about the terrorists. This is about keeping the good guys from becoming terrorists, and thinking of them as one homogenous extremist group will not help.

I have seen the difference in the approaches from my first tour in Iraq in 2004 and my last tour this past year. We are treating the people with respect, we are listening to them, and they are turning in the insurgents, militiamen, and all of the other flavors of bad guys. If we apply this on a global scale we will have much greater success in a much shorter time with much less loss of life.

Do you think I am advocating this because of my love for the Arab people and my devout Islamic faith? Not at all. I don't think that Iraq or the Iraqi people are worth one more American dollar or life. That goes for Afghanistan or any other Middle East garden spot, and that is exactly why we need to get smart, use their ideology against them, and win this thing. We will not kill/capture our way to vitory.

Just noticed this in the local paper: The Gunny's ex-wife has something to say as well:

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/12/father-cole-victim-sues-over-ban-his-antiislam-decals

Sharon Priepke, Marc Nieto's mother, was troubled to learn about her ex-husband's display and lawsuit.

Her son was not intolerant, she said.

"I don't think he would have blamed all of Islam," said Priepke, who lives in Wisconsin. "He'd have wanted to get those that did it, those that were responsible."

She is unhappy that Marc is being associated with his father's message.

Jesse Nieto is Marc's biological father, she said, but he gave Marc up for adoption at age 2. Marc became reacquainted with him as a teenager.

"He was not a part of Marc's life growing up," Priepke said. "I think he's totally wrong in how he's approaching this."

[wukong]

Hairy, perhaps you read something different or at least interpreted this different.

It is important to note that prior to having his stickers removed, Mr. Nieto had ample opportunity to remedy the situation on his own and [was] given an opportunity to be heard in three formal administrative venues.

Notwithstanding any verbal warning, Mr. Neito was formally made aware of the policy for which he violated. All attempts to enter the base after the policy was implemented are violations whether Neito was aware or not.

I would posit that the procedures for entering MCB Legeune are the same as entering Tyndall AFB which I do regularly. I wait patiently in line while security guard checks my Retiree ID. The use of this ID establishes a trust between me and the guard that I am compliant with all base rules. I violate that trust at my peril. People do not place stickers on the front of a vehicle which is that portion easily seen by security forces. I am granted admittance to the base on my "honor" that the unseen areas of my vehicle are compliant. If the guard does notice something non-compliant as I drive away he can either shoot me dead or call for assistance.

Our security forces are overworked and stretched thin due to military commitments. Any violation of the trust between security guards and incoming personnel only compounds the security problems faced by current facility commanders. The policy promulgated by the Marine Colonel is based on policy sent down from the Mount Olympus on the Potomac. If Neito is in violation at a MCB he is in violation at an AFB. If he is a security risk at MCB Legeune where he is known, the base commander at Pope AFB who does not know him will consider him a greater risk.

My experience as a Student Squadron Section Commander is that a commander can place a vehicle in a denied status at other installations. I often suffer from CRS but I definitely remember a case where a T-38 student was being processed for drug use. His "permanent" residence was his van from which he was suspected of dealing in the drug trade. He was ordered to move on base into BAQ. He reported his van as being stolen. The base commander issued him an order preventing his "stolen" vehicle from being admitted to any military base. This order allowed the vehicle to be impounded if driven onto Fort Sam, Lackland, Laughlin, etc. We wanted the vehicle impounded for search. I'm sure that local police authorities were also notified to be on the outlook for the vehicle.

I have searched the UCMJ SUBCHAPTER X. PUNITIVE ARTICLES and can find no crime of Vandalism or Malicious Destruction of Property. However, if would strongly suggest that after sufficient warning the stickers could be considered Contraband and subject to seizure.

I would not advise serving or prospective service members that a civil establishment can not be placed off limits for military personnel not directly under the jurisdiction of the local commander without clearing this statement with a military lawyer. I believe this has been done when establishments have refused to serve military personnel for racial reasons.

[HairyEyeball]

Ignoring the crimson kipper absurdly equating the owner of a vehicle displaying 'personal expression' with one allegedly used for dealing drugs, yes, we may well have 'interpreted' things rather differently.

First, and fairly obviously, once the vehicle was banned from the base, even the civilian rent-a-cops posted at the entries to some should be capable of recognizing a specific vehicle from a description, or if necessary, a photo. When such vehicle stops at the guard post, the sentry should be capable of informing the operator of the ban, and explaining that should he attempt to bring such vehicle on base, he would be subject to any and all legal and authorized action to stop him. A possible scenario might involve the impoundment of the vehicle for a given period after being barred from the base, but being allowed enttance due to the incompetence of a guard (or one or more of his superiors), then being escorted off base - and someone;s butt getting fried for it.

In the simplest possible terms, the fact that the vehicle was on base to be vandalized highlights a glaring failure either in the chain of communication, or of leadership.

Second, Article 109 reads:

“Any person subject to this chapter who willfully or recklessly wastes, spoils, or otherwise willfully and wrongfully destroys or damages any property other than military property of the United States shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) Wasting or spoiling of non-military property.

(a) That the accused willfully or recklessly wasted or spoiled certain real property in a certain manner;

(b) That the property was that of another person; and

(c) That the property was of a certain value.

(2) Destroying or damaging non-military property.

(a) That the accused willfully and wrongfully destroyed or damaged certain personal property in a certain manner;

(b) That the property was that of another person; and

(c) That the property was of a certain value or the damage was of a certain amount (emphasis added).

That appears to equate to vandalism.

Article 134 reads:

“Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”

Elements.

The proof required for conviction of an offense under Article 134 depends upon the nature of the misconduct charged. If the conduct is punished as a crime or offense not capital, the proof must establish every element of the crime or offense as required by the applicable law. If the conduct is punished as a disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, then the following proof is required:

(1) That the accused did or failed to do certain acts; and


(2) That, under the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces (emphasis added).

If one or a group of civilians had perpetrated this act of vandalism against the Gunny - or anyone else - they would have been charged under criminal law with vandalism and criminal mischief, and possibly under federal 'civil rights' law (not justifying that, merely indicating the growing possibility). In my era, in my Marine Corps, military personnel who committed acts that would have been prosecuted in criminal courts, were they committed by civilians, were tried at the 'appropriate' level under the most parallel Article of the UCMJ. It was called 'justice'.

Finally, if the Colonel gave the order to vandalize the Gunny's vehicle, he would be lucky to face 'only' being charged under Article 133.

And Javelin, while methods may change, depending on the circumstances of a given conflict, the principles do not: You reward your friends and allies, you destroy your enemy, or at least his will to fight. How this is accomplished may well vary with the 'conditions' one encounters, the underlying principles do not. While the specifics are being addressed 'in theater', the problem is that here in CONUS, we are handing the raducal islamofascists and their allies every tool we're attempting to deny them in those theaters.

[03_SHOOTER]

Shooter, it is you that are the fishmonger here (red herrings, get it?). Seriously, an article about the 18th century in the Maldives? Come on, tell the class, what did you learn when you went to an actual authoritative source on Islam...?

Sir, you are obfuscating. I made a statement of fact, you objected, I provided several sources as confirmation, from over 200 years ago to the present day demonstrating a "pattern of conduct" that Muslims do in fact pray to Muhammad, not unlike Catholics praying to the Virgin Mary, which completely contradicted your objection. My point has been proved, and you continue to attempt to equivocate, so whether you admit it or not, you were in error.

Which brings me to my next point:

You have not analyzed this enough. By the way, do you really think the US defeated the Ottoman Empire?

We "defeated" them insofar as they did not engage our shipping for over 130 years, and we accomplished that without "paying tribute", or "accommodating" them in any way, so yes, I consider that to be a victory.

In one thing you are correct (don't get used to this, I'm sure it will be a while before it happens again): We cannot dissuade the terrorists, we can only kill them or capture them.

However, this is not just about the terrorists. This is about keeping the good guys from becoming terrorists, and thinking of them as one homogenous extremist group will not help.

Well Sir, with all due respect, if the "good guys" are becoming terrorists, then the predisposition to do so was already there, and almost anything would have pushed them over that line, including doing nothing at all.

I have seen the difference in the approaches from my first tour in Iraq in 2004 and my last tour this past year. We are treating the people with respect, we are listening to them, and they are turning in the insurgents, militiamen, and all of the other flavors of bad guys. If we apply this on a global scale we will have much greater success in a much shorter time with much less loss of life.

While I'm sure you didn't intend to, the above statement, as phrased, only serves to prove my point. You say we ARE treating them with respect, and that we ARE talking to them, and they are STILL becoming "insurgents, militiamen and all of the other flavors of bad guys". Perhaps you'd care to re-phrase before I comment further?

Do you think I am advocating this because of my love for the Arab people and my devout Islamic faith? Not at all. I don't think that Iraq or the Iraqi people are worth one more American dollar or life. That goes for Afghanistan or any other Middle East garden spot, and that is exactly why we need to get smart, use their ideology against them, and win this thing. We will not kill/capture our way to vitory.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be smart about it, only that "appeasing" them will not solve the problem because as we have seen throughout history, any time you attempt to "appease" an enemy of this nature, whether it be Muslims (modern or ancient), Nazi's, Huns, or Vikings, they always come back wanting more until you finally stand up and kick 'em in the head so hard that they don't come back at all. In simpler terms, they're not unlike the schoolyard bully who takes your lunch money, and he will continue to do so until you finally stand up and knock his block off, after which not only will he not come back, he'll go out of his way to avoid you. Appeasement is NOT "smart", negotiating from a standpoint of strength IS.

Just noticed this in the local paper: The Gunny's ex-wife has something to say as well: <snip as irrelevant>

Non-sequitur. What his ex-wife thinks about this is beside the point. The Commander, Magistrate, and MP's all violated his Rights by destroying his personal property without proper jurisdictional foundation.

You're an Officer; do YOU have the Right to destroy one of your mens personal property just because YOU find it "offensive", or are you not in fact limited to instructing him to dispose of it as HE sees fit?

[DaveIn3D]

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be smart about it, only that "appeasing" them will not solve the problem because as we have seen throughout history, any time you attempt to "appease" an enemy of this nature, whether it be Muslims (modern or ancient), Nazi's, Huns, or Vikings, they always come back wanting more until you finally stand up and kick 'em in the head so hard that they don't come back at all. In simpler terms, they're not unlike the schoolyard bully who takes your lunch money, and he will continue to do so until you finally stand up and knock his block off, after which not only will he not come back, he'll go out of his way to avoid you. Appeasement is NOT "smart", negotiating from a standpoint of strength IS.


There is one big difference between the Ottomans and the modern day camel jockeys. The Ottomans were an educated empire that applied some sort of reason to its actions. They understood the use of force and knew when to back down and make peace. The current crop of kids murdering their way through the world are not educated. They are not officially tied to any nation-state. You cant give them a black eye. They dont understand reason. All you can do is keep them fighting on their own territory and not yours. We are not only doing that very well, and like Javelin said, we are doing the hearts and minds thing pretty well too. Just look at the turn around Anbar has had in the last 2 years.

Like I said, there will be another Vienna. But you have to understand that, just like back then, it might take another 200 years to push them all the way back into the caves they crawled out of. If you dont want to wait, which it seems like you dont have the patience for, out-propaganda the bad guys and win over the un-educated before they donate their organs at the local market.

-3D

[03_SHOOTER]

There is one big difference between the Ottomans and the modern day camel jockeys. The Ottomans were an educated empire that applied some sort of reason to its actions. They understood the use of force and knew when to back down and make peace. The current crop of kids murdering their way through the world are not educated. They are not officially tied to any nation-state. You cant give them a black eye. They dont understand reason. All you can do is keep them fighting on their own territory and not yours.

All a matter of record, and I have been a very open, and unapologetic proponant of "taking the fight to them" since day one.

We are not only doing that very well, and like Javelin said, we are doing the hearts and minds thing pretty well too. Just look at the turn around Anbar has had in the last 2 years.

True, but another factor is the fact that you have all been doing an outstanding job of planing those nutcases, and the general population has begun to understand that if they harbor the nutcase, their house will get blown up, so they are turning them in, or simply not making them welcome any longer.

Like I said, there will be another Vienna. But you have to understand that, just like back then, it might take another 200 years to push them all the way back into the caves they crawled out of. If you dont want to wait, which it seems like you dont have the patience for, out-propaganda the bad guys and win over the un-educated before they donate their organs at the local market.

-3D

It's not a matter of patience Dave, it's a matter of seeing an increasing propensity for some to spend entirely too much time worrying about "offending" people, and the fact that it would reach our military installations during a time of war is utterly repugnant to me. We certainly weren't the slightest bit concerned about calling Germans, Italians, and Japanese "Krauts", "Wops" and "Nips" during WWII, and it didn't matter a bit that all Germans, Italians, or Japanese weren't our "enemy" either. Can you even imagine the reaction if a Post Commander had come down with a policy forbidding posters that were deemed to be "denigrading" towards those groups during WWII? I can't, and in fact, our own government went to great lengths (and expense) churning out tons of "anti-German", "anti-Italian", and "anti-Japanese" propoganda! During Korea and Vietnam, nobody had any problem referring to the enemy as "Gooks", especially on military installations, so again, my question still remains, when did this happen? For as long as man has engaged in warfare, it has been recognized that the best way to motivate men to engage in a practice that goes totally against basic human nature (killing other people) is to demonize and dehumanize your enemy, and by having to be concerned about "offending" them is completely counter-intuitive.

This whole "PC" mess has turned us inside out, and we're spending entirely too much time worrrying about "offending" people, and the last time I checked there was no Constitutional provison protecting anyone from being "offended". You need to remember that the First Amendment (along with the rest of the Constitution) is there specifically to protect We The People from our own government, and either the First Amendment applies to everybody, or it applies to nobody, and therefore any and every government "law", "regulation", or "guideline" that in any way infringes upon anyones First Amendment Rights (unless they are actually in the military), and especially in this case, is unconstitutional ON IT'S FACE.

http://afsf.lackland.af.mil/Images/WWII/images/WWII%20Religion_gif.jpg
Can you imagine the "outrage" if this poster was done today, but instead of Germans, it portraid Muslims? AND IT WOULD BE FAR MORE ACCURATE!!

http://afsf.lackland.af.mil/Images/WWII/images/WWII%20Stop%20Him_gif.jpg
And this one?

http://afsf.lackland.af.mil/Images/WWII/images/WWII%20Warning_jpg.jpg

Or even this one?

http://afsf.lackland.af.mil/Images/WWII/images/WWII%20Watching_jpg.jpg
And they'd have KITTENS if this one was done today!

[JohnP]

You seem to have a very broad definition for "current enemy." Do you include the Albanians, Turks and Kurds. Whether you believe it or not, the Iranian government has a huge problem with a large population that goes to great efforts to secure access to the US and US culture.

If they personnel are killing american citizens and US soldiers, sailors, marines and airman, then they are not friends.

As for the Iranians, I'll leave that for another thread.


We have protesters and flag burners here in the US, do you categorize your fellow citizens as the enemy? You live in the US not Saudi Arabia, do you support insulting other US citizens because of their religion. 400 to 600 years ago our European fore bearers were slaughtering each other over religious differences, would you prefer to live in this environment? You evidently did not enjoy the restrictions placed upon your religious freedom, why would you tolerate the blatant insults to the religious practices of your fellow comrade at arms?

The only point you've made in this statement is that I live in the United States where we have the right to protest and express our opinions and rights. What blatant insults to the religious practices of my comrades are you talking about?

Not true. Several years back the commander of Fort Bragg prohibited the display of KKK symbols and literature, would you defend these nut cases?

In 1983 I was an "enforcer" within the Student Squadron at Laughlin AFB. Lieutenants for some reason seem to enjoy photos of naked women. The base commanders policy was, "If he is on it or in it, its pornography." Most kept their "Art." A few lost their treasures. None were jihadist to the extent to challenge the authority of the lord of the realm. I doubt you will find any officer of any service branch that will criticize the Colonel of Marines.

If you care to read the statement, instead of jumping to you whimsical conclusions, this pertains to the 5 years prior to GSGT Nieto's harrassment on Camp Lejuene; not Fort Bragg, not at Laughlin, and not at your beloved Tyndall. As for finding any officer of any service branch that will criticize the Colonel of Marines; I see that you still live in a glass bubble; just because you haven't heard them at the "O" club in Tydall doesn't mean that it doesn't happen else where. Get away from your comfort zone, go out into the bars and dives where you will find warriors and just listen."

You seem to love to point that you were a rule follower to the letter whether or not it was within the bounds and scope of your job title. Please insure that you read the enitre thread before you jump to the rest of your conclusions.

“But then again, this is just my opinion. I may be wrong.” – Dennis Miller

You are entitled to your opinions, you are not always entitled to gratuitous insults of others. As far as the Texas lawyer, I doubt Mr Nieto would be happy with the legal billing if he was able to recover the cost of the damaged or seized bumper stickers. The Marine Corp would not be unhappy with the cost of the bumper stickers from their "meager" budget.

You obviously no nothing of Litigation Law.

As I read from your signature block, you've never been in the sand, huddled next to another soldier, listening to the rounds screaming in both directions, and praying to God that you have the strength to get your legs under you so that you don't fail the soldier when you rush into the hail. My opinions are mine, and by the grace of God, I can express them at my leisure.

[03_SHOOTER]

Don't worry about wukong bro, the only exercise he gets is "running his mouth", "jumping to conclusions" and "throwing insults".

[HairyEyeball]

We have had 'protesters' in this country since its inception - almost 25% of the population were against revolting against our 'natural' monarch in 1775, and many of them 'protested' in the manner of the era. At least then, 'common sense' was 'common' enough to differentiate between 'loyal opposition' and sedition. We have both today, but the 'thin red line' between them has been intentionally obscured by those practicing the latter, aided and abetted by the lamestream, drive-by media and promoted by effete, 'civilized' administrations excusing and 'redefining' treason.

'Loyal opposition' to an administration, a government, or its policies is a hallmark of a free society. Undermining the foundation of that government, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war, or revealing information vital to national security, is treason - by legal definition or dictionary definition. Perpetrators of treasonous or seditious acts - whether 'in power' or 'on the street' - should be indicted and afforded a fair and speedy trial; if the facts fall on the side of 'loyal opposition' they should be found 'not guilty' and released, if found guilty they should summarily be awarded appropriate punishment - which, if memory serves, is to be publicly hanged by the neck until dead.

Flag burners, for the most part, tend to be 'developmentally challenged' individuals incapable of coherently phrasing arguments they lack the wit to comprehend, 'acting out' - to borrow from the overtaxed vernacular of 'alienists' - in a manner that reached the zenith of its supposed 'meaning' decades ago. 'Freedom of speech' having been 'expanded' to include freedom of 'action' or 'expression', their supposed 'right' to ape our enemies and perform the fatuous dance does not (or, in a rational world should not) in any way curtail my right - and sworn duty - to protect and defend it.

Actually, seeing the above in print, it strikes me that the missing elements of the topics under discussion are 'logic' and 'reason'.

[wukong]

Ignoring the crimson kipper absurdly equating the owner of a vehicle displaying 'personal expression' with one allegedly used for dealing drugs, yes, we may well have 'interpreted' things rather differently.

You just don't seem to get the gist of the matter. The vehicle technically is not banned from being on base. The owner is specifically prohibited from operating the vehicle on base with the contraband attached. The vehicle is not the problem and to put it in your words was not vandalized or maliciously destroyed. The sticker was the offensive item. As for as any equation, both my drug dealing Lt. and your super patriot lied in the execution of security procedures dealing with the entry into a military base. I'll let you rank them in a hierarchy. Personally I've never seen any such published by any service.

First, and fairly obviously, once the vehicle was banned from the base, even the civilian rent-a-cops posted at the entries to some should be capable of recognizing a specific vehicle from a description, or if necessary, a photo. When such vehicle stops at the guard post, the sentry should be capable of informing the operator of the ban, and explaining that should he attempt to bring such vehicle on base, he would be subject to any and all legal and authorized action to stop him. A possible scenario might involve the impoundment of the vehicle for a given period after being barred from the base, but being allowed enttance due to the incompetence of a guard (or one or more of his superiors), then being escorted off base - and someone;s butt getting fried for it.

If you were responsible for base security and operated in this manner you would shutdown a base within 24 hours. Your superior would relieve you from duty due to incompetence. When you display the required military credential to enter a base, you are certifying that you are authorize entry and your personal possessions (including the dust in your pockets) are in compliance with the rules. Security forces do not have the time or manpower to pat search everyone. If you bring prohibited items on base, the commander is not obligated to protect the integrity of such items if you have brought them in in such a manner that they can not be removed without destruction. He is also not obligated to give a specific time for removal. Our super patriot's object was the display and not the value of the sticker itself. If he had been concerned for this known contraband, he would have attached it in such a manner as to allow removal without destruction.


Article 109 does not apply to the seizure and removal of contraband.

Article 134? You stretch credulity on this one.


If one or a group of civilians had perpetrated this act of vandalism against the Gunny - or anyone else - they would have been charged under criminal law with vandalism and criminal mischief, and possibly under federal 'civil rights' law (not justifying that, merely indicating the growing possibility). In my era, in my Marine Corps, military personnel who committed acts that would have been prosecuted in criminal courts, were they committed by civilians, were tried at the 'appropriate' level under the most parallel Article of the UCMJ. It was called 'justice'.

My nephew joined your Marines despite my advice and tells an amusing story of receiving two "care packages" of brownies and other confections from both my mother and sister. I don't believe he charged or was encouraged to charge the DI's with UCMJ Article 109. You might explore this possibility with those who wish to stand in your "yellow foot prints."

[03_SHOOTER]

... The vehicle technically is not banned from being on base. ...

wukong, don't try to get technical, you've already proven time and time again that you're just not good at it.

If you were responsible for base security and operated in this manner you would shutdown a base within 24 hours.

You also don't know squat about Security procedure. ANY time a vehicle approaches the gate, it is the SP or MP's DUTY to deny access to any vehicle that is not in compliance with the regs. On the very few times I pulled gate duty, I can well remember turning more than one older vehicle around for not having seat belts, and it hardly "shut the base down".

As for the rest, well, let's just say that you have been "misinformed".

[wukong]

As I read from your signature block, you've never been in the sand, huddled next to another soldier, listening to the rounds screaming in both directions, and praying to God that you have the strength to get your legs under you so that you don't fail the soldier when you rush into the hail. My opinions are mine, and by the grace of God, I can express them at my leisure.

If you intend to attack someone, you should follow your own rules of "assumption." You have just joined this forum and know little of the people who populate this site. Since the last time I flew in 1983 my Form 5 indicated some 400 hour of combat time on over 270 sorties in Cambodia, Laos and South Viet Nam. It also shows 33 static line parachute jumps in Japan, South Korea, The Philippines and Tinian. I've served more than 6 years of field duty as a Liaison with the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea and the III Marine Expeditionary Force in Japan. If you have done the things listed in your quote, I respect you and will not question your motivation or sincerity. I only ask that you grant that "I didn't shovel sh*t in Louisiana."

BTW criticism of your ideas is not an attack on your person.

[JohnP]

If you intend to attack someone, you should follow your own rules of "assumption." You have just joined this forum and know little of the people who populate this site. Since the last time I flew in 1983 my Form 5 indicated some 400 hour of combat time on over 270 sorties in Cambodia, Laos and South Viet Nam. It also shows 33 static line parachute jumps in Japan, South Korea, The Philippines and Tinian. I've served more than 6 years of field duty as a Liaison with the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea and the III Marine Expeditionary Force in Japan. If you have done the things listed in your quote, I respect you and will not question your motivation or sincerity. I only ask that you grant that "I didn't shovel sh*t in Louisiana."

BTW criticism of your ideas is not an attack on your person.

I humbly beg for your pardon for any statements that I've made toward you in a personal nature.

I publicly proclaim that Wukong didn't shovel sh*t in Louisiana.

I further proclaim, that similiar to me, Wukong has the brass b*lls to step out of a perfectly good aircraft when it is in flight and control his own destiny upon exit.

I will attempt not take personally any criticisms of my thoughts, ideas, and opinions as personal affronts.

[wukong]

I humbly beg for your pardon for any statements that I've made toward you in a personal nature.

I publicly proclaim that Wukong didn't shovel sh*t in Louisiana.

I further proclaim, that similiar to me, Wukong has the brass b*lls to step out of a perfectly good aircraft when it is in flight and control his own destiny upon exit.

I will attempt not take personally any criticisms of my thoughts, ideas, and opinions as personal affronts.

I know, I know, I know!!!!! Be careful what you ask for>:D

[DaveIn3D]

My nephew joined your Marines despite my advice and tells an amusing story of receiving two "care packages" of brownies and other confections from both my mother and sister. I don't believe he charged or was encouraged to charge the DI's with UCMJ Article 109. You might explore this possibility with those who wish to stand in your "yellow foot prints."


DIs can also haze. The rest of the DOD prohibits hazing.

Are you trying to infer that if you join the Marines, you cant have brownies? Or are you trying to say that if you want brownies with your boot camp, join the Air Force?

Speaking of....now I know why o3 is so bitter....He didnt get his brownies and now he is taking it out on the rest of us....

-3D

[HairyEyeball]

Per Wu:

The vehicle technically is not banned from being on base.

Per the original article:

...Hessen issued a written order banning Nieto’s vehicle from all federal installations...

Is it a reading comprehension problem? Is it that 'technically' only that portion of the vehicle to which the stickers were attached is banned, while the rest may freely enter?

I already have a government that 'interprets' words - and its own charter - on a casual, ad hoc basis. I've come to expect it from them, but not from a career officer and respected military author.

[HairyEyeball]

Don't worry about wukong bro, the only exercise he gets is "running his mouth", "jumping to conclusions" and "throwing insults".

He may at times be 'difficult' and opinionated, but he's earned the right to posit his theories here, and - at least in those areas he has chosen to master - is occasionally worth listening to. Lazing in five-star hotels and swilling top-shelf hooch may occasionally impair his ability to distinguish between wit and wisdom, but he is neither stupid nor uninformed.

I'll take that check now, Wu.

[03_SHOOTER]

DIs can also haze. The rest of the DOD prohibits hazing.

Are you trying to infer that if you join the Marines, you cant have brownies? Or are you trying to say that if you want brownies with your boot camp, join the Air Force?

Speaking of....now I know why o3 is so bitter....He didnt get his brownies and now he is taking it out on the rest of us....

-3D

:D

Nope, no brownies for me!! Even after getting to SAC, we didn't get much of anything either except for very high expectations of performance, long hours, low pay, and ZERO tolerance for fouling up. Back then they were seriously worried about messing up around nukes, you know, that whole REALY BIG BOOM thing.

http://webpages.charter.net/o3shooter/SAC_BALLS.gif

As far as his nephew being denied his "care package" during Boot, the brownies, contrary to wukongs assertions, were not "contraband", but merely not permitted. According to the JAG-MAN, "contraband" is defined as "items, the mere possession of which is against the law--marijuana, etc.", JAG-MAN, Part D, 0170, Forms Supplementing the Military Rules of Evidence, Instructions, Record of Authorization For Search(4)(3). In fact, the entire brownie issue isn't even a good Red Herring since bumper stickers are not "against the law", and as the good Gunny is not subject to the MCM or UCMJ, in his case they cannot be considered "contraband".

[wukong]

Per Wu:



Per the original article:



Is it a reading comprehension problem? Is it that 'technically' only that portion of the vehicle to which the stickers were attached is banned, while the rest may freely enter?

I already have a government that 'interprets' words - and its own charter - on a casual, ad hoc basis. I've come to expect it from them, but not from a career officer and respected military author.

Mea Culpa, CRS caught up with me. The point I wanted to make is that there is precedent for banning a vehicle from all military bases. I should have paged back to the original article before posting.

Your check for $10,000,000 will arrive as soon as my check from the bank clerk in Nigeria for $50,000,000 clears.

[03_SHOOTER]

For all of you who still think that this isn't a First Amendment issue, take a look at this video from the O'Reilly Factor where Bill went head=to-head with Megyn Kelly, and got "schooled" by a real attorney on what the First Amendment means, and how it is applied.

h0ZoUY1HTAA

[wukong]

DIs can also haze. The rest of the DOD prohibits hazing.

Are you trying to infer that if you join the Marines, you cant have brownies? Or are you trying to say that if you want brownies with your boot camp, join the Air Force?

Speaking of....now I know why o3 is so bitter....He didnt get his brownies and now he is taking it out on the rest of us....

-3D

No Dave, my nephew was denied his personal property, included that which he regurgitated.:sick:

[03_SHOOTER]

No Dave, my nephew was denied his personal property, included that which he regurgitated.:sick:

Perhaps something has changed in the past couple of decades, but when I reported for Basic, they confiscated ALL of my "personal property", issued me everything that they deed necessary for me to have, and when I asked about something else, I was told that "if the Air Force wanted you to have it, they would have issued it to you".

Come on wukong, you're REALLY stretching for those non-sequiturs now. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the Gunny is NOT in the Corps, and therefore he is NOT subject to the UCMJ or JAG-MAN, and is certainly not to have his personal property destroyed.

[wukong]

Perhap our Constitutional Law and Military Law "scholar" will explain this body of case law.

http://www.tpub.com/content/armymilitarypolice/MP1018D/MP1018D0038.htm

Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

Person v. Bloss, 28 MJ 376 (CMA 1989). In Pearson, court-martial jurisdiction was found to exist over a retired enlisted accused for offenses he committed both while on active duty and while in a retired status.
A retired member of the Regular Armed Forces may be ordered to active duty by the Secretary of the military department concerned at any time (10 USC Section 688). Therefore, Article 2(a)(4), UCMJ, which provides that, "[retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay]" are subject to the UCMJ is constitutional.

In U.S. v. Hooper, 26 CMR 417 (CMA, 1958), a retired Naval rear admiral was court-martialed for sodomy and conduct unbecoming an officer. The court explained that "retired personnel are a part of the land or naval forces." The military retiree, then, is not simply a civilian. The court held that the admiral was "a part of the military forces of this country." He was described as "an officer of the Navy of the United States, entitled to wear the uniform and to draw pay as such." Nonetheless, it is DA policy that "retired personnel subject to the Code will not be tried for any offense by any military tribunal unless extraordinary circumstances are present." (DA Pam 27-174, paragraph 4-5.)

[wukong]

Mr Neito will most likely have to plead his constitutional case in military Courts where the jurisdiction resides. Given the caveats listed by Chief Justice Warren, I doubt that SCOTUS would hear an appeal. Mr. Neito's lawyers will or have probably filed is a US District Court. I would venture to guess that the SecNav could easily order Neito to active service and ask for the US District Court to move the case to a military venue. If I were Mr. Neito, I would file in the 9th Circuit where law is indeed made.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Warren1.html

THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE MILITARY *
EARL WARREN **

Cases of this nature appear to me to be divisible into three broad categories. The first involves questions concerning the military establishment's treatment of persons who are concededly subject to military authority-what may be termed the vertical reach of the Bill of Rights within the military. These questions have been dealt with quite differently than the second category of disputes, involving what may be called the horizontal reach of the Bill of Rights. Cases of this type pose principally the question whether the complaining party is a proper subject of military authority. Finally, there are cases which do not, strictly speaking, involve the action of the military, but rather the action of other government agencies taken in the name of military necessity.

So far as the relationship of the military to its own personnel is concerned, the basic attitude of the Court has been that the latter's jurisdiction is most limited. Thus, the Supreme Court has adhered [Page 187] consistently to the 1863 holding of Ex parte Vallandigham10 that it lacks jurisdiction to review by certiorari the decisions of military courts. The cases in which the Court has ordered the release of persons convicted by courts martial have, to date, been limited to instances in which it found lack of military jurisdiction over the person so tried, using the term "jurisdiction" in its narrowest sense. That is, they were all cases in which the defendant was found to be such that he was not constitutionally, or statutorily, amenable to military justice. Such was the classic formulation of the relation between civil courts and courts martial as expressed in Dynes v. Hoover,11 decided in 1857.

This "hands off" attitude has strong historical support, of course. While I cannot here explore the matter completely, there is also no necessity to do so, since it is indisputable that the tradition of our country, from the time of the Revolution until now, has supported the military establishment's broad power to deal with its own personnel. The most obvious reason is that courts are ill-equipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion upon military authority might have. Many of the problems of the military society are, in a sense, alien to the problems with which the judiciary is trained to deal.

[HairyEyeball]

Hell, many of the problems of society in general are alien to what the judiciary is 'trained' to handle.

While interesting enough, this may be somewhat premature as the court in which the suit was filed has not yet acted. "The law", (flaccid and flexible 'suggestion' that it is) has been so twisted, and 'precedent' so often reversed, that its history is no guaranty of its outcome. And during his tenure, wasn't it commonly believed that Chief Justice Earl Warren's first name was 'Impeach'? And given that the Gunny's lawyers filed this as a First Amendment 'civil rights' case, the question of jurisdiction may not be seen in the legal community as quite so clear.

There is no reason to believe the diversity of opinion here will not be reflected in the legal community, nor whatever version of jurisprudence initially prevails, that it will not be appealed to a higher court...or, should a similar situation occur in the future, that whatever 'precedent' may be set will be reversed. For the moment, it makes for interesting conversation, and has prompted at least some initiative for individual research - and knowledge is always beneficial.

[03_SHOOTER]

Perhap our Constitutional Law and Military Law "scholar" will explain this body of case law.

http://www.tpub.com/content/armymilitarypolice/MP1018D/MP1018D0038.htm

Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

I see that you're still relying on the MCM wukong, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, the good Gunny is not subject to the MCM, but the JAG-MAN, and I have already posted the pertinent parts of the JAG-MAN for your perusal. Your failure to comprehend this simple fact, and continual reliance on bringing up objections that have already been over-ruled is not serving your cause.

In fact, even using your OWN SOURCES, since the Gunny committed no offense while on AD, or inactive duty training, he isn't even subject to the MCM!

(Article 3(d), UCMJ.)"A member of a reserve component who is not on activeduty...may be ordered to active duty involuntarily for the purpose of...trial by court-martial (or) nonjudicial punishment...with respect to an offense committed while the member was (A) on active duty; or (B) on inactive duty training." (UCMJ,2(d).)The order to active duty must be done by "a person empowered to convene general courts-martial in a regular component of the armed forces." (UCMJ, Article2(d)4.)

Thank you for playing today, and Johnny what do we have for our LOSER??

[03_SHOOTER]

Mr Neito will most likely have to plead his constitutional case in military Courts where the jurisdiction resides. Given the caveats listed by Chief Justice Warren, I doubt that SCOTUS would hear an appeal. Mr. Neito's lawyers will or have probably filed is a US District Court. I would venture to guess that the SecNav could easily order Neito to active service and ask for the US District Court to move the case to a military venue. If I were Mr. Neito, I would file in the 9th Circuit where law is indeed made.

Asked and answered in post #44 wukong, according to the JAG-MAN, he may NOT be recalled to AD to stand Courts Martial unless the offense was committed while on AD, or inactive duty training. As neither of these apply, once again you have grossly failed in your vain attempt to pick gnat sh*t out of pepper.

[wukong]

There is a theory that infinite parallel universes exist where every possible event has occurred, is occurring, and will occur. "Fortunately" I exist in a universe that differs radically from some who visit this insane asylum.

In my universe "manuals" are used to explain the "how to" questions rather than the "who is" questions. If one but casually peruses the Scope of "JAG-MAN" a person in my universe will readily deduce that this manual "implements" or "supplements" the UCMJ. It is a service document subordinate to the UCMJ and does not "Trump" provisions of the UCMJ which all services must adhere as a minimum. No service manual or the UCMJ may "trump" case law as case law is the manner in which our courts have decided to interpret the provisions contained therein.

For those who may occupy a different universe, please post the scope published in your world.

MANUAL OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL

CHAPTER I
REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING AND SUPPLEMENTING
THE MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL

0101 SCOPE
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the
Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), authorize "the
Secretary concerned" or "the Judge Advocate General
concerned" to prescribe regulations implementing or
supplementing certain provisions of the UCMJ or the
MCM. This chapter provides those regulations and
additional regulations relating to military justice.

[HairyEyeball]

Hope your foot doesn't hurt too badly where you shot it, Wu:

...case law is the manner in which our courts have decided to interpret...

'Case law' or 'precedent' is only as valid as the presiding judge chooses to consider it - even our short legal history is replete with examples of reversals and 'interpretations' (including some rather bizarre fancies on the meaning and intent of the Constitution). In 'your world', not following the aircraft manual leaves no room for 'interpretation' - you vary too far from the design parameters, you fall down and go boom (which leads to your weekend really being ruined). The laws of gravity and physics tend to be rather more immutable than 'the law of the land'.

Both you and 03 have lent a bit of your own perspective to the discussion, and - just to make things interesting - whether either of you is 'right', the only 'interpretation' that counts is the one the court - whatever one it may be adjudicated in or appealed to - settles on...which may not, itself, comply with the law as written, or as any of us interpret it.

I would suggest that until there are further developments in the case, or someone has heretofore unexamined facts pertaining to it, the discussion has gone as far as it reasonably can. Gratuitous insults add nothing to it.

[wukong]

Hope your foot doesn't hurt too badly where you shot it, Wu:

No our task as officers is to enforce the UCMJ and federal laws as the courts have interpreted. In this case the Colonel enforced policy emanating probably from the National Command Authorities. This case is not that much different from the one some time back where military personnel in civilian clothing and in a civilian setting were critical of the President's current operations in Iraq. You and others argued that no First Amendment rights existed. Now the argument is that unlimited rights exist. The law is not perfect, but we should all try to be consistent. Daily hundreds of laws are adjudicated by the courts. In the larger picture they do a very good job. :salute:

As in the last donnybrook, this case will die a timely death. However, should the Good Gunny win you may have to start singing, "From the halls of Quantico to the shores of Camp Legeune."

Gratuitous insults add nothing to it.

How clumsy of me. I thought I was flailing my own horse.

[HairyEyeball]

First, out of respect for music, I don't sing.

Second, the cases differ vastly: The Gunny had been retired with an honorable discharge, and was legally and 'officially' a civilian. The 'protesters' you refer to were active duty military, and fully under the provisions of military jurisprudence. Even you will concede that certain 'rights' are voluntarily surrendered upon one's entrance into the military service of the nation (or did your squadron elect its officers by popular ballot?)

Third, even a cursory examination of the Constitution and the laws theoretically subservient to it display the erosion of its effect and intent from the judicial bench by arbitrary and capricious 'interpretation'.

Fifth, while officers (and NCOs) are sworn to enforce the UCMJ, no member of the military is obligated to enforce - or obey - an illegal order. Insofar as this incident has been referred to the court, and such court has neither adjudicated it, refused to hear it, nor referred it to another court, whether the order in question was licit has yet to be decided. The question of whether the MPs did, in fact, commit an act of vandalism - apparently obvious to some on its face - is also contingent on the findings of the court (when the decision is made as to where it may be heard).

If the answers were as obvious as any who have opined believe they should be, all questions would have been answered. The fact that they have not can only be interpreted as meaning that at least some of us may be partially right - in the opinion of that court, and until reversed - or not. I have registered my opinion, and will have one on the decision - whatever it is. Unless someone possesses new information, any interested parties know where we stand and further discussion without further developments is pointless.

[wukong]

Second, the cases differ vastly: The Gunny had been retired with an honorable discharge, and was legally and 'officially' a civilian. The 'protesters' you refer to were active duty military, and fully under the provisions of military jurisprudence. Even you will concede that certain 'rights' are voluntarily surrendered upon one's entrance into the military service of the nation (or did your squadron elect its officers by popular ballot?)

No I will not concede. This is probably a matter of semantics but it colors the way we view the situation. No one ever loses or surrenders rights. They are "restricted" by circumstances.

For example, every installation has a "Suggestion Box" of some description. One could posit that we are encouraged to exercise our right to speech by suggesting criticism of the current way the administration (Platoon, Squadron, Division) is managed. Command authorities has an obligation to clearly define restriction. Surrender is all or nothing. Just my opinion.

was legally and 'officially' a civilian

This is an assumption not based on evidence. I will concede based on material posted that "IF" he was retired from reserve status he may not be under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. However, even as a pure civilian he was employed by the base and as a condition of employment he suffers restrictions to his "rights" on the installation. Otherwise he would have full 2nd and 4th Amendment rights. I seriously doubt that anyone, even the protagonist would posit that Gunny Neito has a right to "pack" anywhere he may have access on base.

[03_SHOOTER]

There is a theory that infinite parallel universes exist where every possible event has occurred, is occurring, and will occur. "Fortunately" I exist in a universe that differs radically from some who visit this insane asylum.

In my universe "manuals" are used to explain the "how to" questions rather than the "who is" questions. If one but casually peruses the Scope of "JAG-MAN" a person in my universe will readily deduce that this manual "implements" or "supplements" the UCMJ. It is a service document subordinate to the UCMJ and does not "Trump" provisions of the UCMJ which all services must adhere as a minimum. No service manual or the UCMJ may "trump" case law as case law is the manner in which our courts have decided to interpret the provisions contained therein.

For those who may occupy a different universe, please post the scope published in your world.

Precisely, and using those "manuals" to explain under what circumstances the good Gunny could be charged under the UCMJ, all one has to do is look at Section 803, Article 3, of that same said UCMJ, which very clearly states that retired personnel may only be recalled to active duty to stand Courts Martial for offenses committed while on Active Duty, or while on Inactive Duty while training.

The simple fact that the Commander of Camp Lejune has not charged the good Gunny under the UCMJ, nor, to our knowledge, attempted to have him recalled to Active Duty to stand charges of ignoring a flagrantly unconstitutional "order" (which as I recall, is every Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marines duty to REFUSE to obey), only serves to amplify this point.

It would appear that the universe you inhabit is the one written of by Lewis Carroll in his novel "Through the Looking Glass, and what Alice found there", where black is white, white is black, and words mean what Humpty Dumpty wants them to mean. Fortunately, or unfortunately for the rest of us, we live in a universe where words mean exactly what they mean, regardless of who uses them.

[wukong]

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????


http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUB%20CHAPTER%201.%20GENERAL%20PROVISIONS

803. ART. 3. JURISDICTION TO TRY CERTAIN PERSONNEL
(a) Subject to section 843 of this title (article 43), no person charged with having committed, while in a status in which he was subject to this chapter, an offense against this chapter, punishable by confinement for five years or more and for which the person cannot be tried in the courts of the United States or of a State, a Territory, or District of Columbia, may be relieved from amenability to trial by court-martial by reason of the termination of that status.
(b) Each person discharged from the armed forces who is later charged with having fraudulently obtained his discharge is, subject to section 843 of this title (article 43), subject to trial by court-martial on that charge and is after apprehension subject to trial by court-martial for all offense under this chapter committed before the fraudulent discharge
(c) No person who has deserted from the armed forces may be relieved form amenability to the jurisdiction of this chapter by virtue of separation from any later period of service.
(d) A member of a reserve component who is subject to this chapter is not, by virtue of the termination of a period of active duty or inactive-duty training, relieved from amenability to the jurisdiction of this chapter for an offense against this chapter committed during such period of active duty or inactive-duty training.

My universe, post yours. If I live in Wonderland, the UCMJ is in Wonderland. Let the readers decide which universe they inhabit.

[03_SHOOTER]

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????


http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUB%20CHAPTER%201.%20GENERAL%20PROVISIONS



My universe, post yours. If I live in Wonderland, the UCMJ is in Wonderland. Let the readers decide which universe they inhabit.

Reading comprehension got you down?

803. ART. 3. JURISDICTION TO TRY CERTAIN PERSONNEL
(a) Subject to section 843 of this title (article 43), no person charged with having committed, while in a status in which he was subject to this chapter, an offense against this chapter, punishable by confinement for five years or more and for which the person cannot be tried in the courts of the United States or of a State, a Territory, or District of Columbia, may be relieved from amenability to trial by court-martial by reason of the termination of that status.

You continue to ignore the very salient fact that as a retired MARINE, even if they wanted to charge him, they are precluded from doing so under JAG-MAN Part C, Sub-Part C1, 0123;

"(1) No case of a retired member of the regular component of the Navy or Marine Corps not on active duty but entitled to receive pay, a retired member of the Naval Reserve or Marine Corps Reserve not on active duty who is receiving hospitalization from an armed force, or a member of the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve not on active duty will be referred for trial by court-martial without the prior authorization of the Secretary of the Navy. This rule applies to offenses allegedly committed by such persons regardless of whether they were on active duty either at the time of the alleged offense or at the time they were accused or suspected of the offense. Members described in this subsection may not be recalled to active duty solely for trial by court-martial. Such members are amenable to court martial jurisdiction at all times and, if referred to court martial, are directed to appear.

(2) No case in which jurisdiction is based on article 3(a), (b), or (c), UCMJ, will be referred for trial by court-martial without the prior authorization of the Secretary of the Navy.

(3) If authorization is withheld under subsections (1) or (2), the Judge Advocate General shall indicate alternative action or actions, if any, to the convening authority."

[HairyEyeball]

If there was a suggestion by any other than the two of you that the Gunny be called back to duty to stand a Court-Martial, I must have missed it - and we know how likely that is. The question, as I read the original, is that the Gunny is filing charges, not being charged.

[wukong]

No case of a retired member of the regular component of the Navy or Marine Corps not on active duty but entitled to receive pay, a retired member of the Naval Reserve or Marine Corps Reserve not on active duty who is receiving hospitalization from an armed force, or a member of the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve not on active duty will be referred for trial by court-martial without the prior authorization of the Secretary of the Navy.

If Neito continues to be a problem for the DOD and the Colonel needs SECNAV authorization, he will probably get it. The answer to the question, "Is Neito subject to the UCMJ? is yes. You confuse process with status. In my universe that is what manuals normally do. Such as a manual to show you how to operate your television to get to Rosie and Rikkie. It is not your warranty.

[03_SHOOTER]

If there was a suggestion by any other than the two of you that the Gunny be called back to duty to stand a Court-Martial, I must have missed it - and we know how likely that is. The question, as I read the original, is that the Gunny is filing charges, not being charged.

No, you didn't miss it, Captain Oblivious is just flinging his Red Herrings around.

[wukong]

If there was a suggestion by any other than the two of you that the Gunny be called back to duty to stand a Court-Martial, I must have missed it - and we know how likely that is. The question, as I read the original, is that the Gunny is filing charges, not being charged.

Hairy, you are correct. The Colonel has gone beyond fair in attempting to placate Gunny Neito and maintain peace and comity on his base. If push came to shove, Gunny Neito would simply be invited not to enter the base. It is a terrible thing to deny a retiree privileges. In a all or none contest, it is the third parties that lose.

[03_SHOOTER]

If Neito continues to be a problem for the DOD and the Colonel needs SECNAV authorization, he will probably get it. The answer to the question, "Is Neito subject to the UCMJ? is yes. You confuse process with status. In my universe that is what manuals normally do. Such as a manual to show you how to operate your television to get to Rosie and Rikkie. It is not your warrenty.

Members described in this subsection may not be recalled to active duty solely for trial by court-martial.

And as Hairy and I have BOTH pointed out, as far as we know, he has NOT been charged with any offense under the UCMJ, so your entire argument is still nothing but a vain attempt at a RED HERRING, and it's STILL NOT WORKING.

The fact is that the Commanding Officer Camp Lejune, as well as his Magistrate, and the MP's who actually destroyed the good Gunnery Sergeants private property, have all whipped out their respective units, in front of God and everyone, and stomped all over them with golf cleats, so now what is left of them is about to be placed on the chopping block and rendered into boneless round steaks (albeit very small ones).

[03_SHOOTER]

Hairy, you are correct. The Colonel has gone beyond fair in attempting to placate Gunny Neito and maintain peace and comity on his base. If push came to shove, Gunny Neito would simply be invited not to enter the base. It is a terrible thing to deny a retiree privileges. In a all or none contest, it is the third parties that lose.

The Colonel exceeded his authority, violated his Oath of Office by intentionally taking a huge steaming dump all over the Constitution, then wiping his bum with the Bill of Rights, and should be summarily drummed out of the Marine Corps for the "good of the service". :devil:

[wukong]

The Colonel exceeded his authority, violated his Oath of Office by intentionally taking a huge steaming dump all over the Constitution, then wiping his bum with the Bill of Rights, and should be summarily drummed out of the Marine Corps for the "good of the service". :devil:


It is a shame that Cadets and serving members are exposed to this philosophy.

[03_SHOOTER]

It is a shame that Cadets and serving member are exposed to this philosophy.

Why, are you operating under the delusional impression that members of your beloved Officer Corps shouldn't be held accountable for their screw-ups??? That's the same bullsh*t mentality that went down around Abu Grabass, where your beloved Officer Corps issued the orders, and when it all turned to crap in their fists, they closed ranks, walked between the raindrops, and laughed their butts off while they threw the enlisted men to the wolves! :devil: Well this time it looks like one of yours is going to have to eat the sh*t sandwich he made, and you can't stand the thought of it.

[HairyEyeball]

Did someone mention 'facts not in evidence'?

I do not know this Colonel - or the Gunny - other than from this one incident, so any comments I have made or will make are based on this one incident. If either of the duelling zoomies have any other acquaintance with either, or with their respective careers, you may be in a position to call for the guillotine - and if so, please make it public.

As I see it, in this one instance, the Colonel made an error in judgment and it escalated into a full-scale pissing contest, because neither Marine Colonels nor Marine Gunnery Sergeants back down - especially when they both believe they're right. 03, my Marine Corps does not give command of a base to rear-echelon pogues (they wind up in Congress, misrepresenting Pennsyltucky), nor do they retain them and order them to assignments that are stepping-stones to flag rank, so he must have had it in one bag prior to this. The incident will definitely put a crimp in his career, but 'drummed out of the Corps'? Maybe you should try decaf. Besides, 'drumming out' was deemed 'politically incorrect' years ago, and ordered dropped from the Manual of Ceremonies...and if they were to bring it back, John Murtha is at the head of the line.

Again, given the information we have, I think he was wrong, and I completely understand both he and the Gunny pushing it to the point they have - but bear in mind that he is not a legal officer. The base magistrate, who supposedly is, advised him, and he acted on what he believed sound counsel. Now, if someone were to suggest that base magistrate be severely beaten about the head and shoulders with a leather-bound volume of Blackstone until it penetrates...

[wukong]

Why, are you operating under the delusional impression that members of your beloved Officer Corps shouldn't be held accountable for their screw-ups??? That's the same bullsh*t mentality that went down around Abu Grabass, where your beloved Officer Corps issued the orders, and when it all turned to crap in their fists, they closed ranks, walked between the raindrops, and laughed their butts off while they threw the enlisted men to the wolves! :devil: Well this time it looks like one of yours is going to have to eat the sh*t sandwich he made, and you can't stand the thought of it.

Ahh, we're back to Abu Gharab. If there is an underlying theme to your philosophy of life it appears to be:

1. Contempt for military authority

2. Abuse of privilege or authority is OK as long as no one finds out

3. If exposed, then the services should cover up such actions to avoid embarrassment

I feel sorry but no sympathy for anyone who would follow you into military perdition.

[wukong]

my Marine Corps does not give command of a base to rear-echelon pogues (they wind up in Congress, misrepresenting Pennsyltucky), nor do they retain them and order them to assignments that are stepping-stones to flag rank, so he must have had it in one bag prior to this.

Agree fully, met many, all of good character.

The incident will definitely put a crimp in his career

Disagree, I doubt he took this action with out notification or discussion with CG II MEF, FMFLant, or Hq USMC. Commanding Generals do not like suprises.

The base magistrate, who supposedly is, advised him, and he acted on what he believed sound counsel. Now, if someone were to suggest that base magistrate be severely beaten about the head and shoulders with a leather-bound volume of Blackstone until it penetrates...

This should add clarity:


MILITARY MAGISTRATE PROGRAM


Military magistrates may be appointed by the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority (SPCMA) for each installation. A military magistrate’s primary duty is to issue search authorizations based upon probable cause.

 The SPCMA may appoint one or two officers, of judicial temperament, to serve as military magistrate for the installation

-- AFI 51-201, para 3.1 is the authority for appointment of a military magistrate to authorize searches on the installation

-- A military magistrate must ordinarily be in grade of lieutenant colonel or above. Below the grade of lieutenant colonel requires General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) approval

--- May not be a chaplain, a member of an office of a staff judge advocate having responsibility for that installation, security forces specialist, AFOSI agent, or convening authority

-- The appointment must be in writing and specify the installation over which the magistrate has authority

 Once appointed, these magistrates are authorized to issue search and seizure authorizations based upon probable cause

-- They may exercise this authority concurrent with installation commander

-- The installation commander need not be unavailable before they can exercise their authority

 One magistrate should be designated the primary magistrate and the other as the alternate

-- The alternate should act only when the primary is absent or incapacitated

-- Primary magistrate is not absent if in a duty status within the vicinity of the installation and can be reasonably contacted

-- Action by alternate is not invalid solely on the basis that the primary was available

 Each installation's Staff Judge Advocate will brief the magistrates on their duties when appointed and thereafter when appropriate

References:
MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES, R.C.M. 315 (2002)
AFI 51-201, Administration of Military Justice, 26 November 2003

Although this is the Air Force version, whatever MCB Legeune uses would read similar. Names changed to protect the innocent.

[03_SHOOTER]

Ahh, we're back to Abu Gharab. If there is an underlying theme to your philosophy of life it appears to be:

1. Contempt for military authority

2. Abuse of privilege or authority is OK as long as no one finds out

3. If exposed, then the services should cover up such actions to avoid embarrassment

I feel sorry but no sympathy for anyone who would follow you into military perdition.

More Red Herrings. Wu, it's over, you lost, let it go.

[03_SHOOTER]

Maybe you should try decaf.

Nope, but you already know that.

[HairyEyeball]

Just a few minor points: First, whether or not he 'discussed' it with his superiors, the incident brought unwelcome publicity on the base and on the Corps. Generals are not fond of that, either. It may not have ended his career, but it will follow him long after the details are forgotten no matter what the outcome.

Military magistrates may be appointed by the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority (SPCMA) for each installation. A military magistrate’s primary duty is to issue search authorizations based upon probable cause.

 The SPCMA may appoint one or two officers, of judicial temperament...

Since there is no court-martial involved, no search and no probable cause for one, whatever parallel wording may exist is irrelevant - unless you can locate the chapter and verse that authorizes such authority to order an act of vandalism.

There is a suspicion on the forum that you two will never be drinking buddies - that's fine, but haven't you both said essentially the same thing often enough to be tired of it? Neither of you is going to change your opinion, even after the incident is resolved (nor am I), and all of our positions are - or should be - fairly clear by now. Can we drop it until there are further developments to discuss, or am I going to keep getting PMs suggesting it be formally locked?

[03_SHOOTER]

Here is a copy of the complaint filed by Gunny Nieto.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/ComplaintonBehalfofJesseNieto.pdf)

Late Edit:

It seems that wukong is getting his talking points from CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) (http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=25614&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1), and sources like Al Arabiya News Channel (http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/12/09/61664.html) (don't forget to read the comments from their readers at the bottom of the page). Things that make you go HMMMMMM.

[03_SHOOTER]

One other thing that struck me; if they can ban him from the base because his bumper stickers are "offensive", then why haven't they banned the Qu'ran from the base since it contains statements like the following;

Koran Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

or

Sura Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

I don't know about you, but I find that to be rather "offensive".

[Javelin66]

It also shows 33 static line parachute jumps in Japan, South Korea, The Philippines and Tinian.

I remember when I only had 33 jumps...

Sorry, Wu, I couldn't help it. It ain't often when a paratrooper has a chance to get one in on a trash hauler. Then again, it is the rare trash hauler (or anyone, for that matter) that has that many jumps.

[wukong]

I remember when I only had 33 jumps...

Sorry, Wu, I couldn't help it. It ain't often when a paratrooper has a chance to get one in on a trash hauler. Then again, it is the rare trash hauler (or anyone, for that matter) that has that many jumps.

It is a rare opportunity when Air Force pilots have the opportunity to live in the world of the user of our service. I went thru an Army certified program at Clark AB in 1983 and was honored on my 5th jump with a hand shake from SMS Morton Freidman (Ret). Mort was one of the CCT troops recovered by Joe Jackson at Kham Duc where Major Jackson earned his MOH. Mort probably has more time in "free fall" than I have in military flight time. I'm just glad I can sometimes remember anything.

[Javelin66]

I know what you mean.

I was on an exercise that involved flying some Strykers from McChord to Yakima via C-17. As I got on the aircraft, one of the crew asked if I would like to sit up front in the jump seat.
Long story short, after a breathtaking flight around Mt Ranier, we make our final approach to the FLS at YAK. This is when the pilot fills me in that as part of their quals they are due to practice an assault landing. I'll just say that I have been on aircraft doing assault landings many times before and since, but always from the back where you can't see what is going on. I really thought that the pilot had lost his mind- there was no way that he could stop that big airplane on that little strip coming in at the angle and speed we did.

And that was the first and last time I will ever sit up front.

[03_SHOOTER]

I found this while looking for more information on Gunny Nieto, and thought a bit of historical perspective might be in order to explain at least part of the reason I have no love, or respect for Muslims, and why I am so passionate about the subject.

What Thomas Jefferson learned
from the Muslim book of jihad
(http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm)

By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
January 2007

<snip due to space constraints>

There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.

Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.

Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.

The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.

Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.

Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.

<snip due to space constraints>

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.

In 1805, American Marines marched across the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.

During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.

Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, We fight our country's battles in the air, on land and sea."

It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.

Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.
1968, Presidential Candidate Robert Kennedy shot and killed by Sirhan Sirhan.

1970, PLO opens fire on a bus load of Christian pilgrims killing American Barbara Ertle and wounding 2 other Americans.

1970, PFLP hijacks 5 aircraft, flying all of them to "Dawsons Field" in Jordon, where they removed all passengers (including 156 Americans) from the aircraft before blowing them up. The passengers were held captive for 2 weeks before being released.

1973, US Ambassador Cleo Noel, Jr., and US diplomat George C. Moore were assassinated by Black September terrorists at the US Embassy in Khartoum on the orders of Yasser Arafat of the PLO.

1973, PLO terrorists pull guns in the Rome Airport, killing 2, and then blew up a Pan Am flight killing 29 including 14 Americans.

1974, Abu Nidal terrorists blow up TWA Flight 841 killing all 88 passengers and crew.

1974, Black September attacks the Saudi Arabian embassy in Khartoum seized by Black September terrorists who murder 2 American diplomats.

1977, African-American Muslim Hanafi seized 3 building in Washington DC, killing one bystander and shooting City Councilman Marion Barry in the chest before taking over 100 hostages.

1979, American Embassy in Tehran assaulted by Muslim extremist, and 52 Americans held hostage for 444 days.

1982, The Iraqi sponsored 15 May Organization bombs Pan Am Flight 830 from Tokyo to Honolulu.

1983, Iranian sponsored Islamic Jihad attacked the US Embassy in Beirut attacked by car bomb, killing 17 Americans.

1983, Iranian sponsored Hezbollah attacked the US Marine Barracks in Beirut resulting in the deaths of 241 American servicemen, and the wounding of 75 others.

1985, Abu Nidal attempts to bomb the US Embassy in Egypt.

1985, Hezbollah hijacks TWA Fight 847 and murders US Navy diver Robert Stethem.

1986, Abu Nidal kidnaps and kills American Professor Philip Padfield.

1986, PLF hijacks the Achille Lauro cruiseliner, and kill wheelchair bound Leon Klinghoffer.

1986, Abu Nidal hijacks Pan Am Flight 73 and kills 19 passengers, including 2Americans, and wounded many of the other 89 Americans on board.

1986, Libyan sponsored terrorists bomb a Berlin disco known to be frequented by US Servicemen, killing 2 American Soldiers.

1988, Abu Nidal mounts assault against the Acropole Hotel and the Sudan Club in Khartoum specifically targeting "Western Diplomats", killing 9 including 3 Americans, and wounding 21 others.

1988, Pan Am Flight 103 blown out of the air over Lockerbie Scotland by Libyan sponsored terrorists

1990, Al Qaeda assassinates American Meir Kahane in the lobby of a Manhattan New York hotel.

1993, Pakistani terrorist shoots and kills 2 CIA employees, and wounds 3 others while they were sitting in their cars at a stop light in front of the CIA headquarters.

1993, 5 Muslim extremist groups conspired to destroy the World Trade Center in New York City, killing 6 and injuring over 1000 Americans. The planned follow-up attack known as the "New York City landmark bombings" was foiled before it could be carried out.

1994, Lebanese terrorist attacks a van full of students on the Brooklyn Bridge who were returning from the hospital after visiting their teacher, killing one 16 year old.

1995, Pakistani terrorists in Karachi open fire on an American Consulate shuttle bus, killing 2 and wounding a third.

1996, Hizballah terrorists blow up the Knobar Towers in Dhahran killing 19 US Servicemen and wounding 372 others.

1997, Palestinian Authority terrorist opens fire on tourists on the observation deck of the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish tourist and wounding many others.

1998, Islamic leaders, including Usama Bin Laden sign and issue their Fatwa to ALL Muslims, declaring a "Holy War" on America. “…In compliance with God’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies–civilians and military–is an individual duty for every Muslim who can, in any country in which it is possible… We — with Allah’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded, to comply with Allah’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever."

1998, Al Qaeda simultaneously bombing attacks two of our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania resulting in the deaths of 12 Americans and 200 non-American Embassy employees as well as the injury of over 4,000 more.

2001, 9-11, Anthrax attacks, Richard Reid.

Do I really have to explain further?

[JohnP]

I remember when I only had 33 jumps...

Sorry, Wu, I couldn't help it. It ain't often when a paratrooper has a chance to get one in on a trash hauler. Then again, it is the rare trash hauler (or anyone, for that matter) that has that many jumps.

How many jumps do you have? Static line.

Mind you; if you ain't jumping in the dark at 800' or less with 60 pounds of parachute and 115lbs of equipment then you're sports parachuting and it don't count on your wings. (Square and dagger is a different set.)

All due respect to your position and rank.

JP

[wukong]

I found these to site to be extremely interesting. I never knew the risks that those of us on retired pay are subject. If you are retired with pay read closely.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1561309/US-Air-Force-supremes-tribunals-win05
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf-files/175-03-2003.pdf

In United States v. Fenno, a sailor with twenty-five years of active service had been transferred to the Fleet Reserve following World War II, only to be recalled to active duty two years later to face a court-martial. Fenno stole government property while employed as a civilian worker at the U.S. Naval Submarine Base, New London, Connecticut. After Fenno was convicted in federal district court and placed on probation, the Navy recalled Fenno to active duty to stand trial by court-martial for charges directly related to the theft for which he had been convicted in federal court. After his court-martial conviction, Fenno filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the dismissal of which was reviewed on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The federal appellate court affirmed. In its opinion the court held that as a member of the Fleet Reserve, Fenno could be recalled to active duty solely for purposes of standing trial before a court-martial and was subject to military jurisdiction at the time he engaged in the thievery. Further, the court held that Fleet Reservists were members of the naval forces for Fifth Amendment purposes and that military jurisdiction over Fenno was not defeated merely because another court of competent jurisdiction had exercised its jurisdiction over Fenno and placed him on probation.

it appears that retirees may be prosecuted for any UCMJ offense committed while on active duty, subject only to the statute of limitations, and for any offense committed in a retired status for which the retiree’s duty status is immaterial. In theory, nonjudicial punishment may even be imposed on retirees, subject to service restrictions and the exercise of such authority by an appropriate “commander.”

The duty status immaterial category of offenses subject to court-martial appears to be the only legal—as opposed to policy/discretionary—limitation on offenses for which a retiree may be court-martialed. Unfortunately, the parameters of this limitation are largely undefined. Existing case law suggests that jurisdiction extends to all conventional, nonmilitary types of crimes, such as sex crimes, other crimes of “moral turpitude,” homicide, bad check offenses, and property crimes. National security violations also fall within the UCMJ’s ambit. It is equally clear, however, that this category of offenses is not limited to nonmilitary types of crimes, given that the failure to obey a general order or regulation, Article 92(1); conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, Article 133; and conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, Article 134, have served as the basis for charges against military personnel on the retired list for misconduct committed after their retirement. Albeit not as clear, some legal precedence exists to support the position that retirees may be prosecuted for violating the contemptuous
speech prohibitions of Article 88.

The only reported case addressing Article 88 since the UCMJ became effective, United States v. Howe, involved an active duty officer during a period in which America’s forces were engaged in combat operations in Vietnam. Army Second Lieutenant Henry Howe was convicted of violating Article 88 for carrying a cardboard sign during an antiwar demonstration that read on one side “‘Let’s Have More Than a Choice Between Petty, Ignorant, Fascists in 1968;’ and on the other side . . . ‘End Johnson’s Fascist
Aggression in Vietnam.’” Howe had not helped to organize the demonstration, participated in it while off-duty and in civilian garb, and his military status was unknown to both demonstrators and spectators. Notwithstanding Howe’s limited protest participation and his unknown military status, his conviction was upheld against unsuccessful arguments that his conduct constituted a permissible political discussion, that Article 88 was void for vagueness, and that its application to him violated his First Amendment rights.

Depending upon the specific circumstances, the success of a First Amendment challenge to Article 88 by a retired officer for inappropriate speech made after retirement during a period of relative peace remains
uncertain. The standard by which a retiree’s challenged statements would be measured, for First Amendment purposes, is contained within the clear and present danger doctrine. This standard examines “whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to
create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.” Within the military context, the government’s burden is satisfied if the “the speech interferes with or prevents the orderly accomplishment of the mission or presents a clear danger to loyalty, discipline, mission or morale of the troops” or presents a clear danger to civilian supremacy. Whether the challenged speech is constitutionally unprotected is “measured by ‘its tendency,’ not its actual effect.”

[03_SHOOTER]

All very good information Wukong, and I'm sure it will come in handy for some discussion, but it has no bearing on this particular case.

According to the text of CLIFFORD M. OVERTON, PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (1987) (http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1987/sg870341.txt), the reason the individual retiree you cited in your first example was recalled to active duty to stand Court-Martial is because, while 'retired', he was still part of the Fleet Reserve/Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, having not completed 30 years combined service, and ergo was subject to recall. Gunny Nieto on the other hand, is fully Retired, having completed his 30 year requirement by serving 25 years on Active Duty, and at least 5 years as a member of the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, ("After 30 years of service (active duty plus inactive duty), a member of the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve is automatically transferred to the retired list of the regular Marine Corps. 10 U.S.C. 6331.") and therefore is still not subject to recall to Active Duty for punishment under Article 15, nor to stand Court-Martial for any offense that he committed subsequent to his Retirement.

The first case you cited is a primary example of this, as Mr. Overton was still a member of the Inactive Reserves when he committed his offense, having served 22 years on Active Duty, but the offense he committed was 5 years into his 8 year obligation to the Inactive Reserve, and therefore he was still subject to prosecution under the UCMJ.

The second case you cited, United States v. Howe, applies only to Officers as Article 88 clearly states (and he was still an serving Active Duty Officer).

Based on your consistent protestations to the contrary, I believe that you may have been confused as to the terms "retired", as in "no longer on Active Duty but still part of the Inactive Reserves, and therefore subject to recall", and "Retired", as in "no longer on the rolls of any branch of the military", as is the case for Gunny Nieto. I hope that I've been able to clear up that confusion, if that was in fact the case.

[03_SHOOTER]

Wukong, the other thing I notice that you consistently fail to acknowledge, for what reason nobody but yourself seems to be aware of, and which has been pointed out repeatedly, is that Gunny Nieto HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED!

Gunny Nieto has filed suit against the Commander of Camp Lejune, and the Camp Magistrate, so perhaps you would be so kind as to inform us as to why you insist on inserting your Crimson Chordata into the discussion.

[wukong]

it has no bearing on this particular case.
Well our resident legal scholar has oriented the subject matter in a parallel universe. I did not expect you to read http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_L...75-03-2003.pdf for two reasons:

1. It is complex material that may tax a Fifth grade student.
2. You don’t have a “dog in that fight” as you are not retired with pay. My understanding from some of the most outlandish rumors floating on this forum is that you were shown the front door by the Air Force with the caveat to “not let it hit you on the ass on your way out.”

The case laws that I cited were selected because they deal with the subject matter of Gunny Neito’s problem.

Early on I posted:

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

As well as the case, U.S. v. Hooper, 26 CMR 417 (CMA, 1958), which is a commonly cited precedent for explaining 802. ART. 2. You countered with voluminous smoky regurgitations citing UCMJ provisions dealing with the Fleet Reserve/Fleet Marine Reserve. The author in the Military Law Journal cited above went into great detail in comparing and contrasting the Fleet Reserve/Fleet Marine Reserve with the Army and Air Force retirement system. The author also went into great detail to explain that our “retired pay” is not a pension, but compensation for service currently rendered.

Now when presented with case law dealing with Fleet Reserve, United States v. Fenno, your circular argument drives you face to face with Hooper and 802. Art. 2. I know you can dance, but you are no Gene Kelly.

I selected the passage dealing with United States v. Howe as it addressed the vagueness issue that Gunny Neito’s handlers have decided to pursue. You don’t have to take my interpretation as the author has provided an opinion on how the court will probably handle the issue.

Overall you seem to be unable to deal with complex sentence structure specifically containing commas, colons and semicolons. Perhaps this might be the genesis of your original problems with the US Air Force.

[03_SHOOTER]

Well our resident legal scholar has oriented the subject matter in a parallel universe. I did not expect you to read http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_L...75-03-2003.pdf for two reasons:
This entire post of yours should serve as a primary example of why people should not "Drink and Post".

Firstly, t's rather hard to read an article when the link doesn't work (Page Not Found).

1. It is complex material that may tax a Fifth grade student.
Which would go a long way toward explaining why you have so much difficulty comprehending this entire subject.

2. You don’t have a “dog in that fight” as you are not retired with pay. My understanding from some of the most outlandish rumors floating on this forum is that you were shown the front door by the Air Force with the caveat to “not let it hit you on the ass on your way out.”

As to my discharge, aside from the fact that it bears no relationship to our discussion, and is merely another in a long line of Ad Hom attacks in a vain attempt to "get my dander up", I wasn't "shown" anything. The AF violated my contract, and I told THEM to shove it up their a$$. Such was supported by the Base JAG office, and I received my discharge AT MY DISCRETION.

The case laws that I cited were selected because they deal with the subject matter of Gunny Neito’s problem.

Early on I posted:

As well as the case, U.S. v. Hooper, 26 CMR 417 (CMA, 1958), which is a commonly cited precedent for explaining 802. ART. 2. You countered with voluminous smoky regurgitations citing UCMJ provisions dealing with the Fleet Reserve/Fleet Marine Reserve. The author in the Military Law Journal cited above went into great detail in comparing and contrasting the Fleet Reserve/Fleet Marine Reserve with the Army and Air Force retirement system. The author also went into great detail to explain that our “retired pay” is not a pension, but compensation for service currently rendered.

Which would apply ONLY if Gunny Nieto were still a member of the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, however since the good Gunny is no longer a member of the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, as was pointed out in the text of the case, he is not subject to prosecution under the UCMJ. Perhaps your hypoxia and alcoholism conspired to prevent you from noticing that rather salient fact?

Frankly wukong, with your egregious failures at the comprehension of the written word, it's nothing short of miraculous that you were ever capable of piloting anything more complicated than a KITE!

It's patently obvious that you failed to read, or comprehend the substance of the case I presented, which clearly indicates that NO member who is fully Retired and Discharged from both Active Duty and the Inactive Reserves may be called to stand trial by Court Martial, as they themselves very clearly cited that only 8 cases of such recall have ever happened, and ALL of those were for members who were still members of the Inactive Reserve.

From Overton v US
Petitioner has never been discharged from his last enlistment (Tr.
10-13); in fact, he concedes (Pet. 5) that he is a member of the
Fleet Marine Corps Reserve. Moreover, petitioner does not dispute
that the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve is a part of the military.
Petitioner therefore remained a member of the military in an inactive
duty status at the time of his crimes and his trial. He was free to
resign from the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve and to receive a discharge
at any time. Op. Judge Advocate Gen. of the Navy, JAG:131.5, at 6
(May 11, 1971) (reproduced at Gov't C.A. Br. App. II). Had petitioner
done so, he would no longer have been subject to the UCMJ ...

This, again, proves my point, and completely invalidates yours.

You insist on presenting a canard, even after it has been shown time and time again to be one. Gunny Nieto is Retired, and has been discharged from the United States Marine Corps and the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve (upon completion of 30 years of Active and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve duty in approximately 1989), and as such is NOT subject to any prosecution my the military, period, end of discussion.

You also fail to comprehend the most salient aspect of this entire discussion, that being that Gunny Nieto HAS NOT BEEN CHARGE, ergo, your entire premise, and the cause of so many pages of discourse, are based solely upon a complete figment of your imagination, probably induced by a combination of entirely too many hours at altitude without sufficient O2 supply (hypoxia), and the destruction of the few brain cells you retained by imbibing entirely too many colorful alcoholic beverages adorned with pretty pink umbrellas.

[wukong]

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf-files/175-03-2003.pdf

"http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf-files/175-03-2003.pdf"

Try this portal as it works in the original response #101.

Regardless of whether Gunny Neito would ever be charged and prosecuted for a violation of the UCMJ, jurisdiction of the UCMJ goes directly to the heart of the issue of whether Colonel Flatau can issue Neito an order and impose a sanction for noncompliance on Neito as he would on any other active duty dogface.

If you go into any military commissary or exchange you will see a sign prominently displayed to the effect, “Personnel not in uniform will show military identification.” Ergo, the use of an ID is the same as the wear of the uniform. A retiree in uniform bears the same obligation to customs, courtesies, and rules as any active duty person. When Neito presented his ID to the MP at the gate he was presenting himself as if he were in uniform and subject to military law. All priviliges come with responsibilities. Neito had been repeatedly warned to remove various items from his auto. Colonel Flatau has no obligation to search for a needle in a haystack when it comes to personally looking for Neito car. On the other hand, Neito is obligated to identify himself as a needle before attempting to enter the haystack.

Once Colonel Flatau had made it perfectly clear to Gunnery Sergeant Neito that the items in question were forbidden, he is obligate to enforce has order. Flatau was well within his legitimate authority to remove the forbidden items. Neito thru the use of a military ID entered the base fraudulently. This action is very serious and here is where all commissioned officers (including the CMC) will klick heels and lock step. Neito had other means to challenge the ruling he disagreed with. He could have written congress or appealed to the National Command Authorities who were the genesis of the policy. He could also have brought suit as he is now doing before he forced Flatau's hand.

As far as Gunny Neito (et.) not being subject to the UCMJ, Killer, why don’t you offer your legal services to Admiral Hooper (Ret.). Hooper will be shocked to learn of his new found rights.

[HairyEyeball]

I'm declaring a 'time out'. When more of the discussion is 'you're a jackass no you're a jackass' than the subject at hand, and two intelligent, literate individuals are apparently more concerned with 'scoring a hit' than making a point or checking for errors before rushing to post, it's time to go back to your corners, take a breath and a cold drink, and broaden your fields of vision.

[03_SHOOTER]

As far as Gunny Neito (et.) not being subject to the UCMJ, Killer, why don’t you offer your legal services to Admiral Hooper (Ret.). Hooper will be shocked to learn of his new found rights.

Wukong, you're supposed to stop digging when you hit rock bottom, but since you have failed to do so, I'll go ahead and start filling the hole in on top of you.

Aside from the fact that Admiral Hooper passed away in 1976, and therefore is no longer in need of any legal advise (a fact you apparently failed to notice), the fact remains that while he was still alive, while retired, he was still a part of the Fleet Naval Reserve, as are ALL Flag Officers until such time as they meet the requirements for full Retirement in accordance with Title 10 USC. The Admiral in question was still subject to the UCMJ because Rear Admirals, even though retired, are still part of the Fleet Naval Reserve until either a) 5 years after attaining their highest pay grade prior to retirement from Active Duty, or b) reaching 35 years of active Commissioned service, whichever is later (Title 10, Section 636 United States Code), so once again your attempts at grasping at straws has left you empty handed.

You also failed to recognize the differing requirements for Retirement among Enlisted Personnel and Officers, which are all covered in great detail in Title 10 USC, as well as the UCMJ and the JAG-MAN as I have previously pointed out. Gunny Nieto is NOT now, nor was he ever an Officer, and as he has completed his 30 years, he is fully Retired from the Marine Corps and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, and as such is NOT subject to prosecution under the UCMJ. If, as you contend, the good Gunny were in fact subject to the UCMJ, the Commander of Camp Lejune would not have needed to offer the good Gunny the several opportunities to address the issue, he would simply have ordered him to comply, and upon his failure to do so would have charged him with Article 92, "Failure to Obey a Lawful Order". As you have consistently failed to comprehend, Gunny Nieto has not been charged with an infraction of the UCMJ, which further serves to prove my point, and completely discredit yours.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Don't let the cadets see this thread...they'll think they don't need to listen to Moderators. Oh, the horror! :nervous:

[03_SHOOTER]

Don't let the cadets see this thread...they'll think they don't need to listen to Moderators. Oh, the horror! :nervous:


Why, I took my deep breath, had my coffee, and gave it a long break before responding. :D

[SlightlyCatholic]

Well then...I guess you're good to go. I suspect if you were a cadet you would have been silenced a long time ago, but that's a topic for another eleven page thread. So is this thread like a treadmill, where it keeps going as long as somebody still feels like running?

[03_SHOOTER]

Well then...I guess you're good to go. I suspect if you were a cadet you would have been silenced a long time ago, but that's a topic for another eleven page thread. So is this thread like a treadmill, where it keeps going as long as somebody still feels like running?

If I were a Cadet, I wouldn't be familiar enough with the UCMJ, MCM, JAG-MAN, or United States Code to be able to even discuss this subject, but considering that familiarity with most of those was part of my training as a Security Policeman, as well as the fact that I've also been studying them, off and on, for the better part of the 24 years since I left the Air Force, then it's not really an issue.

Frankly, this thread is a very good example of how a great majority of court cases work with both sides arguing for their client using whatever laws and precedents they can. Some attorneys even attempt to present cases and laws into evidence that have absolutely no bearing on the case, and in fact, some even selectively "cherry-pick" parts of cases and laws that when taken in their proper context say the complete opposite of the way they present them, in an effort to convince the Trial Judge, and the jury, of the "strength" of their case. Such equivocation and obfuscation are the primary reason that attorneys in general are held with the same respect as hucksters and used car salesmen, which is why attorney jokes are so prevalent.

Most however prefer to use the John Adams model where they rely strictly upon the "facts and evidence" and eschew the use of sophistry and prevarication as stooping to their use perverts the law, and is repugnant to the concept of justice. Unfortunately, when one of these is faced with the former "ambulance chaser" variety, he ends up expending an inordinate amount of time having to fend off these distractions (Red Herrings) and trying to bring the focus of the case back to the "facts and evidence" so that justice may be served.

[JohnP]

Are we done beating this dead horse?

There have been some good points brought out in this thread. I find the reading amusing, interesting and provocative. It warms my heart to see the debating and arguing our founding fathers still active on this humble site.

Let us table this discussion until there is a resolution with GSgt Nieto. I believe this will bring in an even hotter topic.

[Javelin66]

How many jumps do you have? Static line.

Mind you; if you ain't jumping in the dark at 800' or less with 60 pounds of parachute and 115lbs of equipment then you're sports parachuting and it don't count on your wings. (Square and dagger is a different set.)

All due respect to your position and rank.

JP

I only have 55, virtually all of them N/CE/MT and several J (sorry, the first five were 'Hollywood', but I had to start somewhere, and jump school seemed like the best option).

[JohnP]

I only have 55, virtually all of them N/CE/MT and several J (sorry, the first five were 'Hollywood', but I had to start somewhere, and jump school seemed like the best option).

I'm very proud for you.

Not all mine were Night, combat equipment, Mass tacticals either. We did have some "boon-doggle" jumps. I have at least 15 that were at static line jump competitions. (My team took 1st at the 1986 Fort Bragg competition, facing off against over 50 teams.)

As for the 5 at jump school, we all had to face that row. You should've had at least 2 that were with equipment.

Have you got your slot for jumpmaster school yet. I went through the course at Fort Bragg, twice, before I graduated. That was an attention to detail school.

[Javelin66]

A few years back, just before I took command. Yes, it was tough. Even during the graduation ceremony I was convinced that they were going to find a mistake I made and take away my certificate.

The pressure was on; I was slotted to take command the following week, and they would give it to another guy if I didn't get through the course. I didn't have time for any recycles, and that would have been it for me.

[JohnP]

Stress, it's nature's way of saying your plate is full and the Army's way of showing how much it loves you.

[wukong]

I find this interesting in reference to GSgt Neito's case.

http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1140316


Christopher J. PAGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Police Chief Matt FRUCHEY, and Village of Glendale, Ohio, Defendants-Appellees

The majority cites the Supreme Court's decision in City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 114 S.Ct. 2038, 129 L.Ed.2d 36 (1994), where the Court held that:

43
[Signs can] pose distinctive problems that are subject to municipalities' police powers. Unlike oral speech, signs take up space and may obstruct views, distract motorists, displace alternate uses for land, and pose other problems that legitimately call for regulation. It is common ground that governments may regulate the physical characteristics of signs — just as they can, within reasonable bounds and without censorial purpose, regulate audible expression in its capacity as noise.

[03_SHOOTER]

I find this interesting in reference to GSgt Neito's case.

http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1140316

Non-related. The Plaintiff in this case was engaging in commerce for monetary gain in the Public Right-of-Way without a license.

[wukong]

Perhaps you should read the XIV Amendment again.

[03_SHOOTER]

Perhaps you should read the XIV Amendment again.

And how pray tell do you intend to attempt to contort the 14th Amendment into an argument in support of engaging in commerce in a public thoroughfare sans permit via the First Amendment?

Due Process? He HAD his due process, and was told in a court of law that engaging in commerce in a public thoroughfare sans permit is ILLEGAL.

Equal Protection? NOBODY is allowed to engage in commerce in a public thoroughfare without a permit, so no violation of the equal protection clause there either.

Privileges and Immunities? There is no privilege of engaging in commerce in a public thoroughfare without a permit.

Perhaps you should review Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. Since the US Constitution grants the federal government the authority to regulate commerce between the States, in naturally follows that the States have the Right to regulate commerce within their borders, including the Right to require that one obtain a permit to engage in commerce in a public thoroughfare, just as they require that you obtain a permit to engage in commerce selling food in a restaurant, or selling used cars.

Sorry Wu, but that dog just won't hunt any better than any of your previous arguments, but feel free to try again.

[03_SHOOTER]

UPDATE!

I just found that on November 18, 2008 the case of Nieto v Flatau, et al, Case Number 7:2008cv00185 has been selected for Mediation.

SOURCE (http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/north-carolina/ncedce/7:2008cv00185/96700/)

[wukong]

Both commercial speech and noncommercial speech have the same First Amendment rights. These rights can be restricted under specific conditions. However the conditions must be equally applied to both or the XIV Amendment right to equal protection is violated.

http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/504474

Discovery Network v. Cincinnati

The court ruled in favor of the city on the due process claim, but in favor of the plaintiffs on the first amendment claim. The court reached many conclusions of law: that the publications were commercial speech within the meaning of the first amendment because they proposed commercial transactions in the form of advertisements;4 that commercial speech was entitled to first amendment protection where, as here, the activities promoted were lawful and the speech itself not inherently misleading; and that the ordinance would be measured against the four-part test announced by the Supreme Court in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 566, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 2351, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980). That test provides that a government regulation will be upheld if it (1) regulates commercial speech; (2) promotes a substantial governmental interest; (3) directly advances that interest; and, (4) is not more extensive in its regulation of speech than is necessary to serve that interest. Id

http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/402137

Ward v. Rock Against Racism

The Court of Appeals reversed. 848 F.2d 367 (C.A.2 1988). After recognizing that "[c]ontent neutral time, place and manner regulations are permissible so long as they are narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest and do not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of expression," the court added the proviso that "the method and extent of such regulation must be reasonable, that is, it must be the least intrusive upon the freedom of expression as is reasonably necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose of the regulation." Id., at 370 (citing United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 1679, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968)).


United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985), for example, involved a person's right to enter a military base, which, unlike a public park, is not a place traditionally dedicated to free expression. Id., at 687, 105 S.Ct., at 2905 (commanding officer's power to exclude civilians from a military base cannot "be analyzed in the same manner as government regulation of a traditional public forum"). Nor can isolated language from Justice WHITE's opinion in Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641, 657, 104 S.Ct. 3262, 3271, 82 L.Ed.2d 487 (1984), which commanded the votes of only three other Justices, be construed as this Court's definitive explication of the narrow tailoring requirement.

Neito's lawyers are taking his case to arbitration as he will win nada in court. If he gets as much as the cost of the sticker, I'll be surprised.

http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/444857

United States v. Albertini

The Supreme Court not only addressed and rejected Albertini's first amendment defense, but it also considered the question whether Albertini's attendance at the open house was the kind of reentry that Congress intended to prohibit in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1382. The Court concluded that the reentry was within the intended prohibition of section 1382. In so holding, the Court rejected Albertini's contentions that: (1) section 1382 did not authorize bar letters of indefinite duration and applied only when reentry was attempted within a "reasonable" time after issuance of the letter, id. 105 S.Ct. at 2903; (2) that section 1382 does not apply during an open house, id.; and (3) that section 1382 does not apply to him because he believed that the bar letter was no longer effective, id. at 2904. With respect to the last point, the Court held that specific intent was not a requirement for conviction under section 1382. The Supreme Court also rejected a fourth contention, raised by the dissent, that the circumstances did not reasonably indicate to Albertini that his reentry during the open house was prohibited. The Court said that, for several reasons it set forth, "[t]he assertion that respondent lacked notice that his entry was prohibited is implausible."

Neito was issued an written instruction not to enter the base with the sticker attached. He loses.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001382----000-.html

18 U.S.C. § 1382. Entering military, naval, or Coast Guard property

Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United States, goes upon any military, naval, or Coast Guard reservation, post, fort, arsenal, yard, station, or installation, for any purpose prohibited by law or lawful regulation; or

Whoever reenters or is found within any such reservation, post, fort, arsenal, yard, station, or installation, after having been removed therefrom or ordered not to reenter by any officer or person in command or charge thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

It about time to give the guilty b@stard a fair trial, then hang his ass. The good Colonel of Marines has dealt with GSgt Neito very leniently.

Your "understood" is wearing quite thin.

[Juggernaut08]

That is definitely NOT the kind of behavior I would expect from a Colonel over something as meanial as bumper stickers.
The MP's were out of line aswell with the removal of the bumperstickers or the orders to do so by superiors.

And...
Then they have the nerve to order him to take the rest off. They didn't even take them ALL off the first time!
...Talk about laziness!

[wukong]

That is definitely NOT the kind of behavior I would expect from a Colonel over something as meanial as bumper stickers.
The MP's were out of line aswell with the removal of the bumperstickers or the orders to do so by superiors.

And...
Then they have the nerve to order him to take the rest off. They didn't even take them ALL off the first time!
...Talk about laziness!

Just who are you as you have not introduced yourself or advertised any military experience. Just what is "Marine Corps, Other Military Program." For now all you happen to be is a wannabe of no experience of either military discipline or command responsibility. Without credibility, your opinion ranks lower than my cat's fart.

Let's discuss laziness as you are not following forum rules in either courtesy or use of forum tools. At least spell check before embarrassing yourself!

Let me put this in context that you as a wannabe may possibly understand (I do entertain some hope).

A person enters your property with a megaphone and entertains you with language you find offensive. You have the police order your "guest" to depart. This individual subsequently reenters your property with the megaphone and serenades you again. At this point as a property owner you have the right to treat the megaphone in any manner to extinguish the music.

Let me tell you how the real world works.

Several complaints are filed with the base concerning Neito's stickers, Base Commander takes no action. Complainant writes congressman. Congressman forwards complaint to Commandant. IG investigates and finds that Base Commander is not enforcing DOD policy, Commandant issues Base Commander a letter of reprimand.

Upon receipt of a complaint Base Commander determines complaint is valid and issues Neito an order to cease and desist not one but three times but takes no action. Complainant writes congressman. Congressman forwards complaint to Commandant. IG investigates and finds that Base Commander has failed to enforce Federal Statutes, Base Commander is summarily fired.

Just what would you have the colonel do? I would suggest that he took the least punitive of all options with consideration of Neito's service and loss. Neito could have ended up in prison with complete and total loss of retired pay.

Mediation is where the plaintiff goes so as to extort money from a defendant based on the cost the defendant will have to bear during litigation.

[03_SHOOTER]

Both commercial speech and noncommercial speech have the same First Amendment rights. These rights can be restricted under specific conditions. However the conditions must be equally applied to both or the XIV Amendment right to equal protection is violated.

You're STILL wrong Wu, and not one of your "cites" in any way supports your position.

It about time to give the guilty b@stard a fair trial, then hang his ass. The good Colonel of Marines has dealt with GSgt Neito very leniently.

Ah, and you still insist on positing your totally unfounded assertions concerning the good Gunny. NAME THE CHARGES AGAINST THE GUNNY.

Your "understood" is wearing quite thin.

My understanding is quite complete, your's, on the other hand, is both nonsensical, and comical. In fact, I'll go so far as to challenge each and every one of the rulings you presented, as well as that of SCOTUS in Schenck and Branderburg, as no ruling by any court is "law", and therefore in NOT GERMAINE.

Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States clearly states that "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Article 1 Section 8 specifically defines precisely what We The People have ceded authority to Congress to exercise their Legislative powers over.

The 9th and 10th Amendments make it perfectly clear that any powers not specifically delegated to the Congress (that would again be Article 1 Section 8) are retained by We The People, or the States.

Nowhere in Article III of the Constitution does it grant the Judicial any Legislative authority whatever.

The first 5 words of the Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law...", and then goes on to describe precisely what Congress shall make no laws concerning, one of which is freedom of speech.

Therefore it is my argument that it doesn't matter one whit what any court, including SCOTUS has to say on the issue. No ruling by any court concerning the Right of We The People to exercise our freedom of speech is "law", and therefore any ruling by any court on the subject is NOT ENFORCEABLE. IF the government allows ANY "speech" on any of it's property or installations, whether they be City, County, State, or Federal, they must allow ALL speech whether you, I, or anyone else likes it.

You, like I and most others here, took an Oath to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic...". Part of that Constitution is the First Amendment, which means that Gunny Nieto has an UNQUALIFIED Right to exercise his Freedom of Speech in any way he so chooses, and if the Commander of Camp Lejune doesn't like it, then he, like YOU, need to re-evaluate exactly what part of the First Amendment is presenting the biggest stumbling block, and GET OVER IT.

Personally, I consider anyone who would refuse to "...support and defend..." Gunny Nietos Right to exercise his Constitutionally protected Freedom of Speech to be one of those "domestic enemies" that I swore to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States..." against.

[03_SHOOTER]

A person enters your property with a megaphone and entertains you with language you find offensive. You have the police order your "guest" to depart. This individual subsequently reenters your property with the megaphone and serenades you again. At this point as a property owner you have the right to treat the megaphone in any manner to extinguish the music.

Drinking and posting again?

You have confused PRIVATE property with PUBLIC property. Camp Lejune is NOT "private property", it is United States property, and as such, so long as Gunny Nieto is employed on the base, he has the legal right to commute to and from his place of employment.

Let me tell you how the real world works.

Several complaints are filed with the base concerning Neito's stickers, Base Commander takes no action. Complainant writes congressman. Congressman forwards complaint to Commandant. IG investigates and finds that Base Commander is not enforcing DOD policy, Commandant issues Base Commander a letter of reprimand.

I thought you were going to talk about the real world Wu, why the fantasy?

Upon receipt of a complaint Base Commander determines complaint is valid and issues Neito an order to cease and desist not one but three times but takes no action. Complainant writes congressman. Congressman forwards complaint to Commandant. IG investigates and finds that Base Commander has failed to enforce Federal Statutes, Base Commander is summarily fired.

None of which has happened, so we're still waiting for the "real world"

Just what would you have the colonel do? I would suggest that he took the least punitive of all options with consideration of Neito's service and loss.

He had the option of doing what he finally did, which is order Nieto to keep his vehicle off of his base, but he did NOT have the Right to order his MP's to destroy private property. He also has the authority to properly enforce the Base policy by compelling ALL "offensive" stickers to be removed, but alas, in the past 5 years, no other stickers have been found to be "offensive", therefore this case still smacks of a GUTLESS BLUNDER (that would be the Colonel) bending over and kissing some CAMEL JOCKEY'S NASTY A$$ (that would be the Muzzies who complained).

Neito could have ended up in prison with complete and total loss of retired pay.

Wukong, are you completely dense? It has been shown repeatedly that your assertions on this are utterly fallacious, and nothing but a figment of your own fertile imagination. Gunny Nieto is not now, nor has he been at any time since 1989 subject in ANY WAY to the UCMJ as he is FULLY Retired and Discharged from the Marine Corp.

Mediation is where the plaintiff goes so as to extort money from a defendant based on the cost the defendant will have to bear during litigation.

Wrong again Wu, as usual. In North Carolina, Mediation is ordered in all non-criminal cases of this nature in order to free up the courts.

[wukong]

The first 5 words of the Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law...", and then goes on to describe precisely what Congress shall make no laws concerning, one of which is freedom of speech.

Therefore it is my argument that it doesn't matter one whit what any court, including SCOTUS has to say on the issue. No ruling by any court concerning the Right of We The People to exercise our freedom of speech is "law", and therefore any ruling by any court on the subject is NOT ENFORCEABLE. IF the government allows ANY "speech" on any of it's property or installations, whether they be City, County, State, or Federal, they must allow ALL speech whether you, I, or anyone else likes it.



If absolutely so, then how did the service members that criticized the Presidents policy in a civil setting, in civilian clothing, and in a civil manner lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech? I must have missed a key point in your diatribe. I know I have CRS at various times, but I don't remember the part in my oath that made me the President's yes man.

[03_SHOOTER]

If absolutely so, then how did the service members that criticized the Presidents policy in a civil setting, in civilian clothing, and in a civil manner lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech? I must have missed a key point in your diatribe. I know I have CRS at various times, but I don't remember the part in my oath that made me the President's yes man.

Wu, you really are trying entirely too hard at picking nits.

When one enters the military, they voluntarily relinquish some of their Civil Rights, and as such may have their speech limited, something that civilians as well as "retired and discharged personnel" (like Gunny Nieto) are NOT subject to.

[wukong]

Wu, you really are trying entirely too hard at picking nits.

When one enters the military, they voluntarily relinquish some of their Civil Rights, and as such may have their speech limited, something that civilians as well as "retired and discharged personnel" (like Gunny Nieto) are NOT subject to.

If "picking nits" equate to questioning your comprehension, I'll grant you a point. Please show me where the Constitution requires me to give up any rights as a condition of serving in the US Armed Forces. I'll even accept a contractual agreement between me and the Presidency or even between me and Richard Nixon as to surrendering any constitutional right. Tell you what, I'll concede if you can even show me a cite from Title 10.

Sometime even "smoke and mirrors" fail to work. You walk down more sides of the street than Willie Clinton.

[-BuLL-]

With all due respect Wukong, you may want to use spellcheck yourself on a post a ways back. His opinion is just as accepted as yours. No matter what level of experience. I believe that's why they call it an opinion.
As for my opinion, I believe the Col. and base MP's were wrong in the way they went about things.

[03_SHOOTER]

If "picking nits" equate to questioning your comprehension, I'll grant you a point. Please show me where the Constitution requires me to give up any rights as a condition of serving in the US Armed Forces. I'll even accept a contractual agreement between me and the Presidency or even between me and Richard Nixon as to surrendering any constitutional right. Tell you what, I'll concede if you can even show me a cite from Title 10.

Sometime even "smoke and mirrors" fail to work. You walk down more sides of the street than Willie Clinton.

Ya know what Wu, you remind me of a yapping little Chihuahua who has already been (gently) kicked to the curb a dozen times, but still comes back for more because his brain is too small to comprehend that the only reason he's even still alive is because it would be "unseemly", and entirely too easy, to rip it's little head off.

Tell ya what, how about 35 cites from Title 10:

Title 10 Section 877, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 77.
Title 10 Section 881, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 81.
Title 10 Section 882, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Articles 84, 94, and 99.
Title 10 Section 888, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 88.
Title 10 Section 889, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 89.
Title 10 Section 891, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 91(3).
Title 10 Section 892, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 92.
Title 10 Section 894, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 94.
Title 10 Section 899, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 99.
Title 10 Section 900, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 100.
Title 10 Section 904, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 104.
Title 10 Section 816, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 116.
Title 10 Section 901, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 101.
Title 10 Section 905, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 105.
Title 10 Section 907, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 107.
Title 10 Section 915, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 115.
Title 10 Section 917, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 117.
Title 10 Section 927, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 127.
Title 10 Section 931, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 131.
Title 10 Section 932, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 132.
Title 10 Section 933, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 133.
Title 10 Section 934, or as you're presumed to be more familiar with it as Article 134-6, 134-12, 134-18, 134-19, 134-23, 134-28, 134-35, 134-36, 134-39, 134-43, 134-48, 134-51, 134-52, 134-53,


All of these, and possibly a few others are all limitations, to one extent or another, on service members First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech which we all agreed to when we stood up, raised our hands, and swore to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States...", but it's obvious that you never comprehended that, or the fact that once one is Retired and Discharged from the military that they're no longer subject to those restrictions (like Gunny Nieto), otherwise you wouldn't have spent so much time trying to pick gnat sh*t out of pepper about this case.

[wukong]

Ok, you win one. I'll send a check when the Bank Clerk in Nigeria sends my money.

My question dealt with a right to express an opinion. If you choose to infer the most extreme content. I'll concede.

[HairyEyeball]

Ok, you win one. I'll send a check when the Bank Clerk in Nigeria sends my money.

Oh, come on - that's the same excuse you've been using since you ducked out on the round you were expected to buy when you reported on board.

[wukong]

Oh, come on - that's the same excuse you've been using since you ducked out on the round you were expected to buy when you reported on board.

The dress code at the 5 Star barracks was bow ties and tails. I can't be responsible for your lack of sartorial taste.:D

With all due respect Wukong, you may want to use spellcheck yourself on a post a ways back. His opinion is just as accepted as yours. No matter what level of experience. I believe that's why they call it an opinion.
As for my opinion, I believe the Col. and base MP's were wrong in the way they went about things.

Since leadership is action, given what we know from the press release, what leadership would you exert. Justify your suggested actions.

[HairyEyeball]

The dress code at the 5 Star barracks was bow ties and tails. I can't be responsible for your lack of sartorial taste.:D

At last - the reason I was never selected as a pilot: Despite owning a half-dozen bow ties (and being able to tie them), I couldn't grow even a single tail, let alone multiple ones. Alas, the only organs I possess for purposes of balance lie within my inner ear, not tucked in the seat of my trousers.

That said, should your post have been a response to mine immediately preceding, I congratulate you on a near-perfect non-sequiter...

[Murray B]

This is a very interesting situation. It seems to me that what the Colonel did would have been more appropriate for Iraq. Maybe he is wrongly located and his skills might be better utilized overseas.

[03_SHOOTER]

My question dealt with a right to express an opinion. If you choose to infer the most extreme content. I'll concede.

Thank you. If you had been more concise as to precisely what opinion you were inferring you wished to express, I could have been more precise in my response, however as your question was rather "general" in nature, I had to ensure that my answer was as complete as possible in order to cover whatever opinion you may have been inferring you wished to express.