Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Private citizen ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Private citizen ?

    For those of you who thought that Gen. Boykin had every right to say what he did as a private citizen while in military uniform, here is an interesting little tidbit.

    Apparently this sergeant on leave from Iraq blasted Bush on radio and accused him of lying to the American people. She claims it is her right as a private citizen to air her views. The military thinks otherwise.

    What do you guys think ?


    Commander-in-chief blasted on Rockford air waves

    Friday, November 07, 2003

    - David Hale, Rockford correspondent

    ROCKFORD -- An Illinois National Guardsman at home on leave blasted the President
    today on a Rockford area radio show, saying the President lied about his reasons for
    American military going to Iraq.

    Sergeant Jessica Macek of Rockford, Illinois has been serving in Iraq for six-months with
    the National Guard's 333rd MP Company, and while home on leave, during an interview on
    WNTA 1330 AM Radio in Rockford said she believes that President Bush lied about the
    reasons for going to war.

    "I believe it is in the forefront in the minds of many soldiers that we were lied to about
    the reasons for going to war," Macek told the radio audience.

    The bulk of Macek's criticism comes over what she said was a lack of evidence of
    weapons of mass destruction. "We have been there for six months now, and we have not
    found any weapons," said Macek. "If there were weapons it seems we should have found
    them by now."

    In a subsequent interview Macek said she may not have used the best wording when she
    offered her criticism of Bush and that she "can't always think of the best words to use at
    the best times."

    Macek was on leave for nine days and was scheduled to go back to Iraq on November
    8th, where according to her she is located 80 miles south of Baghdad. She said she has
    seen much progress in the reconstruction of Iraq but that lately she has not seen the
    "smiles on the faces" of the Iraqi people.

    "There has been a change since the first time I arrived, it is just different," said Macek.
    "It used to be welcoming but the attitude has changed to a more negative attitude
    toward American soldiers."

    She offered no specific reason as to why there may have been a shift in their attitude
    but that it was just her feeling of the situation.

    Macek's strident criticism of President Bush may have opened her up to disciplinary
    action according to US Central Command Spokesmen Major Pete Mitchell based at McDill
    Air Force Base in Tampa Florida.

    "If she has said these things about the Commander-in-Chief she has opened herself up to
    disciplinary action," said Mitchell. "Just what that action is would have to be determined
    by her unit commander."

    Mitchell said there is a mechanism to use for soldier's concerns by approaching it through
    the soldier's chain of command. "We don't publicly air our differences, we have a
    recourse through the chain of command," said Mitchell.

    The chain of command is chain of authority that progressively increases in military rank
    up to the President of the United States who is at the top of the chain as the
    Commander-in-Chief.

    According to Mitchell, morale among soldiers in Iraq is much different than Macek's
    account. "I was on the ground in Iraq and I can tell you that the men and women there
    are dedicated professionals, and I heard no grumbling while I was there," said Mitchell.
    "We are proud of the work they are doing in Iraq."

    Macek said her criticism of Bush is her right as a private citizen and that she said she is
    happy to do her duty in Iraq. "As an American I have a right to speak out against the
    war if I choose," said Macek.

    "At the moment she is not a private citizen. She is serving her country and while she
    wears the uniform she voluntarily agreed to curtail her behavior for the purpose of
    maintaining discipline and cohesion," said Mitchell. "As a non-commissioned officer, and as
    a leader, she has had this explained to her at some point in her career."

    Macek's comments come at a time when President Bush is facing increasing pressure over
    what to do next in Iraq. Last week, sixteen soldiers were killed in a helicopter attack, one
    from Genoa, Illinois which brought out some of the worst criticism of his administration
    since the war began.
    Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

  • #2
    Hello,

    My opinion would be leave her alone. If Boykin isn't going to be disciplined for his so-called "illegal" behavior, then Macek shouldn't be disciplined at all.

    However, I believe there is a code in the arane military law that no one in the military is allowed to criticize the commander-in-chief which is the president for the fears of turning the military into a political actor with strong opinions.

    Just look at some countries' armed forces getting involved with the political affairs of their own respective countries.

    Personally for me, I feel Macek should be given a serious one-time warning and move on. That's what Boykin got, and I think he's learnt his lesson well. I haven't heard any complaints regarding Boykin. However, I don't think Boykin actually changed his opinion, nor he should apologize for his speeches, which is exactly what Macek should do.

    Just my two cents...

    Dan
    Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

    "Aim small, miss small."

    Comment


    • #3
      I am a US vet so I know that at no time until your enlistment is done are you a "Private Citizen". I do seem to recall some such in the UCMJ about such actions. Irregardless there are some things that fall under the category of less than a smooth move that will cause you grief. I think both actions fall in that category.

      Comment


      • #4
        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
        You know I keep reading through that pesky first amendment but I can't see to find the clause that excludes members of the armed forces; perhaps someone here can point out for me were it exists?
        "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

        Comment


        • #5
          When you join the military you give up some of these rights. For example soldiers don't have the right to freedom of speech, so the right can't be enfringed.
          "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

          Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BigDog
            I am a US vet so I know that at no time until your enlistment is done are you a "Private Citizen". I do seem to recall some such in the UCMJ about such actions. Irregardless there are some things that fall under the category of less than a smooth move that will cause you grief. I think both actions fall in that category.
            Yeah...the UCMJ does put several significant restrictions on the rights of soldiers to freely speak their minds.

            Subchapter X, Section 888, Article 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

            Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


            Of course, that is for commissioned officers, so Sergeant Macek is immune to prosecution under that article. However, typical NCO and grunt grumbling about the administration is likely subject to the sedition provisions in...

            Subchapter X, Section 894, Article 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION

            (a) Any person subject to this chapter who--

            (1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

            (2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;

            (3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

            (b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
            I have no problem at all with being proved wrong. Especially when being proved wrong leaves the world a better place, than being proved right...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Chuck
              When you join the military you give up some of these rights. For example soldiers don't have the right to freedom of speech, so the right can't be enfringed.

              Like I said, I am still looking for were the Constitution has a military exclusion written in it.

              The UCMJ does NOT trump the Constitution; the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That or I've been mis-reading those simple documents all these years.

              And furthermore there is nothing in either persons remarks that borders even closely on treason; hell the one guilty of treason are the ones who blindly follow the course laid before them without questioning the steps they are taking.
              "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

              Comment


              • #8
                Tell the DS you have the right not to blindly follow the course laid for them, see where it gets you.
                "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Chuck
                  Tell the DS you have the right not to blindly follow the course laid for them, see where it gets you.
                  Good training so you don't question orders later....

                  I have the utmost respect for the people who put there lives on the line for us but I wonder and worry about those who don't stop to think about what we are doing.

                  And no I am not talking about everything, in a combat situation you must follow orders promtly or people get killed, I am talking about the before and after. Soliders, just like citizens, should be stopping and asking themselves "why?"
                  "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X