DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Any American's serve(ed) in the military?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 48 of 48, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/07/2012 11:56:54 AM · #26
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Spork99:


...One of my previous employers laid me off to outsource my lab, it was a "cost reduction". Unfortunately for them, I'd written all of the software that ran the test equipment in the lab. It worked fine as long as you didn't need to do anything out of the ordinary. A few weeks later, I got a call from them asking about making changes to the software...basically they wanted me to come in and help them. I told them I was now a consultant and my rate was $1200/day and that the changes we were discussing would be 4 days minimum.


That really doesn't say much in relation to the job you had.

Assuming that the software you designed met their previous demands to a tee, that the only reason they let you go was for cost reduction considerations and they were otherwise quite pleased with your services, then I as a manager I would have no problems paying you the per diem rate since it would in all likelihood be cheaper than keeping you on full time.

In such a scenario, both you and the company are happy. :O)

Ray


Unfortunately, they were assholes about the whole thing. After I told them I wouldn't come in and do work for free, they went to the unemployment agency and tried to retroactively claim I was terminated for cause and deny my claim. It's a good thing I kept the paperwork where they spelled out why I was let go. I faxed everything to the state and let them beat on my former employer with it.
04/07/2012 12:21:35 PM · #27
While this discussion about the differences between being fired and laid off or let go is interesting, it's not really doing much to address the OP.
04/07/2012 10:53:32 PM · #28
Back to the question of the serviceman - lets not forget that he also declared that he would not follow, what he determined, were illegal orders from his Commander in Chief. Part of the oath you take in the military is to follow orders and especially in the Marines they take it very serious.

Message edited by author 2012-04-07 22:54:20.
04/08/2012 08:56:15 AM · #29
So, since this marine has public said "I won't follow orders I believe aren't right/legal." is enough to have him discharged? Is he trying to make a fuss about something that will inevitably end with him on FOX NEWs doing book deals and such?
04/08/2012 10:44:40 AM · #30
Here's the deal with legal/illegal orders. It doesn't matter if he thinks the orders are legal or not, it matters what his superiors and the court thinks. The "Nuremberg Defense" (i.e. I was just following orders.) doesn't excuse illegal behavior. So the claims by the soldiers at Abu Gahraib that they were just following orders when the abused detainees doesn't work. The other side of the coin is not obeying an order that the soldier (or Marine) believes to be illegal. A soldier was convicted for refusing to wear a UN armband and helmet emblem when deployed on a UN peacekeeping mission to Macedonia. He believed that the order to wear them was illegal. His superiors and the military courts disagreed. He received a bad conduct discharge. It doesn't matter if the orders are dangerous either. There was an incident in Iraq where 19 members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company refused to transport supplies because they felt it was "too dangerous". Also, if a service member influenced others to disobey, that's considered Mutiny and Mutiny is punishable by death.

Were the orders in this case illegal?

From the Manual for Courts-Martial:

"An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime."

He'd better hope the court finds that it meets that standard...not that he believes the order wasn't the right thing to do or that he otherwise disagrees with it.
04/08/2012 12:43:37 PM · #31
I'm an active duty Marine, and I'll just put it this way.

If I were to have particular feeling about my superiors, including the President, I might speak out about it on Facebook, but I would not do so as a Marine, I would do it as myself. By that I mean I would not make a Facebook group called "Marine Corps Sergeant Quincy Tennyson and his Marine friends act as Marines to proclaim our disdain for the unconstitutional President."

It's just kind of silly.
04/08/2012 01:11:25 PM · #32
Originally posted by heavyj:

So, since this marine has public said "I won't follow orders I believe aren't right/legal." is enough to have him discharged? Is he trying to make a fuss about something that will inevitably end with him on FOX NEWs doing book deals and such?


If the marine's activity were as simple as you describe them here then he might have a fighting chance. Unfortunately, from what I have read this is not the case and he will soon be free to express himself as he wishes.

Ray
04/09/2012 04:26:40 PM · #33
Originally posted by SwordandScales:

I'm an active duty Marine, and I'll just put it this way.

If I were to have particular feeling about my superiors, including the President, I might speak out about it on Facebook, but I would not do so as a Marine, I would do it as myself. By that I mean I would not make a Facebook group called "Marine Corps Sergeant Quincy Tennyson and his Marine friends act as Marines to proclaim our disdain for the unconstitutional President."

It's just kind of silly.


It wasn't on his personal Facebook page. It was on a open Facebook page that he'd created called "Armed Forces Tea Party"
04/10/2012 01:45:32 AM · #34
Originally posted by heavyj:

So, since this marine has public said "I won't follow orders I believe aren't right/legal." is enough to have him discharged? Is he trying to make a fuss about something that will inevitably end with him on FOX NEWs doing book deals and such?


The answer to that is it will likely end up with him on Fox News with some type of deal. Bottom line is that he allowed his extreme political views to get in the way of his status as an active duty marine. It does not matter what side of the political spectrum you are on you can't claim free speech or that you believe your superior officer is "illegal or asking you to do something illegal" based on political views. That is what it looks like he was doing in a big way by inciting on Facebook. Unless of course he can convince the military courts he is in the right, unlikely.
04/10/2012 11:36:31 AM · #35
Originally posted by jbsmithana:

Originally posted by heavyj:

So, since this marine has public said "I won't follow orders I believe aren't right/legal." is enough to have him discharged? Is he trying to make a fuss about something that will inevitably end with him on FOX NEWs doing book deals and such?


The answer to that is it will likely end up with him on Fox News with some type of deal. Bottom line is that he allowed his extreme political views to get in the way of his status as an active duty marine. It does not matter what side of the political spectrum you are on you can't claim free speech or that you believe your superior officer is "illegal or asking you to do something illegal" based on political views. That is what it looks like he was doing in a big way by inciting on Facebook. Unless of course he can convince the military courts he is in the right, unlikely.


If he was inciting others to disobey...that's mutiny, which is a capital offense.
04/10/2012 11:41:51 AM · #36
How I understand it(which isn't to say very well) is that the moment you sign your contract with the armed forces, you cease to be a United States citizen and become a tool of the US government. Your rights as a citizen no longer apply as you are now operating under a completely different set of rules and regs.
04/10/2012 11:57:30 AM · #37
Originally posted by bflo_guy:

How I understand it(which isn't to say very well) is that the moment you sign your contract with the armed forces, you cease to be a United States citizen and become a tool of the US government. Your rights as a citizen no longer apply as you are now operating under a completely different set of rules and regs.


You are still a citizen but some of your rights are suspended for a time...so to speak. You do have to follow their regs.
04/10/2012 12:04:27 PM · #38
Originally posted by bflo_guy:

How I understand it(which isn't to say very well) is that the moment you sign your contract with the armed forces, you cease to be a United States citizen and become a tool of the US government. Your rights as a citizen no longer apply as you are now operating under a completely different set of rules and regs.


That's a pretty insulting way to look at it.

Servicemembers do not give up their citizenship status (not all members of the military are citizens). They do however agree to limitations on some of the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and Constitution. When people refer to the sacrifices made by servicemembers, they usually think about being away from family and friends, being injured or killed. What they don't think about is that the servicemembers also give up some of their freedoms as part of their service to their country.
04/10/2012 12:40:25 PM · #39
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by SwordandScales:

I'm an active duty Marine, and I'll just put it this way.

If I were to have particular feeling about my superiors, including the President, I might speak out about it on Facebook, but I would not do so as a Marine, I would do it as myself. By that I mean I would not make a Facebook group called "Marine Corps Sergeant Quincy Tennyson and his Marine friends act as Marines to proclaim our disdain for the unconstitutional President."

It's just kind of silly.


It wasn't on his personal Facebook page. It was on a open Facebook page that he'd created called "Armed Forces Tea Party"


And that is precisely what I was alluding to, he didn't express the views in a personal way, he did so in an all-encompassing way which included his Marine persona. That's the primary issue with the entire thing. He misrepresents the Marine Corps by going about it the way he did.

Furthermore, the guy was warned several times. We live in a society which seems to become incredibly surprised when an individual speaks out and is then persecuted. That's what happens.
04/10/2012 01:22:24 PM · #40
It would have been an interesting case had he posted as a private citizen while on active duty, had he not referenced his role as a member of the military, nor spoken of what orders he might or might not obey. Had he just been ripping Obama in his off duty hours, would he have been in violation of protocol?
04/10/2012 02:08:59 PM · #41
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

It would have been an interesting case had he posted as a private citizen while on active duty, had he not referenced his role as a member of the military, nor spoken of what orders he might or might not obey. Had he just been ripping Obama in his off duty hours, would he have been in violation of protocol?


If he did it on Facebook where he identified himself as a servicemember, he could still get in trouble. On a forum with a non-identifying username, probably not.
04/10/2012 02:22:29 PM · #42
Originally posted by bflo_guy:

How I understand it(which isn't to say very well) is that the moment you sign your contract with the armed forces, you cease to be a United States citizen and become a tool of the US government. Your rights as a citizen no longer apply as you are now operating under a completely different set of rules and regs.


No, when you join the military, you agree to be held to the UCMJ. You are still under civilian laws and you have all the rights you normally would as a citizen.

In this Marine's case, he is not in any trouble from civilian authorities for speaking his mind. That is his right as a citizen. However, as a member of the military, they have the right to take action when he doesn't follow regulations and the UCMJ.

Another thing to know is that refusing to follow an (which you believe to be) illegal order is not something you can do without consequence. You can still be held for refusing to follow an order until you can prove your case in a court martial. If you win, your record will be clean, but your career will effectively be over, and if you lose, you'll be discharged anyway on a BCD or dishonorable discharge.
04/10/2012 02:37:38 PM · #43
Originally posted by alohadave:

Originally posted by bflo_guy:

How I understand it(which isn't to say very well) is that the moment you sign your contract with the armed forces, you cease to be a United States citizen and become a tool of the US government. Your rights as a citizen no longer apply as you are now operating under a completely different set of rules and regs.


No, when you join the military, you agree to be held to the UCMJ. You are still under civilian laws and you have all the rights you normally would as a citizen.

In this Marine's case, he is not in any trouble from civilian authorities for speaking his mind. That is his right as a citizen. However, as a member of the military, they have the right to take action when he doesn't follow regulations and the UCMJ.

Another thing to know is that refusing to follow an (which you believe to be) illegal order is not something you can do without consequence. You can still be held for refusing to follow an order until you can prove your case in a court martial. If you win, your record will be clean, but your career will effectively be over, and if you lose, you'll be discharged anyway on a BCD or dishonorable discharge.


Man you sound like a JAG lawyer...also in the military you are guilty until proven innocent. My opinion is, military law is no where close to fair...
04/10/2012 03:01:37 PM · #44
Like I said, I didn't say I understood what it means to sign on the dotted line, that's just the impression that I've gotten over the years. Didn't mean to be insulting to any of those who served, although re-reading what I wrote now, that does read pretty harsh and not really how I meant it to sound.

I was just trying to say that when you sign up, you're under a very different and much harsher code than what you have as a regular citizen.

04/10/2012 06:10:12 PM · #45
Originally posted by bflo_guy:

How I understand it(which isn't to say very well) is that the moment you sign your contract with the armed forces, you cease to be a United States citizen and become a tool of the US government. Your rights as a citizen no longer apply as you are now operating under a completely different set of rules and regs.


It may come as a shock to you, but many of the people in the armed forces in the USA are not citizens.

Of the many thousands of Canadians who served in the U.S. Vietnam-era military, some 12,00 Canadians actually served in Vietnam itself.

The military in both the USA,Canada and other countries, are structured in such a fashion that the establishment can depend on the rank and file regardless of the situation they might be in... hence the need for obedience, even in the most trying of times.

Ray
04/11/2012 09:33:21 AM · #46
Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Man you sound like a JAG lawyer...also in the military you are guilty until proven innocent. My opinion is, military law is no where close to fair...


I'm not sure whether to be happy or feel insulted. :)
04/11/2012 10:29:00 AM · #47
Originally posted by alohadave:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Man you sound like a JAG lawyer...also in the military you are guilty until proven innocent. My opinion is, military law is no where close to fair...


I'm not sure whether to be happy or feel insulted. :)


Ive had a few friends that were in JAG. I was in an engineering command and we always had jag lawyers tasked to us.
04/11/2012 06:57:57 PM · #48
Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Originally posted by alohadave:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Man you sound like a JAG lawyer...also in the military you are guilty until proven innocent. My opinion is, military law is no where close to fair...


I'm not sure whether to be happy or feel insulted. :)


Ive had a few friends that were in JAG. I was in an engineering command and we always had jag lawyers tasked to us.


Why was that? Did the results of the engineering command have a tendency to fall down? :O)

Ray
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/05/2020 12:33:18 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 04/05/2020 12:33:18 AM EDT.