Navy launches investigation into sailor who didn't stand for National Anthem

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/navy-launches-investigation-into-sailor-who-didnt-stand-for-national-anthem/ar-BBwJ3iq?li=BBnbcA1

Now it's spread to the military...

Disrespect is not acceptable in any of the military. They know exactly what they are doing and apparently want out of military service as that is what will happen and it won't be pretty.

That could have extremely negative consequences over the course of her life. I have heard of people being turned down on job applications over a dishonorable discharge, when they would otherwise have been hired. Costly, stupid mistake.

This kind of stuff seems to be escalating, and I don't think we have heard the last of it.

I think it's called a Article 32 hearing if I recall watching reruns of "JAG". I might be wrong.

Actually it is article 92.

Troops who fail to follow these orders could face prosecution under Nay’s Uniform Code of Military Justice for violating Article 92. Article 92 says that troops can be punished for failing to obey a lawful general order.

She clearly picked the wrong 'career'!

and this makes her a bad person ?

No. It makes her unsuitable to serve in the armed forces.

why would it make her unsuitable ?

There are specific rules and regulations stating what a uniformed military member will do when the anthem plays. She failed to do that. She is free to not stand while not in uniform. It would be like growing a beard because you disagree with that policy and regulation and coming to work in uniform. Can't do it.

Rules and regulations are not the same thing as laws. Freedom of speech still applies.

Schools may have "rules and regulations" stating that a student must stand for the pledge, that doesn't make it law, nor does it mean those rules and regulations won't have to change in the face of a lawsuit.

People still have rights and those rights must apply to everyone, including the military.

Nope...Military is different.

I agree. I don't like all the patriotism protocol but this person was in the Navy and most adhere to their rules if she wants to remain there.

How can someone go into the military and not know how they are to conduct themselves? Military has different rules and standards that must be maintained for discipline and control.

There are plenty of ways to protest, but why jeopardize your whole military career which can have long lasting negative results?

So these people think about what they are doing to themselves?
Apparently not, or they don't care.

I'm guessin you never served because you have no idea what you're talking about. Compliance with military polices and regulations are not optional or negotiable.

Then why isn't michaelm (not logged in) in jail? He clearly admits to refusing to follow orders, according to you, that's not allowed.

"No, during my career I refused to follow unlawful verbal orders on a couple of occasions and then went back up through the chain of command to make it clear why I did so."

- michaelm (not logged in) (further down the thread, but here's a link to the specific post: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1884273,1884599#msg-1884599)

According to you, he should be in jail. Since "Compliance with military polices and regulations are not optional or negotiable."

Perhaps, you should not make assumptions about what I do or do not know.

If that's true, he proved the order was "unlawful" which is a totally different circumstance. Not to mention, a superior somebody giving an order is a different thing than written policy. Any commander could give an "unlawful" order like, go execute that unarmed civilian, for instance.

CTRringturnsmyfingergreen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If that's true, he proved the order was "unlawful"
> which is a totally different circumstance.

It's not different at all. She has done the same thing, not followed what she considers an unlawful order (or policy). She's just beginning the process to make her case that it's unlawful. It'll be resolved, it just isn't yet.

> Not to
> mention, a superior somebody giving an order is a
> different thing than written policy.

Not in practice. At any rate, the original article says if she's charge, it'll be for failure to obey a lawful order -- so whether the order (or written policy) is lawful or not IS the issue at hand.

>"If that's true, he proved the order was 'unlawful' which is a totally different circumstance."

Nope, it's same thing, should this go to court she'll have the same opportunity to prove or disprove that the "order" or "policy" does or does not violate her freedom of speech making it unlawful.

>"Not to mention, a superior somebody giving an order is a different thing than written policy. Any commander could give an 'unlawful' order like, go execute that unarmed civilian, for instance."

So... You're arguing that a written policy somehow carries more weight than a spoken order? Have _you_ been in the military? Because that's not true at all. They could both technically be seen as "orders". Written policies can also change, especially if it's determined that they are unlawful. (See, for example, the recent Don't ask Don't tell policy)

Exactly, Finally Free.

This woman made a *decision* to challenge something she felt was unjust. Her actions weren't harmful to anyone else, they weren't treasonous, and they were about free speech and free speech only.
When people see an injustice, challenging it with non-harmful actions is a good way to push a resolution of what they see as injustice. In this case, she put her career on the line to challenge it. There will be investigations, hearings, and more. If she's dishonorably discharged or given a punitive sentence, a lawsuit challenging those actions might follow. None of that makes her disloyal or a traitor or committing treason. They make her a person of conscience who is willing to put her life and livelihood on the line to challenge what she sees as an injustice.

You don't have to agree with her. You should, though, recognize her right to challenge what she sees as an injustice, being willing to put her butt on the line to do so. That's more honorable than just conforming to fit in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2016 05:44PM by ificouldhietokolob.

It makes her too honorable to serve in the armed forces.

What ever happened to The Village People's Navy?

In the navy
Yes, you can sail the seven seas
In the navy
Yes, you can put your mind at ease
In the navy
Come on people, fall in make a stand
In the navy, in the navy
Can't you see we need a hand

Maybe it was the wrong kind of stand.

I agree with her stance, but she chose the wrong time and place to protest.

She has risked everything she has worked so hard to attain. I can't see someone in her position doing this lightly.

I can see how allowing the trending behavior to go unpunished might lead to a worsening condition. It must have been a tough call for both her and the Navy.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/23/second-sailor-under-review-for-refusing-to-stand-for-anthem.html

Of course she still has free speech. I fought a war to make it so. When I wore a uniform I was a soldier and as a soldier there were things I could not do wearing that uniform. Yes it is her job and it is her job to stand and salute the flag. She to took an oath. If she was not in uniform then I believe she is free to do whatever she likes because she represents no one but herself even though service people are advised and sometimes ordered to behave in certain ways.

She works in intelligence so I see her behavior as a national threat. What if she suddenly decides she is not going to obey other orders. In that uniform she demand our trust and respect by the very authority she defies.

Look at it this way. Imagine being stopped by a cop, you have an expectation that he or she will act and behave in a certain way. That expectation is set by the uniform he/she wears and the duties the cop performs.

We will engage our first responders differently than the average person in the street. This girl may be given a weapon and ordered to control citizens if given certain situations.

If a serviceperson wearing the uniform of the country they serve refuses to stand for its anthem or salute their flag then it is an offence in military law because they are held to a higher account that others, it is also an offence to my military brothers and sisters who have given so much to defend our freedoms.

Does she have the right under the constitution?
Some give up their rights willingly and others unwillingly. Would you defend a violent prisoner his second amendment right to bear arms. Can they vote in elections or read and say what they like. I think not.

The national anthem, the flag, the pledge of allegiance - these things are SYMBOLS, people! Save your outrage for actual disrespect, actual tyranny, actual traitorous actions, and actual injustice and abuse of power (such as what she was trying to draw attention to). We seem to let professional football players rape and beat their partners, cheat and otherwise be foul examples but if they take a knee at the anthem, then we're outraged? What's wrong with us? I can see the point of view with this sailor, it's her job, she represents the country in a way other workers do not, but doesn't she still have freedom of speech? Isn't this still a free country?

Thank you, a nonny mouse.

Exactly right!

Of course she still has freedom of speech.

And the military has the freedom to discipline her for it.

It the MILITARY, not civilian law/ rules.

Exactly Johnny The Smoke!

...and the military will discipline her - guaranteed. Stupid move on her part. Should have done something else to show her frustration, i.e. write to congressman, donate to a like cause, etc.

Civilians have freedoms that military personnel don't and this matter is one example. Unlike civilians, armed forces members are subject to a separate legal system, the UCMJ. The sailor was simply in the wrong.

Joining the military does not mean forfeiting your constitutional rights, including freedom of speech.

Yes, when you join the military you waive many constitutional rights. The constitution is for civilians not for members of the military.

"In the past, some legal analysts contended that those in the military receive a level of constitutional protection that is inferior to that afforded to civilians. However, in United States v. Stuckey, 10 M.J. 347 (1981), the Court of Military Appeals (now called the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Services) held that 'the Bill of Rights applies with full force to men and women in the military service. …'

"Congress, under its authority to regulate the armed forces, generally determines the due process and Equal Protection rights of service personnel, and most courts defer to congressional authority in this area. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that Congress must heed the Constitution when it enacts legislation that concerns the military."

-- http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rights+of+Service+Members

I wish I could bold that last sentence. I say again, "Joining the military does not mean forfeiting your constitutional rights, including freedom of speech."

ETA, since when are members of the military NOT citizens of the country?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2016 11:16AM by Finally Free!.

I wish I could bold that last sentence. I say again, "Joining the military does not mean forfeiting your constitutional rights, including freedom of speech."

If you would have read the article you would have found that 'Freedom of Speech' is not the issue at all.

She failed to 'follow a legal order'!

The question for the courts is exercising your freedom of speech the same as failing to follow a legal order.

The courts have shown time and time again that schools and school districts can not make rules that force a student to stand for the pledge of allegiance, as this violates their freedom of speech. It will be interesting to see if the same applies to our military.

In other words is it legal to order someone to violate their freedom of speech. I, personally, hope the answer is no and that her freedom of speech takes precedence over this "legal order".

So, yes, Freedom of Speech is very much the issue at hand.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She failed to 'follow a legal order'!

Was the order "legal," if it violated her constitutional rights?

That will be the issue at any disciplinary/legal hearing.
And no, it's not settled already.

Do you think we can violate protocols like here on this board and be upset if the Admins delete those posts?

There is freedom of speech and there is treason.

This is a private board and it can set it's own rules. The military is government and is subject to the Constitution. Apples and oranges.

Since when is exercising freedom of speech treason? As far as I can tell, she has not released classified documents, she hasn't released state secrets. As far as I can tell, what she has said is that she wants everyone to be treated equally, which seems to be about as an American idea as there is.

You seem to be going to the slippery slope argument, building a straw man of her stating that if she'll sit out of the National Anthem, that she's one step away from blowing away everyone around here. There has been nothing to show that she's even anti-american, just that she wants all Americans to be treated equally.

So this board is not subject to the constitution? Are the contributors not citizens therefore have the right to free speech?
So when you join something that is privately organized you automatically forfeit your free speech?
Seems like you are arguing that we are all equal but some more equal than others depending on which club or church you belong to.
She broke a direct general order because her conscience told her to. I do not know her mind so I do not know if her next actions would be to use her right to free speech to reveal military secrets or use her right to bear arms to shoot someone her conscience tells her to.
I will not prejudge her supposed pre-actions but stick to the facts and judge on her current actions.

>"So this board is not subject to the constitution? Are the contributors not citizens therefore have the right to free speech? So when you join something that is privately organized you automatically forfeit your free speech?"

There is a difference between public and private speech. This is a private board. The Admins set the rules and can enforce them within the law. Just like you can kick anyone out of your home if you don't like what they have to say. I would hope you know this.

>"She broke a direct general order because her conscience told her to. I do not know her mind so I do not know if her next actions would be to use her right to free speech to reveal military secrets or use her right to bear arms to shoot someone her conscience tells her to."

You are making a lot of assumptions that have no basis in fact. We also have this thing in the US, which, yes, applies to the military as well, called presumed innocence. You're suggesting that because she's peacefully protesting that she's about to open fire on people on her base... That's presumed guilt.

>"I will not prejudge her supposed pre-actions but stick to the facts and judge on her current actions."

You already have by your words. She's given her reasons and none of them point to treason nor harming anyone, yet you've stated that that's exactly what you're worried about and why she shouldn't be allowed her free speech.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >"So this board is not subject to the
> constitution? Are the contributors not citizens
> therefore have the right to free speech? So when
> you join something that is privately organized you
> automatically forfeit your free speech?"
>
> There is a difference between public and private
> speech. This is a private board. The Admins set
> the rules and can enforce them within the law.
> Just like you can kick anyone out of your home if
> you don't like what they have to say. I would hope
> you know this.

Exactly and the law gives the right to free speech.
Where in the constitution does it differentiate between public and private speech?

>
> >"She broke a direct general order because her
> conscience told her to. I do not know her mind so
> I do not know if her next actions would be to use
> her right to free speech to reveal military
> secrets or use her right to bear arms to shoot
> someone her conscience tells her to."
>
> You are making a lot of assumptions that have no
> basis in fact. We also have this thing in the US,
> which, yes, applies to the military as well,
> called presumed innocence. You're suggesting that
> because she's peacefully protesting that she's
> about to open fire on people on her base... That's
> presumed guilt.

No I disagree and every time you lock you front door when you go out you do the same. You presume the guilt of the robber before he/she robs your home. I do not suspect everyone of being a killer but I presume everybody has the capacity to kill another. A perpetrator will almost always verbalize intent before committing the crime. That can be verbalized by committing a lesser crime and building up to the main crime or speaking or bragging to friends and even the intended victim. Now I am not saying this girl is about to commit any heinous crime but she has used her position to incite others to action. Those others may not be as pretty as her.


>
> >"I will not prejudge her supposed pre-actions but
> stick to the facts and judge on her current
> actions."
>
> You already have by your words. She's given her
> reasons and none of them point to treason nor
> harming anyone, yet you've stated that that's
> exactly what you're worried about and why she
> shouldn't be allowed her free speech.

I didn't say she isn't allowed free speech those are your words. I said out of uniform she is not representing the military. She can kneel on a football field or shout at the police or do whatever she likes within the law but in uniform it is a different matter. She expects our trust and respect in that uniform and at times may demand it by issuing a lawful order to a civilian and expect to have it followed. She cannot have it both ways even if I agree with the point she is making.
However, I do see your point so to that end I will take tomorrow off work and sit on the beach drinking coffee in protest to her protest and the Mormon Church in general. Now you may or may not agree with my protest but I will not be doing it in uniform.

davetheseer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you think we can violate protocols like here on
> this board and be upset if the Admins delete those
> posts?

Yes, you can violate 'protocols' here.
Yes, you can be upset if the Admins delete those posts.
I'm not sure what your point was, and since this isn't a government institution (like the military), but a private board, I'm not sure how the analogy works...?

> There is freedom of speech and there is treason.

Sure. Not saluting a flag, however, is not treason.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

"Joining the military does not mean forfeiting your constitutional rights, including freedom of speech."

Joining the military and agreeing to abide by orders and written policies and then refusing to do so is a pretty damn serious matter. In my opinion, the sailor was simply in the wrong.

Did you ever serve in the United States Armed Forces?

So, you're going for the "must obey all orders as given, regardless of legality" argument.

"An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it."

- https://www.thebalance.com/military-orders-3332819

I believe this falls in the "does not need to be obeyed" portion of that sentence. The question remains, is it lawful for the military to order someone to remove their freedom of speech. The Supreme Court, so far, has stated that the constitution applies to the military.

What difference does it make if I have or have not served in the military? I have seen people, from the military on both sides of the argument here. If you are trying to make the point if I haven't served, that I do not understand, you are mistaken.

"So, you're going for the "must obey all orders as given, regardless of legality" argument."

No, during my career I refused to follow unlawful verbal orders on a couple of occasions and then went back up through the chain of command to make it clear why I did so. One concerned a blatant violation of a safety procedure that could have resulted in injury or death to those under my supervision and another involved misuse of government funds, which again was in violation of other orders and policies.

And in my opinion, this sailor was in the wrong. There are many limitations and restrictions on speech and actions in the Armed Forces that civilians don't understand. And for hell's sakes, if that sailor doesn't want to comply with the written protocols of her branch of service concerning respect for the flag, she doesn't belong in the military as far as I'm concerned.

"And in my opinion..."

And that's just it, it's your opinion. Obviously, she has a different opinion. I'll bet there's plenty of opinions on the subject (both in and out of the military).

Opinions aren't law. It will be interesting to see what the courts decide.

Of course it is just my opinion, and maybe an outdated opinion in the current court of public opinion, having been retired from active duty for the past 16 years. But the difference between my opinion and the opinion of that sailor is mine is in-line with the current written military protocols concerning respect for the flag. The sailor chose to disregard those written policies, taking her opinion and acting on it in violation of orders.

Well Said Michalem.
But those that have served must understand that not all civilians will understand the brotherhood of service. Easy to keyboard warrior arguments but not so easy under rife.
Would I trust her in my patrol. No I would not. Who knows what her next decision of conscience might be.

Few things were more irritating to me than a barracks lawyer.

Her actions didn't put anyone at risk in any way.
And there's good legal reason to think she is legally justified in what she did.

You admitted that you didn't obey orders you thought were unlawful; yet when this sailor does the same thing you did, you declare her untrustworthy.

Is anyone who has a different opinion from you in the same boat? Should your brothers in arms have declared you untrustworthy when you refused to follow an order you didn't consider legal?

I'm just thankful that I opted out of a life of professional murder. I tried it for a few years, learned some nifty ways to snuff out human lives, and decided it wasn't for me. Maybe this conscientious objector developed a bad case of seriousness.

But yeah, rules. You can't run a truly farcical organization without rules.

Because national security is at risk if she doesn't stand for a SONG? Stupid, if that's what we're getting bothered about, or if that's enough for the navy to get in a wad about. Our enemies should get a hoot about how easily distracted we are. Good grief.

And to think that I was forced to fold my fruit of the looms into 6 inch squares, as if it had anything to do with national security.

Good for her. Having dealt with NCIS extensively as a civilian I have NO love lost for that entity, although I do respect some people in it.

It's like, if you're a member of the church, and you get caught having sex with the bishop's wife, you're going to be subject to church discipline. But if you're not a member, it's just a fun story to tell your friends.

My issue with this whole thing is this......

Kaepernick say's he's raising awareness and starting a discussion.

So far the conversation has been all about his actions, not the issue he is trying to highlight. That isn't helping to resolve the issue.

I picture an editorial cartoon that looks like this....

QB kneeling at the sideline during the anthem saying "I'm starting a discussion".....he's flanked by two groups of people yelling at each other.....on the other side of the frame is an empty table and chairs and on the table it says "BLM discussion table".

As long as the discussion is stuck on the protester, no one is discussing the issue.

She violated her oath, plain and simple:

The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."


The military is not an organization formed to encourage individual expression. It is cohesive fighting force intended to protect the ability of the rest of us to engage in individual expression. And you do leave some of your individual freedoms at the door when you agree to enter that force.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She violated her oath, plain and simple:

She didn't if the order given wasn't legal.
If not obeying an order you don't consider legal is a violation of oath, then michaelm above also violated his oath. I'll bet real money he doesn't think he did.

> The military is not an organization formed to
> encourage individual expression.

Yet the Supreme Court has ruled that in most cases, it can't *prevent* it, either.

> It is cohesive
> fighting force intended to protect the ability of
> the rest of us to engage in individual expression.

Did her action inhibit its ability to do that? Not that I see.

> And you do leave some of your individual freedoms
> at the door when you agree to enter that force.

Yes. The question is here (and it is a question, and it isn't settled) is whether the freedom she made a choice about is one of those you have to "leave at the door." The courts will decide. There's good legal reason to think it isn't one of those.

Pretty sure we just had this exact debate that took up (2) separate threads. I remember it getting pretty nasty and nothing was resolved because it's a debate of opinions. Why do we think this outcome will be any different? ;)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2016 04:50PM by Elders Quorum Drop-out.