Posted on 02/06/2005 6:45:18 AM PST by presidio9
So men and women are so hormone-driven that they cannot make wise choices when they are together??? That's a pretty lame excuse. I believe a lot of men and women can work together and show each other respect. Those that can't shouldn't be in the military.
Your perception of drinking and toplessness at a "going home from combat" party as "inexcusable" is what is bizarre - not to mention pathetic. Thank God you're not still adversely impacting the careers of good military personnel.
Coop, Servant and you are in a very small "minority" of people who think this behavior was ok and should be tolerated in the military.
You don't seem to understand the ramifications of our troops behaving like this, in countries where the moral ethics can have severe consequences (even death) to our troops who do NOT behave this way! The MAJORITY of our troops don't behave this way. They understand the code of ethics we are all to serve under. The majority do us great honor, and bring honor to all of us while they serve.
This group of people are not the first to serve under great stress. So to say they needed to "relieve" their stress and the only way they could do so, was to strip off their uniforms and roll in mud, is the epitomy of ignorance!
I will say it one last time, they dishonored every woman who has died in uniform. lost a limb or is disabled from serving. I'm one of those woman. I'm offended by this behavior.
Many of us served during extremely difficult or stressful times in our nations history. To suggest we needed to behave this way to somehow "survive" is the most IGNORANT nonsense I've ever heard.
Those kind of statements are sheer stupidity.
I didn't think you had served. Because only someone who had NO CONCEPT of service could be so ignorant of how the military works.
2) To say drinking beers and rowdy behavior disgraces our dead veterans is not only moronic, it's insulting.
3) Ignorant of the military? Perhaps you'd like to point out some relevant sections of the UCMJ for me? You know, to help me overcome my ignorance.
Hint: You may want to save some time and focus on the punitive articles: 77-134.
Article 89—Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer
Text.
“Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused did or omitted certain acts or used certain language to or concerning a certain commissioned officer;
(2) That such behavior or language was directed toward that officer;
(3) That the officer toward whom the acts, omissions, or words were directed was the superior commissioned officer of the accused;
(4) That the accused then knew that the commissioned officer toward whom the acts, omissions, or words were directed was the accused’s superior commissioned officer; and
(5) That, under the circumstances, the behavior or language was disrespectful to that commissioned officer.
Sponsored Links
Military Lawyers
Civilian lawyers who know how to aggressively deal with the military
www.militarylawyers.org
Military Criminal Law
On / Off base Cases, Court Martial All Courts - All Crimes
www.criminalattorney.com
Military Insurance Plans
Free basic plan with coverage for active military, reserves and vets.
www.asmba.com
Explanation.
(1) Superior commissioned officer.
(a) Accused and victim in same armed force. If the accused and the victim are in the same armed force, the victim is a “superior commissioned officer” of the accused when either superior in rank or command to the accused; however, the victim is not a “superior commissioned officer”of the accused if the victim is inferior in command, even though superior in rank.
(b) Accused and victim in different armed forces. If the accused and the victim are in different armed forces, the victim is a “superior commissioned officer” of the accused when the victim is a commissioned officer and superior in the chain of command over the accused or when the victim, not a medical officer or a chaplain, is senior in grade to the accused and both are detained by a hostile entity so that recourse to the normal chain of command is prevented. The victim is not a “superior commissioned officer” of the accused merely because the victim is superior in grade to the accused.
(c) Execution of office. It is not necessary that the “superior commissioned officer” be in the execution of office at the time of the disrespectful behavior.
(2) Knowledge. If the accused did not know that the person against whom the acts or words were directed was the accused’s superior commissioned officer, the accused may not be convicted of a violation of this article. Knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
(3) Disrespect. Disrespectful behavior is that which detracts from the respect due the authority and person of a superior commissioned officer. It may consist of acts or language, however expressed, and it is immaterial whether they refer to the superior as an officer or as a private individual. Disrespet by words may be conveyed by abusive epithets or other contemptuous or denunciatory language. Truth is no defense. Disrespect by acts includes neglecting the customary salute, or showing a marked disdain, indifference, insolence, impertinence, undue familiarity, or other rudeness in the presence of the superior officer.
(4) Presence. It is not essential that the disrespectful behavior be in the presence of the superior, but ordinarily one should not be held accountable under this article for what was said or done in a purely private conversation.
(5) Special defense—unprotected victim. A superior commissioned officer whose conduct in relation to the accused under all the circumstances departs substantially from the required standards appropriate to that officer’s rank or position under similar circumstances loses the protection of this article. That accused may not be convicted of being disrespectful to the officer who has so lost the entitlement to respect protected by Article 89.
Lesser included offenses.
(1) Article 117—provoking speeches or gestures
(2) Article 80—attempts
Maximum punishment.
Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.
Next Article> Article 90-Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer >
Above Information from Manual for Court Martial, 2002, Chapter 4, Paragraph 13
More of This Feature
Punitive Articles -- Main Menu
Suggested Reading
Uniform Code of Military Justice
Military Justice 101
Military Law and Legislation FAQ
Give me a link.
Or provide the information!
I might also remind you that punitive measures have already been taken in one circumstance, as were warranted for the her particular situation. So, your LACK of knowledge for military matters is blatantly obvious!
How could I possibly give you a link when I am so ignorant of military matters?
Now, you've done a lovely job listing a few articles. How about putting them into the context of this "inexcusable" crime?
And please identify the "superior commissioned officer" involved in this incident, since you have chosen to invoke Article 89.
917. ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Click on our name, and see "in forum" why I feel the way I do. Others do too, including my husband. You can read our profile and see that we have served during a time in our nations history were there was "stress" too. We always knew the UCMJ, and we always knew our actions had consequences. Those consequences were set up to protect our troops. Not just to "punish" us and keep us from having fun!
Watch the news (FoxNews) and see why those who have served in war zones understand the importance of this too. We'd have utter chaos if we didn't have rules in the military. Spouses at home expect some kind of sanity and order when their loved ones are away at war too!
The comments I've read on this thread are some of the most immature, irresponsible comments I've ever seen. Thank God the majority of our troops serving on Foreign soil don't think like "some" do on this thread. Or like those who stripped off their uniforms and rolled in mud did!
I posted other articles from the UCMJ, and I'm sure there are more that pertain to this topic. But I have to run. It's out there for all to see. I'm sure those articles were already used to reduce the rank of one of the women involved. I for one am glad she was punished. That she is remorseful, shows she understands how wrong it was to behave that way. That she was punished was imperative and a necessity! We can;t have others follow this example. The military has to regain control of the situation and they have to do so immediately. This isn't a "frat" situation. Only someone who never served, or had problems when they did, wouldn't understand it. We don't have time to hold the hands of our troops or to psycho analyze them.
FRegards
You really are quite daft aren't you? Any NCO or Officer who outranked her!
There are NON commissioned officers, and COMMISIONED officers.
Sheesh.. now, I HAVE to run. You really are spending FAR TOO MUCH TIME on this thread. Perhaps it's the "underwear aspect" of it all. Dunno.....
On that I'll agree.
Now, I'll try one more time. In addition to listing Articles 80, 89 or 117, how about lining them up with specific charges in this "inexcusable" incident?
Have to run? Gosh, that is SO surprising! LOL!!
See ya. Come again anytime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.