Replies

RE: "Soldiers don’t have unfettered free speech rights. The “Disloyal Statements” provision of Article 134 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice provides for penalties by court-martial for “disloyal statements” made "with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection toward the United States by any member of the armed forces or to interfere with or impair the loyalty to the United States." Ahmed’s treasonous statements fit the U.S. government’s “Manual for Courts Martial‘s” definition of punishable disloyal statements, like a glove: “Examples include praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the United States...A declaration of personal belief can amount to a disloyal statement if it disavows allegiance owed to the United States by the declarant.”" Unlike Ahmed, soldiers have been court-martialed and brought up on Article 134 “disloyal statement” charges for: A letter to the editor questioning the war in Iraq; Comments to a reporter questioning the war in Iraq, but saying he’d do his part and fight; and Telling other soldiers he would not fight in Vietnam if ordered to. But those soldiers had one thing in common: Unlike Ahmed, they’re not Muslim. They didn’t get handled with politically correct kid gloves. And unlike Ahmed, not one of them praised the enemy and wished for America’s failure. Yet, Ahmed was rewarded with an honorable discharge and evading his required duty, allowing him to get screening jobs at airports. "

OMG...a 'copycat crime'??? Is it just me...? ...or does this guy sound a lot like that Lt.(jg) who went to Paris to meet with the Viet Cong back in the '70s...??? ...Didn't THAT guy get off scot free too???!!! ...and didn't HE end up with some high-paying job with the Federal Government too???!!!

This CAN'T be 'just a coincidence' ...CAN it...???

/leg-pulling