Skip to comments.
Grumbling in the Ranks [PELOSI AT WORK ALERT --- MAJOR UCMJ VIOLATIONS]
Washington Wire / Wall Street Journal ^
| January 15, 2007
Posted on 01/15/2007 7:57:55 PM PST by Alter Kaker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
Is this legal? If it is, how is this not insubordination?
To: Alter Kaker
Is this legal? If it is, how is this not insubordination?The concept is citizen soldiers. Insubordination would be if he refused to go, not if he redressed his Congressman and said going wasn't a good policy move.
To: Alter Kaker
3
posted on
01/15/2007 8:03:35 PM PST
by
Txsleuth
(FREEPATHON TIME-Please become a monthly donor, or Dollar a Day donor.)
To: Txsleuth
This Leads on the the Today Show in the AM...
4
posted on
01/15/2007 8:04:37 PM PST
by
fhlh
(Liberal (noun): A person so open minded, their brains have fallen out of their head.)
To: Gunslingr3
It is not refusing to go, it is refusing an order.
From Wikipedia
Insubordination is the act of a subordinate deliberately disobeying a lawful order. Insubordination is typically a punishable offense in hierarchical organizations which depend on people lower in the chain of command to do as they are told. The term does not cover behaviours like bad work ethics, voicing complaints, or refusing to perform an action that is not safe, ethical, or legal. However, the person may well get accused of insubordination in such a case.
The concept of insubordination is most often associated with military organizations, as military organizations have a chain of command and lawful orders given by a superior officer, whose orders are expected to be carried out by the person to whom the order is given. Refusal of a military officer to obey his (civilian) superiors would also count, though in some nations the head of the government is (at least technically) also the most superior officer of the military (see for example Commander in Chief in the US).
5
posted on
01/15/2007 8:05:32 PM PST
by
RetiredArmy
(Dimocrats stand for everything I hate, despise and wish to see destroyed, including dimocrats!)
To: Alter Kaker
The weasels come out of the wordwork. Of course, no democrat has culled these traitors.
6
posted on
01/15/2007 8:06:15 PM PST
by
onedoug
To: Alter Kaker
I call B.S. on their "petition". Fake signatures, most of them.
7
posted on
01/15/2007 8:08:52 PM PST
by
advance_copy
(Stand for life, or nothing at all)
To: Alter Kaker
What's interesting is how the MSM will word it. Will they change 1000 troops to 'thousands of troops'? Bet on it.
8
posted on
01/15/2007 8:09:05 PM PST
by
txhurl
To: Alter Kaker
Sounds like a coup attempt.
9
posted on
01/15/2007 8:09:09 PM PST
by
donna
To: Alter Kaker
Career killer. Let these guys do that, but they might as well not re-up, because they will never go anywhere in the military.
10
posted on
01/15/2007 8:09:31 PM PST
by
McGavin999
(Don't be a Freeploader, contribute to the upkeep of FreeRepublic)
To: fhlh
Oh..for sure it will.
It will be on Imus and Sissy Chrissy Matthews.
Someone in the House and the Senate will get up on the floor and wave this around...PROOF that Pres. Bush is WRONG.
11
posted on
01/15/2007 8:10:37 PM PST
by
Txsleuth
(FREEPATHON TIME-Please become a monthly donor, or Dollar a Day donor.)
To: Alter Kaker
Is this legal? If it is, how is this not insubordination?Every war has it's share of COWARDS.
12
posted on
01/15/2007 8:10:57 PM PST
by
org.whodat
(Never let the facts get in the way of a good assumption.)
To: Alter Kaker
They show us 1/2 a sentence from some petition. We don't even know the overall point of the actual petition. Besides, 50 people doesn't make a consensus, not that the military operates on consensus.
To: Alter Kaker
The media uses one named example who is in Iraq but doesn't break down where the rest are and how many have actually been to Iraq. The idea of the military whistle blowers act was to be able to address congress in matters of concern when the chain of command was not trusted or feasible but I never have seen the media in this chain of command.
14
posted on
01/15/2007 8:12:29 PM PST
by
tobyhill
(The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
To: advance_copy
BS here too. I'll believe it, when I see it.
15
posted on
01/15/2007 8:12:48 PM PST
by
davetex
(There are no stupid questions, however there does seem to be an abundance of inquisitive idiots.)
To: Alter Kaker
1988 Military Whistleblower Protection Act, To report fraud and abuse, not encourage insubordination.
But they have little to fear in terms of reprisals from the current CIC and they know it.
They wouldn't have dared try this with Reagan.
16
posted on
01/15/2007 8:12:52 PM PST
by
Rome2000
(Peace is not an option)
To: McGavin999
1000 enlisted is one thing, but what were those 50 officers thinking? Anyway, this will be all over the news tomorrow.
17
posted on
01/15/2007 8:13:10 PM PST
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heie)
To: Alter Kaker
"Is this legal?"That's what I'm wondering. I don't think it's legal for active duty military to protest in such a way. Legal or not, it's certainly not the right thing to do. The enemy couldn't possibly buy propaganda this good....
18
posted on
01/15/2007 8:13:58 PM PST
by
KoRn
To: Alter Kaker
Gee. 1000 whole signatures. There are 1.4 million people on active duty. The Army has 130,000 in Iraq, alone. That means that if the signatures were exclusively from soldiers serving in Iraq about 7/10th of 1% of the troops there signed the petition. If it is from all of the armed forces then it is one out of every 1400 people signed.
It is a rare organization in which less than 1% of its membership are kooks and flakes, but it looks like the armed forces is one of them.
19
posted on
01/15/2007 8:14:29 PM PST
by
No Truce With Kings
(The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
To: Alter Kaker
More than 50 Officers? Active duty types?
I'll be interested to see if this nothing less than a bunch of AR/NG ROTC types who are sorry that they signed up for bennies, in order to get their education paid for. That is, if there is any validity to this at all.
You don't see this sort of nonsense coming from the Combat Arms units.
20
posted on
01/15/2007 8:16:13 PM PST
by
Radix
(My Tag Line has a first name....its O S C A R.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson