US Navy Men and Other Military Sound Off About Being Deployed to Syria: “Hell NO! I Did Not Sign Up to Fight For Al-Qaeda”

Re-blogged from The Blaze on 09.03.2013

‘Treason’ Or ‘Free Speech?’ – Are These Anti-Syria Strike Pictures From U.S. Military Members Okay? (Blaze Poll)

Sep. 2, 2013 11:46am

Since the U.S. has started serious discussions about taking military action against Syria, many have publicly spoken out against a possible military strike. And now it appears that some of our uniformed service personnel have come forward to express their disagreement with an attack, any attack on Syria.

More than 2,000 people have “liked” this image that was posted on Sunday.

Photo posted by member of the US Army

There were also photos posted from people wearing the uniforms of the Marines, Navy and Air Force. These have also received Facebook “likes” in the thousands.

US Marine on Syria

US Navy personnel on Syria

Military montage on Syria

Is this kind of behavior allowed? Well, there are rules concerning what uniformed military personnel can and cannot do, especially when it comes to making a political statement. In reviewing the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 88 could come into play here. That section states:

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

We see that commissioned officers could be called to question if they posted a photo like those seen above. What about enlisted or non-commissioned personnel? The UCMJ has rules for these folks as well. According to Article 92, failure to obey an order could result in being court-martialed.

Any person subject to this chapter who–

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Where do you stand on this issue? Should members of the military be allowed to publicly post their disagreement with a possible strike on Syria while they are in uniform? Take part in our Blaze Poll and feel free to comment below.

Follow Mike Opelka on Twitter@stuntbrain

See http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/02/treason-or-free-speech-are-these-anti-syria-strike-pictures-from-u-s-military-members-okay-blaze-poll/

Advertisements

BREAKING: US Military Boots on the Ground in Jordan: 200 US Troops Deployed to Jordan’s Border with Syria

We all know what this means. Once the “boots on the ground” threshold is crossed, it will only be a matter of time until more troops are deployed and the US will find itself embroiled in yet another Mideast conflict. I dreaded this news but also watched for it for months, well knowing that sooner or later we would be forced to send in our own due to the wreckage, war and anarchy in Syria. This should not have to become our battle, but we are loyal allies with Israel, and that forces our hand, like it or not.  The crack is open now. It will only get worse and the news will only become more dreadful out of Syria, where the Old Testament describes Damascus as becoming a “ruinous heap” in the end. Until Assad is dead there will only be death and carnage out of Syria, and the vacuum opened by his death will also leave a gaping rip in the geo-politics in the region where I am quite sure that “black flags” will try to rush in.

Tags: Syria, Jordan, wars rumors of wars, US troops deployed Jordan border, Mideast

UN and NATO Now Have Controlling Authority for Deployment of the US Military

Luxembourgian-registered NATO E-3 AWACS flying...

Luxembourgian-registered NATO E-3 AWACS flying with three American Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter aircraft in a NATO exercise (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

That headline sounds spectacularly absurd doesn’t it? Maybe it’s not as absurd as you might think. Apparently there is some sort of huge legal “grey area” for the deployment of the US military, and the more Leon Panetta tries to explain the legal grey area, the worse it sounds for present and future US military sovereignty.

I wonder what American enlisted men would think of this dialogue?  They are the ones whose lives are on the line in any military action. Would such UN and NATO authority imply that US troops would ever be deployed without prior Congressional voting, consent and/or approval?

I’m willing to admit I know little about Congressional law, but it sure sounds like the UN and NATO now have some sort of superseding legal authority over the deployment of US troops. That can’t be right! Unless our Congress has been literally asleep at the wheel for years, something like  that could never legally happen. Or could it? It does beg the question:

Has there been a literal legal militaryCoup detat in the United States which has taken place right under our noses during the Obama presidency? Or has this legal sleight of hand been brewing behind the scenes all along?  Please send me any links which will enlighten.

Listen to this recent exchange from earlier in 2012.

See also http://newsworldwide.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/breaking-u-s-military-no-longer-controlled-by-the-united-states/

The Longest War in US History is Also the Most Forgotten: Afghanistan

Soviet troops (in right row) withdrawing from ...

Soviet troops (in right row) withdrawing from Afghanistan in 1988. Afghan government BTR on the left. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Today, October 7th, is the 12 year anniversary of the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. It’s a dark milestone. The war is now officially the longest running conflict in American history, outlasting Vietnam and eclipsing it in futility as well. Conspicuously absent from dialogue issuing from both candidates in the recent presidential debate was any mention at all of the ongoing war in Afghanistan. I found that fact unnerving. 68,000 troops are still in Afghanistan, with casualty reports continuing as the months and years drag by. The cost of this war to date has been 1.2 trillion dollars – that’s “trillion” with a “T.”

The Soviets could have told American military planners a thing or two about what it’s like to try to fight the tribal Afghani people. They invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and withdrew in disgrace and  exhaustion 1988 after nine years. Does this sound familiar? Journalists are asking urgent questions about this war,  while our political leaders are so silent on the matter it strains credulity. If you are wondering how our British Allies in the Afghanistan war feel about 12 years of involvement, click here. You will hear one of the most eloquent rebukes of the war in Afghanistan which any public figure has dared to speak out loud. I commend the intestinal fortitude of the British, yet another quality our own Congress and Senate seem to lack when it comes to knowing what to say or do to end this senseless loss of life and crippling expenditure. Are we actually borrowing money from China to prosecute the war in Afghanistan at this point? Say it is not true.

More Related Video:

Tags: afghanistan war, foreign policy afghanistan, the war in afghanistan, taliban, us military afghanistan, CIA 1979 Afghanistan

http://www.sfgate.com/business/prweb/article/Announcing-the-Publication-of-Lost-Decency-The-3891735.php

http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/2012/09/19/if-u-s-exits-afghanistan-then-what/