0
1969912

Wanna see a picture of a steaming turd?

Recommended Posts

Quote

I find it ironic that many people with strong opinions that are anti military and war have never been in either and therefore are speaking with second hand knowledge and yet still think they know more about whats going on than the people who are actually there



There is acceptable and not acceptable. Our military are professionals and I expect them to act as such. The leadership often fails to instill this professionalism, but even in such a lax environment I find significantly less excuse for military operating outside of the bounds of professionalism and ROE than some civilian who is unbound by rules or the oath taken by all of us who served.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But again we are discussing what she did and it was wrong plain and simple.



Meh, I don't think making fun of a sign is that wrong. She just chose a poor location to do it.

I see it in no different light than people making fun of people who have recently died. This forum and these boards are full of examples of people doing just that. People just get a little extra sensitive when it comes to the military.

I for one don't believe she was giving the finger to dead soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I find it ironic that many people with strong opinions that are anti military and war have never been in either and therefore are speaking with second hand knowledge and yet still think they know more about whats going on than the people who are actually there



There is acceptable and not acceptable. Our military are professionals and I expect them to act as such. The leadership often fails to instill this professionalism, but even in such a lax environment I find significantly less excuse for military operating outside of the bounds of professionalism and ROE than some civilian who is unbound by rules or the oath taken by all of us who served.



I agree with this. Soldiers and Marines are doing a job and should be punished when not doing what they swore to do. Which they were.
Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

But again we are discussing what she did and it was wrong plain and simple.



Meh, I don't think making fun of a sign is that wrong. She just chose a poor location to do it.

I see it in no different light than people making fun of people who have recently died. This forum and these boards are full of examples of people doing just that. People just get a little extra sensitive when it comes to the military.

I for one don't believe she was giving the finger to dead soldiers.



It's not just a sign. It's basic instructions to honor that place and what it represents. There were no people up in arms about her smoking next to a no smoking sign. Even she isn't making light of this and yet you still are instead of admitting this was not an exceptable thing to do. I would be just as upset if she did something like this at Auschwitz and I'm not Jewish. Freedom of speech does not give someone the right to be openly disrespectful to anyone. I will show respect for your dead and you do the same for me.
Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There are some pretty specific rules surrounding that ground.



I'm pretty sure that the Constitution trumps such "specific rules" whenever the two are inconsistent.


Pretty sure you've never visited the Tomb of the Unknowns.


And clearly you've never read the Constitution. :S


I didn't say this was unconstitutional. What I said was anyone who actually yelled and flipped off the guards at the tomb would feel the wrath of those guards...physically. You can try and figure out whether that's an infringement on their constitutional rights later.
Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

But again we are discussing what she did and it was wrong plain and simple.



Meh, I don't think making fun of a sign is that wrong. She just chose a poor location to do it.

I see it in no different light than people making fun of people who have recently died. This forum and these boards are full of examples of people doing just that. People just get a little extra sensitive when it comes to the military.

I for one don't believe she was giving the finger to dead soldiers.



Wow. You're gonna have to show me the 'full of examples' part of these boards where people are making fun of others who've died.
Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There are some pretty specific rules surrounding that ground.



I'm pretty sure that the Constitution trumps such "specific rules" whenever the two are inconsistent.


Pretty sure you've never visited the Tomb of the Unknowns.


And clearly you've never read the Constitution. :S


I didn't say this was unconstitutional. What I said was anyone who actually yelled and flipped off the guards at the tomb would feel the wrath of those guards...physically. You can try and figure out whether that's an infringement on their constitutional rights later.


First, my reply was to AggieDave, not you.

Second, the guards, presumably US military, are sworn to defend the Constitution against its enemies. If they retaliated against someone who was merely exercising their right to free expression, however distasteful the guards might find that expression, they become an enemy of the Constitution and should be punished appropriately, whether that be Article 15 or court martial.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There are some pretty specific rules surrounding that ground.



I'm pretty sure that the Constitution trumps such "specific rules" whenever the two are inconsistent.


Pretty sure you've never visited the Tomb of the Unknowns.


And clearly you've never read the Constitution. :S


I didn't say this was unconstitutional. What I said was anyone who actually yelled and flipped off the guards at the tomb would feel the wrath of those guards...physically. You can try and figure out whether that's an infringement on their constitutional rights later.


First, my reply was to AggieDave, not you.

Second, the guards, presumably US military, are sworn to defend the Constitution against its enemies. If they retaliated against someone who was merely exercising their right to free expression, however distasteful the guards might find that expression, they become an enemy of the Constitution and should be punished appropriately, whether that be Article 15 or court martial.


I want you to stop and imagine someone yelling and flipping off the guards at the tomb. What do you think would happen?
Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I want you to stop and imagine someone yelling and flipping off the guards at the tomb. What do you think would happen?



If the guards take their job and enlistment oath seriously, not a thing would happen, except perhaps the flipper getting bored and moving on.

It never ceases to amaze me how some conservatives think so little of our troops as to believe them incapable of handling an uncomfortable situation without resorting to violence.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

But again we are discussing what she did and it was wrong plain and simple.



Meh, I don't think making fun of a sign is that wrong. She just chose a poor location to do it.

I see it in no different light than people making fun of people who have recently died. This forum and these boards are full of examples of people doing just that. People just get a little extra sensitive when it comes to the military.

I for one don't believe she was giving the finger to dead soldiers.



Wow. You're gonna have to show me the 'full of examples' part of these boards where people are making fun of others who've died.



I flip the bird to friends all the time. I send birthday texts to people with middle finger attached. I'll send them out of the blue to others (deedy, billyvance, gawain, matthewcline, just to name a few) just to say "Hi!" I'll even call BillyVance at work and tell people to put him on the phone because I need to talk to him.

I don't do this stuff to enemies. I do it to friends. Perhaps it is my twisted sensibility that allows me to identify with this gal. I'm never making SCOTUS justice, that's for sure.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The original "Breaking the rules" poster made no distinction in his comment regarding the importance of the rule being broken



No. She did. She explicitly said her actions were antiathoritarian.

Quote

And those people I mentioned weren't all that famous until AFTER they had won their cause.



Nope. Some of them were famous after. Anyways, the point was they were doing something constructive, not idiotic.

Quote

There shouldn't be separate more lenient rules for law-breaking just for famous people.



You are missing the point. The point is you either don't know the difference between effective cause vs. stupidity, or you think all examples of rule-breaks are a thing of fan-boy worship.
_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If they retaliated against someone who was merely exercising their right to free expression, however distasteful the guards might find that expression, they become an enemy of the Constitution and should be punished appropriately



Your understanding of the Constitution is limited. First, nobody seems to be threatening this woman with criminal prosecution - that's what the Constitution protects. The court of public opinion and the court of law are separate entities, the former with few rules.

But there has also been extensive judicial affirmation of the placement of time, place and manner restrictions. Not all times and places are "free speech zones." Nor is all manner of free speech considered to be allowable (I'm waiting on the "What she did is the same as yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater stuff - anybody? anybody? - and this would be an extension of that because somebody might be offended, you know. Fightin' words and all that).


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Freedom of speech does not give someone the right to be openly disrespectful to anyone.



That is exactly what freedom of speech does. In countries without it, this girl would probably be in jail or worse.
For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

understanding of the Constitution is limited.



So you're claiming that the Constitution does not protect free speech (that doesn't incite riots, cause theater attendees to trample one another, etc.). Got it.

Quote

First, nobody seems to be threatening this woman with criminal prosecution - that's what the Constitution protects.



Right. Instead they are advocating the guards beat her down for exercising her Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Of course, anyone who has served knows that doing such a thing would violate UCMJ and civilian law.

Quote

The court of public opinion and the court of law are separate entities, the former with few rules.



True. The guards are free to form whatever opinion of the lady that they want. Performing violence on her because of that opinion, however, is something they do not have a right to do.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In Reply To
understanding of the Constitution is limited.

So your claiming that the Constitution does not protect free speech (that doesn't incite riots, cause theater attendees to trample one another, etc.). Got it.



I'm saying that it is supposed to. What I am saying is that there is a lot of nuance to it and limits to it. For example, breaking into NORAD to protest won't be allowed.

Quote

Instead they are advocating the guards beat her down for exercising her Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Of course, anyone who has served knows that doing such a thing would violate UCMJ and civilian law.



I disagree with beating her down, of course. But - she may not have Constitutionally guaranteed rights at Arlington. There are signs all over the place - "This is hallowed ground."

Title 32 CFR section 553.22 provides some rules.

http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/553-22-visitors-arlington-cemetery-19747782

Subsection (f) states:
Quote

(f) Conduct within the Cemetery. Because Arlington National Cemetery is a shrine to the honored dead of the Armed Forces of the United States and because certain acts, appropriate elsewhere, are not appropriate in the Cemetery, all visitors, including persons attending or taking part in memorial services and ceremonies, shall observe proper standards of decorum and decency while within the Cemetery grounds. Specifically, no person shall: (I omitted full list)



Quote

Performing violence on her because of that opinion, however, is something they do not have a right to do.



forcibly removing her is also "performing violence." But would be within the duties of the guards, though I do not see that she specifically violated any rule other than displaying inappropriate levity on hallowed ground.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm saying that it is supposed to. What I am saying is that there is a lot of nuance to it and limits to it. For example, breaking into NORAD to protest won't be allowed.



Flipping the bird typically is, though.

Quote

Title 32 CFR section 553.22 provides some rules.



Are you saying that Title 32 trumps the Constitution?

Quote

forcibly removing her is also "performing violence." But would be within the duties of the guards, though I do not see that she specifically violated any rule other than displaying inappropriate levity on hallowed ground.



Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I didn't infer from their comments that some posters were merely advocating her removal.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In Reply To
Title 32 CFR section 553.22 provides some rules.

Are you saying that Title 32 trumps the Constitution?



No. But seeing as how these rules have been around since at least 1977, it seems as though they have withstood Constitutional scrutiny. Or, put another way, the rules have not been deemed to conflict with the Constitution in 35 years.

Quote

I didn't infer from their comments that some posters were merely advocating her removal.



Nor did I. But you used legal "magic words." "Performing violence" is a rather broad phrase and forcibly removing someone meets that description.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I want you to stop and imagine someone yelling and flipping off the guards at the tomb. What do you think would happen?



If the guards take their job and enlistment oath seriously, not a thing would happen, except perhaps the flipper getting bored and moving on.

It never ceases to amaze me how some conservatives think so little of our troops as to believe them incapable of handling an uncomfortable situation without resorting to violence.



So they would not be within their rights asking her to leave and escorting her from the premises for her own safety?
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a facebook page up that is rather vitriolic called "Fire Lindsey Stone":
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fire-Lindsey-Stone/303141669801170?fref=ts

If you ignore the many rants, there are several excellent posts from loved ones who have buried friends and family members there. Some of the stories brought tears to my eyes. There were several classy responses to a classless act.
For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Freedom of speech does not give someone the right to be openly disrespectful to anyone.



That is exactly what freedom of speech does. In countries without it, this girl would probably be in jail or worse.



You said it before I could. Even many "democratic" countries might criminalize this. The first amendment does not just protect popular speech, it's also intended to protect extremely unpopular and offensive conduct. Ironically, that's the real beauty of the US's first amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


But seeing as how these rules have been around since at least 1977, it seems as though they have withstood Constitutional scrutiny. Or, put another way, the rules have not been deemed to conflict with the Constitution in 35 years.



No.

It means that in 35 years the law hasn't been challenged by some one with legal standing, motivation, and legal services.

That's unlikely to change in the next 35 years because few people would be insensitive and stupid enough to exercise their right to free speech in an offensive way there which got them thrown out plus have the motivation and financial resources to follow up legally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No.

It means that in 35 years the law hasn't been challenged by some one with legal standing, motivation, and legal services



Possible. But, as I have written already, time, place and manner restrictions are here. I'm a civil libertarian, but I know the realities. I think that the whole country is a free speech zone with some exceptions. Like Arlington. Though, however, my issue with Arlington's restrictions is that the restrictions aren't content-neutral, as applied.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0