Reading comments on Youtube. The thing so many people don't understand is when you take that oath, The Bill Of Rights does not necessarily apply to you anymore.
(extreme) Example: I was an AF Security Policeman, one of our Regs said "you shall not talk to anyone except In The Line Of Duty." Saying Good Morning How Ya Doing" COULD get you in trouble.....Freedom Of Speech
Thanks for being a responsible 1sgt Ryan. I just watched another former 1sgt on YouTube act like a jackass just like this major and try and tell everyone he broke no articles of the UCMJ. Cause I guess his job is to lie to people for a paycheck.
As a Vietnam era veteran, who was very bitter for years and became very political (I even became a Berkeley radical, marching and protesting...) I thoroughly approve of this message. ESPECIALLY since he is an officer!
Excellent video, and I don't blame you for being visibly bothered by that Major. It's no fun when people pervert something you care about. (I could list several such cases in my own life.)
I never served and am certainly no expert, but isn't the entire US military still supposed to be "apolitical" or "non-political"? My 'understanding' of that restriction, whether by explicit policy or not, is that being apolitical isn't to preclude obeying their Oath to uphold the Constitution and the power it vests in specific government offices, but rather to preclude upholding or opposing specific people IN those offices. I.e., to preclude exactly such un-American activities as a "military political party." Is that the core of the issue?
EDIT: I think that preclusion is a good example of us being a nation of laws and not of men.
The president violates his oath, the laws, and the constitution, as a matter of course. There's nothing political about stating a simple and verifiable fact.
Except under the Constitution the POTUS is the Commander in Chief of all the armed services, and so stating that he should be impeached would seem to meet the criteria for insubordination under the UCMJ.
8asically I can rephrase my point in that sentence as: obeying the Oath is their job duty, but allegiance or opposition to specific politicians and parties is not their job duty, and can easily conflict with it.
My understanding is that using the predefined channels to dispute the legitimacy of a sitting president's order does not conflict with that job duty. But staging an in-uniform public protest against a specific sitting president HIMSELF does conflict.
If I'm wrong, maybe Ryan or other knowledgeable military people will correct me.
No disagreement; I guess the only question is whether this was an act of civil disobedience or if he was actually clueless about the repercussions of his actions? Whereas civil disobedience is a protest tactic where the protester takes responsibility for their actions and breaks the rules for a reason, there’s always some protest organizer trying to get military folks in uniform, assuring them of their free speech rights. In the former case, I would be curious to know his motivation.
Simple rule, simple concept. Although, in saying that, this is one of the reasons I love having served under a monarch, not a president - a monarch is the apolitical head of the military, representing the sovereign state and not the head of government. The complexity of amalgamating the sovereign of the state with political establishments (such as presidents, secretaries and ministers) is that the object of your answerability (the person in charge, who manages your oath) is that the military then IS serving a political position, not an exclusively sovereign position.
I totally agree with your point here and can’t wait for the same takedown of Pete Hegseth, since this totally isn’t about politics and Ryan is just standing up for right and wrong
Shriver is a fool. Yes this man needs Courts Martial right away.
Reading comments on Youtube. The thing so many people don't understand is when you take that oath, The Bill Of Rights does not necessarily apply to you anymore.
It does, just not in uniform
(extreme) Example: I was an AF Security Policeman, one of our Regs said "you shall not talk to anyone except In The Line Of Duty." Saying Good Morning How Ya Doing" COULD get you in trouble.....Freedom Of Speech
Thanks for being a responsible 1sgt Ryan. I just watched another former 1sgt on YouTube act like a jackass just like this major and try and tell everyone he broke no articles of the UCMJ. Cause I guess his job is to lie to people for a paycheck.
As a Vietnam era veteran, who was very bitter for years and became very political (I even became a Berkeley radical, marching and protesting...) I thoroughly approve of this message. ESPECIALLY since he is an officer!
Courts martial him.
Excellent video, and I don't blame you for being visibly bothered by that Major. It's no fun when people pervert something you care about. (I could list several such cases in my own life.)
I never served and am certainly no expert, but isn't the entire US military still supposed to be "apolitical" or "non-political"? My 'understanding' of that restriction, whether by explicit policy or not, is that being apolitical isn't to preclude obeying their Oath to uphold the Constitution and the power it vests in specific government offices, but rather to preclude upholding or opposing specific people IN those offices. I.e., to preclude exactly such un-American activities as a "military political party." Is that the core of the issue?
EDIT: I think that preclusion is a good example of us being a nation of laws and not of men.
The president violates his oath, the laws, and the constitution, as a matter of course. There's nothing political about stating a simple and verifiable fact.
Except under the Constitution the POTUS is the Commander in Chief of all the armed services, and so stating that he should be impeached would seem to meet the criteria for insubordination under the UCMJ.
I believe that was what Ryan was getting at.
I covered that in paragraph 2 sentence 2.
8asically I can rephrase my point in that sentence as: obeying the Oath is their job duty, but allegiance or opposition to specific politicians and parties is not their job duty, and can easily conflict with it.
My understanding is that using the predefined channels to dispute the legitimacy of a sitting president's order does not conflict with that job duty. But staging an in-uniform public protest against a specific sitting president HIMSELF does conflict.
If I'm wrong, maybe Ryan or other knowledgeable military people will correct me.
No disagreement; I guess the only question is whether this was an act of civil disobedience or if he was actually clueless about the repercussions of his actions? Whereas civil disobedience is a protest tactic where the protester takes responsibility for their actions and breaks the rules for a reason, there’s always some protest organizer trying to get military folks in uniform, assuring them of their free speech rights. In the former case, I would be curious to know his motivation.
Can we get a rule like this for college professors?
Had a Marine SSgt selling Amway at a Saturday market go down for this.
This clown is 100% wrong!
Fuck him!
Laws for thee not me
Can he lose his pension? He had 17 years in.
17 years and ONLY a (0-4) Major?
Sounds like he was on his way out then.
I don't know why he's still in. I looked him up, he's in Supply.
So I presume this fellow is on his way to Leavenworth or some such facility?
once the military gets associated with one party, the other parties need their own military. Welcome to Europe in the 1930ies
How could he not know this, Ryan??????? Does he have a death wish????
Simple rule, simple concept. Although, in saying that, this is one of the reasons I love having served under a monarch, not a president - a monarch is the apolitical head of the military, representing the sovereign state and not the head of government. The complexity of amalgamating the sovereign of the state with political establishments (such as presidents, secretaries and ministers) is that the object of your answerability (the person in charge, who manages your oath) is that the military then IS serving a political position, not an exclusively sovereign position.
And, when Trump's party does nothing, and his chain of command does nothng... what then?
The Republican Party can't Do anything. Those in his Chain of Command Can and Will. He embarrassed Them/The AF.
I totally agree with your point here and can’t wait for the same takedown of Pete Hegseth, since this totally isn’t about politics and Ryan is just standing up for right and wrong
Bull Totally Political!