Pres. Obama Promise of an Extra Weekend of Liberty

Status
Not open for further replies.
The definition of "minor" is delegated to the Superintendent. This normally means the 1000, 2000, and 3000 series conduct offenses.

To piggyback on USNA1985, Article 88 UCMJ (Contempt toward officials, which includes POTUS) applies to all members of the U.S. armed forces.

Thank goodness us former military are allowed to express our views :smile:
 
^^^^ Respectfully, this is not the forum. There are plenty of other sites that encourage such discussion, even on this site. Personally, such discussions would have turned me off of visiting this site while I was in the process of applying and evaluating my "college" choices. Lets all remember who is the intended audience.
 
I totally agree that slamming the President is not appropriate in this forum. IT has nothing to do with the question asked. It is disrespectful and really sounds pouty, whiny and sooo sour ... According to others posting on here, the president made the statement after consulted with Admr. Fowler about this ... so in slamming his words, you are slamming Admr. Flower ... and by extention the entire USNA academy staff and midshipman ...

RESPECT ... is part of character ...
 
RESPECT ... is part of character ...

Only when a person earned it. The TOTUS hasn't.

As for the Admiral, my memory seems to be that a presidential amnesty was blanket. Granted, as the Superintendent he has the authority (especially if granted by the President - nice copout), then he can choose to limit it to 3000-series fries.

Oh, well. Reckon the folks on restriction will have to pray for it to snow. Do they still have a one-hour-shovelling-equals-one-day-restriction policy?
 
I stand firm that this thread is not a place to dis the president of the United States ... no one has to agree with his positions on particular issues, but to slam him for a traditional part of a graduation speech is beyond reasonable. It smacks of obsessive, rather creepy, antithapy ... and that depth of nastiness that is truly disrepsectful to the USNA ... I would be surprised if former Pres. Bush -- and many before him -- hadn't made similar "gifts" in thier speech/speeches at various academies.

Being elected by the people of this great country doesn't mean anyone has to LIKE or Agree with him ... but please, keep the snotty remarks to yourself ... or vent on a more appropriate venue.
The question sought information ... not cheap shots ...
 
There is a long history of ex military or retired military speaking out against a current administration without reprisal. Retirement and/or discharge, whether pensioned or not, does not preclude the voicing of one's personal opinions in any public venue. The UCMJ does not supersede the rights guaranteed under/by the Constitution (UNLESS ON ACTIVE DUTY). Senator Kerry was discharged as an Officer (No Pension Involved). It is my understanding that an Officer accepts a discharge under the provision that he or she is subject to recall at any time at the whim of the government and thereafter subject to the UCMJ for acts of commission or omission while on active duty. Mr. Kerry (who admiited to knowing of or participating in atrocities proscribed by the UCMJ) could have been recalled to active duty and asked to repeat his voluntary congressional testimony under oath subject to Court's Martial proceedings. I don't remember that happening.

Admittedly not subject to the UCMJ General McClellan ran for President while still a General and did not terminate his military affiliation until election day (He lost thank God). General MacArthur openly criticized the administration and paid the price but I don't think they prosecuted him or took away his pension. General Clark (Currently subject to UCMJ) has not had his pension questioned or terminated under any provision of the UCMJ for his critical statements regarding any past administration.:smile: Might want to discuss this stuff on another thread though.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Just-A-Mom ...!!! I hope your question was really answered ...

I am done with this thread though ... trying to interject a request for respectful, on-topic discussion seems doomed! Some just can't let go of their anger ...

Hope everyone benefits from the extra weekend ... I'm sure we'll hear the official USNA word from our mids at some point!
 
There is a long history of ex military or retired military speaking out against a current administration without reprisal. Retirement and/or discharge, whether pensioned or not, does not preclude the voicing of one's personal opinions in any public venue. The UCMJ does not supersede the rights guaranteed under/by the Constitution (UNLESS ON ACTIVE DUTY). Senator Kerry was discharged as an Officer (No Pension Involved). It is my understanding that an Officer accepts a discharge under the provision that he or she is subject to recall at any time at the whim of the government and thereafter subject to the UCMJ for acts of commission or omission while on active duty. Mr. Kerry (who admiited to knowing of or participating in atrocities proscribed by the UCMJ) could have been recalled to active duty and asked to repeat his voluntary congressional testimony under oath subject to Court's Martial proceedings. I don't remember that happening.

Admittedly not subject to the UCMJ General McClellan ran for President while still a General and did not terminate his military affiliation until election day (He lost thank God). General MacArthur openly criticized the administration and paid the price but I don't think they prosecuted him or took away his pension. General Clark (Currently subject to UCMJ) has not had his pension questioned or terminated under any provision of the UCMJ for his critical statements regarding any past administration.:smile: Might want to discuss this stuff on another thread though.

Article 88 does not "preclude the voicing of one's personal opinions," simply contemptuous opinions. You can speak critically, but just don't overstep that line. When it comes down to it, 88 is almost never actually prosecuted because it never gets there, although there have been some cases of people being retired or having some other form of lesser punishment for cases that would fall under 88.

Either way, the point is not to argue about whether or not retired officers can trash the president on internet boards, but whether it is appropriate in front of potential future officers.


As to the original questions, the weekends and amnesties granted by the President and other distinguished visitors has always been at the discretion of the Academy leadership. Pres. Bush gave us weekends and restriction amnesty, and there were always various rules applied to them (usually weekend eligible upperclass for the weekends and minor conduct offenses for the amnesty). I imagine this is how it is applied now.
 
Steve:

We agree to not argue here. This is not the forum for political discussion. This forum is for future and current candidate questions and information. They should not have to read this political crap. I stand corrected. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa. And the bells ring. You can say anything you want as long as it is not "contemptuous"! Who decides? I digress, let's end the politics here and now. Gone and waiting for "AVATAR"
 
Last edited:
LOL.

God, I just LOVE the double standards! :yllol:
 
Could a moderator please just close this thread? It is WAY off topic...just a thought...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top