Avowed communist in uniform.

[TCassidy]

I won't quote him, as you would just use the profanity in his quotes to harass me, so I'll just say look up his quotes about Mattis, Pence, and McCain and tell me how those things are not "using contemptuous words" against three of the offices named in Article 88.

Explanation

"The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity."

 

[rsr]

Forget the silly Che shirt and the hat. If those tweets about Mattis and Pence are genuine (and I see no reason to believe they're not), he's in for some trouble.

 

[Rob_BW]

Forget the silly Che shirt and the hat. If those tweets about Mattis and Pence are genuine (and I see no reason to believe they're not), he's in for some trouble.

And that flag folding pic?

 

[rsr]

Even though it's inflammatory, it doesn't rise to a specific violation, so far as I can see, other than Article 132 and 132. Dissing specific government officials is specifically prohibited, so that's a clearer case.

 

[Revmitchell]

Sporting a chi shirt and claiming communism will win is not something to be considered "silly".

 

[rsr]

Yes, silly. By themselves they mean nothing except poking someone in the eye. Attacking the chain of command is something else.

 

[Revmitchell]

Promoting a vicious dictator or communism is not silly especially when it is someone in our armed forces. It is a very serious problem.

 

[rsr]

Promoting communism is not illegal. Che was murdered with the connivance of Castro. He's a folk hero for folks who don't know better. Those are trivial idiocies. Smacking the chain of command is something different.

 

[TCassidy]

Having a political opinion that differs from the Command structure, and/or that is unpopular with the majority of Americans is not a violation of the UCMJ. Insubordination to those in the chain of command over you is a violation.

 

[Revmitchell]

it is not trivial and it is sad anyone would think so.

 

[rsr]

What is sad is that someone who considers himself a defender of freedom thinks that Americans can't express political views no matter how stupid they are.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

Way I see it, he swore an oath to the Constitution.

Communism is antithetical to the Constitution.

Therefore he needs to get gone.

 

[rsr]

Sigh. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. Nowhere has he expressed an opinion, so far as I know, to overturn the Constitution. He has denigrated his superiors, which is not the same.

Look, he's facing at least an Article 15, if not a court-martial. In any case, his career is over; he will never be promoted, and shavetails who can't move up move out. And anywhere he goes in the Army he will be a marked man. His own family has disavowed his opinions and he's going to be known as the guy who disgraced his cadet uniform, at the least.

 

[TCassidy]

Communism is antithetical to the Constitution.

A good case could also be made that Capitalism is also antithetical to the Constitution. Do you support the court martial of those who express a belief in Capitalism?

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

A good case could also be made that Capitalism is also antithetical to the Constitution. Do you support the court martial of those who express a belief in Capitalism?

I do not agree that a good case could be made that Capitalism is antithetical to the Constitution. Therefore the 2nd question is moot.

Capitalism respects private property rights, which are enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights via protection against illegal searches/seizures in the 4th's protection from searches and seizures and the 5th Amendments prohibition against taking property without due process. It's also in the 3rd Amendment, where the government can't force soldiers into your property precisely because it's considered your property. I imagine you know this already though Sir, being my senior and all.

Furthermore the Constitution is based on Natural Law/John Locke's teachings, and there ain't no way that Communism and Natural Law can mix.

Constitution/Natural Law = If I go into the woods, and gather a handful of acorns, then that's my labor and I keep it
Communism = If I get a handful of acorns I distribute my acorns (property) to everyone else equally, compelled with force from my government if necessary.

Any system that disrespects private property rights and individual freedom is not compatible with the Constitution, nor the Federalism it contains. And likewise violates an oath to preserve and defend it. There's nothing in a Capitalistic system that denies any part of the Constitution.

 

[TCassidy]

I do not agree that a good case could be made that Capitalism is antithetical to the Constitution.

Then you fail to understand either the Constitution or Capitalism. Or both.

As neither Communism nor Capitalism existed when the Constitution was ratified, it cannot be used to support or condemn either one.

 

[Revmitchell]

A good case could also be made that Capitalism is also antithetical to the Constitution. Do you support the court martial of those who express a belief in Capitalism?

No it can't that is a ridiculous statement. This country was founded on freedom. Communism is antithetical to that very idea. Capitalism is all about freedom.

 

[TCassidy]

No it can't that is a ridiculous statement.

Sorry, but wrong again. As the US Constitution predates both Communism and Capitalism neither can be proven nor disproved from the Constitution.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

A good case could also be made that Capitalism is also antithetical to the Constitution.

Among the dumbest things I've ever read here.

So, go ahead. Make that case.

 

[JonC]

A good case could also be made that Capitalism is also antithetical to the Constitution. Do you support the court martial of those who express a belief in Capitalism?

Good point. We've seen in the past (several times, actually) where Capitalism proved antithetical to the general welfare.