Officers' Role in Christian Video Probed

[Snazzy]

Source: AP

Officers' Role in Christian Video Probed

Aug 6, 6:59 PM (ET)

By RICHARD LARDNER

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Army and Air Force are considering disciplinary action against seven officers - including four generals - who violated ethics rules by assisting a Christian group in the production of a fundraising video.

The Pentagon inspector general found the officers were interviewed in uniform and "in official and often identifiable Pentagon locations," according to a 45-page report.

They made comments that "conferred approval of and support" to the evangelical group, Christian Embassy, "and the remarks of some officers implied they spoke for a group of senior military leaders rather than just for themselves," the report stated.

None of the Army and Air Force officers involved asked for or received approval from their superiors to participate in the interview in an official capacity or in uniform, according to the inspector general's report, which was released last week.

....


Read more: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070806/D8QRQGHG0.html

[ThomCat]

1. We keep hearing more and more about officers pushing their

damned religion on people. :wtf:

I know it's not just the military. The missionaries and evangelicals are thick as cockroaches in most places. But using military rank for religious purposes is truly vile.

[kestrel91316]

2. Court martial time, IMHO. But it won't happen.

[sailor65]

3. We have to be careful of hypocrisy here

You can't cheer on a military member in uniform making political statements and endorsements, or protesting the war (Both also violations) and then turn around and call for court martials here. If you're going to allow one you must tolerate the other.

[haele]

4. Most military members protesting the war do so out of uniform or after

they are released from service.
I don't know of any uniformed military members that will, against the UCMJ, show up in front of a camera by intention and make prepared or scripted statements for their personal pet cause. Well, ones that aren't wingnuts. And Right Wingnuts seem to be able to get away with it all the time, allowing their uniform to be co-opted by sunshine blowers and political schills because those reactionaries usually are wrapped up in flags and pretending to be "good patriots".
Now, it's well known that you can participate in political actions, just not as a representative of the DoD while you are participating - and so long as there is a clear indication that you are not inciting "disloyalty".

That means if asked while in uniform, you can say "If I had a personal choice, I might rather(fitb)", you can talk about your general personal experiences in brief, less than happy expressions but you can't speak for or make suggestions for others in the military and you certainly can't discuss operations without permission.

There's also a large difference between legitimate, off the cuff political statements and allowing your uniform to be used while proselytizing in such a way to suggest that people under your command are subject to a religious litmus test whenever tasks, awards and discipline are to be considered.

It is far more serious for someone in a uniformed leadership position to have the appearance of putting personal prejudices and services to some "higher power" above the uniformed service than it is for someone to say something operationally critical in public for the good of those who serve under him or her.

I would not trust one of my "superior officers" with my crew and whatever operations we were responsible for if that leader showed he or she was more concerned about a personal "hereafter" than what was happening in the real here and now.

And yeah, if someone really was in full uniform while still in the service and participating in any sort of political rally, I and the rest of us old salts, warriors, and associates be agreeing to UCMJ action.
Retirees and former military can do what they want, but while still "on duty and in uniform, we aren't supposed to be taking sides - no more than any other federal employee is allowed to be putting partisan politics above their federal duties.

Haele

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. The Marine in my sig pic

was threatened with the loss of his honorable discharge because he participated in anti-war rallies. His name is Adam Kokesh.

There are also many members of IVAW who regularly protest in anti-war activities in their combat fatigues. Many have removed their names from their uniforms. I don't know whether that makes it okay or not.

So yes, there are many brave members of the military and veterans who DO speak out against the war in Iraq while they are in uniform. And they aren't religious wingnuts.

[haele]

14. All the members in uniform you speak about are veterans - already out.

Veteran's Organizations (IVAW, Operation Truth) strongly suggest to any members who are still reservists or might be on active duty not do so in uniform because they know the UCMJ articles and don't want their members to become martyrs to a cause when they can just as easily protest out of uniform and make the same statement.

Is it better to have intelligent, committed active duty members continue in the military and work for change from within using allowable activity under the UCMJ for a positive result, or leave the military to the Dominionists and politcally motivated REMF's? It's a fine line, but even I was able to actively work for political change when I was active duty and not lose my rank or clearance. I just didn't wear my uniform or claim to speak for the military. Even now, I see active duty members on several area bases with anti-war organization bumper stickers on their vehicles. Heck, I've even seen two active duty member cars with old anti-bush and "Don't Blame Me, I voted for Kerry" bumperstickers on within the last month.
BTW, Adam Kokesh already had his honorable discharge when he started participating - and the "uniform" he was charged with wearing while he was protesting was a uniform hat and cammie jacket - without any identification - of the type anyone can pick up in an Army Surplus store. It was known to be a witch hunt by an over-zealous PAO in DC, and so far as I know, will not make it to courts martial.

Haele

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. There are many active duty military in the anti-war movement

I have met them and marched with them. And yes, some wear their uniform.

[haele]

19. I know there are many active duty military in the anti-war movement -

As for marching in uniform, if they want to take the risk, whatever I think personally, they are still under the auspices of the UCMJ.
And I consider that - participating in a personal political activity in uniform almost the same as if they were showing up in a video for a religious group they personally belong to in uniform. Showing up in a particular religious video while in uniform has the additional sin of implying the military as to be in conflict with the First Ammendment religious freedoms clause.

Look, it's not a matter of argument, it's a matter of the UCMJ and the position the soldier or sailor put him/herself under when they swore the oath and put on the uniform. The concern is with their future in their career and to their comrades as well as their being able to exercise what Constitutional rights they have left.
And like most of the anti-war veteran groups around here, I would advise an active duty military member not to wear his or her recognizable uniform or claim to be representing the service while participating in personal political activity. After he or she is mustered out and has their discharge or retirement, if they want to wear their full dress uniform with all the fruit salad of medals and ribbons at a march, go ahead.
A boonie hat and a cammie jacket without the name or unit tag is not recognizable as an active duty member's uniform - even though there might be a few weenie butterbars playing at HSA analyst looking at photos that might identify someone to charge; is this what we're appearing to be talking past each other about?

Haele

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. I was just pointing out that it does happen

You said this: "I don't know of any uniformed military members that will, against the UCMJ, show up in front of a camera by intention and make prepared or scripted statements for their personal pet cause. Well, ones that aren't wingnuts."

I was merely telling you that there are indeed uniformed military members who ARE speaking out and in uniform.

And I consider this a good thing. :hi:

[orleans]

6. yeah, we better be afraid of that hypocrisy & old double standard all right.

don't want to say we support the troops and then vote against that fisa bill that fuckhead just signed on sunday.

(i'm being rather sarcastic here, i know)

screw this "we'd better be careful" crap. those people should be in deep shit for doing what they did.

btw--welcome to du.

[sailor65]

11. I don't disagree with you at all,

I just meant we have to make sure we don't become what we hate.

[Speaker]

7. The hell I can't

You can't cheer on a military member in uniform making political statements and endorsements, or protesting the war (Both also violations) and then turn around and call for court martials here. If you're going to allow one you must tolerate the other.

The military can't push religion.

See Constutution, United States

[LostinVA]

8. Whatever

One is unconstitutional, the other isn't. It's as simple as that.

But you knew that already, didn't you?

Like GLASS.

[youngdem]

9. You don't protest in uniform.

And the military endorsing religion is VERY different than most protected speech, since it can be seen as violating the Establishment Clause.

I see no risk of hypocrisy.

[Tyler Durden]

10. Protesting an illegal war of agression and supporting a violation of the constitution...

...are two mutually exclusive issues.

Talk to your corpsman about obeying/disobeying lawful orders and the Geneva Convention. When I was active, We "Docs" tended to be experts on both subjects.

[Rose Siding]

5. Wow. I'm impressed that they're dealing with this.

I was afraid we'd heard the end of it.

[Myrina]

13. Woops! I saw 'officers role' 'christian video' and 'probe' ...

... and my mind went straight to the gutter.


:rofl:

[sarcasmo]

15. The further merger of Religion and Government is evident every day.

Kick and Nom.

[KamaAina]

17. Exactly how deeply ingrained is this "Christian Embassy" in our military?

Brooks told investigators he believed he did not violate any rules. Due to Christian Embassy's long tenure of working with Pentagon employees, Brooks said he saw the group "as a sanctioned or endorsed activity."

Catton's response was similar. Christian Embassy had become a "quasi-federal entity," he told investigators, and he believed he was taking part in a program approved by the Defense Department.

"Onward, Christian soldiers", indeed! :scared:

[The Stranger]

18. Members of the American Christian War Cult.

Remember this article? Look at the date it was published.

http://www.spectacle.org/1002/hogan.html

America's Messianic War Cult

We have met the hegemony, and he is us
by Matthew Hogan [e-mail]

HIJACKING NATIONAL SECURITY: THE WAR PARTY

Who's flying the plane? --- The probable terrifying final thoughts of many September 11, 2001 victims.

Today, many are asking the same thing about the Bush Administration's subsequent foreign policy. Despite failing to secure Osama bin-Laden's fate, the Administration now careens in search of ever-expanding Executive Branch-initiated war against an "axis of evil." First stop, Iraq.

Of course, there may be a case for war against Iraq. The benefit potential for Iraq alone of ending the rule of Saddam Hussein is obvious. But for those steering the policy, Iraq is only the beginning. And the actual Iraq-specific case for war appears to be of secondary importance to them at best.

Now, who's flying that plane?

President Bush remains the ultimate party responsible, but it is no secret that a factional War Party has won the ears, hearts, and minds of the President, Vice-President, National Security Adviser and Secretary of Defense. As Scott Ritter, the Republican ex-Marine who hounded Saddam's secret weapons group for several years, has warned:

"The national security of the United States of America has been hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who are using their position of authority to pursue their own ideologically-driven political ambitions."