This thread is permanently archived
Commie Cadet discharged from US army
| Thats just stupid to do.
But doesn't that violate free speech
| Heh so much for supporting free speech.
| >>323620
Actually that's wrong. It want's to make use of estate to democratize economy by making the means of production public property instead private.
| >>323614
There is no concept of free speech in the military, just like all employees of the executive enjoy far less freedom of speech. For example, the Hatch Act bans virtually every official under the executive except the Pres, VP, cabinet & those working directly under the pres from all political activity except voting. Depending on the interpretation, it also criminalizes membership of CPUSA amongst them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939
| >>324612
But can't it that be argued that the hatch act is a breech of the first amendment as last I checked the military are also people of the U.S., I wouldn't put too much stock in so far unchallenged laws for instance it is illegal to be an Anarchist in the U.S.
| >>324688
>>Law that's been on the books 80 years is supposed to be unchallenged.
There've been several Supreme Court cases about it, & has always been upheld in its entirety. For example, CSC v. Letter Carriers (1972;
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/548/case.html
"The Hatch Act of 1939 does not violate the First Amendment."
What it comes down to for the Court is that the government, as an entity, must be & appear as impartial as possible.
| To be clear, the Hatch Act itself doesn't actually extend to the military, but they fall under Department of Defense Directive 1344.10, which is essentially the Hatch Act rendered as a regulation applicable to the military.
Also, political charges against anarchists are almost invariably state statutes, which RAI is decidedly not unconstitutional, since the Bill of Rights wasn't meant to apply to states. Though I myself find the practice somewhat ethically objectionable.
| >>324697
We both know that the appearance is a sham, and the Supreme Court is also run on the same ideologies as those who appointed them, my argument was with membership of the CPUSA part where I think someone might stand a chance of winning.
| >>324702
You're forgetting that the 14 amendment ensures that federal constitutional immunities still apply, that said I don't think it would go that way if an anti-anarchist statute were ever enforced, due the political makeup of the US.
| >>324704
You could make that argument. For example, the McCarran Internal Security Act banned communists from working for the government, & whilst that provision was ruled unconstitutional under the 1st amendment in US v. Robel (1967) the army still references it in several regulations. However, I think the Court would still hold that unelected officials engaging in political activity is too deep a can of worms.
| The thing is that, as much as the UK is a monarchy, the US is a kritarchy. Even if they can't enforce it against the will of the President or Congress, in theory the Supreme Court has the final say on virtually everything. If they say that federal employment is a privilege rather than a right (which they have, & though it's now a very arcane doctrine it still stands) then so it is, & since there's no law saying otherwise, nobody needs a real reason to revoke that employment.
| UK is a *constitutional* monarchy. The monarchs are just for representing and show to fool people. For conservatives, they may be a backup if democracy turns against them.
The USA are a plutocracy. Who has the most money, rules. Who has none, can work like an ant, watch disneychannel as a reward and/or die by fastfood/pointless wars/shootings/death-penalty. End of story.
| Of course if we're being serous most governments are some sort of dysfunctional dictatorship or plutocracy. But the status of judges in the US is very akin to an empowered nobility, the Supreme Court especially. Even when they make a deeply unpopular decision, opinion of the Supreme Court remains quite high, & since the Justices are not in thrall to permanent campaigns as are elected officials, & their word is final bar only constitutional amendment, I feel my assessment is sound.
| After looking into this more, I like him and want to date him. Anyone got his #?
| it's interesting how openly fascist and racist ones don't get discharged while commies do in terms of the military
| >>325877
He expressed sympathy for enemy combatants & advocated "revolution" whilst enlisted. That in itself would be enough to get any unrepentant low ranking officer discharged.
| >>325910 is expressing human sympathy not allowed? I think it's normal, we aren't robots after all
| >>325922 The military, not just in the US but in general does not work on the basis of emotions. And no, this was no different from commie countries either. If you have people away from the general ideology of the state you're risking a coup. The most recent case I can think of where something like this happened was Turkey.
| >>325922
Not toward the person shooting you & whom you are meant to be shooting at, no. If there's the slightest hint a soldier might be unwilling to perform his duty he would be better relieved of it, because his failure risks directly or indirectly endangering the lives of those he's sworn to defend.
Assuming his orders aren't in themselves misguided of course, but that's why until WWII soldiers were as a rule never penalized for following the orders of their superiors.
| >>325930
If the U.S. army isn't willing to see the true human cost of it's actions then it (and by extension the government U.S.) deserves revolution, you need dissenting voices in a military, because when the apparatus does something unethical or immoral then it must be brought to task and the offenders brought to justice whether that be put in jail or executed.
I'm not talking about discharging comrade cadet when I say human cost, I'm talking about something like My Lai.
| >>326043
My Lai was egregious in that for all the sacrifices it was on the whole quite counterproductive, but if it would further the objectives of the war then the correct decision, from a military standpoint, is to pay virtually any cost.
"If the people raise a howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity-seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." -- General W. T. Sherman
| >>326071
If a massacre like My Lai would have furthered military goals in the war they waged, then the war was unjust (like most wars are) and those who issued and facilitate those orders should be tried, same with the politicians that advocated said war.
| >>326143
The politicians that sparked that war would be Ho Chi Minh & the Viet Cong, supplying & arming insurgencies in the South. Idealism aside, it often isn't feasible to bring justice to the agitators of a given war without fighting one.
If inhumane tactics would destroy the other side's will to fight & expedite that process, then they further even the goal of bringing the advocates of war to trial for plunging their people into conflict. Is that an unjust cause for war?
| >>326775
You realize that Ho Chi Minh tried to unify Vietnam with diplomacy and there was even an agreement between the French and the Viet Minh to unify Vietnam if elections in 1956 went well for them (however the French would control the South until then), but Ngô Đình Diệm (South Vietnam PM) said no and the rest is history.
It's feasible to try war agitators without fighting a war internally, but it requires a broadly supported revolution.
| >>326832
Which probably wouldn't be that hard as countries who are willing to violate Geneva conventions are likely losing, and you don't want to attached politically to the losers of wars.
If you are asking that because atrocities end wars quicker, so as to pros
| >>326836
(Damnit accidentally hit submit)
prosecute war criminals faster, and thus those tactics are at least justified in that respect.
then the answer is still no, the war like all wars (except those of survival against a genocidal threat, like the Nazis) are unjust as for it to happen two unjust structures came to an impasse that they decided to solve with a bloodletting of the common people, the fact there was a war is the most unjust part of it.
This thread is permanently archived
| A cadet who wore a Che Guevara T-shirt to his graduation ceremony and posted the message “Communism will win” online has been discharged from the army.
https://tinyurl.com/y7h2bvzt