Armed Forces Radio

[Enthusiast]

After the inauguration, will President Obama stop the Armed Forces Radio from broadcasting The Rush Limbaugh show? I mean can we allow soldiers in the field to listen to a radio program that proclaims the Commander in Chief to be a traitor, enemy Muslim, corrupt and every dirty thing imaginable? This just doesn't seem right to me. It would be like listening to Tokyo Rose.

[ikojo]

1. Even if he could I doubt Barack Obama would

enter that minefield. He just does not seem the type to want to take on Rush Limpballs. Can you imagine the shouts and cries of government censorship?

[Enthusiast]

2. I think he must.

It won't be censorship. It will only restrict Limbaugh and right wing extremists on Armed Forces Radio. To allow Limbaugh to rant on about Obama's incompetency would undermine morale. Wouldn't it?

[Cid_B]

14. You lost me on this one...

"It won't be censorship. It will only restrict Limbaugh and right wing extremists on Armed Forces Radio."

[Touchdown]

18. They've done it before with M*A*S*H

AFN-TV never showed MASH because it supposedly "promoted insubordination" among the ranks. AFN censors crap all the time.

[Cid_B]

20. That may be.. probably is actually...

but it doesn't make it any less censorship. Still hoping for a response.

Seems like a goodly amount of folks around here who only like freedom of speech when it is the speech they like.

[LanternWaste]

22. Armed Forces Radio are not subject to the same licenses

Armed Forces Radio are not subject to the same licenses and free speech rights granted to private commercial broadcast stations.

There's no question that AFN is heavily censored as editorial control is by the DoD, which has been true since its inception in 1942. In effect, congress may indirectly dictate precisely what content AFN and AFR may broadcast. This is nothing new... :shrug:



It does appears to beg the question though-- do you believe that AFN and AFR should be completely open to any and all content, and operate as do commercial business broadcast license holders?

[Statistical]

36. However that is NOT what is being advocated here.

The OP didn't ask "should the DOD censor Rush due to views which are incompatible with good morale and discipline".....

The OP asked if Obama should use his position is silence a critic.
I am saddened by how many people think he should.

It is EASY to support "free speech" when you agree with the person speaking.
That doesn't take any conviction or guts. Wow what a hero you support my right to agree with you!
It takes conviction to stand up for speech YOU DISAGREE with.

The idea that Obama would use his position or influence over the DoD to silence a critic is sad and would cheapen him.
It is the kind of behavior I would expect from Bush not Obama.

Also the precedent is somewhat dangerous don't you think?
The 1st applies only to people who criticize sitting Presidents. Sorry that isn't the country I want to live in.

BTW: Rush is an idiot and his popularity is in decline. Let him burn out like any other has been.

[LanternWaste]

37. illustrate a commitment of the government to the troops

"The idea that Obama would use his position or influence over the DoD to silence a critic is sad and would cheapen him"

That's merely an opinion you yourself hold. I think if congress dictated the removal of Rush from AFR, it would finally illustrate a positive commitment of the government to the troops.

[Statistical]

38. As a former troop I never felt the need for the govt to protect me from words

The idea that YOU (Mr. Citizen) can be trusted with the choice of listening to Rush or turn him off but me (Mr. Stupid Grunt) can't is insulting. I guess soldier only die for freedom they don't have any.

The govt should NEVER be in the business of "illustrating a positive commitment of the government to the troops" by silencing critics no matter how stupid.

If say in 12-16 years whenever a Repuke in in the White House if they want to Silence Air America because it is being critical of the sitting President I am sure you will be signing the petitions along side the Freepers right?

Or does this position ONLY apply to speach you disagree with.
Did you ever believe it would be a good idea to have Bush critics silenced?

[LanternWaste]

41. bless your little heart....

"Or does this position ONLY apply to speach (sic) you disagree with."
Well, of course it does-- bless your little heart.

That little bit of your irrelevant inanity aside, I simply believe that removing one-sided political commentary masquerading as news is a positive commitment to the troops-- that goes for the left as well as the right.

"The govt should NEVER be in the business..."
As the congress may silence or advertise anything they want on AFR, it's really a moot point, because that is in fact precisely what they are doing.


You have your opinions about, I have my opinions about it-- six of one, half a dozen of the other.



As an aside--- I did initially attempt to maintain civility and decorum, but when one poses a bullshit question (as is initial quote of yours I posted), I can only imagine that you're simply arguing from an emotional perspective rather than one of logic and validity. That you presume I believe you're a stupid guy because you're a vet is absurd. That you presume I believe I speak from a higher position because I'm simply a citizen is even more absurd.

Lose the bullshit rhetoric best suited for High School drama classes, and we may further the discussion. However, continue your melodramatic prose and you'll be arguing with yourself as I'll perceive you as nothing more than a waste of my time-- but at least you'll get the last word in. Your choice...

[Enthusiast]

45. Thank you, LanternWaste!

Limbaugh is a propagandist, pure and simple.

[verges]

55. Air America is not government owned or controlled.

AFRS is. The DoD controls what goes out over AFRS. Air America is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore cannot be silenced by the Government (nor can any other independeant broadcaster who carries Rush) The First Amendment does not apply to the AFRS, because it is owned and controlled by the Government. Which it can do as long as there are private ownership outlets also available in the US. (BTW, Rush isn't being censored if he has other legal outlets to spew his bile) Overseas is a different issue completely; and, I don't believe falls under First Amendment protection.

[jmowreader]

24. AFKN never showed it at the request of the Korean government

They said it made Korea look like a war-torn country.

Surprise: it was set during the Korean War. What SHOULD Korea have looked like in 1952?

[Touchdown]

25. AFN Europe gave a different answer on MASH.

Hogan's Heroes re-runs were shown though, and Germany looked like a war torn country.:crazy:

[Threedifferentones]

54. He just won't be on a government owned station

Any private station that wants can carry him, so it is not censorship, just a change in government sponsorship.

[LSK]

26. Rush will and is taking him on anyways

Why should Obama worry about how Rush will react to this??? He will be foaming at the mouth against Obama anyways, so we might as well benefit from it.

[Enthusiast]

31. Exactly.

Liberals that don't call out these right wing hate mongers gain nothing. These people will never play nice, it is not in their nature. If Rush isn't removed from Armed Forces Radio he will rant on for weeks how Obama "might" remove him from Armed Forces Radio. You can't appease these huns.

[tabasco]

3. I'm a veteran and I don't think propaganda shows of any type belong on AFN.

Valid political commentary, even if a left or right viewpoint, is okay as long as it's balanced with equal time.

But not garbage spewers like Limbaugh.

I have written my Senators about it.

[Bandit]

4. I disagree, I don't think there is any need or reason to politicize the Military

Politics and Military do not ever need to mix. Politics is for Civilian life, not Military. Why would anyone want to Polorize the Military? Why would anyone want to risk having a rabid Conservative in the same foxhole with a bleeding heart Liberal. They need to Depend on each other for their very lives and Politics makes that so very much harder. Limbaugh needs to be off Armed Forces Radio ASAP. There is never any need for such Hatred of fellow Americans on Military Radio, and that is what his show is, a Hate factory.

[tabasco]

10. Um, I said I think Limbaugh should be off AFN.

I have written my senators about it. Have you?

[Bandit]

11. Actually I have and I have also sent a message to Obama

through his website. You said you didn't mind political stuff as long as it was balanced, and that was what I disagreed about. This has been my main issue for more years than just the Bush* Administration. I feel extremely strong on this issue and have brought it up many, many times on these boards. Most people here say they don't mind it as long as it is balanced, and on that I disagree strongly. Politics and the Military should never be mixed. NEVER

[anigbrowl]

29. So you don't think the military should be allowed to hear any political news at all?

You don't even like balanced coverage, so I guess no more reporting on what's happening in DC.

[SpiralHawk]

5. Why do they broadcast a republicon propagandist chickenhawk who dodged the draft

with the lamest excuse of all: Limbaugh's ass pimple, he claimed, made him 'ineligible' to serve the United States of America in the armed forces.

This is the Classique Republicon Ass Pimple whimp-out excuse.

Why are our honorable sons and daughters in uniform forced to listen to a Republicon Homelander Ass-Pimple Draft-Dodging multi-millionaire demagogue?

[jmowreader]

6. No, in fact I think he should go one better

Have the Pilonidal Cyst King go on a speaking tour of US military bases in Iraq.

While Mr. Limbaugh is in the air, President Obama's INS will issue a ruling that Rush's problems with Oxycontin, Viagra, gay male prostitutes et al leave the United States no choice but to revoke his passport.

He won't be able to leave the airport in Iraq because he doesn't have a passport; he won't be able to reenter the United States because he doesn't have a passport, and he won't be able to broadcast his lies because no one wants to listen to what sounds like a maniac screaming into a pay phone. Better: since most countries take a hard line against junkie pedophiles who lie for a living, he won't be able to receive asylum from another country.

Rush will end up like Mehran Karimi Nasseri, the Iranian man who lived in the transit lounge at Charles De Gaulle airport in Paris for 18 years.

[Enthusiast]

7. Too good for him. nt

[crikkett]

8. your post got a chuckle out of me. n/t

[lpbk2713]

9. OxyRush likes to refer to the PE as Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

Hannity and all the other RW Radio Hatemongers like to stress his middle name also.
IMHO whatever gets these assholes off the public (and military) airwaves is a GOOD thing.

[KharmaTrain]

12. Censorship Is Censorship...Diversity Is Better

Those who are shittoheads in the military were there before hand and will be afterwards. While I pride myself on detesting Rushbo longer than anyone (It began 8/1/88 when I worked at one of the first stations to air his bile) but pulling him off AFRTS is censorship. There is room for plenty of voices and views on "The Eagle" and other networks. IRC, they have been airing an hour of Ed Schultz daily as well as NPR's Talk of the Nation...and I'd like to see more Progressive and moderate news and talk shows on the network.

Let Rushbo hang on his own words...his lies and his false hopes and promises. His 15 long minutes have been up for a while. If he's affected elections, it's been negatively...from his attacks on Michael J. Fox in '06 to his "Operation Chaos" bullshit this year...it was a dud, so is he. Thanks to his ilk and his corporate masters, radio is dying...worse off that newspapers and the market place will soon decide Rushbo's fate...no need for the government to censor.

[gratuitous]

13. No, it's not censorship

Censorship would be stopping broadcast of his show entirely. Taking him off his time slot on AFRTS is a business decision that the Commander in Chief would like his troops to listen to something a little more edifying (the emergency broadcast test klaxon comes to mind). Nobody would stop Limbaugh from doing his show. It just would no longer be provided at taxpayer expense in a direct pipeline to the military.

[KharmaTrain]

15. It's Censorship

First of all, our incoming Commander in Chief has a lot more pressing items to deal with than an hour of blowhard noise on a couple of military radio stations. And, even if so, it still is censorship...just as much as it was censorship when they kept both Al Franken and Ed Schultz off of AFRTS. There's plenty of room for all. Again, while I detest the crap that flows out of oxy boy's pie hole, let the listeners decide, not the government...either on the "public" airwaves or the military ones.

The cost is ZERO to us...the military doesn't pay a dime to the producers of these shows...so where's the "taxpayer expense?" Also forcing Obama to drop his show would be a nice gift to the right wing hate machine...with a legitimate gripe about being censored. As I say, let the market place take care of these goons...which will be happening soon. Just look at the broadcast company stock prices...most of the companies prices are in the penny stock range. Rushbo's troubles in 2009 won't be AFRTS, but keeping his American stations on the air.

[gratuitous]

16. Oh pardon me

It costs nothing to put AFRTS out. Budget expense zero. Silly me. :eyes:

And it is decidedly not censorship. Censorship can only be done by an act of government that completely silences someone. If there was a law that forbade the use of the public airwaves, which belong to everyone, because of the objectionable content of Limbaugh's daily hatefest, then that would be censorship. But Limbaugh does not have a "right" to room on the AFRTS daily program log. Nobody does. Rush can still syndicate his show, it still runs on a gazillion other outlets, it just isn't afforded a space on AFRTS.

But all your shotgun excuses give away your game. 1. The listeners don't determine what goes on AFRTS. The cost to provide AFRTS comes out of my pocket as well as yours. 2. And yes, there are indeed "a lot more pressing items to deal with," but this would be an easy one-off, and Obama strikes me as the kind of guy who can indeed walk and chew gum at the same time. 3. And while there may be "plenty of room for all," the fact remains that "all" aren't treated equally when it comes to talk shows on AFRTS. Since all aren't treated equally, then take them all off the air. There's plenty of music and news in the world to fill 24 hours each day.

[Cid_B]

17. Ummm...

"Censorship can only be done by an act of government that completely silences someone."


So, if you write a tell all book about some local politician and he sends some lawyers after you and they say "We'll allow you to print this portion but this section won't be allowed..."...

You're saying that wouldn't be censorship?

[Enthusiast]

33. Apples and oranges.

You simply cannot allow a radio personality to do character assassination on the Commander in Chief to soldiers in the field. IT WOULD FOMENT MUTINY!

[Regret My New Name]

66. Was Rush on there during the Clinton years?

[GA_ArmyVet]

74. Yes. nt

[Enthusiast]

32. Thank you, Gratuitous.

It is ridiculous to continue propaganda that attacks the Commander in Chief at tax payer expense. Let them call it censorship. They call lots of things inaccurate names. Shit, they call Obama a non-citizen.

[tsuki]

23. I grew up listening to AFRTS. It was never political.

One of the biggest problems that I have with Limbaugh on AFRTS is that it is a teaching tool in many host nations. The citizens use it to hone their English skills. Is his hate filled, xenophobic rants the face Americans want to present to the world?

[tuckessee]

19. Didja ever consider the troops might like and want the Rush Limbaugh Show broadcast? n/t

[Winterblues]

21. They may like to rape and pillage as well

That doesn't mean it should be allowed.. Politics and the Military are not compatible. There is a reason it is against UCMJ for anyone to appear at a political gathering while in uniform..Politics causes strife and is the exact opposite of uniformity which is what the military is all about..There is no good reason to allow the polarization of the Military. It is bad enough in civilian life but we ALL depend upon the Military, not just right wing nutjobs...

[Cid_B]

28. So... what exactly?

You want I should just stick my fingers in my ears whenever something political comes on? The reason Soldiers are not allowed at functions in uniform or to write a letter to the editor that is signed "LT Bob Jones" is that identifying yourself in that way implies an endorsement by the military which is not the case.

Every Soldier is a thinking human being just like civilians. Some of us are political junkies ( on both sides of the spectrum ) , others are totally apolitical. It is just like your office or McDonald's or deep sea fishing boat that you work on.

Military personnel go across the entire gamut of the political spectrum and just because we go where we are ordered doesn't mean that some of us still aren't interested in the why and how of the process of getting us there.

[Enthusiast]

35. I will say this.

Never in the history of world war, during the time of the existence of radio, has a country sanctioned anti Commander in Chief propaganda to be broadcast. It is downright foolish.

[Cid_B]

42. 5 minutes ago...

Pink.. Dear Mr. President.. AFN The Eagle... 102.3

Wow.. weird huh? Who would have thought the time limit would run out right after you said that.

Of course there have been 8 years of Doonesbury in Stars and Stripes so I guess that one goes out as well.

Free Speech but only when its for a certain side.. got it.. check.. thanks... move along...

[Statistical]

44. Really....

I figure most Freepers would consider Alan Colmes or Al Franken to broadcast "anti Commander in Chief" propoganda.

Should all left viewpoints be removed from AFN also?
Should DU, Huffinton Post, dailykos, and other leading left blogs be removed from sat internet connections used by troops?

Giving the govt the ability to decide whos talk is "wrong" is not only a violation of the 1st it is dangerous, pure and simple.

Even IF (and that's a big IF) such policies were abused by a Democratic administration eventually (brace yourself) there will be another Republican administration. Are you sure they wouldn't abuse that authority to silence not just left commentaries but political cartons, satire, even news reports making the administration look bad from troops.

Do you want a generation of troops who's only source of information is that the current govt deems apropriate?
Really?

The Bill of Rights is SUPPOSE to be hard. Protecting something you agree with isn't difficult. Even facists can do that. Protecting something you DON'T agree with was what the Founders had in mind.

[verges]

57. Lot of stuff to deal with here:

1) I would also advocate that radical left talk radio folk (are there any? Franken's getting a new job anyway) also be taken off.

2) Net access shouldn't be restricted. Access to Koz, DU, Huffington or even FreeRepubic should not be restricted.

3) The First Amendment doesn't apply when the government is the editorial body. (and there has to be an editorial body or else it just becomes public access.)


The thing is, radio doesn't only live on the military base. Web access and print (such as Stars and Stripes) can be contained. Anyone with a radio reciever and in range can pick up radio signals. It just seems foolish to broadcast in a foreign country that our President is a terrorist or any other of Rush's lies. Do you think that we would have won the Cold War if Radio Free Europe had broadcast ANTI-American messages? Yet, that's more or less what your advocating.

I'm all for disseminating both sides of a political argument. But only in proper formats. And a broadcast media in a foreign land is not the proper format. Therefore, both sides should be banned from the AFRS airwaves.

[GA_ArmyVet]

63. Ok

Then would you have banned all criticism of Bush from the airwaves on AFN. Because there was a lot of it, still is.

They are public shows donated to AFN Broadcast which is broadcast to Military bases so we keep in touch with society and the general populace of our home country. This means all opinions, talk shows that are donated are included. Rush is syndicated and donates his show to AFN, as do many on NPR. Perhaps more liberal talk show host could donate they show to be freely broadcast overseas to balance it out, but so far I have not heard of any attempting to donate their shows and being denied access.
Just maybe instead of banning or censoring, you should try to counter with a better more enlightened point of view.

This type of censorship just makes me believe you are just like the Repub just on the other side of the aisle with a different agenda. The ends never justifies the means when talk of taking away my rights. MY RIGHTS not yours to take away.

So again I ask my question, which of you fine people get to decide what is ok for me to listen to and and what make you more qualified than me to decide what I want to hear.

[verges]

70. Yes, if it were up to me

I would have restricted broadcast criticisms of Bush and his Government. It's a bad idea to BROADCAST in a (hostile) foreign country anti-American messages. I would have as much problem with B'casting Keith Olberman as Rush Limbaugh. Both are still available on-line, and I would not support restrictions on what a member of the military can access on-line. And because Rush is still producing and legitimately available to you on-line, it is not censorship.

*BTW, do you get every show that is broadcast on the air in the states? Is EVERY show that is offered available to you? Someone decides what makes the cut and what doesn't. That doesn't make it censorship.

[GA_ArmyVet]

75. Most of the shows

We get most shows..some are a little late, and some shows refuse to give the without cost and so those do not get aired. But we get CNN, Fox, MSNBC shows...even ABC and NBC news shows it just depends on the day...obviously we only have like two or 3 channels to get all of the shows that are on 50 channels stateside so we miss some, but the AFN programmers try to get an even mix of news sports and entertainment.

The problem with limiting the shows and saying they can get it from the internet or stream it in, is that most deployed places you cant stream media. The net is too slow and media connections are limited or restricted due to bandwidth restriction in many locales.

[verges]

76. Do you recieve via

broadcast bands or cable? Or even some of both? My problem is not ideological. It's security. If everything comes via cable, it doesn't really matter. But to broadcast over the air anti-American sentiments in a hostile foreign country just doesn't seem too bright. And trashing the President can too easily be construed as anti-American.

[GA_ArmyVet]

77. Some of both

depends on where you are as to whats available. But it does not matter..none of it is only broadcast by AFN..it is also broadcast by local stations that translate CNN or MSNBC..Nothing happens in a vacuum here..if it is broadcast over the air in the states it is re broadcast overseas so it really does not matter if AFN does it or Al Jazerra...they have access to the cable channels as well.

[verges]

78. So what's the beef?

Your telling me you can get it all through other channels anyhow. So what difference does it make if AFRS cancels a show or not? There's no point to shooting ourselves in the foot. Let them do it for us..

[GA_ArmyVet]

80. its in their local

language not english

and the soldiers there only get AFN...we dont bring tv's when we deploy.

[verges]

81. Okay.

I still think it's a bad idea though. Left or right talking heads.

Where are you? Iraq?

[GA_ArmyVet]

82. I am in DC currently preparing for the Inauguration

however I have been to iraq 3 times (counting first gulf war in 1990-91 and and Afghanistan twice.

Plus tours in Korea, germany, italy, and Bosnia

and thank you for asking. (Sincerely)

I know i can be caustic at times in my speech and prose but i tend to get very defensive about my rights and any perceived threat to them, so I apologize if I came across as impolite during this discussion.

[LSK]

27. well considering that Obama got a majority of the military vote and donations

No. I did not consider that.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html

[Enthusiast]

34. They would like down filled pillows, too. nt

[anigbrowl]

30. Leave him on...lket's see how he feels when pissed-off marines call him out for insulting the CinC.

[GA_ArmyVet]

39. Ok, let me see if I get this right from everyone here who is not in the military

...You believe that Rush should be removed from the AFN but not all radio airwaves as that would be censorship. And it is not censorship unless he is completely removed or prevented from speaking.

Apparently, many of you believe that we in the military are too stupid to decide what we want to listen to or not and that YOU should decide for us. Well thank you so much for protecting me my fragile little brain. (SARCASM)

It is censorship since AFN is the only connection to US shows and broadcasts that we have available overseas which is about the only place to get AFN. So I would say that it effectively censors what service people can listen to.

It sets a huge precedence that when who ever is in the seat of power that will try to influence the military to blindly backing them.

What if Bush had removed MSNBC or CNN or Dan Rather for the criticisms, would that no be censorship?

What if they outlawed or censored DU from their Internet connections because many here have advocated mutiny or worse for our service members?

I am deeply disappointed with the lack or principles and dedication to democratic ideals shown by many here. I believe it was said earlier in the thread that you don't have to protect agreeable speech, the whole purpose of Freedom of Speech is to protect speech that is not liked, or agreed on.

[Winterblues]

46. The Military is in no way democratic nor does it follow the Constitution where rights of individuals

You listen to whatever you are told to listen to and it doesn't matter whether you like it or not. When they say jump, you jump and don't ask why or how high. The Military is not a Democracy nor a Republic. It does not follow the Constitution but the UCMJ. You do what is best for the cohesion of the unit not what is best for the individual or what is liked by the individual. Politics is never conducive to uniformity and cohesion. When you get out of the Military you can listen to and participate in all the Politics you wish but when in the Military you devote yourself to the Military. Polarization should not ever be allowed in any Military unit and that is exactly what politics in America has become..You do what you are told, not what you want, and if you don't like that, tough shit, you volunteered for it..

[Statistical]

47. Wow. Probably the most facist thing I have heard in a while

When you get out of the Military you can listen to and participate in all the Politics you wish but when in the Military you devote yourself to the Military

So this goes beyond AFN. You are saying someone serving in the military gives up their right to listen to political news/talk? Serious?

You do what you are told, not what you want, and if you don't like that, tough shit, you volunteered for it..
So if I am told I need to give up my right to vote is that ok also? What about right to free speech? Petition the governemt? Write a book? Practice the religion I choose?

Sorry your ideas of what the govt can & can not ask of it's soldiers are something out of Nazi Germany not a Progressive Democracy.

[Winterblues]

48. The Military is most definitely fascist

If you think you get a vote on whether you go on a mission or police call or even whether or not to make your bed you are sadly mistaken. A soldier has no voice. They do just what they are told to do. Granted they are allowed some entertainment, but only what the Military deems appropriate. The US constitution does not apply. The UCMJ is the rule of Law and you do not get a jury of your peers...

[Statistical]

49. Interesting that you are explaning to a vet of 20yrs what the military is like?

Nobody said anything about voting to go on mission.
I don't get to vote on how much my CEO gets paid now, or what products the company I work for will launch.
Nice strawman though.

The right to vote is the right to vote for people to represent you in the government. This is the same for both military and non military.

Servicemembers do have the right to read/listed/watch information & news about their govt.
Service members do have the right to exercise their religion beliefs.

Your idea that constitutional rights don't apply to service members is simply wrong and stuff of urban legend.

You may actually want to read the manual of the uniform code of military justice.
Service members do have a right to a trial (court martial) of their peers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts-martial_in_the_United_States#Summary_Court-Martial

The only court martial that does not grant the protection of a jury would be a summary court martial.
Summary is only used for civilian equivalent of misdemeanors.

Maximum punishment for the accused is in the pay grade of E-4 or below, he or she can be sentenced to 30 days of confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, or restriction for 60 days.
Punishments for service members in pay grades E-5 and higher are similar, except that they can only be reduced one paygrade and cannot be confined.

For court martial involving a charge that would be similar to civilian felony any service member DOES have a right to a jury of their peers.

Service members don't have a right to jury trial for misdemeanors but neither do civilians.

[Enthusiast]

50. That doesn't give you the right

, as a soldier, to listen to blatant anti Commander in Chief propaganda. Limbaugh is gone, write it down!

[Winterblues]

51. I spent my time

I was even involved in a General Courts Marshal. There were three enlisted personel that were tried by six officers of Major rank or higher. No enlisted personel were allowed or authorized to do anything other than testify. It certainly was in no way what is guaranteed under the Constitution. It is possible that the Military has changed some since I was in as well. I was drafted....

[NeedleCast]

67. Your complete lack of understanding of the military is staggering

As a veteran, who spent time stationed in D.C., Korea and Afghanistan I'm going to have to call bullshit on your fundamental understanding of the military.

You're correct only so far as the average grunt not getting a "vote" in what their mission is, but having spent my military career working in the intel field, there were lots of times when even the lowliest E-1 got some level of choice in what they were going to do. Barring half a dozen room inspections of the course of five years, I don't think I made a bed once outside of Basic/AIT training, despite their being a rule that I was supposed to. We were allowed whatever entertainment we wanted outside of Basic/AIT, narcotics and other illegal stuff aside...but that's not something that applies soley to the military.

The constitution and bill of rights do apply to military members, although the UCMJ must be taken into account. While broad in spectrum, the UCMJ isn't really any different than codes of conduct and other "rules" that have to be followed by employees of corporations or even small businesses.

Additionally, you don't seem to understand what the word fascist means. Applying the word fascist to the US military really doesn't make a whole lot of sense...then again, that word gets trotted out a lot because of the implication, despite whether it's use is apt or not.

[GA_ArmyVet]

73. Well said. nt

[Cid_B]

52. I'm gonna invite you to go fuck yourself...

Active duty.. right now.. at this very moment... and yet here I am.

I can read and learn and think about politics and whatever else the fuck I want.

__________________________________________________________-


4.1. General
4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:
4.1.1.1. Register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.
4.1.1.2. Promote and encourage others to exercise their voting franchise, if such promotion does not constitute use of their official authority or influence to interfere with the outcome of any election.
4.1.1.3. Join a partisan or nonpartisan political club and attend its meetings when not in uniform, subject to the restrictions of subparagraph 4.1.2.4. (See DoD Instruction 1334.1 (Reference (c).)
4.1.1.4. Serve as an election official, if such service is not as a representative of a partisan political party, does not interfere with the performance of military duties, is performed when not in uniform, and the Secretary concerned has given prior approval. The Secretary concerned may NOT delegate the authority to grant or deny such permission.
4.1.1.5. Sign a petition for a specific legislative action or a petition to place a candidate’s name on an official election ballot, if the signing does not obligate the member to engage in partisan political activity and is done as a private citizen and not as a representative of the Armed Forces.
4.1.1.6. Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing the member’s personal views on public issues or political candidates, if such action is not part of an organized letter-writing campaign or a solicitation of votes for or against a political party or partisan political cause or candidate. If the letter identifies the member as on active duty (or if the member is otherwise reasonably identifiable as a member of the Armed Forces), the letter should clearly
2
DoDD 1344.10, February 19, 2008
state that the views expressed are those of the individual only and not those of the Department of Defense (or Department of Homeland Security for members of the Coast Guard).
4.1.1.7. Make monetary contributions to a political organization, party, or committee favoring a particular candidate or slate of candidates, subject to the limitations under section 441a of title 2, United States Code (U.S.C.) (Reference (d)); section 607 of title 18, U.S.C. (Reference (e)); and other applicable law.
4.1.1.8. Display a political bumper sticker on the member’s private vehicle.
4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.
4.1.1.10. Participate fully in the Federal Voting Assistance Program.

[Winterblues]

53. With your attitude and apparently your politics I would not trust you in my hole.

I don't think you can control your emotions when it comes to politics and that means you are not trustworthy to all. If my life depends upon someone I don't want that person to think less of me for my politics..Apparently from your tone you already do, so my life would be in jeopardy. Is that the type of Military that best serves the interest of America.. All of America and not just Right Wing America..Tell me how the Politicization or the Polarization of the Military is in any way benificial...

[Cid_B]

56. I resent you attempt to censor ....

... what I can read and hear and I especially resent it because you think it is "for my own good." The utter stink of hypocrisy in this thread is over powering but that is what got me going.

Also, no need to worry. I said I would protect everyone and that includes your sorry butt.

Unless you were drafted from sometime in the 26th century when all Soldiers are robotic beings then you should know what I am talking about. The fact that you are so ignorant on such a basic subject brings doubt on the idea that you served period.

[Winterblues]

61. I do not wish to be protected by the likes of you

You are the PRIME example of what I am talking about and what the entire thread is about. It matters not what you think about my service. I know what it takes and I don't think you have it..

[Cid_B]

64. Well thank God it isn't up to you...

You will receive the benefit of my service whether you appreciate it or not. I doubt your service and your intelligence if you can't grasp the concept that Soldiers are men and not robots.

edit: clarified which concept

[GA_ArmyVet]

62. That is eaxctly my point

is that we do defend your right to say that drivel, no matter waht you think of it..and it is precisley the fact that we chose to surrender some of our rights to be in the military (not all, some) that we defend so strongly the ones we have left.

I am not advocating anyone listen to Rush, but if you want to listen to garbage, you have to the right to..just like you have to right to print and say there is not god, or Marxism is great or any other crap that you might want to say...I will defend your right to say, and I would expect you to defend Rush Limbaughs right to say what he wants, not agree with it, just that he can say it..

I also believe that if you want to limit what I can hear, then it is a very short road to limiting what I can read, what I can think, or who I can associate with...and to that I say I would rather have Rush.

[verges]

58. I refer you to post #57.

BTW. I am a veteran. Six years USN Submarine Service.

[Statistical]

40. Does this apply to all speech or just ones we disagree with?

Reason I ask is I found DU while I was serving in Iraq (sounds like "born again" testimonial).

I used DU to get caught up on the news, read commentary, and enjoyed long threads with differing viewpoints from the left.
I would consider myself slightly left of center. What attracted me to DU was the LACK of GROUP THINK. The fact that you have social liberals, economic liberals, some way out liberals, even some I would describe as Marxists.

I don't agree with everyone but I enjoyed the fact that there were diferring viewpoints.

If we censor Rush for criticizing Obama should the pentagon censor DU?

The reason I ask is my only link to US was an internet link running over DOD communication sat. Strictly controlled and monitored by DOD.

They never found it necessary to censor DU despite some rather (to put it nicely) extreme viewpoints regarding Bush (the current sitting POTUS).

Should the Pentagon censor DU?

anyone who says no but believes they should censor Rush is a hypocrit.

Soldiers don't need to be protected from words. They are grown ups and are capable of making their own decisions.

[verges]

59. anyone who says no but believes they should censor Rush is a hypocrit.

No. I think that any criticism of the CinC (even Bush) should NOT be transmitted over a common broadcast wave that can be picked up by anybody in a foreign country. It's really stupid to put out propaganda against yourself. Self-depracation can go too far.

If you want to listen to Rush, download it and play it on your ipod. I'm sure it's available. I would not restrict net access to DU, Koz, FreeRepublic or even RushLimbaughFanClub.com if there is such a site. I'm only concerned with simple broadcast.

[Cid_B]

43. Keith Olberman was on my AFN channels

earlier today. Should he have been banned for the last 8 years? This is blatant hypocrisy.

[verges]

60. Yes,

I feel he is also inappropriate for broadcast in a foreign country.

[NeedleCast]

65. I Certainly Hope Not

Despite some of the crap on AFR, shutting it down for the opinion of some of it's shows would be a kick in the balls to the first amendment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. One word: NO

The troops are not stupid and don't need protecting from Rushie

Now what I want to see is balance, but that is a whole different matter

[Regret My New Name]

69. I don't think he should and here is my probably not all that well thought out reason...

If he is saying anything that is a direct threat against the president of the US, Obama, then he should be dealt with period. However, if he is simply spewing his typical backward bullshit that I'm pretty sure most of us disagree with, but that isn't advocating harm to the US or the president, then I don't see how we can censor it. Doing so makes us no better than those who think people who say Bush is a traitor & terrorist should be censored. I'm sorry, but that goes against everything I believe in. Well, maybe not everything, I believe in Santa Claus and I don't see how that goes against him... That's irrelevant though because Christmas is over. Now maybe the right has, or at least would, censor someone who said that Bush was a corrupt traitor. Now I would be against them censoring such things unless they were specifically stating that harm should be done... Or even if they were hinting at such things. Stating your view on someone, however inaccurate, or accurate depending on the case, should not warrant your voice being limited or silenced by those whom disagree with you.

Feel free to pick apart my thoughts... I happen to be one of those people who don't get all defensive and pissy with people who disagree.. :)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. It was probably the least listened to station when I was a GI.

But, we had bad attitudes.

[onenote]

72. question for those who think what the military should be able to hear should be restricted

this is for those who, unbelievably, think that the military should be denied access to any point of view that is critical of the US government, whether it is Rush criticizing Democrats or Olberman criticizing repubs.

Here is my question: should the government decide what newspapers and books soldiers have access to based on whether they are critical of the government? Should the government read every letter, monitor every phone call, email, text message and private conversation held with a member of the miliatry to make sure he/she isn't exposed to negative thoughts about the government?

Or maybe, is it just possible, that we should be promoting an even broader application of the principles of free speech for the military, rather than attempting to restrict it?

[sarcasmo]

79. Kick!!