The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals has overturned the death penalty sentence of former Marine Lance Cpl. Kenneth G. Parker:
The court threw out Parker’s conviction for one of the two murders and reassessed his sentence for the other crime. The decision continues a trend of military death sentences being overturned on appeal — 11 out of 16 death sentences since 1984. The last military execution occurred in 1961.
Parker’s crime occurred in 1992.
The ruling was made Continue reading
If you’re a member of the US military and you’ve ever Facebook “Liked” President Barack Obama or Governor Mitt Romney, you’d better pay attention, because the Department of Defense just issued guidance that restricts that very thing.
Contrary to the conclusions of a prior article, the US DoD has just recently published official guidance on “political activities” in association with social media, and they’re fairly explicit. The undated but very recently released “2012 Public Affairs Guidance for Political Campaigns and Elections” says:
An [active duty] Service member may generally express his or her own personal views on public issues or political candidates via social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, or personal Blogs, much the same as they would be permitted to write a letter to the editor of a newspaper.
Update: Based on new information, some conclusions in this article have been updated here.
Every now and then members of the military post official articles that might best be understood as “public service announcements” for their fellow troops. They often cover high interest issues (like politics, social media, and religion, see below) or regulations that are the topic du jour. Unfortunately, because these articles carry no weight (unless they are written by a senior Air Force leader issuing official guidance), they can often add confusion to the issue they mean to clarify — especially if they’re wrong.
For example, a Public Affairs troop recently wrote “Rock the vote, but beware of guidelines,” which was a combination of encouraging voting while cautioning on the restrictions on political activity: Continue reading
Some may have assumed that with a Democratic President (and the stereotype that the US military leans Republican/conservative), most of those testing the limits of permissible political activities or commentary would be “right wing” or conservatives.
They would be wrong.
The blog for the Rock Beyond Belief event organized by Justin Griffith at Fort Bragg recently posted an article about North Carolina’s Amendment 1, which would modify the NC State Constitution to say the only domestic legal union in the state is Continue reading
US Marine Sgt. Gary Stein will reportedly be administratively separated with an “Other than Honorable” discharge as a result of his “political” Facebook activities:
The Commanding General for Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego…has approved the board’s recommendation that Sgt. Stein be separated from the Marine Corps with an “other than honorable” discharge.
The Sgt’s case is so high profile the Marines took the unusual step of Continue reading
The Department of Defense put out an unusually rapid (and blunt) assessment of US Army Corporal Jesse Thorsen’s stint at the Ron Paul rally a few days ago. In an article that covered the general restrictions of military service and political activities, the DoD said
A combat engineer assigned to the 416th Theater Engineer Company potentially violated these rules Jan. 3 when he stepped onto a stage at Ron Paul’s headquarters in Ankeny, Iowa, during the Iowa Caucus to offer a personal endorsement.
However, it also specifically noted Thorsen was not on active duty at the time, contrary to the CNN reports at the time: Continue reading
Update: US Rep Mike Hoffman (R-CO) has said troops need to be reminded of the rules involving political participation. As noted below, there were already some official military articles on the subject.
US Army Corporal Jesse Thorsen made a name for himself Tuesday night, for better or worse. He appeared on CNN and onstage endorsing the political candidacy of Ron Paul while he was wearing his Army fatigues.
Unlike the mystical machinations of Chris Rodda, in which she says military officers violate regulations when they express their faith on the internet, there is actually an explicit Department of Defense Directive on this type of conduct (barring an unknown mitigating factor on the Corporal’s part). From DoDD 1344.10 (Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces, found here), an active duty military member “shall not” Continue reading
Recently, an email from an officer announcing a Bible study at Kirtland AFB was the subject of a complaint from Michael Weinstein’s Military Religious Freedom Foundation, leading to the question here, “Can a military officer advertise a Bible study?”
Some relevant quotes from the original complaint, as sent to (and publicized by) the MRFF by an enlisted Airman:
During the past 6-7 months a unit commander, who is now the Deputy Group Commander decided to send mass e-mails to the wing regarding bible study sessions. These are sessions that were led by the individual sending the e-mails…a person in a command position, clearly a conflict of interest. A lot of us expressed concern about the perception that leadership is endorsing what should clearly be a chaplain endorsed and led activity.
Just imagine the following scenario… if you were a young Airman wanting to look good for a Below the Zone package, the Deputy Group Commander is leading a bible study, a young impressionable person might Continue reading
The following email recently took a turn around the “religious complaint” circuit:
From: [ ] LtCol USAF AETC 58 OG/CD
To: 58 SOW All PersonnelSubject: 58 SOW Bible Study: Every Wed, 1200-1300 in the TRS Auditorium
You are invited to a weekly 58 SOW Bible Study on Wednesdays, from 1200-1300, in the 58 TRS Auditorium-a Chaplain-sponsored event. If you are interested, read below for more details: Continue reading
It was bound to happen. While some have claimed the US military should not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, they’ve been unable to explain why the US military still discriminates on the basis of gender. A new report from a Congressional panel now recommends removing those very policies.
The Defense Department should eliminate restrictions on women serving in combat units and end all “gender restrictive policies,” according to a blue-ribbon panel created by Congress.
The logic of the report is astounding: Continue reading
Recently, the Colorado Springs Gazette highlighted the “leaked” results of the USAFA climate survey, which Academy superintendent Lt Gen Michael Gould had clearly said he was not going to release. As expected (and as the Academy likely expected), much ado was made of numbers indicating cadets had been subject to “unwanted proselytizing” or had been “approached” about their faith.
More disturbing, however, is the internal reaction and external response that seems to be becoming increasingly common: Continue reading
While there seems to remain a percentage of the American population that believes the military cannot enforce rules on moral conduct, continuing cases demonstrate that is not the case.
In the Army, a Sergeant Major was recently charged with raping a lower ranking Soldier. Additional charges included abuse of rank, disobeying Army regulations, and adultery.
In the Air Force, a Chief Master Sergeant is facing court martial over charges of misuse of government position, failure to obey orders, indecent conduct, and adultery, among other charges.
Adultery?
Within the United States, the military remains one of the few places, if not the only, where one can still be charged with the crime of being unfaithful to one’s spouse. Continue reading
Many debates about restrictions on personal choices in the military often devolve to what the military is allowed to do with regard to “victimless” crimes or things that are legal outside the military.
The Air Force — notably, not the Department of Defense — recently changed a regulation to expand the prohibition on “mood altering substances.”
The revised language makes punitive the prohibition in the current Air Force Instruction regarding the ingestion of any substance, other than alcohol or tobacco, for the purpose of altering mood or function…
The guidance cited the designer drug “spice,” salvia divinorum, inhalants, household chemicals, solvents and prescription drug abuse.
As noted earlier, the Air Force has already discharged Airmen over use of “spice,” something which is legal in most jurisdictions in the United States.
To remind those who quickly forget, the US military can — and does — regulate personal conduct, even if that conduct is legal outside of the military and even if that “private choice” is believed not to affect any other person.
The last Military Religion Question of the Day asked if a military Chaplain’s article about God’s provision was correctly characterized by a critic:
The…Chaplain writes about why women were created (as an afterthought to keep men from being lonely), marriage as a Christian institution, and segues to a blatant Jesus salvation pitch.
The critic did not directly accuse the Chaplain of wrongdoing. Instead, he appears to be holding the Chaplain’s beliefs up for ridicule. Is the mockery justified?
The critic’s interpretation of the Chaplain’s description of “why women were created” Continue reading
On the same day someone complained in a Facebook post that a military Chaplain was “blatantly proselytizing” (in fact, just 6 minutes after the post), another Facebook post made a similar complaint about a different Chaplain:
Fans, check out this, written by a government-[employed] Chaplain in an official government publication:
Writing for the Chaplain’s Corner at Marine Corps Base Quantico, The Marine Corps Recruiting Command Chaplain writes about why women were created (as an afterthought to keep men from being lonely), marriage as a Christian institution, and segues to a blatant Jesus salvation pitch.
The article referenced is that by Chaplain Continue reading