|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| alffy wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The military, since you don't seem to get it, is all about discipline and chain of command. It is not about agreeing with your boss, it is about taking orders. |
I think you summed up the situation aptly. The military is about discipline and taking orders.
The standing orders in the military is that to maintain discipline you must obey the regulations of the service in which you serve, which you agree to do when joining. The regulations clearly prohibit any action which might bring in to question the integrity of the uniform, unit, branch of service, or US government which you serve. The discretion of what violates the said regulations is entirely within the authority of your chain of command and the Judge Advocate Corp which adjudicates the UCMJ.
The woman in question was determined to have violated the regulations. End of story.
Whether you, her, me or NAVFC agree with that determination is immaterial. She violated the regs, she will face charges, she will either be vindicated or convicted. Regardless of the outcome, she was wrong because the service said she was wrong.
If she doesn't like it, she can just not reenlist when her contract ends. I did twice, it's a nice feeling. |
I have at no time disagreed with this point. Reading comprehension classes would benefit some of the posters here.
The issue I addressed was the claim that her posing should affect command. *beep*. IF a soldier can't get his brain out of his groin, he's the one that should be disciplined.
The soldier who posed made a mistake in doing so under the offices of her station in the military. This was a mistake. Had she posed with no metnion of her rank, or even without any trappings of it even if identified as "Sgt. ....", then I would disagree with her being disciplined. But, again, using weakened command as an excuse, as some have in this thread, proves nothing more than that the posters stating such are not the best and brightest our military has seen. I guarantee you any number of men under her command have already thought long and hard on the subject of some horizontal training. (Pardon the puns.) Her posing isn't gong to change that overmuch. The fact that rape is such a problem in the military makes this abundantly clear. |
EFL you tried to turn it into a male vs female issue (quote: society has no problem with homosexuakls and women why should the military)
and it wasnt.
And I dont know why you use the phrase weakened command, I didnt say that. What I did say was it detracts from her authority because then she becomes the laughing stock. the talk of base.
Authority is derived from respect, somthing that is sort of hard to have if you are the talk of the base in such a manner.
Its kind of weird, that male airmen will be taking orders from her one minute, then in their offtime beating off to pictures of her.
EFL the solidity of the chain of command is something you don't understand and probably wont ever understand unless you yourself join.
This is why such things are a violation of the UCMJ.
And you make this about males too, saying "if they cant keep their mind sout of their groins".
What about the females? Who will see and then lose all total respect for her viewing her as a *beep*?
this isnt a sex based issue. Its respect, authority, the uniform, and presentation of such. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cerebroden
Joined: 27 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
EFL the solidity of the chain of command is something you don't understand and probably wont ever understand unless you yourself join. |
"For those who have fought for it....." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alffy wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| I have at no time disagreed with this point. Reading comprehension classes would benefit some of the posters here. |
Nothing like personal insults to raise the level of debate.
The problem here is not that I lack reading comprehension, but rather you seem to miss my point. None of the discussion on this topic has any real relevance to the topic, which is cut and dry.
What all the discussion is about, particularly from your point, is the insertion of personal political perspectives into a rather staight-forward topic.
Or is this not a political point presented as argument here?:
| Quote: |
| Both you rightwing wackos are examples of why we have the most backward military. Other countries have no trouble with women nor homosexuals. |
Do you really believe this issue is about her as a female member of the military? Do you think she is being persecuted due to her sex?
The irony is I probably agree quite closely with you on your politics here, but you chose to take a rather immature route due to my choice of separating my political views from my interpretation of her actions and the military's response.
I believe the US military is still considerably behind the rest of society in its cultural mores and practices and needs to try harder to catch up. I believe, as well, that thay have made tremendous progress since the '80s when I first served.
I also believe the woman involved was a complete fool and deserves whatever she gets in this case. |
Actually, the reading comprehension comment wasn't directed at you as you hadn't said anything stupid. Until now. Dog chasing its tail.
I said in my first post she was screwed due to the use of her uniform. Clear violation. So, yes, we agree. I do not think the military would have any right to punish her if she was sans uniform, however. What we do on our time is our business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| alffy wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The military, since you don't seem to get it, is all about discipline and chain of command. It is not about agreeing with your boss, it is about taking orders. |
I think you summed up the situation aptly. The military is about discipline and taking orders.
The standing orders in the military is that to maintain discipline you must obey the regulations of the service in which you serve, which you agree to do when joining. The regulations clearly prohibit any action which might bring in to question the integrity of the uniform, unit, branch of service, or US government which you serve. The discretion of what violates the said regulations is entirely within the authority of your chain of command and the Judge Advocate Corp which adjudicates the UCMJ.
The woman in question was determined to have violated the regulations. End of story.
Whether you, her, me or NAVFC agree with that determination is immaterial. She violated the regs, she will face charges, she will either be vindicated or convicted. Regardless of the outcome, she was wrong because the service said she was wrong.
If she doesn't like it, she can just not reenlist when her contract ends. I did twice, it's a nice feeling. |
I have at no time disagreed with this point. Reading comprehension classes would benefit some of the posters here.
The issue I addressed was the claim that her posing should affect command. *beep*. IF a soldier can't get his brain out of his groin, he's the one that should be disciplined.
The soldier who posed made a mistake in doing so under the offices of her station in the military. This was a mistake. Had she posed with no metnion of her rank, or even without any trappings of it even if identified as "Sgt. ....", then I would disagree with her being disciplined. But, again, using weakened command as an excuse, as some have in this thread, proves nothing more than that the posters stating such are not the best and brightest our military has seen. I guarantee you any number of men under her command have already thought long and hard on the subject of some horizontal training. (Pardon the puns.) Her posing isn't gong to change that overmuch. The fact that rape is such a problem in the military makes this abundantly clear. |
EFL you tried to turn it into a male vs female issue (quote: society has no problem with homosexuakls and women why should the military)
and it wasnt. |
Wrong. There are people in our military who arent too bright and who have little self-control. They should be drummed out, not someone making an extra buck doing legal work outside of work hours. Her offense, clearly stated by me several times, was in using the uniform.
What I was drawing a parallel with is th stuipidity of the rules in the military. Again, reading comprehension.
| Quote: |
| And I dont know why you use the phrase weakened command, I didnt say that. What I did say was it detracts from her authority because then she becomes the laughing stock. the talk of base. |
Again, reading comprehension.
| Quote: |
| Authority is derived from respect, somthing that is sort of hard to have if you are the talk of the base in such a manner. |
its also derived from fear, from intimidation, from simple holding of rank. And, again, it matters not if they respect her, but only that they respect the uniform and the organization they are part of. I will say it again: soldiers don't follow out of respect, but out oif duty. Many a commander not having the respect of his/her soldiers have, and will, exist. In a perfect world, you are right. In the real world, wake up.
| Quote: |
| Its kind of weird, that male airmen will be taking orders from her one minute, then in their offtime beating off to pictures of her. |
That is THEIR choice. And, again, some were doing that before that magazine came out. Guaranteed.
| Quote: |
| EFL the solidity of the chain of command is something you don't understand and probably wont ever understand unless you yourself join. |
Bullshit. I'm a teacher.
| Quote: |
This is why such things are a violation of the UCMJ.
And you make this about males too, saying "if they cant keep their mind sout of their groins".
What about the females? Who will see and then lose all total respect for her viewing her as a *beep*?
this isnt a sex based issue. Its respect, authority, the uniform, and presentation of such. |
Uh-huh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alffy
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| I said in my first post she was screwed due to the use of her uniform. Clear violation. So, yes, we agree. I do not think the military would have any right to punish her if she was sans uniform, however. What we do on our time is our business. |
I agree and disagree with this...the uniform was the single most explicit element of her mistake, as it drew attention to her service and forced a reaction from the military. But even had she participated in the shoot without the uniform, or even without identifying herself as a service member, she still would have been opening herself to possible charges (although I think she would have gotten away with it without serious media/public attention).
The reason is, and here is where I disagree with you, a service member is ALWAYS in the service. It is a 24/7/365 position. As the old Navy ads used to indicate "It's not just a job..." You are never a private citizen as a service member, you are always a sailor, marine, soldier, or airman-you just might be off duty at the time. Therefore, as they love to point out to you in the service, you are ALWAYS under the UCMJ and the regulations, even when off duty. So therefore, "What we do on our own time is our business," is not enirely applicable to a service member in general, or this case in particular.
As I was so fond of pointing out while in the service, one must forfeit, temporarily, some of one's rights as a citizen in order to serve the country defending the rights of fellow citizens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| alffy wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The military, since you don't seem to get it, is all about discipline and chain of command. It is not about agreeing with your boss, it is about taking orders. |
I think you summed up the situation aptly. The military is about discipline and taking orders.
The standing orders in the military is that to maintain discipline you must obey the regulations of the service in which you serve, which you agree to do when joining. The regulations clearly prohibit any action which might bring in to question the integrity of the uniform, unit, branch of service, or US government which you serve. The discretion of what violates the said regulations is entirely within the authority of your chain of command and the Judge Advocate Corp which adjudicates the UCMJ.
The woman in question was determined to have violated the regulations. End of story.
Whether you, her, me or NAVFC agree with that determination is immaterial. She violated the regs, she will face charges, she will either be vindicated or convicted. Regardless of the outcome, she was wrong because the service said she was wrong.
If she doesn't like it, she can just not reenlist when her contract ends. I did twice, it's a nice feeling. |
I have at no time disagreed with this point. Reading comprehension classes would benefit some of the posters here.
The issue I addressed was the claim that her posing should affect command. *beep*. IF a soldier can't get his brain out of his groin, he's the one that should be disciplined.
The soldier who posed made a mistake in doing so under the offices of her station in the military. This was a mistake. Had she posed with no metnion of her rank, or even without any trappings of it even if identified as "Sgt. ....", then I would disagree with her being disciplined. But, again, using weakened command as an excuse, as some have in this thread, proves nothing more than that the posters stating such are not the best and brightest our military has seen. I guarantee you any number of men under her command have already thought long and hard on the subject of some horizontal training. (Pardon the puns.) Her posing isn't gong to change that overmuch. The fact that rape is such a problem in the military makes this abundantly clear. |
EFL you tried to turn it into a male vs female issue (quote: society has no problem with homosexuakls and women why should the military)
and it wasnt. |
Wrong. There are people in our military who arent too bright and who have little self-control. They should be drummed out, not someone making an extra buck doing legal work outside of work hours. Her offense, clearly stated by me several times, was in using the uniform.
What I was drawing a parallel with is th stuipidity of the rules in the military. Again, reading comprehension.
| Quote: |
| And I dont know why you use the phrase weakened command, I didnt say that. What I did say was it detracts from her authority because then she becomes the laughing stock. the talk of base. |
Again, reading comprehension.
| Quote: |
| Authority is derived from respect, somthing that is sort of hard to have if you are the talk of the base in such a manner. |
its also derived from fear, from intimidation, from simple holding of rank. And, again, it matters not if they respect her, but only that they respect the uniform and the organization they are part of. I will say it again: soldiers don't follow out of respect, but out oif duty. Many a commander not having the respect of his/her soldiers have, and will, exist. In a perfect world, you are right. In the real world, wake up.
| Quote: |
| Its kind of weird, that male airmen will be taking orders from her one minute, then in their offtime beating off to pictures of her. |
That is THEIR choice. And, again, some were doing that before that magazine came out. Guaranteed.
| Quote: |
| EFL the solidity of the chain of command is something you don't understand and probably wont ever understand unless you yourself join. |
*beep*. I'm a teacher.
| Quote: |
This is why such things are a violation of the UCMJ.
And you make this about males too, saying "if they cant keep their mind sout of their groins".
What about the females? Who will see and then lose all total respect for her viewing her as a *beep*?
this isnt a sex based issue. Its respect, authority, the uniform, and presentation of such. |
Uh-huh. |
HHAHHA you teach? and thats your source of understanding of the chain of command from a military viewpoint? No offense to EFL teachers but the military and EFL is a whole different ball game! Again, you dont know jack.
Second, holding rank in and of itself is not a quality of leadership.
and anyone who leads solely by fear and intimidation in the miltiary will not long last as a leader, their units will be very unproductive when compared to those led by leaders who get respect because there people totally respect them?
And again, why the "uh-huh"?
You dont think the Segreant will receive any disrespect rom felaes a a result? There will be now females under her who consider her a *beep* trash etc..and to that point your best come back is "uh-huh"
Let us use your silly chain of command examplwe as a issue.
If you were to appear naked in some sort of publication in Korea and your studnts happpened to see, you dont think that would create some problems?
Im guessing youd lose your job.
If all youve got is "uh huh" "I teach" andthe groin comment, your on losing ground. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:34 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I agree and disagree with this...the uniform was the single most explicit element of her mistake, as it drew attention to her service and forced a reaction from the military. But even had she participated in the shoot without the uniform, or even without identifying herself as a service member, she still would have been opening herself to possible charges (although I think she would have gotten away with it without serious media/public attention). |
Is there a statement in the UCMJ about posing nude?
What if you are a nudist? Or what if you posed for private pics? Could that get you in trouble?
I say this because I once saw a former colonel who was being interviewed because he was a high priest in the Temple of Set (basically a devil-worshipping outfit). Of course that's religion and he was a former colonel, but it does illustrate the problems of defining morality, especially for an entity that condones bigotry.
I'd tend to think the military has to explicitly state that nudity is not allowed. Conventional wisdom might suggest that posing nude is bad, but is it? That's open to interpretation.
And I'd swear that I've seen "Women in Uniform" spreads in such magazines (which I only read for the articles *cough*).
What if she's posed in a military-like uniform that wasn't the real deal?
Just thought I'd throw that out there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I agree and disagree with this...the uniform was the single most explicit element of her mistake, as it drew attention to her service and forced a reaction from the military. But even had she participated in the shoot without the uniform, or even without identifying herself as a service member, she still would have been opening herself to possible charges (although I think she would have gotten away with it without serious media/public attention). |
Is there a statement in the UCMJ about posing nude?
What if you are a nudist? Or what if you posed for private pics? Could that get you in trouble?
I say this because I once saw a former colonel who was being interviewed because he was a high priest in the Temple of Set (basically a devil-worshipping outfit). Of course that's religion and he was a former colonel, but it does illustrate the problems of defining morality, especially for an entity that condones bigotry.
I'd tend to think the military has to explicitly state that nudity is not allowed. Conventional wisdom might suggest that posing nude is bad, but is it? That's open to interpretation.
And I'd swear that I've seen "Women in Uniform" spreads in such magazines (which I only read for the articles *cough*).
What if she's posed in a military-like uniform that wasn't the real deal?
Just thought I'd throw that out there. |
"I'd tend to think the military has to explicitly state that nudity is not allowed. Conventional wisdom might suggest that posing nude is bad, but is it? That's open to interpretation."
Bull. Again you have no clue what your talking about either. Article 134 of the UCMJ forbids anything which detracts from good order and discipline. Just as in civilian law, no one had time to actually think of everty single specific offense one can commit so some laws are blanket coverage for various crimes. In this case, as such is Article 134.
Key word. You said FORMER Colonel.
Not active duty. different ball game.
Nudists? In the military you have to wear uniforms. If not, you cant be in.
Private pcictures are a whole diferent story, as Playboy is a nationally recognized publication which thrust her and her service to the forefront.
I can imagine private pictures only being a issue f said private pictures cause disorder and such, such as her giving them out to people at her base and soon everyone wants to see and then she just becomes that girl who gives out nudes etc etc.
So many factors in the UCMJ depend on what was done and who or what it effected and how it detracted from good order and discipline. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are attempting to discuss matters pertaining to military discipline with two bitterly negative antiEstablishmentarians.
The Supreme Court long ago ruled that servicemembers give up many rights when enlisting. One essentially leaves his or her American citizenship behind and becomes more like government property and equipment while on active duty.
That is just the way it is. The military could not function otherwise. If you do not agree with this, it is easy: do not enlist. Simple as that. Case closed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Bull. Again you have no clue what your talking about either. Article 134 of the UCMJ forbids anything which detracts from good order and discipline. Just as in civilian law, no one had time to actually think of everty single specific offense one can commit so some laws are blanket coverage for various crimes. In this case, as such is Article 134. |
Bull. You'll find civilian law quite specific in what it states, frequently redefined due to precedent and mindfully interpreted in consideration of previous court rulings.
Does it detract from good order and discipline when soldiers read other issues of Playboy?
My point is that this is a line drawn in the sand. It's open to interpretation.
Rather than tell me i'm full of crap, explain how it isn't open to interpretation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alffy
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, yes Article 134:
| Quote: |
ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. |
The infamous catch-all article. I can't remember how many times this was thrown at me or I was threatened with being charged under.
It effectively says "we can charge whomever we want with whatever we want." Once also referred to by a Navy Lawyer I was discussing it with as the lazy man's article- the writers of the UCMJ simply got tired of writing lists of offenses and wrote this to cap off the section.
It leaves the discretion of the nature of the charges to the individual's chain of command, which is the initiating agency for charges against service members (except in really serious cases).
So public nudity is against the UCMJ when your chain of command says it is. You can fight it in courts-martial, and you may even win, but it is still up to the command's discretion to bring charges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alffy wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| I said in my first post she was screwed due to the use of her uniform. Clear violation. So, yes, we agree. I do not think the military would have any right to punish her if she was sans uniform, however. What we do on our time is our business. |
I agree and disagree with this...the uniform was the single most explicit element of her mistake, as it drew attention to her service and forced a reaction from the military. But even had she participated in the shoot without the uniform, or even without identifying herself as a service member, she still would have been opening herself to possible charges (although I think she would have gotten away with it without serious media/public attention).
The reason is, and here is where I disagree with you, a service member is ALWAYS in the service. It is a 24/7/365 position. As the old Navy ads used to indicate "It's not just a job..." You are never a private citizen as a service member, you are always a sailor, marine, soldier, or airman-you just might be off duty at the time. Therefore, as they love to point out to you in the service, you are ALWAYS under the UCMJ and the regulations, even when off duty. So therefore, "What we do on our own time is our business," is not enirely applicable to a service member in general, or this case in particular.
As I was so fond of pointing out while in the service, one must forfeit, temporarily, some of one's rights as a citizen in order to serve the country defending the rights of fellow citizens. |
Well, given that other acts go unpunished when off duty, seems a bit of a double standard, which makes it all suspect. If the guy getting into a fight on Friday night is better than the girl posing in a magazine, well... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerebroden
Joined: 27 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
got news for ya, the guy getting into a fight is more than likely on his way to atleast an article 15, if not worse.
and its not like this type of thing hasn't happened before. and the Navy girl didn't even pose in her uniform.
Information Systems Technician 2nd Class (SW) Sherry Lynne White |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luvnpeas
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Location: somewhere i have never travelled
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="alffy"]Ah, yes Article 134:
| Quote: |
ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. |
In other words, you are guilty of anything we say, because we say so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| alffy wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| I said in my first post she was screwed due to the use of her uniform. Clear violation. So, yes, we agree. I do not think the military would have any right to punish her if she was sans uniform, however. What we do on our time is our business. |
I agree and disagree with this...the uniform was the single most explicit element of her mistake, as it drew attention to her service and forced a reaction from the military. But even had she participated in the shoot without the uniform, or even without identifying herself as a service member, she still would have been opening herself to possible charges (although I think she would have gotten away with it without serious media/public attention).
The reason is, and here is where I disagree with you, a service member is ALWAYS in the service. It is a 24/7/365 position. As the old Navy ads used to indicate "It's not just a job..." You are never a private citizen as a service member, you are always a sailor, marine, soldier, or airman-you just might be off duty at the time. Therefore, as they love to point out to you in the service, you are ALWAYS under the UCMJ and the regulations, even when off duty. So therefore, "What we do on our own time is our business," is not enirely applicable to a service member in general, or this case in particular.
As I was so fond of pointing out while in the service, one must forfeit, temporarily, some of one's rights as a citizen in order to serve the country defending the rights of fellow citizens. |
Well, given that other acts go unpunished when off duty, seems a bit of a double standard, which makes it all suspect. If the guy getting into a fight on Friday night is better than the girl posing in a magazine, well... |
Thats a joke right? I cant even count the amount of time I've seen people charged for things that happen off duty.
Fighting, Public disturbance, DUIs, etc etc.
Thing is most things dont recieve media attention. This did how ever though, given the fact that Playboy is a national publication and everyone knew about this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
