Berkeley needs to be slapped down, hard!

[Radu]

Have you heard the news about the city of Berkeley, California?

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_8127493?source=rss

Apparently, the city council in its wisdom decided to vote 6-3 in favor of a resolution granting Code Pink, an anti-military protest group, a free parking permit and a free sound permit to protest military (specifically Marine) recruiting in the city. The military will be treated as "unwanted and unwelcome intruders."

Allow me to respond:

Fuck you, Berkeley. Fuck you right in your pompous, arrogant, self-absorbed asses. I exempt Councilor Gordon Wozniak, the lone dissenter.

I am a liberal. I am opposed to military action unless it is the last possible option. I support freedom of speech and gratefully exercise this right daily. BUT I also enjoy the benefits of an all volunteer military daily. They're the ones with their asses on the line giving me those rights. They're the ones, ironically enough, who allow the city of Berkeley to have the balls to think it could just oust the Marines like they were vagrants in the 1930's.

I wonder: If the Marines didn't have to recruit, how would we maintain a standing army? We could follow in the footsteps of other countries, like Israel, and have compulsory service. I wonder how Code Pink would react to that.

I am not about to join the military. I don't have the mindset required, nor the desire. I wholeheartedly support the volunteer services out of pure selfishness; if someone volunteers, I don't have to serve. I am grateful to those who choose to enter military service, and I feel they deserve our respect and support if not our admiration. To take such an extreme stance as to attempt to boot the recruiting station out of your city is, to me, the height of biting the hand that feeds you.

[Schizm]

the city council in its wisdom decided to vote 6-3 in favor of a resolution...

I exempt Councilor Gordon Wozniak, the lone dissenter.


not having read your link, I require external fact checking.

[Radu]

I say lone dissenter, because they voted 6-3 for an ordnance saying the Marines were unwelcome, 7-2 for an ordnance enforcing anti-gender discrimination and encouraging the women's protest group Code Pink to protest, and 8-1 for an ordnance that gave Code Pink a parking permit and sound permit for free to carry out anti Marine protests.

Councilor Gordon was the only one who opposed all three measures, and really it's the last that has got me so in a huff. Sorry about that.

[Edena_of_Neith]

(dark humor)

It is well for people with this mindset, that they do not try to come to Kay Tastrophe's Military School for Girls and Boys, and begin protesting, picketing, and demonizing us, to our faces.

[Ergeheilalt]

I wonder: If the Marines didn't have to recruit, how would we maintain a standing army? We could follow in the footsteps of other countries, like Israel, and have compulsory service. I wonder how Code Pink would react to that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was there a big stink recently about the military recruits telling outright lies and half truths to get people to enlist? I mean, if that is still an issue I can see them getting tiffed enough to write a resolution unwelcoming perpetrators of such douchebaggery.

I think compulsory civil service would be a good thing - be it armed forces for those of able body - or stuff like teaching, research, planning, or the like.

It's also worth noting that Code Pink isn't just anti-military, they're torqued because the Marines (and the military) do not allow for the open expression of non-hetero sexualities. That is a cause I could get behind (heh heh).

[Lisa Nadazdy]

I say lone dissenter, because they voted 6-3 for an ordnance saying the Marines were unwelcome, 7-2 for an ordnance enforcing anti-gender discrimination and encouraging the women's protest group Code Pink to protest, and 8-1 for an ordnance that gave Code Pink a parking permit and sound permit for free to carry out anti Marine protests.

Councilor Gordon was the only one who opposed all three measures, and really it's the last that has got me so in a huff. Sorry about that.

Because, you know, it's perfectly okay to discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation. :rolleyes:

[Radu]

If you want to go there, that's fine. But you know what this is really about. The Marines have a policy against homosexuals and women. Take issue with them.

This is really about giving an anti-war group a free parking permit and a free sound permit to protest. Favoring a specific agenda over and above our military forces. This is about rejecting the Marines in favor of a highly partisan and highly polarizing women's group.

The United States Government is not a buffet. You can't pick and choose which services you like and leave the rest. This isn't a gay rights or women's rights issue. It's a "Berkeley, California believes it is more important than the federal government" issue.

[Edena_of_Neith]

(dark humor)

Just imagine ... what if ... what if we had a real Kay Tastrophe's Military School for Girls and Boys.
Up our streets march the anti-war protesters, calling us names, murderers, baby-killers, savages. Up march the police ... to protect them and arrest us if we interfere. Up march the time officials, telling us Kay Tastrophe cadets are never welcome in their city, and will be run out of town if they show their ugly faces there.
Nevermind that none of us were involved in the War in Iraq, now. We are just a Military Academy. But that doesn't matter. We are military and thus we stink. We are garbage, offal, trash to be dumped somewhere else.

Now, there they are, out in the streets of the city around Kay Tastrophe's School.
What do we do?
What would our General, Kay, do?

[Lisa Nadazdy]

If you want to go there, that's fine. But you know what this is really about. The Marines have a policy against homosexuals and women. Take issue with them.

If they violate city statutes and school policies, then the marines should reform their policies or face the boot. Period.

This is really about giving an anti-war group a free parking permit and a free sound permit to protest. Favoring a specific agenda over and above our military forces. This is about rejecting the Marines in favor of a highly partisan and highly polarizing women's group.

And why should the marines be placed in higher priority than a citizens group? Why should the military get free access to recruit, which these days they use underhanded and unethical methods to fill their quotas?

The United States Government is not a buffet. You can't pick and choose which services you like and leave the rest. This isn't a gay rights or women's rights issue. It's a "Berkeley, California believes it is more important than the federal government" issue.

Sure you can. The government is "of the people, by the people, for the people". They serve the public, not the other way around. Somehow, you think the governemt is more important than the public interest, and if the public there in Berkely tells the marines to take a hike, then that's what happens. If they prefer the protesters over soldiers, then that's the right of the school to do so.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Okay, I'm ranting a bit, there. I could give a fuck about some special interest group. However, I don't they should be doing any favours for the military- for fuck's sake, they've got a huge segemt of the federal budget, they advertise in every goddamned medium, and the government has the money to park recruiting staion on more corners than Starbucks. Fuck the military, and fuck the government. No fuckin' free rides.

[Utrecht]

If they violate city statutes and school policies, then the marines should reform their policies or face the boot. Period.

I understand your through here - except for two critical factors and one that is open to discussion (I suspect you and I will see it differently)

1) The policy of the Marines is not set by the Marines - but rather by the Federal Government (and in this case by fmr Pres Clinton a Democrat). Is Berkely going to start turning down all that federal money over this? or are they going to tell the Democratic party that they are not welcome since a Democrat instituted it?

2) It has been repeatedly supported that Federal Laws trump local laws - so in reality the Marines are under no legal obligation to adhere to them.

3) This is the one that can be argued. But one could argue that the Dont Ask Don't Tell is not discriminatory (certainly the Supreme Court agrees) - unless the individuals make an issue out of it.



And why should the marines be placed in higher priority than a citizens group? Why should the military get free access to recruit, which these days they use underhanded and unethical methods to fill their quotas?


Reading the information - I see that Berkley is doing the opposite - they are placing a higher priority on a citizens group. They should both be allowed presense in Berkley and let the citizens make up their minds.


Sure you can. The government is "of the people, by the people, for the people". They serve the public, not the other way around. Somehow, you think the governemt is more important than the public interest, and if the public there in Berkely tells the marines to take a hike, then that's what happens. If they prefer the protesters over soldiers, then that's the right of the school to do so.

Couple of things here - we as a people do not get the right to cherry pcik what services of the government we want - sure we will take your road money Uncle Sam - but your marines are not welcome.

Second, public interest? whose public interests are being served? Sounds like it is some high minded (at least in their visions of themselves) individuals executing personal beliefs under pressure from a small group of people - classic tyranny of the minority.

Thirdly, clearly there is some sort of demand for a recruiting station - the Marines don't keep open poorly performing recuriting. Thus, the public has some demand for this - and by your argument above, the Marines have every right to be there.

Okay, I'm ranting a bit, there. I could give a fuck about some special interest group. However, I don't they should be doing any favours for the military- for fuck's sake, they've got a huge segemt of the federal budget, they advertise in every goddamned medium, and the government has the money to park recruiting staion on more corners than Starbucks. Fuck the military, and fuck the government. No fuckin' free rides.

See, this is where I am confused - where is the free ride here? I do not read anything about the Marines asking for special treatment from Berkley - but rather equal rights, which seem to be taken away from them.

Feelings about the military, the administration, etc. are not germaine - other than bringing and emotiona charge to this.

[Hatter]

This is kind of a non sequitur, but I remember when I was 18-21 and the marine recruiters were insanely aggressive, approaching me at work, lunch, calling me, sending me mail. It makes me wonder what it's like now.

[doc]

Hell when I was 18 I was stalked by the Army, but I was in the ROTC too.

Is the city giveing the other 3 branches a hard time, or is this a preample to that ?

[Radu]

Utrecht said it all for me. Thanks.

After a few days to calm down, I am no longer so incensed. I still feel strongly that Berkeley is doing the wrong thing and should not be allowed to continue, but I would no longer phrase it quite so... vehemently.

We cannot allow cities to pick and choose what services they receive. If you have a problem with a federal issue, it should be addressed on a federal level. Go to the root of the problem and change it. That's the real purpose of our democratic government--- if people don't want something, they change it. That's really what "By the people, of the people, for the people means." It is not a justification for Balkanizing, which is exactly what would happen if municipal/state authorities were allowed to overrule the federal government.

[Dr. Paragon]

We cannot allow cities to pick and choose what services they receive.
It intrigues me that such vitriol is flung at Berkeley when their policy
boils down to a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" fighting tactic against
prejudicial policy that has been left to rot in the guts of our military
doctrine.

[Radu]

If the issue you have is with a discriminatory military, then take up the issue with them. Change federal policy. Change military policy. Don't feel that just because you disagree with an aspect of the federal government you can simply ignore/eject it.

It wouldn't bother me if Berkeley awarded a sound permit and parking permit to Code Pink had the group applied for one. Every other group must, so that's just even. It's a choice the city must make. But to award one specifically to protest/work against the Marines is folly. No city, no matter how noble minded or perfectly sound its premise, has the right to raise a citizen's group above the government that way. That's the whole reason we have a government in the first place.

If the Marines are using dishonest/underhanded recruiting tactics, then that's unfortunate. If they're biased and prejudiced, that too is unfortunate. I think you will find many who disagree with those claims, but agree or no, there are proper channels to work through. If you dislike an aspect of government, the wonderful thing about this democracy is that it is mutable given enough time and pressure. Put your money where your mouth is and take up issue with the root of the problem- Military policy.

Berkeley is a college town. What would happen to it if the federally funded university was suddenly cut off from federal funds? That would be the governmental equivalent of a "flying spaghetti monster" attack on poorly thought out liberal posturing. Only, since shit rolls downhill, it would actually be effective.

I disagree with many facets of the current government. That doesn't mean I should resort to such foolish tactics to get my point across. I can vote with my pocketbook and fund politicians whose ideas I like. I can literally vote with my vote and ensure they're elected (at least as far as my one vote goes). I can write letters, make phone calls, and be persistent and vocal. If I am with a group of like-minded citizens, we can band together to make our collective voices heard. All of these are potential steps Berkeley might have taken, and probably has. But these are the actions of private citizens. For the political powers that be, the city council, to attempt to take these same steps is to grossly overreach their authority. Their job is to help govern the city, not to play partisans. And while everyone is fallible and no system perfect, the "national government trumps local" is one of the essential building blocks which allows a country like the United States to function.

But you go ahead and tilt at windmills if that's your desire. That's another of the USA's building blocks.

[Utrecht]

It intrigues me that such vitriol is flung at Berkeley when their policy
boils down to a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" fighting tactic against
prejudicial policy that has been left to rot in the guts of our military
doctrine.

The issue is several fold

1) Berkley has decided to give free speach/preference to Code Pink while denying it to the Marines - a clear violation of the constitution

2) The Marines (as well as the entire Military) did not establish this policy. It was established by the executive branch of the federal government

3) Berkley is more than happy to take federal money for other things (roads, education, social services, etc.) So, if they really were sticking to their principals, they would reject ALL federal monies - since that is who established the policy

4) The legal precedence is clear - state laws trump local and federal laws trump state - so there is nothing "illegal" about it

5) Don't Ask Dont Tell is debatable on how discrimiatory (and I realize that this is a very grey statement) it is

[Freedom Canadian]

5) Don't Ask Dont Tell is debatable on how discrimiatory (and I realize that this is a very grey statement) it is

I agree with everything you just said except this.

[Utrecht]

I agree with everything you just said except this.


I fully understand - and acknowledge that this is a VERY grey issue on descriminitory purposes.

It is not discriminitory in the sense that the Military is not actively looking for homosexuals and purging them (and in practice, even when the military becomes aware of a homosexual, they tend not to do anything - unless the individual is blatant, etc.) Fundamentally, they are treating it as a violation of the code of conduct.

It is discriminitory in the fact that it is targeting a group of people.

But lets not forget a couple of things

1) The constitution does not apply to the military or military bases- they are a law unto themselves.

2) There are legitimate reasons why the policy exists - the military is there to fight not to be an equal employer and until society changes (and it has certainly tempered since the time when the policy went into effect) the military has to recognize that homosexuality is a divisive issue - and divisive is not something you want in a military.

[Ergeheilalt]

1) The constitution does not apply to the military or military bases- they are a law unto themselves.


This sounds way oversimplified.

I'm pretty sure there are constitutional laws that apply to the military.

ie - the Third Amendment.

[Eliezer]

1) The constitution does not apply to the military or military bases- they are a law unto themselves.


The constitution does to apply to the military and military bases. The problem is that gender orientation is not a protected civil status under which anti-discrimination rights/laws apply in the same way that gender, race, religion are.

Once it becomes a legally recognized status on a federal level the military will have to change its policies.

[tleilaxu]

a question:

back in the day the military was segregated. would black people during that time be wrong for telling them to fuck off?

[Utrecht]

This sounds way oversimplified.

I'm pretty sure there are constitutional laws that apply to the military.

ie - the Third Amendment.

You are of course correct - but what would a internet debate be like without overreaching statements :)

Perhaps a better way of saying would be - Constitutional protections are not the same for the military/on bases as it is for civilians.

[Eliezer]

You are of course correct - but what would a internet debate be like without overreaching statements :)

Perhaps a better way of saying would be - Constitutional protections are not the same for the military/on bases as it is for civilians.

I would disagree with that statement. The military is not subject to many state laws and military personnel are subject to the UCMJ which is an additional Federal law, but otherwise all Federal laws apply.

[Utrecht]

I would disagree with that statement. The military is not subject to many state laws and military personnel are subject to the UCMJ which is an additional Federal law, but otherwise all Federal laws apply.

you realize that these are inconsistent statements. Some examples of the top of my head.

First Amendment as it relates to speech and press
Fourth Amendment in its entirety
Fifth Amendment (which explicitly calls out the Militia being seperate)
Sixth Amendment (UCMJ adheres to many of the requirements - but is as you said, wholy distinct with its own governance)
Seventh - Does not apply to military situations
Eight Amendment - The military has the ability to apply its own punishments - up to and including death - regardless of what federal law indicates.

[Varaj]

Lots of good reading on the subject.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/MJ_act-1968.html

[Eliezer]

you realize that these are inconsistent statements. Some examples of the top of my head.

First Amendment as it relates to speech and press
Fourth Amendment in its entirety
Fifth Amendment (which explicitly calls out the Militia being seperate)
Sixth Amendment (UCMJ adheres to many of the requirements - but is as you said, wholy distinct with its own governance)
Seventh - Does not apply to military situations
Eight Amendment - The military has the ability to apply its own punishments - up to and including death - regardless of what federal law indicates.

First Amendment - Military follows the constitution: There are limitations on freedom of speech outside of the military. The limitations on speech inside the military are firstly officers can't criticize the president, other than that there are few limitations. There are analogous limitations outside of the military. If you're referring to not declaring yourself a homosexual, you're allowed to do that, you're just subject to discharge. It's not a first amendment issue according to the courts and since the courts get to interpret the constitution if you want to argue this then you're not technically arguing constitutionality, but what you believe constitutionality should be.

Fourth Amendment - Same protections are afforded to military personnel and non-military personnel. I don't know where you're getting this crap from.

Fifth Amendment - Huh? How are military personnel not guaranteed rights under the 5th amendment? Part of what the UCMJ does is guarantee their 5th amendment rights. Same rights apply.

Sixth Amendment - Every right under the sixth amendment is guaranteed and granted. The UCMJ is not a wholly separate, it establishes military courts and the procedures they have to follow to guarantee the constitutional protections of the accused.

Seventh Amendment - No one gets to sue the federal government unless the federal government agrees to it ahead of time whether they are military members or not. Congress literally has to pass a law under which people can sue. Military membership doesn't change any of that.

Eighth Amendment - Uh no, no the "military" does not get to choose it's own punishments or make up it's own laws. The UCMJ is federal law, it was passed by congress, signed by the president and is a law in the same sense that any other law is a law. So Congress set the punishments and criminal code in the UCMJ the same way they set it for the Federal penal code outside of the military.


Utrect - You're speaking out of your ass. If you have specific examples let's hear them, but until such time get a grip with the fact that you're wrong.

[cyphersmith]

First Amendment - Military follows the constitution: There are limitations on freedom of speech outside of the military. The limitations on speech inside the military are firstly officers can't criticize the president, other than that there are few limitations. There are analogous limitations outside of the military. If you're referring to not declaring yourself a homosexual, you're allowed to do that, you're just subject to discharge. It's not a first amendment issue according to the courts and since the courts get to interpret the constitution if you want to argue this then you're not technically arguing constitutionality, but what you believe constitutionality should be.

Fourth Amendment - Same protections are afforded to military personnel and non-military personnel. I don't know where you're getting this crap from.

Fifth Amendment - Huh? How are military personnel not guaranteed rights under the 5th amendment? Part of what the UCMJ does is guarantee their 5th amendment rights. Same rights apply.

Sixth Amendment - Every right under the sixth amendment is guaranteed and granted. The UCMJ is not a wholly separate, it establishes military courts and the procedures they have to follow to guarantee the constitutional protections of the accused.

Seventh Amendment - No one gets to sue the federal government unless the federal government agrees to it ahead of time whether they are military members or not. Congress literally has to pass a law under which people can sue. Military membership doesn't change any of that.

Eighth Amendment - Uh no, no the "military" does not get to choose it's own punishments or make up it's own laws. The UCMJ is federal law, it was passed by congress, signed by the president and is a law in the same sense that any other law is a law. So Congress set the punishments and criminal code in the UCMJ the same way they set it for the Federal penal code outside of the military.


Utrect - You're speaking out of your ass. If you have specific examples let's hear them, but until such time get a grip with the fact that you're wrong.

You, sir, are incorrect, at least in part.

Fourth Amendment - I was in the Navy, and my room was subject to inspection at any time. Whether I was there or not, and whether I gave permission or not. Without a warrant, or even a reason other than they wanted to. Part of maintaining discipline.

Fifth Amendment - The military NEVER uses a Grand Jury.

Sixth Amendment - The possibility of a jury trial does not exist. A court martial is very different from a civilian trial. For that matter, for some offenses, a trial does not happen at all. The commanding officer has the right to punish someone for a large variety of things, and there is little if any recourse on the part of the person punished. I suppose this is what Utrecht was referring to as far as the Eighth Amendment. One of the punishments a CO can impose, without a trial, is loss of pay and restriction to quarters. How much of a loss of pay depends on the rank of the CO, as does the length of the restriction.

Seventh Amendment - One member of the military cannot civilly sue another. For example, I know someone who, if she had been treated by a civilian doctor, would have sued the shit out of a doctor for malpractice. And won. The doctor, however, was a military doctor, and thus she could not sue him. In this case, the doctor removed the neck brace before any kind of x-ray had been taken of her neck. This was after a car crash where they knew that she had broken her hip. The tech who was setting her up for her hip x-rays realized that she must have broken her neck (I don't know how) and put the brace back on, as well as getting a doctor and informing him. Her neck was broken. In fact, the x-rays showed that one of the vertebra (I don't remember which one) had been completely pulverized. She was very lucky to be alive.

[Eliezer]

You, sir, are incorrect, at least in part.

Fourth Amendment - I was in the Navy, and my room was subject to inspection at any time. Whether I was there or not, and whether I gave permission or not. Without a warrant, or even a reason other than they wanted to. Part of maintaining discipline.

Fifth Amendment - The military NEVER uses a Grand Jury.

Sixth Amendment - The possibility of a jury trial does not exist. A court martial is very different from a civilian trial. For that matter, for some offenses, a trial does not happen at all. The commanding officer has the right to punish someone for a large variety of things, and there is little if any recourse on the part of the person punished. I suppose this is what Utrecht was referring to as far as the Eighth Amendment. One of the punishments a CO can impose, without a trial, is loss of pay and restriction to quarters. How much of a loss of pay depends on the rank of the CO, as does the length of the restriction.

Seventh Amendment - One member of the military cannot civilly sue another. For example, I know someone who, if she had been treated by a civilian doctor, would have sued the shit out of a doctor for malpractice. And won. The doctor, however, was a military doctor, and thus she could not sue him. In this case, the doctor removed the neck brace before any kind of x-ray had been taken of her neck. This was after a car crash where they knew that she had broken her hip. The tech who was setting her up for her hip x-rays realized that she must have broken her neck (I don't know how) and put the brace back on, as well as getting a doctor and informing him. Her neck was broken. In fact, the x-rays showed that one of the vertebra (I don't remember which one) had been completely pulverized. She was very lucky to be alive.
:what:
Yes, I was in the military too...

Fourth Amendment - Yes, barracks and other living quarters on base are subject to search. There are regulations that control the searches and who can do them. It's true in a lot of non-military situations that your email, workplace, etc can be searched without a warrant (at least in some federal, non-military positions). It is a constitutional search. We're talking about whether the military is subject to the constitution not whether you feel the searches you experienced were "unreasonable" or not. They are constitutional by court review of the legal procedures established by congress and implemented by policy within the respective branches therefore it is "reasonable" in the constitutional sense.

Fifth Amendment - Nope, no grand jury. Read the constitution again and see if the military complies again and while you're at it bone up on your UCMJ before you speak out your ass again: Unless the accused waives this right, no charge may be referred to a general court-martial until a thorough and impartial investigation into the basis for the charge has been made. This pretrial proceeding is known as an "Article 32" investigation or preliminary hearing and essentially serves the equivalent function of a grand jury hearing in civilian jurisdictions link (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/aacmartial1.htm)

Sixth Amendment - Wow, did you not pay attention while you were in the military. Trial by jury is part of the UCMJ and guaranteed under the UCMJ (http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040604_Courts_Martial.html) This information is so available I don't know how you're speaking out your ass such absolute falsehoods without being embarrassed at your own stupidity. As far as summary article 15 proceedings where you can be put in jail (confined to barracks) have your pay docked, loose rank, etc I would remind you that you can always ask for a general court martial instead if you think the commander is being unfair or the charges are not true. That grants you a right to a jury by trial with at least 1/3 of jury members being enlisted. Commanders, since they have judicial authority, usually work closely with JAG officers, who are trained lawyers, to make sure the article 15 proceedings are legal and they have sufficient evidence to go to trial if the soldier requests it. Article 15 was designed to allow punishment of infractions without resort to a court martial. You can always get the court martial if you choose.

Seventh Amendment - Yep, there are issues with suing the Federal government or employees of the Federal government for things done while performing their duties and that includes medical doctors. I looked into this issue rather closely after an "incident" 14 years ago. Fact remains, that the limitations are considered constitutional.

Let's be clear about this, folks: The military is subject to the same constitutional requirements as anyone else, the protections may be implemented differently, but as a matter of law and practice, the military must adhere to the laws of the land. If you want to complain about how it is implemented fine. If you want to say the military is exempt, you're ignorant of the facts.

And Cyphersmith: Are you a fucktarded moron? No I'm not incorrect in the least. Try to learn at least the meaning of the word "law", "legal" and "constitutional" before you spout off anything like this again. Your ignorance of the facts while you were in the military does not make it true.

[cyphersmith]

:what:
Yes, I was in the military too...

Fourth Amendment - Yes, barracks and other living quarters on base are subject to search. There are regulations that control the searches and who can do them. It's true in a lot of non-military situations that your email, workplace, etc can be searched without a warrant (at least in some federal, non-military positions). It is a constitutional search. We're talking about whether the military is subject to the constitution not whether you feel the searches you experienced were "unreasonable" or not. They are constitutional by court review of the legal procedures established by congress and implemented by policy within the respective branches therefore it is "reasonable" in the constitutional sense.

Fifth Amendment - Nope, no grand jury. Read the constitution again and see if the military complies again and while you're at it bone up on your UCMJ before you speak out your ass again: link (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/aacmartial1.htm)

Sixth Amendment - Wow, did you not pay attention while you were in the military. Trial by jury is part of the UCMJ and guaranteed under the UCMJ (http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040604_Courts_Martial.html) This information is so available I don't know how you're speaking out your ass such absolute falsehoods without being embarrassed at your own stupidity. As far as summary article 15 proceedings where you can be put in jail (confined to barracks) have your pay docked, loose rank, etc I would remind you that you can always ask for a general court martial instead if you think the commander is being unfair or the charges are not true. That grants you a right to a jury by trial with at least 1/3 of jury members being enlisted. Commanders, since they have judicial authority, usually work closely with JAG officers, who are trained lawyers, to make sure the article 15 proceedings are legal and they have sufficient evidence to go to trial if the soldier requests it. Article 15 was designed to allow punishment of infractions without resort to a court martial. You can always get the court martial if you choose.

Seventh Amendment - Yep, there are issues with suing the Federal government or employees of the Federal government for things done while performing their duties and that includes medical doctors. I looked into this issue rather closely after an "incident" 14 years ago. Fact remains, that the limitations are considered constitutional.

Let's be clear about this, folks: The military is subject to the same constitutional requirements as anyone else, the protections may be implemented differently, but as a matter of law and practice, the military must adhere to the laws of the land. If you want to complain about how it is implemented fine. If you want to say the military is exempt, you're ignorant of the facts.

And Cyphersmith: Are you a fucktarded moron? No I'm not incorrect in the least. Try to learn at least the meaning of the word "law", "legal" and "constitutional" before you spout off anything like this again. Your ignorance of the facts while you were in the military does not make it true.

I did not state it very well. What I meant is that the rights of the military under the Constitution are different than those of civilians.

What is considered reasonable search for military personnel would not be considered reasonable for civilians. The "jury" that you get in a court martial works VERY differently than the jury in a civil trial.

The point being that there are different rules for members of the military. Just because they are constitutional doesn't mean that they are different.

Now that I am done with that, fucktard, I am going to address you. I came into this discussion civilly. You are a complete jackass, throwing out personal attacks when they aren't warranted. Go fuck yourself.

[Varaj]

Interesting op-ed Here (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8251276?source=most_viewed)

I have no doubt that the members of the Berkeley City Council have acted with conviction and sincerity in their actions relating to the U.S. Marine Corps recruiting center the past two weeks. I have met many of the members of the council, and honestly believe they are good, honorable people.

But that doesn't change the fact that many on this council are, to steal a line from John McCain, agents of intolerance. It was a term coined to describe members of the far right-wing in this country who espouse a moral superiority over all who see the world differently, but the Berkeley City Council has proved sadly during the Marine furor that the phrase applies equally well to the far left.

First, it's important to understand what the council did and didn't do early Wednesday morning. It retracted the incendiary statement it made Jan. 29 calling the Marines "unwelcome and uninvited intruders" in the city. Instead, it acknowledged the obvious -- that the Marines have a right to operate a recruiting center in Berkeley and people have a right to "protest or support that presence." It also reiterated that it opposes "the recruitment of our young people into this war."

But while the council retreated on the symbolic aspect of its actions from Jan. 29 (it never was in a position to make the Marines leave), it ignored the practical -- giving a free parking space and noise permit once a week to the protest group Code Pink to harass people at the station; and encouraging people in the city to impede the Marines' recruiting mission.

Therein lies the intolerance and sense of moral superiority.

To illustrate, let's take a hypothetical scenario involving an equally controversial issue in a very different city far, far away. Let's assume for a moment there is a small, conservative city called Perkeley somewhere in Alabama. Say there's an abortion clinic in this city. The members of the Perkeley City Council all believe abortion is tantamount to murder and that Roe v. Wade represents an assault on the most defenseless among us. The City Council passes a resolution calling this abortion clinic and the people who work there "unwanted and uninvited" intruders and gives a free parking space and noise permit to a protest group called Code Black to harass people trying to enter that clinic.

After a national outcry, the Perkeley City Council changes the language of its motion to acknowledge that the abortion clinic has a right to operate in the city. But it reiterates that it "opposes the murder of unborn children in this city" and continues to encourage residents to impede the activities of that clinic. Code Black gets to keep its special parking place and noise permit.

I wonder what would be the reaction of the Berkeley City Council members who are trying to drive the recruiting station out of town upon learning of these events? More to the point, what would they do if Code Black came to Berkeley and tried to shut down an abortion clinic here?

If they would grant the anti-abortion activists the same encouragement and preferential free-speech treatment they have given Code Pink, I would take back what I said about them being agents of intolerance. But we all know what their reaction would be to Code Black, don't we?

Some will argue that these council members are elected to represent the will of the people of Berkeley and pursue actions that further that will. Well, let's assume for the sake of argument that the people of Berkeley agree with their position on the recruiting center, something I find highly doubtful given the level of outrage expressed over the past two weeks by many residents.

The council's job is to enact policy decisions that reflect the values of its constituents; not to afford special rights and privileges to groups that share those values at the expense of organizations that have a legal right to conduct business in the city. What if a Republican-controlled Congress had granted special parking and noise privileges to demonstrators who supported the Bush administration's Iraq policy in the months leading up to the 2003 invasion? Would liberals have supported such action based on the argument that these Republicans represented the will of the people who elected them?

For most of the 20th century, cities in the South were dominated by people who believed African-Americans were an inferior race. Were the city councils in those cities justified in taking actions designed to segregate and discriminate against African-Americans? What if the City Council in Perkeley, Ala., had given a special parking space and noise permit to those who wanted to demonstrate in front of a civil rights office?

So what conclusion can we come to regarding the events of the past two weeks? That the Berkeley City Council is home to the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the left? It's unfortunate but true.

These council members may be able to look in the mirror today and tell themselves that they did the right thing, that they made an important statement about this war and took action to bring it to an end. They will say they followed their conscience.

And that will all be true. Along with the fact that, in their own way, they have become the same agents of intolerance that they deplore on the right.

[Radu]

It's amazing what a little bit of separation and cooldown will do to the fire of my position. That Op Ed piece is a really smooth work and pretty much summarizes my main objections.

It's not the place of a city council, or any governmental body for that matter, to regulate morality in the form of granting "good" organizations rights and privileges over and above "bad" ones. Any democracy that attempts to live up to that name must protect the rights of those they disagree with as fiercely as they protect their own.

I don't mind Berkeley not wanting Marine recruitment. I don't care if they award a permit to Code Pink if that group should apply for one. Other citizens action groups can take the same steps. Hell, the Marines could apply for a parade permit to recruit for all I care.

I'm really really tired of the New Intolerance the left practices sometimes. People aren't perfect, and no matter how much you want to legislate otherwise, it isn't your job to try and make us that way. The role of government is to provide for a smooth, working state. The role of a democratic government is to ensure that this process encompasses the widest possible array of viewpoints, regardless of whether they agree with your own personal opinions or not. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

[Eliezer]

What is considered reasonable search for military personnel would not be considered reasonable for civilians. The "jury" that you get in a court martial works VERY differently than the jury in a civil trial.

The point being that there are different rules for members of the military. Just because they are constitutional doesn't mean that they are different.


That is a valid and worthwhile opinion on searches in barracks. I have no problem with people feeling that way. They can feel that they should not be allowed under the constitution too. I have no problem with that. I have a real problem with people that the "constitution doesn't apply to the military". That's what I have been arguing this whole time.

As far as juries go... I suspect you're wrong on that count. They perform the exact same function in a court martial as they do in a civilian trial. They determine the veracity of facts that are in contention, or in other words, they get to decide whether the prosecution's version events/facts is true beyond a reasonable doubt.




Now that I am done with that, fucktard, I am going to address you. I came into this discussion civilly. You are a complete jackass, throwing out personal attacks when they aren't warranted. Go fuck yourself.

Fucktarded, moronic things being posted that are either wrong or non-pertinent to the conversation don't change the fucktarded nature of it. If you said something other than what you intended then learn 2 be literate.

As for the personal attacks... Okay, you got me. I'm sorry I called you a fucktarded moron. I'm a jackass and I should have attacked your post instead of you for posting something so irrelevant (in the case of your clarification) or wrong (in the case of what you actually wrote).

In the future, please read the thread before posting so you don't appear to be a fucktarded moron.

[Utrecht]

What I meant is that the rights of the military under the Constitution are different than those of civilians.

This is ultimately what I was trying to say, thank you Cypher - and agree that I mis-used the word constitutional - but Eliezer, unless you are being dense, you recognize the my point (which you are effectively supporting)

Military rights (and civilians on military bases) are different that for the general populations.

[Varaj]

This is ultimately what I was trying to say, thank you Cypher - and agree that I mis-used the word constitutional - but Eliezer, unless you are being dense, you recognize the my point (which you are effectively supporting)

Military rights (and civilians on military bases) are different that for the general populations.

I'm confused as to why you guys think the rights are different. The laws are different (there are more laws for the military) but the rights are the same.

[cyphersmith]

As far as juries go... I suspect you're wrong on that count. They perform the exact same function in a court martial as they do in a civilian trial. They determine the veracity of facts that are in contention, or in other words, they get to decide whether the prosecution's version events/facts is true beyond a reasonable doubt.


The main difference, from my understanding, is that they are part of the questioning process. They are not silent witnesses to the statements, but rather they are allowed to ask questions.

As for your "apology", go fuck yourself.

[Eliezer]

The main difference, from my understanding, is that they are part of the questioning process. They are not silent witnesses to the statements, but rather they are allowed to ask questions.

Hmm, I'm not aware of this so I'd have to check it out. That is an interesting difference, but I don't think it changes the essential duty of the jury. I kind of like that idea. Sitting in a jury not able to ask questions is kind of rough sometimes.


As for your "apology", go fuck yourself.
That is a perfect legitimate response that I can totally understand. My "apology" only acknowledged that I had inappropriately engaged in ad hominem, and was not an expression of contrition for doing so.

[Eliezer]

This is ultimately what I was trying to say, thank you Cypher - and agree that I mis-used the word constitutional - but Eliezer, unless you are being dense, you recognize the my point (which you are effectively supporting)

Military rights (and civilians on military bases) are different that for the general populations.

Well, I'm not deliberately being dense, but that doesn't mean that I'm not being dense. I'm not exactly comfortable with saying that the rights are "different" but rather that the rights are "applied differently". I don't know that it's a huge distinction, but I think it's an important distinction.

As a military member I had the same rights as every other citizen. Sometimes the specifics of application differed, but the rights were there nonetheless.

[cyphersmith]

Hmm, I'm not aware of this so I'd have to check it out. That is an interesting difference, but I don't think it changes the essential duty of the jury. I kind of like that idea. Sitting in a jury not able to ask questions is kind of rough sometimes.

I could be incorrect. I do know that in a normal court martial, the presiding officers can question the witnesses.

That is a perfect legitimate response that I can totally understand. My "apology" only acknowledged that I had inappropriately engaged in ad hominem, and was not an expression of contrition for doing so.

Contrition for doing so would have been appreciated, but your "apology" was so much more than just acknowledging that you had inappropriately engaged in ad hominem that no other response from me was appropriate. Gotta wonder if the holiday has something to do with your being such a dick.

[Eliezer]

Contrition for doing so would have been appreciated, but your "apology" was so much more than just acknowledging that you had inappropriately engaged in ad hominem that no other response from me was appropriate. Gotta wonder if the holiday has something to do with your being such a dick.

No, I can offer no defense for being such a dick, and I was completely sincere in that your response to my "apology" was appropriate. Your response was an entirely justified response.

The only thing I can say in my defense is that I was truly aghast that someone would post something like that. Now, since you feel it wasn't such an unreasonable post perhaps I was being waaaay too sensitive, but it was the 3rd posts trying to refute the same wrong idea.