United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Air Force action 'entirely inappropriate'
Source:
One News Now
URL Source: http://www.onenewsnow.com/national- ... -action-entirely-inappropriate
Published: Feb 13, 2015
Author: Chad Groening
Post Date: 2015-02-13 14:42:54 by redleghunter
Ping List: *Military or Vets Affairs* Subscribe to *Military or Vets Affairs*
Keywords: None
Views: 7885
Comments: 34
A conservative military watchdog says it was completely inappropriate for an Air Force commander to allow the display of a hybrid flag that advances the radical LGBT political agenda on base. Writing for The Blaze, former Senior Airman Brian Kolfage accounts that he was driving through Davis Monthan Air Force Base near Tucson when he saw an American flag with rainbow stripes, instead of red and white stripes, flying high on a two-story house. Kolfage complained to base officials that that flag violates a section of Title 4 that states the American flag "shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field." But several days after his complaint, the installation commander ruled that the flag does not violate federal law and can remain flying. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), thinks the decision was made to accommodate a political agenda. "This was exhibitionism of a political point of view. It was entirely inappropriate," she exclaims. "Other forms of political expression on a military base also are ruled out, so for the Air Force to make an exception for the sake of a flag that is the hybrid of the American flag -- and the LGBT flag is inappropriate itself -- but to allow that display on a military base, the Air Force authorities who made that decision should be held accountable, because they are the ones who are out of line here." Donnelly concludes that this incident is a consequence of Barack Obama's imposition of LGBT law on the American military.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: liberator, GarySpFc, TooConservative, BobCeleste (#0)
PING "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
"..because of this, God gave them over.."
But several days after his complaint, the installation commander ruled that the flag does not violate federal law and can remain flying. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), thinks the decision was made to accommodate a political agenda. Senior Airman Kolfage and CMR President Donnelly are wrong and the installation commander did what the law required. The First Amendment protects unpopular forms of expression, including this one. The complainants reliance on Title 4 for enforcement action is unfounded. https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30243.pdf Congressional Research Service Report for Congress The United States Flag: Federal Law Relating to Display and Associated Questions Updated April 14, 2008 John R. Luckey Order Code RL30243 Excerpt from introductory summary, unnumbered page Excerpt at 1: [footnotes omitted, emphasis added] Excerpt at 2: [footnotes omitted, emphasis added]
Seems like someone would want to kick his ass. You couldn't say the asshole didn't deserve it.
This doesn't necessarily mean in all cases Flag Burning (or burning of symbols deemed "sacred" to certain people) are impossible to prosecute, does it? As noted on another thread, does "Fighting Words" come into play as an expression or act of provocation?
Weren't you in the military at one time? You should know things are different on base than out in the sillyvilian world.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
As noted on another thread, does "Fighting Words" come into play as an expression or act of provocation? Burning a flag is protected free speech and not subject to anyone's legal objection that it constitutes fighting words, at least not until SCOTUS carves out a "fighting words" exemption. If someone assaults the person burning a flag, that person is guilty of assault. The cost of having free expression is having obnoxious free expression. Having an image of Jesus in a bottle of urine in another form of protected (artistic?) expression. Also, one would need to make sure why the person is burning a flag to determine if it is offensive. Title 4, Sec. 8(k) provides, "The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." The proper means of destroying a flag is by burning it, but that would not include stomping on it at the same time. I suppose it is best to endure the obnoxious expression than to give the government the power to carve out exceptions. The government might carve out an exception that makes it an offense to criticize the president or the government. Again. See, from the Sedition Act of 1798: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=719 FIFTH CONGRESS. Sess. II. Ch. 75. 1798. 597 the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.
You should know things are different on base than out in the sillyvilian world. You will have to show me where the Constitution does not apply on base. The station commander cannot enforce a law that does not exist. The military can be sued in federal court; the named defendant would be the Secretary of the Navy. Yes, I was in the military. 20 years active duty. nolu chan, USN, Ret.
That is exactly what it means if the objection is to the form of expression. If the flag were your personal property and they burned it, that would be an offense of destroying your property. Immersion: Piss Christ (the official name) is a real example, not something I made up. It won artistic awards and the artist received thousands of tax payer dollars from the National Endowment for the Arts. Wikipedia link.
Thanks for addressing this issue and the citation... Isn't this determination a subjective matter? What may be considered "offensive" to a Muslim or Black President, may be something totally different than to a Christian or White President. This is as dangerous and as much subject to political prejudices as any Kangaroo Court. Rhetorically speaking, Counselor, Shouldn't the motivation and results of a flag burning be subject to the degree of provocation as a catalyst of death, violence or harm? As an aside, might burnings other "sacred" objects to other respective groups also fall under this category under the auspices of "Hate Crime"? IF any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President... ...convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years. Good info to know -- that the most one can be fined for telling the truth about politicians and their possible treason and lies is...$2000. The bad news is the possible minimum length of imprisonment: TWO YEARS. God only knows what kind of incarceration the State can use by law, given the arbiters for "cruel and unusual punishment" is also relative.
Ergo, can't then virtually ANY vulgar, obscene act be considered a form of "expression," exonerating the "offender" from prosecution?
I wonder what that commanders reaction would have been if someone had been flying the Gadsen Flag? I strongly suspect he would have gone through the roof.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Wrong. Military members have no 1st Amendment rights while on base,or right to display any political opinion on base housing.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Not for military members or base or in uniform.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You will have to show me where it does when it comes to military members. They come under the UCMJ,not the US Constitution.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Nonsense. The UCMJ, itself, is a federal statute enacted pursuant to the Constitution, at Title 10, United States Code. The UCMJ must conform to the Constitution. You will have to show me where the UCMJ suspends or overrides the Constitution on a military base. Courts-martial held pursuant to the UCMJ must not violate the Constitution. Under the Constitution, Congress is delegated power "[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 14. This is not a grant to repeal the applicability of the Constitution on military bases, nor to military members. It does provide authority to prohibit certain acts prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces such as disrespect or contempt. Just as free speech does not entitle one to yell fire in a crowded theater, neither does it entitle a military member to tell his commanding officer to eff off. The only limit I am aware of is service members addressing disrespectful comments toward superiors. Commissioned officers are prohibited from expressing contempt toward the President. The issue is not free speech but disrespect in the military and would have no application to civilians on base.
You forgot the citation to case law. Most emphatically, military have 1st Amendment rights on and off base.
I have never made a claim to being a Counselor, lawyer, attorney, or much of anything else. The Courts decide. I sometimes try to report what they have decided. Such is not necessarily an endorsement of every decision they make. Arguing arguendo, should Salman Rushdie be silenced because his words could act as a provocation and catalyst of death by fatwa? Perhaps people could be prohibited from speaking against Obamacare in some neighborhoods. Or Fox News could be blacked out in Liberal dominated states, and MSNBC could be blacked out in Conservative states. Once the power to regulate obnoxious speech is given to the government, it empowers them to regulate any speech desired by declaring it obnoxious.
Have you noticed internet porn or cable/satellite TV porn? It's artistic expression. It's not prosecuted because it is not prosecutable.
But they had better be damn well careful about exercising them.
Things are a bit different on a military installation. The ones I have been on you cannot have something displayed which is politically charged. Ultimately the post or base commander sets the rules. Given the recent issues the AF had with removing, at the demand of atheists, pictures and quotes of the faith/religious nature this gay flag is a slap in the face. Either forbid it all or open the door. The AF can't pick and choose.
"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
A younger "me" would buy a bunch of the gay flags and burn them on the base commander's lawn. See how far "free" expression goes on a military installation. And to think the AF academy got bullied by an atheist group to have a cadet remove a Bible verse from a dry erase board.
"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
BullBush! You were in the Navy for 20+ years and don't know this?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I didn't forget,I didn't bother to look because I know better.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
There are things Service members cannot do. One is to promote publicly a political party, movement or slogan. The Army has this covered in Army Regulation 600–20 Command Policy. I'm sure the AF has an equivalent regulation. What happened in this case is the base commander condoned one side of a heated political debate before SCOTUS. Please see "o" below. B–3. Examples of prohibited political activities According to the statutory restrictions in 10 USC 973(b) and the policies established in section d of DODD 1344.10 and implemented in chapter 5 of this regulation, a Soldier on AD will not— a. Use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others. b. Be a candidate for civil office in Federal, state, or local Government, except as authorized in this regulation, or engage in public or organized soliciting of others to become partisan candidates for nomination or election to civil office. c. Participate in partisan political management or campaigns or make public speeches in the course thereof. d. Make a campaign contribution to another member of the Armed Forces or to a civilian officer or employee of the United States for promoting a political objective or cause. e. Solicit or receive a campaign contribution from another member of the Armed Forces or from a civilian officer or employee of the United States for promoting a political objective or cause. f. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles signed or written by the Soldier that solicit votes for or against a partisan political party or candidate. g. Serve in any official capacity or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club. h. Speak before a partisan political gathering of any kind for promoting a partisan political party or candidate. i. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate of a partisan political party or candidate. j. Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political group, or distribute partisan political literature. k. Use contemptuous words against the officeholders described in 10 USC 888. l. Perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political committee during a campaign or on an election day. m. Solicit or otherwise engage in fund raising activities in Federal offices or facilities, including military reservations, for a partisan political cause or candidate. n. March or ride in a partisan political parade. o. Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a bumper sticker) on the top or side of a private vehicle. p. Participate in any organized effort to provide voters with transportation to the polls if the effort is organized by, or associated with, a partisan political party or candidate. q. Sell tickets for, or otherwise actively promote, political dinners and similar fund-raising events. r. Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed Forces…
"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
Wonder how the base commander handles nativity scenes on home lawns on base.
"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
Good question. If he does allow it,I wonder if any Muslims have filed complaints?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Either the Base Commander is all for homos serving in the military (even though it is in direct conflict with "What is conducive to good military discipline") or he has had a phone call from higher ups telling him to let it stay flying. (Even though it's a parody of the US flag which means it should be taken down immediately and the owner disciplined). Now if the old style Homo flag was displayed then I can see where he could decide to leave it up, this one no.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Didn't used to be a problem when I was in, now who knows?
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I remember the days where even political bumper stickers were either forbidden or frowned upon. Then in 2008 you saw them all over post. I think soldiers marrying liberal women had to do a lot with destroying the military culture.
"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
[sneakypete #23] BullBush! You were in the Navy for 20+ years and don't know this? [sneakypete #24] I didn't forget,I didn't bother to look because I know better. It is obvious that you are too lazy to examine the issue and would rather blather. Your claim at #13, You have been unable to support your contention, and express an unwillingness to attempt to do so. You would rather blather. The Constitution makes a separate provision at Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl 14, granting to Congress the authority "to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." SCOTUS has extended this, by inference, to the Air Forces. Just as your right of free speech in the civilian world is not without limits, so your right to free speech as a military member is not without limits. For military members, those limits are set forth by Congress as expressly provided for by the Constitution. To say that you cannot go up to your commanding officer and tell him to eff off is not the same as saying all of your First Amendment rights taken away. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Parker v. Levy (1974), has expressly held that military members do have First Amendment rights and that those rights are not infringed, much less extinguished, by Articles 133 or 134 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/417/733/case.html U.S. Supreme Court Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974) Held: 1. Articles 133 and 134 are not unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 417 U. S. 752-757. Page 417 U. S. 734 (a) Each article has been construed by the United States Court of Military Appeals or by other military authorities, such as the Manual for Courts-Martial, so as to limit its scope, thus narrowing the very broad reach of the literal language of the articles, and at the same time supplying considerable specificity by way of examples of the conduct that they cover. Pp. 417 U. S. 752-755. (b) The articles are not subject to being condemned for specifying no standard of conduct at all, but are of the type of statutes which, “by their terms or as authoritatively construed, apply without question to certain activities, but whose application to other behavior is uncertain,” Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S. 566, 415 U.S. 578. Pp. 417 U. S. 755-756. (c) Because of the factors differentiating military from civilian society, Congress is permitted to legislate with greater breadth and flexibility when prescribing rules for the former than when prescribing rules for the latter, and the proper standard of review for a vagueness challenge to Code articles is the standard that applies to criminal statutes regulating economic affairs, and that standard was met here, since appellee could have had no reasonable doubt that his statements urging Negro enlisted men not to go to Vietnam if ordered to do so was both “unbecoming an officer and gentleman” and “to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces,” in violation of Arts. 133 and 134, respectively. Pp. 417 U. S. 756-757. 417 U. S. 734 2. Nor are Arts. 133 and 134 facially invalid because of overbreadth. Pp. 417 U. S.757-761. (a) Doctrines of First Amendment overbreadth asserted in support of challenges to imprecise language like that contained in Arts. 133 and 134 are not exempt from the operation of the principles that, while military personnel are not excluded from First Amendment protection, the fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it. Pp. 417 U. S. 758-759. (b) There is a wide range of conduct to which Arts. 133 and 134 may be applied without infringing the First Amendment, and while there may be marginal applications in which First Amendment values would be infringed, this is insufficient to invalidate either article at appellee’s behest. His conduct in publicly urging enlisted personnel to refuse to obey orders which might send them into combat was unprotected under the most expansive notions of the First Amendment, and Arts. 133 and 134. You can go pretty far, and get away with it, if you do not act all stupid about it. You can always file a Freedom of Information Act request and be creative about what you ask for. You can ask for any record which may exist regarding Captain Horatio Hornblower, which record relates to [fill in the blank], drunk and disorderly, or any unseemly or embarrassing thing of your imagination. They can come back and deny your request on the grounds that no such record exists, but you have committed no offense. You have only asked for a record if it happens to exist. While you might not be had for your creative FOIA request, be prepared whatever wrath they can bring down upon you. Among your First Amendment rights is the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Yes, you can write to your Senator or Representative and exercise your constitutionally protected free speech to say things to your congressman that you may get in trouble for if you said the same to your senior officer. It's protected free speech, by military members, on base. Demonstrably, the First Amendment has not been extinguished on base for all military members. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/military_law.aspx#3 In the past, some legal analysts contended that those in the military receive a level of constitutional protection that is inferior to that afforded to civilians. However, in United States v. Stuckey, 10 M.J. 347 (1981), the Court of Military Appeals (now called the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Services) held that "the bill of rights applies with full force to men and women in the military service. …" http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/06-Public_Comment/dd_201408_BillofRights_ApplicationToCM_Sullivan.pdf United States v. Easton, 71 M.J. 168, 174-75 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (internal citations, quotation marks, ellipses, and brackets omitted). C.A.A.F is the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, formerly the Military Court of Appeals (MCA). http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/06-Public_Comment/dd_201408_BillofRights_ApplicationToCM_Sullivan.pdf Free Speech Clause: The Supreme Court has held that “while members of the military services are entitled to the protections of the First Amendment, ‘the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections.’” Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348, 354 (1980) (quoting Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 758 (1974)). The courts have recognized considerable limitations on the freedom of speech in a military context. For example, the Supreme Court has held that there is “no generalized constitutional right to make political speeches or distribute leaflets” on military bases, even if they are generally open to the public. United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 685 (1985) (quoting Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 838 (1976)). The Court of Military Appeals rejected a constitutional challenge to a statute criminalizing an officer’s use of contemptuous language about the President. United States v. Howe, 17 C.M.A. 165, 37 C.M.R. 429 (1967). Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503, 507 (1986) is a U.S. Supreme Court case, signified as such by the "U.S." in the citation. Right to be Free from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures: While the military appellate courts have held that the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures applies to service members, those courts have also held that the reasonable expectation of privacy that informs that right is sometimes different in a military rather than civilian context. For example, “a solider has less of an expectation of privacy in his shared barracks room than a civilian does in his home.” United States v. Bowersox, 72 M.J. 71, 76 (C.A.A.F. 2013). Id. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/weborj Repository Citation: Fredric I. Lederer and Frederic L. Borch, Does the Fourth Amendment Apply to the Armed Forces?, 3 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 219 (1994), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol3/iss1/6 at 219 The United States Court of Military Appeals has long held that the Bill of Rights applies to members of the armed forces except where explicitly or implicitly inapplicable. [1] [...] [1] E.g., United States v. Jacoby, 29 C.M.R. 244, 246-47 (C.M.A. 1960). jagdefense.com/resource-docs/Tab-J-Search-Seizure.pdf 52nd Military Judge Course, Search and Seizure, at J-1
The cited "o" is: Yes, there are things that service members cannot do. Supporting diversity is not a political argument. All branches of the military have instructions mandatorily implementing diversity. The flag in question is not a political sign, banner, or poster, and it is not on the top or side of a private vehicle. I take the flag in question to be a diversity flag. Your opinion may vary, but I have no idea what else it might be. If you consider it a political flag, please identify the political party or candidate it is identified with. In this specific instance, it appears that a flag was hung in base housing, or perhaps a military operated, on base rental unit. I have not seen that this was done by a military member, but it may have been done by a member. It may have been done by a civilian spouse. It may be at a rental unit occupied by a civilian. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Parker v. Levy (1974), has expressly held that military members do have First Amendment rights and that those rights are not infringed, much less extinguished, by Articles 133 or 134. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/417/733/case.html U.S. Supreme Court Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974) Held: 1. Articles 133 and 134 are not unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 417 U. S. 752-757. Page 417 U. S. 734 (a) Each article has been construed by the United States Court of Military Appeals or by other military authorities, such as the Manual for Courts-Martial, so as to limit its scope, thus narrowing the very broad reach of the literal language of the articles, and at the same time supplying considerable specificity by way of examples of the conduct that they cover. Pp. 417 U. S. 752-755. (b) The articles are not subject to being condemned for specifying no standard of conduct at all, but are of the type of statutes which, “by their terms or as authoritatively construed, apply without question to certain activities, but whose application to other behavior is uncertain,” Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S. 566, 415 U.S. 578. Pp. 417 U. S. 755-756. (c) Because of the factors differentiating military from civilian society, Congress is permitted to legislate with greater breadth and flexibility when prescribing rules for the former than when prescribing rules for the latter, and the proper standard of review for a vagueness challenge to Code articles is the standard that applies to criminal statutes regulating economic affairs, and that standard was met here, since appellee could have had no reasonable doubt that his statements urging Negro enlisted men not to go to Vietnam if ordered to do so was both “unbecoming an officer and gentleman” and “to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces,” in violation of Arts. 133 and 134, respectively. Pp. 417 U. S. 756-757. 417 U. S. 734 2. Nor are Arts. 133 and 134 facially invalid because of overbreadth. Pp. 417 U. S.757-761. (a) Doctrines of First Amendment overbreadth asserted in support of challenges to imprecise language like that contained in Arts. 133 and 134 are not exempt from the operation of the principles that, while military personnel are not excluded from First Amendment protection, the fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it. Pp. 417 U. S. 758-759. (b) There is a wide range of conduct to which Arts. 133 and 134 may be applied without infringing the First Amendment, and while there may be marginal applications in which First Amendment values would be infringed, this is insufficient to invalidate either article at appellee’s behest. His conduct in publicly urging enlisted personnel to refuse to obey orders which might send them into combat was unprotected under the most expansive notions of the First Amendment, and Arts. 133 and 134. Personnel in on base housing or rental units have a reasonable expectation of privacy. They are treated differently than barracks dwellers. In view of military instructions mandating diversity as a military necessity, I fail to see how one can transgress military policy by expressing support of the official policy. www.180fw.ang.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120820-005.pdf Air Force Instruction 1-1, 7 August 2012, Air Force Culture, Air Force Standards www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/diversity/afpd-36-70-diversity.pdf Air Force Policy Directive 36-70, 13 October 2010, Personnel, Diversity 2.1. The Air Force will develop and maintain comprehensive diversity initiatives to enhance the all volunteer Total Force, to include active duty, Guard, Reserve, and civilians. 2.2. The initiatives will: 2.2.1. Ensure all qualified personnel are welcome in America’s Air Force. 2.2.2. Educate and train all personnel on the importance of diversity, including mutual respect, thus promoting an Air Force culture that values inclusion of all personnel in the Total Force and views diversity and inclusion throughout the workforce as a force multiplier in accomplishing the mission of the Air Force. 2.2.3. Ensure that all personnel in the Total Force understand they are valued and have the opportunity to achieve their full potential while contributing to the mission of the Air Force. 2.2.4. Establish effective diversity training, mentoring, and professional development that provide the tools for personnel to navigate career progression. 2.2.5. Provide cultural awareness training to enhance organizational capabilities. 2.2.6. Assess and report progress on these initiatives. www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_20.pdf I'm sure you know AR-600-20 is a 140 page book, but it is at the link. AR-600-20, Army Command Policy At 26: Base housing is not a barracks. Nor would the diversity flag seem to be adverse to good order and discipline or morale, unless one finds the official Army and other service instructions on diversity to be prejudicial to good order and discipline or morale. I assess the situation as being very highly unlikely to impossible that the base commander acted without first consulting the JAG corps. Continuing from AR-600-20: At 55: a. The DCS, G–1 will— At 56: At page 60 The EO Advisor of the Year Award recognizes the most outstanding EOA, for achievements in support of EO. [...] (8) Created opportunities that supported and contributed to the advancement of our understanding and valuing diversity. At 66: (1) Planning and resourcing the implementation of the Army’s EO program. (2) Creating positive command climates that promote fair and equal treatment and that create opportunities for all Soldiers, civilians, and Family members. (3) Contemporary issues in EO and the prevention and eradication of sexual harassment. Of possible general interest: http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/const-rights-mil-pers.pdf 57 page pdf 88th Congress COMMITTEE PRINT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL SUMMARY-REPORT OF HEARINGS Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 22-819 WASHINGTON : 1963 http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/hearings_1962.pdf 966 page pdf CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL UNITED STATES SENATE PURSUANT TO EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON FEBRUARY 20 AND 21 AND MARCH 1, 2, 6, 9, AND 12, 1962 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
http://www.kirtlandfamilyhousing.com/document/rules-regulations 3.8 Exterior Decorations: Residents may install seasonal decorative items such as Christmas decorations, provided they are in “good taste” for display in a family community and do not cause any permanent structural damage to the Resident’s dwelling. All holiday type decorations must be removed within two weeks following the holiday. Residents are not allowed on roofs and no decorations are allowed above the eave of the first floor roof. And no mention of any other kind of decorations so you must assume they aren't allowed at any other time of the year. Last time I checked a Diversity flag wasn't considered a holiday decoration.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
This is what happens when there are no absolute rights and wrongs. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Galatians 3:24
#2. To: redleghunter (#0)
#3. To: redleghunter (#0)
[Article] Kolfage complained to base officials that that flag violates a section of Title 4 that states the American flag "shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field."
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division This report presents, verbatim, the United States “Flag Code” as found in Title 4 of the United States Code and the section of Title 36 which designates the Star- Spangled Banner as the national anthem and provides instructions on how to display the flag during its rendition. The “Flag Code” includes instruction and rules on such topics as the pledge of allegiance, display and use of the flag by civilians, time and occasions for display, position and manner of display, and how to show respect for the flag. The “Code” also grants to the President the authority to modify the rules governing the flag.
On the national level the Federal Flag Code provides uniform guidelines for the display of and respect shown to the flag. In addition to the Code, Congress has by statute designated the national anthem and set out the proper conduct during its presentation. The Code is designed “for the use of such civilian groups or organizations as may not be required to conform with regulations promulgated by one or more executive departments” of the federal government. Thus, the Flag Code does not prescribe any penalties for non-compliance nor does it include enforcement provisions; rather the Code functions simply as a guide to be voluntarily followed by civilians and civilian groups.
In addition to the Flag Code, a separate provision contained in the Federal Criminal Code established criminal penalties for certain treatment of the flag. Prior to 1989, this provision provided criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag. In response to the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson (which held that anti-desecration statutes are unconstitutional if aimed at suppressing one type of expression), Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act of 1989 to provide criminal penalties for certain acts which violate the physical integrity of the flag. This law imposed a fine and/or up to one year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor, or trampling upon any flag of the United States. In 1990, however, the Supreme Court held that the Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional as applied to a burning of the flag in a public protest.
#4. To: redleghunter (#1)
#5. To: nolu chan (#3)
Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act of 1989 to provide criminal penalties for certain acts which violate the physical integrity of the flag. This law imposed a fine and/or up to one year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor, or trampling upon any flag of the United States. In 1990, however, the Supreme Court held that the Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional as applied to a burning of the flag in a public protest.
#6. To: nolu chan, redleghunter (#3)
Senior Airman Kolfage and CMR President Donnelly are wrong and the installation commander did what the law required. The First Amendment protects unpopular forms of expression, including this one. The complainants reliance on Title 4 for enforcement action is unfounded.
#7. To: Liberator (#5)
This doesn't necessarily mean in all cases Flag Burning (or burning of symbols deemed "sacred" to certain people) are impossible to prosecute, does it?
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by
#8. To: CZ82, redleghunter (#6)
Weren't you in the military at one time?
#9. To: Liberator (#5)
This doesn't necessarily mean in all cases Flag Burning (or burning of symbols deemed "sacred" to certain people) are impossible to prosecute, does it?
#10. To: nolu chan (#7)
One would need to make sure why the person is burning a flag to determine if it is offensive.
#11. To: nolu chan (#9)
#12. To: redleghunter (#0)
But several days after his complaint, the installation commander ruled that the flag does not violate federal law and can remain flying.
#13. To: nolu chan (#3)
Senior Airman Kolfage and CMR President Donnelly are wrong and the installation commander did what the law required. The First Amendment protects unpopular forms of expression, including this one. The complainants reliance on Title 4 for enforcement action is unfounded.
#14. To: nolu chan (#7)
Burning a flag is protected free speech and not subject to anyone's legal objection
#15. To: nolu chan (#8)
You will have to show me where the Constitution does not apply on base.
#16. To: sneakypete (#15)
You will have to show me where it does when it comes to military members. They come under the UCMJ, not the US Constitution.
#17. To: sneakypete (#13)
Wrong. Military members have no 1st Amendment rights while on base, or right to display any political opinion on base housing.
#18. To: Liberator (#10)
Rhetorically speaking, Counselor, Shouldn't the motivation and results of a flag burning be subject to the degree of provocation as a catalyst of death, violence or harm? As an aside, might burnings other "sacred" objects to other respective groups also fall under this category under the auspices of "Hate Crime"?
#19. To: Liberator (#11)
Ergo, can't then virtually ANY vulgar, obscene act be considered a form of "expression," exonerating the "offender" from prosecution?
#20. To: nolu chan (#17)
Most emphatically, military have 1st Amendment rights on and off base.
#21. To: nolu chan, Liberator, CZ82, GarySpFc (#3)
#22. To: Liberator, GarySpFc, Don, A K A Stone, Illuminati Alert, CZ82 (#5)
#23. To: nolu chan (#16)
You will have to show me where the UCMJ suspends or overrides the Constitution on a military base. Courts-martial held pursuant to the UCMJ must not violate the Constitution.
#24. To: nolu chan (#17)
You forgot the citation to case law.
#25. To: nolu chan, Liberator, CZ82, GarySpFc (#8)
#26. To: sneakypete (#12)
I wonder what that commanders reaction would have been if someone had been flying the Gadsen Flag?
#27. To: redleghunter (#26)
Wonder how the base commander handles nativity scenes on home lawns on base.
#28. To: redleghunter (#0)
But several days after his complaint, the installation commander ruled that the flag does not violate federal law and can remain flying.
#29. To: redleghunter (#26)
Wonder how the base commander handles nativity scenes on home lawns on base.
#30. To: CZ82 (#28)
#31. To: sneakypete (#24)
[nolu chan #16] You will have to show me where the UCMJ suspends or overrides the Constitution on a military base. Courts-martial held pursuant to the UCMJ must not violate the Constitution.
[nolu can #17] You forgot the citation to case law.
Military members have no 1st Amendment rights while on base
417 U.S. 733
Rights of Service Members
Constitutional rights identified by the Supreme Court generally apply to members of the military unless by text or scope they are plainly inapplicable. In general, the Bill of Rights applies to members of the military absent a specific exemption or certain overriding demands of discipline and duty. Though we have consistently applied the Bill of Rights to members of the Armed Forces, except in cases where the express terms of the Constitution make such application inapposite[,] these constitutional rights may apply differently to members of the armed forces than they do to civilians. The burden of showing that military conditions require a different rule than that prevailing in the civilian community is upon the party arguing for a different rule.
Free Exercise Clause: The Supreme Court, in a non-military justice case, held that “[o]ur review of military regulations challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar laws or regulations designed for civilian society.” Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503, 507 (1986). Since Congress’s adoption of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, military appellate courts have applied that statute’s compelling interest standard to review free exercise of religion claims, though without definitively resolving whether and how RFRA applies to the military justice system. See, e.g., United States v. Webster, 65 M.J. 936, 946-48 (A. Ct. Crim. App.), petition denied, 67 M.J. 9 (C.A.A.F. 2008); see also Hasan v. Gross, 71 M.J. 416, 417 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (noting that an analysis of a RFRA claim was unnecessary to decide the case).
Fourth Amendment
I. INTRODUCTION
The Fourth Amendment applies to soldiers. United States v. Stuckey, 10 M.J. 347, 349 (C.M.A. 1981).
#32. To: redleghunter, Liberator, CZ82, GarySpFc (#25)
[redleghunter #25] There are things Service members cannot do. One is to promote publicly a political party, movement or slogan. The Army has this covered in Army Regulation 600–20 Command Policy. I'm sure the AF has an equivalent regulation. What happened in this case is the base commander condoned one side of a heated political debate before SCOTUS. Please see "o" below.
o. Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a bumper sticker) on the top or side of a private vehicle.
417 U.S. 733
1.8. Diversity. Diversity is a military necessity. Air Force capabilities and warfighting skills are enhanced by diversity among its personnel. At its core, such diversity provides our Total Force an aggregation of strengths, perspectives, and capabilities that transcends individual contributions. Air Force personnel who work in a diverse environment learn to maximize individual strengths and to combine individual abilities and perspectives for the good of the mission. Our ability to attract a larger, highly talented, diverse pool of applicants for service with the Air Force, both military and civilian, and develop and retain our current personnel will impact our future Total Force. Diversity is about strengthening our force and ensuring our long-term viability to support our mission to fly, fight, and win…in air, space, and cyberspace. (AFPD 36-70, Diversity).
2. Air Force Diversity Policy
c. Command authority. Commanders have the authority to prohibit military personnel from engaging in or participating in any other activities that the commander determines will adversely affect good order and discipline or morale within the command. This includes, but is not limited to, the authority to order the removal of symbols, flags, posters, or other displays from barracks, to place areas or activities off-limits (see AR 190–24), or to order Soldiers not to participate in those activities that are contrary to good order and discipline or morale of the unit or pose a threat to health, safety, and security of military personnel or a military installation.
6–3. Responsibilities
(9) Assist the DEOMI with the conduct of the Senior Executive Diversity Awareness Training Seminar.
6–4. The Army’s Equal Opportunity Advisor of the Year Award
c. Generally, Senior Executive Diversity Awareness Training will cover—
1st Session
BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
PURSUANT TO
S. Res. 58
88th Congress, 1st Session
RIGHTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
WASHINGTON : 1962
#33. To: redleghunter (#25)
From Kirtland AFB Housing Regulations.
#34. To: redleghunter (#0)
But several days after his complaint, the installation commander ruled that the flag does not violate federal law and can remain flying.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]