Reply #9: Anybody that has spent any time in the miltary knows the rules

[nolabels]

There is your way and then there is the militaries way. The rules are set forth and are to be adhered to for many good reasons. In the military you don't ever have to wonder about anything, for they have a regulation for everything. Regulations just like laws are set forth to make things as efficient and safe as possible for everyone concerned This General is perverse and not performing his duty which he has sworn to uphold.

There is to be no debate about any religion if the soldier is really following regulation. In my experience in the military there where real soldiers that you spot a mile away (if you were paying attention) and they followed military regulations to the tee. Then on the other hand there were these types of guys, the General Boykins . The real soldier could quote the regulation that determines what he was doing. Then there were these General Boykin types. These opportunists like this, a person that would give you ideological fallacies for rhyme of their reasoning. Mostly you could trace the actions of such a person like a General Boykin to the ones screwing things up.

Philosophical adherents and beliefs can get you or others killed and endanger the mission that was set forth for persons in the military to perform. This idea of playing religious politics while conducting military operations is a recipe for disaster. Anybody that knows better, that has been in the military must really cringe when they hear of such people

This is also nothing new with these types of people.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE MILITARY *
EARL WARREN **
(snip)
I believe it is reasonably clear that the Court, in cases involving a substantial claim that protected freedoms have been infringed in the name of military requirements, has consistently recognized the relevance of a basic group of principles. For one, of course, the Court has adhered to its mandate to safeguard freedom from excessive encroachment by governmental authority. In these cases, the Court's approach is reinforced by the American tradition of the separation of the military establishment from, and its subordination to, civil authority. On the other hand, the action in question is generally defended in the name of military necessity, or, to put it another way, in the name of national survival. I suggest that it is possible to discern in the Court's decisions a reasonably consistent pattern for the resolution of these competing claims, and more, that this pattern furnishes a sound guide for the future. Moreover, these decisions reveal, I believe, that while the judiciary plays an important role in this area, it is subject to certain significant limitations, with the result that other organs of government and the people themselves must bear a most heavy responsibility.

Before turning to some of the keystone decisions of the Court, I think it desirable to consider for a moment the principle of separation and subordination of the military establishment, for it is this principle that contributes in a vital way to a resolution of the problems engendered by the existence of a military establishment in a free society.

It is significant that in our own hemisphere only our neighbor, Canada, and we ourselves have avoided rule by the military throughout our national existences. This is not merely happenstance. A tradition has been bred into us that the perpetuation of free government depends upon the continued supremacy of the civilian representatives of the people. To maintain this supremacy has always been a preoccupation of all three branches of our government. To strangers this might seem odd, since our country was born in war. It was the military that, under almost unbearable conditions, carried the burden of the Revolution and made possible our existence as a Nation.

But the people of the colonies had long been subjected to the intemperance of military power. Among the grievous wrongs of which they complained in the Declaration of Independence were that the King had subordinated the civil power to the military, that he had quartered troops among them in times of peace, and that through his mercenaries he had committed other cruelties. Our War of the Revolution was, in good measure, fought as a protest against standing armies. Moreover, it was fought largely with a civilian army, the militia, and its great Commander-in-Chief was a civilian at heart. After the War, he resigned his commission and returned to civilian life. In an emotion-filled appearance before the Congress, his resignation was accepted by its President, Thomas Mifflin, who, in a brief speech, emphasized Washington's qualities of leadership and, above all, his abiding respect for civil authority.3 This trait was probably best epitomized when, just prior to the War's end, some of his officers urged Washington to establish a monarchy, with himself at its head. He not only turned a deaf ear to their blandishments, but his reply, called by historian Edward Charming "possibly, the grandest single thing in his whole career,"4 stated that nothing had given him more painful sensations than the information that such notions existed in the army, and that he thought their proposal "big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my Country."5

Such thoughts were uppermost in the minds of the Founding Fathers when they drafted the Constitution. Distrust of a standing army was expressed by many. Recognition of the danger from Indians and foreign nations caused them to authorize a national armed force begrudgingly. Their viewpoint is well summarized in the language of James Madison, whose name we honor in these lectures:
(snip)
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Warren1.html

Just as this case in point in politics to show why it's bad thing not following regulations

THE SELLING OF THE PENTAGON

U.S. Documentary
(snip)
In the midst of the furor concerning The Selling of the Pentagon, an even more important First Amendment issue was thrust upon the public scene. On 13 June the New York Times published the first installment of the series of what became known as The Pentagon Papers. This case moved rapidly through the courts, and on 30 June the Supreme Court, by a vote of six to three, allowed the unrestrained publication of those documents.

It was against this background that on 28 June the subcommittee voted unanimously to refer the entire case to its parent Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. On 1 July the full committee voted 25 to 13 to report the matter to the House, with a recommendation that the network and Stanton be cited for contempt. Stanton could not but help notice the contrast between the two decisions: "This action is in disappointing contrast to the Supreme Court's ringing reaffirmation yesterday of the function of journalism in a free society."

On 8 July Staggers made his bid for House support with a floor speech and a letter to members of Congress. On 13 July in a surprisingly heated debate, the issue came to a head. In the end one of the committee members, Representative Hastings Keith introduced a motion to recommit the resolution to the committee, which was asked to report back to the floor legislation that would more adequately express the intent of Congress and give authority to the FCC to move in a constitutional way that would require the networks to be as responsible for the fairness and honesty of their documentaries as for quiz shows and other programs. After a roll call vote, the resolution was approved 226 to 181, effectively negating the contempt citations. Staggers commented: "The networks now control this Congress." Stanton, as was to be expected, was extremely pleased by what he felt was "the decisive House vote."

What was the final outcome? Was the vote really that decisive? On 15 July Representative Keith followed through on his promise and introduced legislation that would have prohibited broadcasters from staging an event, or "juxtaposing or rearranging by editing" without indicating to the public that this had occurred. The proposed legislation never made it to the floor. The final outcome was a victory of sorts for CBS specifically, and broadcast journalism in general, for never in modern history had the House failed to sustain the vote of one of its committees to cite for contempt.

The Selling of the Pentagon was a milestone in the development of the television documentary, not so much for what it contained, but because it represented a clear statement that the networks could not be made to bend to government control in the technological era.

-Garth S. Jowet
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/S/htmlS/sellingofth/sellingofth.htm

(unless the correct amount of money was waved in thier face, of course)

on edit: syntax