The New Air Force?!?!

[Rumple Foreskin]

Precisely. You are not a citizen in the military, but chattel. You sign up to be a slave when you join. "Article 15" means damaging US property-- meaning her. Property.

It grows out of common law. You can't order a citizen to die, so the soldier waives citizenship.

Cant, at best that would depend on how one defines "citizenship." At worst, it's hyperbole. There's no question a civilian has more rights than someone in the military. But those military can vote and contact their members of congress, slaves and chattle can't.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[cantdog]

Your civil rights are in the toilet, and you are government property. Slaves always retain a limited set of rights. By "citizen" I intend the rights of the citizen, which are superior to those of chattel. But have it how you like. I don't care what terms you want to use. The meaning of article 15 is a property meaning.

If I order my employee to die, I am in the wrong. If a soldier is given such an order, he is in the wrong to disobey it. He must waive his rights to undertake the role.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Your civil rights are in the toilet, and you are government property. Slaves always retain a limited set of rights. By "citizen" I intend the rights of the citizen, which are superior to those of chattel. But have it how you like. I don't care what terms you want to use. The meaning of article 15 is a property meaning.

If I order my employee to die, I am in the wrong. If a soldier is given such an order, he is in the wrong to disobey it. He must waive his rights to undertake the role.

First, would you have us disband our Military based on this fact which is part of the discipline needed for a military force to accomplish its mission? The task of the military is to do, not debate and then do.

Actually, today’s Military is an all volunteer force, they became chattels by choice. Today’s military is far more gung-ho than that which I served back in the early seventies.

 

[cloudy]

cant, why do you hate freedom?








(sorry, just couldn't resist)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Your civil rights are in the toilet, and you are government property. Slaves always retain a limited set of rights. By "citizen" I intend the rights of the citizen, which are superior to those of chattel. But have it how you like. I don't care what terms you want to use. The meaning of article 15 is a property meaning.

If I order my employee to die, I am in the wrong. If a soldier is given such an order, he is in the wrong to disobey it. He must waive his rights to undertake the role.

I have to disagree, strongly.

The civil rights of a soldier are very much intact. One does /not/ have to follow an order that is unlawful (that got proven /hard/ in cases like the Mei Lai incident and others), and one's judgement of what constitutes that is far from ignored. One may be sectioned off to await a formal judgement on whether the order was unlawful or not, but its a far cry from ignored or without professional judgement.

Soldiers are not ordered to die, they sign up (much like firemen) and accept by doing so that there are situations that might be lethal. There is a /vast/ difference between an order to go die (which I have never heard actually happening in the US military; even if we're to step back and consider the sending of people off to war as a "well, that means they're gonna die", there's just too many logical fallacies in that).

A soldier doesn't wave rights, he accepts the primary (only primary) decision-making role in /some/ situations is left to superiors and those in command--he always retains at least an executive right to disagreement with those decisions and for the most part a primary right-of-judgement.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I have to disagree, strongly.

The civil rights of a soldier are very much intact. One does /not/ have to follow an order that is unethical (that got proven /hard/ in cases like the Mei Lai incident and others), and one's judgement of what constitutes that is far from ignored.

A soldier doesn't wave rights, he accepts the primary (only primary) decision-making role in /some/ situations is left to superiors and those in command--he always retains at least an executive right to disagreement with those decisions and for the most part a primary right-of-judgement.

HA! As if...

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

HA! As if...

As if... what?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Your civil rights are in the toilet, and you are government property. Slaves always retain a limited set of rights. By "citizen" I intend the rights of the citizen, which are superior to those of chattel. But have it how you like. I don't care what terms you want to use. The meaning of article 15 is a property meaning.

If I order my employee to die, I am in the wrong. If a soldier is given such an order, he is in the wrong to disobey it. He must waive his rights to undertake the role.

I don't entirely agree with you but I must admit that you are mostly right.

However, chattel slaves in the US before the Civil War had no rights at all. The owner could kill a slave or fuck whatever slave he or she wanted, either male or female, and regardless of age. Extreme abuse didn't actually happen all that often, not becuase owners were kind, but because it would be stupid to damage or destroy valuable and useful property.

It has been a long time since I got kicked out of the Air Force and things have probably changed a lot since then. As I recall, however, Article 15 is a description of non-judicial punishment than can be inflicted on a member of the military for a variety of minor infractions. If somebody "got an Article 15" it meant that person was demoted by one rank or required to serve extra duty or assessed a fine, or restricted somehow, or other punishment.

What the hot sergeant was probably charged with would be, I believe, Article 31, which is a catchall. Officially, it is "Conduct reflecting badly on the Armed Forces" or something like that. I don't think she reflected badly at all and, by posing in Playboy, she might have helped the recruitment effort. However, that's just my opinion.

Members of the Armed Forces have some civil rights but not as many as most people have. They can vote and attend religious services of choice but they can be put in jail for criticizing a superior. They can't be punished for refusing to commit suicide but they can be punished for refusing to undertake a dangerous assignment. They can be jailed for being out of uniform or for trying to get others to refuse to obey orders (mutiny)

Although non-military people can't be put in jail for such things, they can certainly be fired for them. NFL cheerleaders were fired for appearing in Playboy. Vanessa Williams was fired as Miss America for posing in Penthouse before she won the title. I read about a cop who was fired for being a Hustler centerfold. People in many occupations can be fired for criticising supervisors or for a variety of other things.

 

[S-Des]

Exactly. I think she knew exactly what she was doing and probably made a calculated decision. Hope it pays off for her...

I was looking for the pics in Google and accidently brought up another soldier who had posed nude (even more lovely than this one). She was also discharged, but went on to model and try her hand at acting (I don't know how well she fared). Although some women pose for Playboy (or appear in other adult magazines, web sites, or movies) for their own personal reasons, many do it hoping to start a new career (one that pays a lot more than the military). If that's what she wanted, she got a lot of controversy and attention which might help. Hopefully she gets what she wants to out of it.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Don't feel bad for her, she knew EXACTLY what she was doing. I got out of the Air Force 15 years ago. Even being gone that long, I know that you're not allowed to do things like this while in the service.

I found an article that gives a little more detail into the story. Here's a few excerpts:

Manhart has modeled since she was younger and joined the Air Force in 1994, spending time in Kuwait in 2002. The California native said she hopes the Playboy photo shoot will pave a way into an acting or modeling career.

Why would she be looking at an acting or modeling career if she was happy in her career in the Air Force?

The pictorial's accompanying article mentioned the possibility of trouble for the brunette drill instructor.

So the people taking the pictures and the Playboy staff knew she would get in trouble, but she didn't? Yeah right...................

She used this to get her name out there for acting/modeling. This separates her from the rest of pack trying to get into the same professions. She found a way to get her 15 minutes of fame and will try to capitalize on it.

I have no problem with that. Use it if you can, but don't act like a victim. This is all proceeding according to her plan. I hope it works out for her, but she's gone from the Air Force. I'm sure she'll be discharged, and deservedly so.

http://www.examiner.com/a-503967~Sergeant_in_Trouble_for_Playboy_Photos.html

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Just a quick clarification about the oft-mentioned, Article 15.

No one is ever required to take an Article 15. If someone in the military is accused of a relatively minor screw-up, they may be OFFERED an Article 15 punishment in lieu of a possible court marshall. If so, the serviceperson has the right to either ACCEPT the Article 15, try to cut a better deal, or decline the offered Article 15 and hope the brass decides it's not worth the trouble to crank up a court marshall.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Boxlicker101]

Just a quick clarification about the oft-mentioned, Article 15.

No one is ever required to take an Article 15. If someone in the military is accused of a relatively minor screw-up, they may be OFFERED an Article 15 punishment in lieu of a possible court marshall. If so, the serviceperson has the right to either ACCEPT the Article 15, try to cut a better deal, or decline the offered Article 15 and hope the brass decides it's not worth the trouble to crank up a court marshall.

Rumple Foreskin

You're right, but it would be a summary court marTIAL.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

You're right, but it would be a summary court marTIAL.

I don't even think she'll get an article 15 . IMO she will be adminstratively discharged with an Honorable.