Prev | List | Random | Next
Join
Powered by RingSurf!



Anti-PC League

Powered by Blogger


Day By Day© by Chris Muir.


Thursday, November 17, 2005

Why The Anti-Military Crowd Just Doesn't Get It.

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 115--TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Sec. 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States-- Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term "military or naval forces of the United States'' includes the Army of the United States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Naval Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such
vessel.

Sec. 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so-- Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.


Remember the laws above when you read about the recent decision by the voters of San Francisco to bar military recruiters, and other actions to impede military recruitment, whether it be barring them from entering schools or counter-recruiting.

What these people conveniently neglect is the nature of our military. Yes. everyone know we are all volunteers, we are not coerced, we are not forced to fight. We go into battle willingly, we maintain a high standard of warrior ethos. We are well-trained to do the job, and we are the best at it.

There is also the fact that a soldier doesn't just serve whomever is in office at the time as a soldier a thousand years ago served his monarch. In a democracy, the role of soldier takes on a different meaning.

There is a reason why a U.S. military member cannot take part in a political function while in uniform - no marches, no conventions, no rallies (though when off-duty and out of uniform it is permitted). Military coups are started when an army decides takes an active role in influencing politics, therefore our military remains apolitical. We go to war when we are told to whether there is a Democrat or Republican or even if hell freezes over and the Watermelons Green Party gets elected. If we refuse, then our Democracy stops, and the people are at the whim of a non-elected, no-longer-accountable body, for the simple fact that 'we got the guns'. Our military doesn't just protect our democracy from outside force, it also protects our democracy by not engaging in it.

Furthermore, when a soldier decides to refuse to fight, he not only fails his comrades-in-arms and leaves them weakened in battle, he fails the people. Whether or not a soldier may not like the man in the White House, that man was chosen by the people to command the military as part of his Presidential duties. So when a soldier who volunteered to fight - because all soldiers are riflemen first - suddenly refuses on political or personal grounds, it isn't a slight to the President alone, but a slight to the American voter and the Constitution.

That is why the military is respected by many regardless of the wars we fight in. That's why impeding the military's job is such a serious offense and a ethically debased, especially for those who claim to hold our democracy in high regard.

Bill O'Reilly is right, if San Francisco won't support their military then why should the military feel obligated to support them? Yet we do it anyway, because we don't serve so people will like us, but because to not do so would violate the highest standard of our warrior ethos.