Flagged. Press 'flag' if you don't want to know your country is becoming fascist. It isn't happening when you don't read about it. Right? Right??
The alleged reason for being fired, FTA:
> Slavin says he believes he was fired for having stated in an interview that "in a hypothetical situation, censorship would be a red line".
A perfectly OK comment, which could be made by anyone in any reasonable Western organization, government, for-profit, or non-profit. Except the West is no more. Or, apparently, without the USA. Possibly, just for now. Who knows?
IDK what is covered by "liberal democracies", but in the specific military at hand every individual member takes an oath to uphold the Constitution regardless of contradictory orders from the government.
> but in the specific military at hand every individual member takes an oath to uphold the Constitution regardless of contradictory orders from the government.
Right. Laws passed by the elected civilian government.
This is not some wild far right maga conspiracy theory to think that the military must be subservient to and separate from the government, just because the Americans elected a president we don't like.
You seem to think the US government is a single monolithic entity. It isn't. Laws are passed by Congress. The Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces does not create laws. The issue under discussion, which you apparently don't understand, is the obligations of members of the armed forces in the increasingly likely situation that the the Commander-in-Chief gives orders that contradict the law.
Hmm according to this theory, the president can be an absolute dictator since according to your logic, oaths are not legally binding and by definition the president literally reports to no one.
If this is the thinking amongst MAGA then maybe that explains Trump's actions in the second term.
The legal system is one of the three branches of the government. The military voluntarily subordinates itself to civilian courts during peacetime outside of a constitutional crisis. A fact that becomes increasingly irrelevant with every new story like this one.
You and every politician in history on the losing side of a military coup can scream "that's illegal" till the cows come home, it won't change a thing.
The US still hasn't experienced a military coup in the 250 years of its existence. The form a military coup would take in this country would not be a coup against the elected executive branch, it would be a runaway executive branch itself. Which is an important distinction because the political echelon needs to maintain at least an appearance of democracy.
I'm aware it's unlikely. All social ruptures that have ever happened we're unlikely. Most people follow the rules most of the time.
This is a thread about unfolding defiance within the chain of command, in the context of the worst military defeat in US history. If you don't believe ruptures can ever happen you should probably just ignore this story and the increasing tempo of others like it.
Pardon, what? The US officially lost 58,220 military personnel in Vietnam prior to withdrawing from that conflict and losing every one of its objectives. We lost 2,402 people in Afghanistan which, notably, is once again under the control of the Taliban.
The US has lost 20 service members in the current war against Iran, and the war has not to this point ended in an American withdrawal or defeat.
To say this is the worst military defeat in US history would be factually ludicrous if it were said in good faith, but obviously it's not. It's not what the Stars and Stripes editors were saying. The only people peddling that line of BS are authoritarian dictatorships, including the one we're engaged in conflict with. Repeating it as if it were fact is either (a) incredibly misinformed or (b) wilfully spreading enemy propaganda. I'm going with (b). Including your wild assertion that the chain of command is unraveling, you must be either getting your news from the state television station of the Islamic Republic, or working for them.
> The form a military coup would take in this country would not be a coup against the elected executive branch, it would be a runaway executive branch itself.
You don't understand the oath then.
---
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
---
One very important part of this oath that every officer and senior enlisted will point out, is that it covers the Constitution first, and lawful orders of the President second.
The oath that military officers and civil servants take does not mention the President at all:
"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
This is obviously a terrible decision, but let’s be real. The overwhelming majority of US servicemembers aren’t getting their news from Stars and Stripes; they get their news from the same place everyone 18-30 gets their news, social media.
Sure, it’s one avenue that exists along private military and national defense outlets and blogs such as War on the Rocks, Task and Purpose, Breaking Defense, Foreign Policy, etc.
I am more concerned that this change means the troubles our servicemembers are having with base HVA/C or water supplies may go unreported, than the risk of some kind of cultural conformity.
Did Stars and Stripes cover any of those stories anyways? I feel like what I've seen has come through Snapchat or individual sources straight to liberal MSM outlets.
Forgive me for saying so, but it's basically state media. It's purpose more or less is to facilitate coverups and limited hangouts. This story is notable for the same reasons Colbert being cancelled was notable, it's a dispute within the mainstream / elite media.
It’s no more state media than the BBC is. Journalists at the Stars and Stripes have historically been given substantial independence to report on the news as they see fit. They covered the spread of Covid on the USS Theodore Roosevelt and Adm Brett Crozier’s resignation. They have reported on wrongful death lawsuits, murder cases, changes to veterans benefits. All of these stories are generally operational or focused on the quality of life of servicemembers, it is not an outlet for political or strategic criticism of US foreign policy and never has been.
Incidentally, that is why they are being targeted now, because of their reporting on the living conditions aboard US aircraft carriers during the Iran war.
> it is not an outlet for political or strategic criticism of US foreign policy and never has been
Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. Don't expect them to remain accurate should the stream of "accidental laundry fires" escalate into a real strategic vulnerability
First they came for the niche news, and I didn't say anything because it's only 0.5% share of the viewership. Then they came for the regional news, and I didn't say anything because it's only 3.5% share of the viewership...
(How you respond to these little transgressions will determine whether your society will recover to normal or slide further into ruin)
There's no direct connection, only noting the spread of censorship. The more places that censor, the worse it is, since there are fewer refuges for free speech.
Flagged. Press 'flag' if you don't want to know your country is becoming fascist. It isn't happening when you don't read about it. Right? Right??
The alleged reason for being fired, FTA:
> Slavin says he believes he was fired for having stated in an interview that "in a hypothetical situation, censorship would be a red line".
A perfectly OK comment, which could be made by anyone in any reasonable Western organization, government, for-profit, or non-profit. Except the West is no more. Or, apparently, without the USA. Possibly, just for now. Who knows?
This is how you create a subservient military… well, I mean even more so
The military is supposed to be subservient to the civilian government in liberal democracies.
IDK what is covered by "liberal democracies", but in the specific military at hand every individual member takes an oath to uphold the Constitution regardless of contradictory orders from the government.
> IDK what is covered by "liberal democracies",
You could always look it up if you're curious.
> but in the specific military at hand every individual member takes an oath to uphold the Constitution regardless of contradictory orders from the government.
An oath isn't a binding legal requirement. The military reports to the government.
The oath isn't legally binding, but the law is. Committing war crimes is illegal even if the civilian government orders it.
Right. Laws passed by the elected civilian government.
This is not some wild far right maga conspiracy theory to think that the military must be subservient to and separate from the government, just because the Americans elected a president we don't like.
> Laws passed by the elected civilian government.
You seem to think the US government is a single monolithic entity. It isn't. Laws are passed by Congress. The Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces does not create laws. The issue under discussion, which you apparently don't understand, is the obligations of members of the armed forces in the increasingly likely situation that the the Commander-in-Chief gives orders that contradict the law.
Obeying the law is a legal requirement. Following illegal orders is not (usually) a defense.
Hmm according to this theory, the president can be an absolute dictator since according to your logic, oaths are not legally binding and by definition the president literally reports to no one.
If this is the thinking amongst MAGA then maybe that explains Trump's actions in the second term.
The legal system is one of the three branches of the government. The military voluntarily subordinates itself to civilian courts during peacetime outside of a constitutional crisis. A fact that becomes increasingly irrelevant with every new story like this one.
You and every politician in history on the losing side of a military coup can scream "that's illegal" till the cows come home, it won't change a thing.
The US still hasn't experienced a military coup in the 250 years of its existence. The form a military coup would take in this country would not be a coup against the elected executive branch, it would be a runaway executive branch itself. Which is an important distinction because the political echelon needs to maintain at least an appearance of democracy.
I'm aware it's unlikely. All social ruptures that have ever happened we're unlikely. Most people follow the rules most of the time.
This is a thread about unfolding defiance within the chain of command, in the context of the worst military defeat in US history. If you don't believe ruptures can ever happen you should probably just ignore this story and the increasing tempo of others like it.
>> the worst military defeat in US history
Pardon, what? The US officially lost 58,220 military personnel in Vietnam prior to withdrawing from that conflict and losing every one of its objectives. We lost 2,402 people in Afghanistan which, notably, is once again under the control of the Taliban.
The US has lost 20 service members in the current war against Iran, and the war has not to this point ended in an American withdrawal or defeat.
To say this is the worst military defeat in US history would be factually ludicrous if it were said in good faith, but obviously it's not. It's not what the Stars and Stripes editors were saying. The only people peddling that line of BS are authoritarian dictatorships, including the one we're engaged in conflict with. Repeating it as if it were fact is either (a) incredibly misinformed or (b) wilfully spreading enemy propaganda. I'm going with (b). Including your wild assertion that the chain of command is unraveling, you must be either getting your news from the state television station of the Islamic Republic, or working for them.
> The form a military coup would take in this country would not be a coup against the elected executive branch, it would be a runaway executive branch itself.
You don't understand the oath then.
---
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
---
One very important part of this oath that every officer and senior enlisted will point out, is that it covers the Constitution first, and lawful orders of the President second.
The oath that military officers and civil servants take does not mention the President at all:
"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Servic...
This is obviously a terrible decision, but let’s be real. The overwhelming majority of US servicemembers aren’t getting their news from Stars and Stripes; they get their news from the same place everyone 18-30 gets their news, social media.
Its an avenue for people inside the organization to spread messages to other people inside the organization.
Sure, it’s one avenue that exists along private military and national defense outlets and blogs such as War on the Rocks, Task and Purpose, Breaking Defense, Foreign Policy, etc.
I am more concerned that this change means the troubles our servicemembers are having with base HVA/C or water supplies may go unreported, than the risk of some kind of cultural conformity.
Did Stars and Stripes cover any of those stories anyways? I feel like what I've seen has come through Snapchat or individual sources straight to liberal MSM outlets.
Forgive me for saying so, but it's basically state media. It's purpose more or less is to facilitate coverups and limited hangouts. This story is notable for the same reasons Colbert being cancelled was notable, it's a dispute within the mainstream / elite media.
It’s no more state media than the BBC is. Journalists at the Stars and Stripes have historically been given substantial independence to report on the news as they see fit. They covered the spread of Covid on the USS Theodore Roosevelt and Adm Brett Crozier’s resignation. They have reported on wrongful death lawsuits, murder cases, changes to veterans benefits. All of these stories are generally operational or focused on the quality of life of servicemembers, it is not an outlet for political or strategic criticism of US foreign policy and never has been.
Incidentally, that is why they are being targeted now, because of their reporting on the living conditions aboard US aircraft carriers during the Iran war.
> It’s no more state media than the BBC is
100% is not a low bar lol
> it is not an outlet for political or strategic criticism of US foreign policy and never has been
Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. Don't expect them to remain accurate should the stream of "accidental laundry fires" escalate into a real strategic vulnerability
> Did Stars and Stripes cover any of those stories anyways?
TONS
You saying this shows an extreme level of ignorance on this topic, to be fair.
First they came for the niche news, and I didn't say anything because it's only 0.5% share of the viewership. Then they came for the regional news, and I didn't say anything because it's only 3.5% share of the viewership...
(How you respond to these little transgressions will determine whether your society will recover to normal or slide further into ruin)
Minitrue is here, and it works for Hegseth over at Minipax.
I mean he voiced them before being fired too, it's the reason they fired him right?
He was fired because he wouldn't change facts for the current administration. Same thing that happened at 60 Minutes.
No more censorious than Cambridge or Ghent universities: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cevmrjd9lj1o
Could you tell me what Cambridge has to do with US government censorship? I'm afraid I don't quite see the connection.
There's no direct connection, only noting the spread of censorship. The more places that censor, the worse it is, since there are fewer refuges for free speech.