I am the source. You make a pretty broad statement about military folks considering you've had two or more in this discussion try to explain the reasoning behind the event. I am one of the two and retired last year after 23 years. I have intimate knowledge of the situation and have tried to give tidbits without overstepping my bounds. The facts are that there was beef between the two that started when they were within the same unit, yes this also was because "God" was part of his rendition, yes the squadron commander attempted to abuse power and bar Sgt. Rodriquez from from base and then from the ceremony (neither of which he has the lawful authority to do). Based on past events and the attempted barment, Sgt Rodriguez cleared through Security Forces and gave them a heads up of what may occur. Sgt. Rodriguez was at the ceremony at the request of the retiree. The "official" ceremony had concluded and the First Sgt. and Squadron CC were no longer needed, but warned they would remain in an attempt to keep the "unofficial" script from taking place. Regardless, Sgt. Rodriguez had every right to be there and the CC did not have a right to do what he and his minions did. This will get swept under the rug until the Lt. Colonel retires. Book it!

 

Welp.

 

The non-military serving liberals on this board might try to attack you, but I got your back.  Isn't it odd that most of the "anti-military" posts seem to come from people that have never worn the uniform, regardless of the branch?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Just think about the part in bold...

 

I have thought about it. You are apparently not thinking about what I'm posting because you are seemingly so certain it's coming from a liberal anti-military viewpoint.

 

I believe Rodriguez had a right to be there. I believe the unit commander was wrong in trying to bar him from being there, and having him removed. He had no authority to do so.

 

But I also think Rodriguez knew there would be an incident if he gave the speech, but he tried to do it anyway to prove a point, and to draw attention to what he correctly felt was an abridgement of his right to free speech. Good for him. Calling it a provocation is not necessarily a negative comment, it's merely using the correct word.

 

Where you and I disagree is the following, from your OP:

 

This is where we are headed folks.  When the military is censoring free speech by force, there is a problem.  That is exactly why some of the other topics such as gun control are talked about on this very forum.

 

This was a single incident between two people with a history of discord, not the military censoring free speech.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I have thought about it. You are apparently not thinking about what I'm posting because you are seemingly so certain it's coming from a liberal anti-military viewpoint.

 

I believe Rodriguez had a right to be there. I believe the unit commander was wrong in trying to bar him from being there, and having him removed. He had no authority to do so.

 

But I also think Rodriguez knew there would be an incident if he gave the speech, but he tried to do it anyway to prove a point, and to draw attention to what he correctly felt was an abridgement of his right to free speech. Good for him. Calling it a provocation is not necessarily a negative comment, it's merely using the correct word.

 

Where you and I disagree is the following, from your OP:

 

 

This was a single incident between two people with a history of discord, not the military censoring free speech.

All it takes is one incident to set a precedent that can lead to bad outcomes. 

---

Welp.


The non-military serving liberals on this board might try to attack you, but I got your back. Isn't it odd that most of the "anti-military" posts seem to come from people that have never worn the uniform, regardless of the branch?

There's little to no "anti-military" sentiment on this board. You're off base with this.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

All it takes is one incident to set a precedent that can lead to bad outcomes. 

 

Maybe, but this wasn't it.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Maybe, but this wasn't it.

Not saying it was just pointing out it can happen.

---

So you admit that this is an outlier situation, and not systemic.


You're basically proving that you have a persecution complex regarding this issue.


You've overblown one incident to make a political point about a war on religion that doesn't exist.

Cough cough establishment clause... Cough

---

There's little to no "anti-military" sentiment on this board. You're off base with this.

 

O.K. I agree.  Perhaps "anti-military" wasn't the right phrase to use.  Perhaps it's more along the lines of "military ignorant".

 

Either way it was an attempt to censor free speech by a military member that is supposed to be a leader.  I see it getting "common" more and more in our military today.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Like a few of us have been stating over and over...it has become a common issue within the military. The official Air Force stance, at least what they tell the public, now leads them to back away from the policy they adopted in 2005 against religious reference in an official capacity. They are also loosely stating that a retirement is not truly official and at the discretion of the member. While that is partially true, it is very official in nature and if held, CCs must follow specific guidance set forth in Air Force Instruction 36-3203. The other service have similar regs. They will now do what they normally do and rewrite regulations/instructions to better muddy the waters. For those that don't know, the military likes to write regulations that are contradictory and includes a ton of grey area erring towards the side of the service, not the member.

http://www.stripes.com/flag-folding-figh...n-1.416145

---

O.K. I agree.  Perhaps "anti-military" wasn't the right phrase to use.  Perhaps it's more along the lines of "military ignorant".

 

Either way it was an attempt to censor free speech by a military member that is supposed to be a leader.  I see it getting "common" more and more in our military today.

 

Is it this, or a problem with regulation inconsistency? Wouldn't a leader be expected to enforce a regulation he thought was the guideline?

 

I'm still wondering how the history between Rodriguez and the unit commander plays into this.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I'm still wondering how the history between Rodriguez and the unit commander plays into this.

Inconveniently, if your agenda is to further shove the "attack on a certain religion" down everyone's throats.

---

Like a few of us have been stating over and over...it has become a common issue within the military. The official Air Force stance, at least what they tell the public, now leads them to back away from the policy they adopted in 2005 against religious reference in an official capacity. They are also loosely stating that a retirement is not truly official and at the discretion of the member. While that is partially true, it is very official in nature and if held, CCs must follow specific guidance set forth in Air Force Instruction 36-3203. The other service have similar regs. They will now do what they normally do and rewrite regulations/instructions to better muddy the waters. For those that don't know, the military likes to write regulations that are contradictory and includes a ton of grey area erring towards the side of the service, not the member.

http://www.stripes.com/flag-folding-figh...n-1.416145

So much this. I'm glad to know it's not just an Army thing. They will change what they have to in order for them to "look their best" so to speak, and it's ridiculous. I enjoyed my time in the Army and think it's a good career decision for those who can handle the life but they can be just as absurd with rules and regs as any other employer out there. Working for the government takes a certain mindset, to be able to suck it up and drive on and role with the punches at times no matter how ridiculous things seem.

 

Case in point, if you have ever read Generation Kill and/or seen the HBO miniseries, this is a perfect example of just how ridiculous things get. It was a book written by a Rolling Stone reporter who was embedded with a platoon of First Recon Marines at the start of the invasion of Iraq. Those who he was with said he painted a pretty accurate portrait overall of what went down even though he was a RS reporter, i.e. liberal. HBO picked it up and gave it the Band of Brothers treatment and stayed pretty close to the book from what I remember. A lot of the stuff that happened was just..... I can't even put the military acronym here or I'll get a warning. 

 

The military doesn't always get it right, and yes they even rewrite rules and regs to their advantage, but I couldn't think of a better military to serve in. 

---