Berkely, CA Council Votes that Marines are not Welcome

[Beirut]

As others have said, the first amendment was to protect citizens, not government.# But the recruiters are individuals as well, with rights, not just arms of the state.

If the recruiters are armed forces personel in uniform, aren't their rights limited by armed forces law and not the constitution? I would think their status as individuals are very limited as they are (just) arms of the state.

I don't agree with barring a Marine Corps recruitment center from operating, but I see no problem with a local government limiting the actions of the federal government within that local jurisdiction when they think those actions are contrary to the public good. It's a bold example of bottom to top democracy.

Put simply, anytime a local government can kick out the federal army by a democratic process and the army actually leaves, it's proof postive that things are working exactly as they're supposed to. The day the army does not have to leave is when you have a big problem and you become one of those countries.

The real problem (besides the philosophical stupidness of NIMBY towards recruitment centers) is that the protesters physically blocked all other citizens from trying to get into the recruiting station.# That is wrong and hypocritical.CR

Though they have the right to protest, no, they should not be allowed to block other people from entering the recruiting station.

[Vladimir]

If the recruiters are armed forces personel in uniform, aren't their rights limited by armed forces law and not the constitution? I would think their status as individuals are very limited as they are (just) arms of the state.

You're misunderstanding his statement. A soldier's rights such a search/seizure, freedom of speech, etc are abridged; not their right as human beings.

Soldiers = People

Your statement is quite disappointing. Are all those Canadians serving with the UN just cogs in a great international machine? I'm surprised to hear you say this as you get so bent out of shape over teh eval Israelis knocking off a few.

Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and whatever the Navy calls its people (by the by, did you know that instead of placing the name on the back of their headgear they place it above their right rear pocket. that's just too funny.) are simply subject to two different legal statutes, not second class citizens.

PLEASE no one take this thread out of the hemisphere.

[Beirut]

You're misunderstanding his statement. A soldier's rights such a search/seizure, freedom of speech, etc are abridged; not their right as human beings.

A soldier's rights are more than abridged when he can be jailed for not following orders that will almost certainly lead to his death. It is a completely different culture with a different set of values and judgement calls.

There is a drastic difference in the scope of personal freedoms enjoyed by civilians and soldiers.

Your statement is quite disappointing. Are all those Canadians serving with the UN just cogs in a great international machine? I'm surprised to hear you say this as you get so bent out of shape over teh eval Israelis knocking off a few.

What on earth are you talking about?

If you can't differentiate between the rights of local governments to use the democratic process to enforce local standards over the objections of the state, and how a person feels about his country's soldiers fighting oversees, we're going to have a mighty wide gulf to jump over before we can chat.

[Vladimir]

A soldier's rights are more than abridged when he can be jailed for not following orders that will almost certainly lead to his death. It is a completely different culture with a different set of values and judgement calls.

There is a drastic difference in the scope of personal freedoms enjoyed by civilians and soldiers.



What on earth are you talking about?

If you can't differentiate between the rights of local governments to use the democratic process to enforce local standards over the objections of the state, and how a person feels about his country's soldiers fighting oversees, we're going to have a mighty wide gulf to jump over before we can chat.

You were implying that soldiers are less than citizens and aren't entitled to the same protections as ordinary citizens from other citizens.

"status as individuals are very limited are (just) arms of the state"

How would you interpret that statement? What does that mean?

[HoreTore]

You were implying that soldiers are less than citizens and aren't entitled to the same protections as ordinary citizens from other citizens.

Uhm....

Soldiers are citiens, yes. But the armed forces organization aren't citizens, they're a part of the state.

[Redleg]

Uhm....

Soldiers are citiens, yes. But the armed forces organization aren't citizens, they're a part of the state.

This is different then your earlier comment - which I noticed you failed to address. So are soldiers less then citizens because they serve the state? You have blurred your point because of your earlier comments. Saying that armed forces recruiters should be burned at the stake is a comment directed at the individual. The above statement is even more contradictory since you failed to address the previous statement. Recruiters serve the state but they are also citizens. Advocating the destruction of a individual because of a job that they perform because it serves the state is a violation of that individuals rights as a citizen.

Notice the verbage of the statement by the City Council. They target not only the service - ie the recruiting station, which is the government but the individuals themself because their assigned duty is that of a recruiter.

This is the discintion that the City Council has blurred with their statement. If they would of just addressed the recruiting station then they might have a point, delving into defining the recruiters as unwelcome guests targets the individual. I would find the City more hypocritical in their stance if they take money from the Federal Government - (which about every major city in the United States does).

I find it amazing that an individual who believes in individual freedoms fails to notice the idiocy of the city council in their statement.

[HoreTore]

This is different then your earlier comment - which I noticed you failed to address.

I didn't address it because you imply things I don't mean. As kukri said, the army recruiter isn't citizens, they're a military body, and as such they must obey the whip of its masters.

[Beirut]

You were implying that soldiers are less than citizens and aren't entitled to the same protections as ordinary citizens from other citizens.

"status as individuals are very limited are (just) arms of the state"

How would you interpret that statement? What does that mean?

I didn't say less, I said different.

A soldier has many rights that a civilian does not, and a civilian has many rights a soldier does not. A soldier's status as an individual is very limited. A civilian has the right of dissent. In fact, the highest quality one can have as a civilian is the right to say no to authority. That right right does not exist for a soldier.

If the president himself tells Joe Citizen to "Drop and give me twenty-five, maggot!", that fella can tell the president to shove those twenty-five where the sun don't shine. If a soldier responds likewise, he goes to jail. That is the difference.

By the by, a US soldier has the right to fully socialized medicine paid for and administered solely by the state. A civilian doesn't. I look forward to a five-hundred word thesis on that one.

[Redleg]

I didn't say less, I said different.

A soldier has many rights that a civilian does not, and a civilian has many rights a soldier does not. A soldier's status as an individual is very limited. A civilian has the right of dissent. In fact, the highest quality one can have as a civilian is the right to say no to authority. That right right does not exist for a soldier.

This is actually incorrect. A soldier has less rights in regards to military authority. A soldier has the exact same rights as any citizen when it regards civilian authority outside of the executive office. The city council can advocate that the military recruiting office not be present in its city. It can not however violate the individual rights of the citizen regardless if they wear a uniform or not.

If the president himself tells Joe Citizen to "Drop and give me twenty-five, maggot!", that fella can tell the president to shove those twenty-five where the sun don't shine. If a soldier responds likewise, he goes to jail. That is the difference.

Correct - again this ability only applies to the executive office as commander in chief. If Senator Clinton told the soldier to drop and give me twenty five the soldier can politely refuse since the Senator is not in the command authority chain of command.

By the by, a US soldier has the right to fully socialized medicine paid for and administered solely by the state. A civilian doesn't. I look forward to a five-hundred word thesis on that one.

Simply put the socialized medicine is based upon a military chain of command and responsiblity. Any citizen can join and enjoy the same system if they are willing to serve their nation.

When you take the pay and the danger involved in being a soldier - socialized medicine is not really a great big benefit with being a soldier. Such a stance demonstrates a fundmental flaw in your understanding of the hazards, responsiblities and duties of the soldier and the organization that must support that soldier.

Soldiers that are enlisted also get three meals a day and free rooms while they are in garrison. Are you attempting to equate those systems to the issue of Free speech?

Not a very good attempt Beriut.

[Beirut]

This is actually incorrect. A soldier has less rights in regards to military authority. A soldier has the exact same rights as any citizen when it regards civilian authority outside of the executive office. The city council can advocate that the military recruiting office not be present in its city. It can not however violate the individual rights of the citizen regardless if they wear a uniform or not.

I think we're saying the same thing in a different way. A soldier does have rights that a civilian does not and vice versa. I never said a civilian authority could deny a soldier his individual rights, only that a civilian government can deny a military body the right to be where it wants to be.

Correct - again this ability only applies to the executive office as commander in chief. If Senator Clinton told the soldier to drop and give me twenty five the soldier can politely refuse since the Senator is not in the command authority chain of command.

That's what I said.

The point was that a soldier can be jailed for dissent whereas (technically) a civilian cannot.

Simply put the socialized medicine is based upon a military chain of command and responsiblity. Any citizen can join and enjoy the same system if they are willing to serve their nation.

We prefer to think that all citizens should enjoy this right.

When you take the pay and the danger involved in being a soldier - socialized medicine is not really a great big benefit with being a soldier. Such a stance demonstrates a fundmental flaw in your understanding of the hazards, responsiblities and duties of the soldier and the organization that must support that soldier.

I have as good an understanding of the debt society owes to its soldiers as any civilian puke. I simply view health care as a human right due every citizen.

Soldiers that are enlisted also get three meals a day and free rooms while they are in garrison. Are you attempting to equate those systems to the issue of Free speech?

No. Never did.

Not a very good attempt Beriut.

On the contrary, t'was a wonderful attempt.

Don't misunderstand my intention here, I'm not dissing the military in the slightest, my point is only that in a democracy, local government has the right to refuse federal government actions it deems not in keeping with local standards (unless those standards violate the constitution). Also, that in a democracy, the military must be subservient to civilian authority.

[Zim]

Now I'm all sad you apparently didn't read my last post.

Local government has not attempted to kick out the recruiters. They've issued a statement saying they are "unwelcome". There could be many reasons for this, maybe because the recruiters are breaking no laws (I find this likely since the city is looking into whether its laws against discrimination can be used against the Marines, so obviously they ), maybe they fear a loss of federal funding, or any of a number of other reasons. Whichever one it is, as it stands all they've done is try to boost the morale of the protesters and attempt to make the recruiters feel unwelcome in the hope that they will leave.

Where in those links did the local government try "limiting the actions of the federal government within that local jurisdiction when they think those actions are contrary to the public good". It seems other than making the Marines feel unwanted, everything they've done has been to weaken limits on the protest group (i.e. giving them a parking space in a public street, something no other organization or individual in Berkely has, if link #1 is right). I don't have as much time as I'd like to look into things like this, so it's entirely possible I missed something. I'd be quite interested in seeing what action by the Marines the City Council sees as against the public good, and what they are trying to do about it.

Personally I suspect this will either eventually die down and everyone will forget about it (until the next war) or the Federal Government will just pull the recruiting station out if it's really so unwelcome, and then everyone will forget about it.

If the recruiters are armed forces personel in uniform, aren't their rights limited by armed forces law and not the constitution? I would think their status as individuals are very limited as they are (just) arms of the state.

I don't agree with barring a Marine Corps recruitment center from operating, but I see no problem with a local government limiting the actions of the federal government within that local jurisdiction when they think those actions are contrary to the public good. It's a bold example of bottom to top democracy.

Put simply, anytime a local government can kick out the federal army by a democratic process and the army actually leaves, it's proof postive that things are working exactly as they're supposed to. The day the army does not have to leave is when you have a big problem and you become one of those countries.


Though they have the right to protest, no, they should not be allowed to block other people from entering the recruiting station.

[Beirut]

Now I'm all sad you apparently didn't read my last post.

I'm sorry if I made you all sad. I did read your post. I simply got caught up in the fray with my good friends CR and Redleg. (They like to whoop on me because I'm a godless communist hippie. I can't blame them really.)

[Zim]

Actually it was something of a relief.

I've always tended to avoid political debates in forums because the level of discourse tends to be on the low side (only found the backroom after being invited to play the Victonia game). Because people here are so much more knowledgable than I'm used to, I come to check the backroom each evening with a little bit of trepidation, wondering if my arguments have been smashed.

Anyway, I've decided from now on whenever a post of mine is unanswered, it means I've so wowed my fellor ORGers with my brilliance they can come up with no criticism. Yeah, that's the ticket. No self-delusion at all there.

It's interesting to see how this has turned into a debate on Socialized Medicine. Unfortunately that's not an issue I can debate intelligently on, so I'm bowing out of this thread. See ya guys around the Backroom.

I'm sorry if I made you all sad. I did read your post. I simply got caught up in the fray with my good friends CR and Redleg. (They like to whoop on me because I'm a godless communist hippie. I can't blame them really.)