This Lt Col sucks

While I think he has completely misunderstood the intent of the 2nd amendment (notice it says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed vs. the right of the militia to bear arms) and deliberately overlooked that militias were not meant to be a constantly maintained force supplement to support America's efforts to be the world police, I don't think he should be tossed or that he needs to be reminded of his oath. Yes, he has a different interpretation of the amendment than we do, but thank God the interpretation of the Constitution isn't a power given to the military. The military is to support and defend the constitution by obeying the lawful orders of their superiors. Ultimately, the superiors are civilians and that's the way it should be. Having a different opinion doesn't negate the fact that he's served for a long time or render him less deserving of retirement benefits. Voicing his opinion (ignorant as it may be) doesn't mean that he's forgotten his oath, it simply means that he sees things differently than most of us. I'm ok with that. His opinion is just that. Opinions are like bung holes… everyone has one.

rhodesbe said:

He doesn't appear to hold an active rank? http://www.linkedin.com/pub/bob-bateman/a/252/ba2

Click to expand...

subprep said:

Bob is a serving Colonel, General Staff, Army Division Headquarters, New York Guard as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (G/2) and is past Deputy Commander of the 88th Brigade, Headquarters, New York City.

doesn't this mean he is active? i'm pretty ignorant on military terms etc..

Click to expand...

There is apparently been some confusion between a New York "Guard" (not a military organization) member who has the same name as the Active Duty LTC clown who penned the article...and is stationed in the U.K.

soonerwings said:

While I think he has completely misunderstood the intent of the 2nd amendment (notice it says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed vs. the right of the militia to bear arms) and deliberately overlooked that militias were not meant to be a constantly maintained force supplement to support America's efforts to be the world police, I don't think he should be tossed or that he needs to be reminded of his oath. Yes, he has a different interpretation of the amendment than we do, but thank God the interpretation of the Constitution isn't a power given to the military. The military is to support and defend the constitution by obeying the lawful orders of their superiors. Ultimately, the superiors are civilians and that's the way it should be. Having a different opinion doesn't negate the fact that he's served for a long time or render him less deserving of retirement benefits. Voicing his opinion (ignorant as it may be) doesn't mean that he's forgotten his oath, it simply means that he sees things differently than most of us. I'm ok with that. His opinion is just that. Opinions are like bung holes… everyone has one.

Click to expand...

The bolded/highlighted part...Try convincing this guy of that. If we did enforce the oath they took from time to time these guys might keep their traps shut, which is what they are supposed to do when in uniform. His history is wrong, his opinion while entitled is still wrong. I'd can his ass if I could.

Shadowrider said:

The bolded/highlighted part...Try convincing this guy of that. If we did enforce the oath they took from time to time these guys might keep their traps shut, which is what they are supposed to do when in uniform. His history is wrong, his opinion while entitled is still wrong. I'd can his ass if I could.

Click to expand...

Agreed, his history is wrong. His opinion is certainly different than mine. Still, when you say "enforce the oath these guys take" you are implying that he hasn't defended the Constitution by obeying lawful orders. Yes, he is supposed to keep his trap shut, but that's nowhere in the oath. If we fired military members because they ran their mouth or had opinions different from ours, well… we wouldn't have very many people left in the military.

Matt Brackens comments below the article are pretty good!

soonerwings said:

Agreed, his history is wrong. His opinion is certainly different than mine. Still, when you say "enforce the oath these guys take" you are implying that he hasn't defended the Constitution by obeying lawful orders. Yes, he is supposed to keep his trap shut, but that's nowhere in the oath. If we fired military members because they ran their mouth or had opinions different from ours, well… we wouldn't have very many people left in the military.

Click to expand...

so what if him or others of his ilk obeyed not so 'lawful' orders? I have no doubt that he would gladly do just that.

soonerwings said:

Agreed, his history is wrong. His opinion is certainly different than mine. Still, when you say "enforce the oath these guys take" you are implying that he hasn't defended the Constitution by obeying lawful orders. Yes, he is supposed to keep his trap shut, but that's nowhere in the oath. If we fired military members because they ran their mouth or had opinions different from ours, well… we wouldn't have very many people left in the military.

Click to expand...

I'm not certain, but pretty sure that there is a military regulation pertaining to officers expressing their political views publicly. A certain amount of discretion is OK, but this is over the top. It's not that he can't have an opinion, it's that he can't state it in public while "under color of uniform". He actually states that he's ashamed of his country and he writes it under his title. At the very least it's a violation of longstanding military protocol. But as to his oath, yes he's actively promoting the violation of the 2A of the Constitution. If he were under my command he would only be under it for as long as it took to process the paperwork, and that might be a long time. In the interim he'd be posted to the coldest most desolate post I could get him to.

subprep said:

so what if him or others of his ilk obeyed not so 'lawful' orders? I have no doubt that he would gladly do just that.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Especially when they fit right in with his views and political ambitions.

soonerwings said:

Still, when you say "enforce the oath these guys take" you are implying that he hasn't defended the Constitution by obeying lawful orders. Yes, he is supposed to keep his trap shut, but that's nowhere in the oath.

Click to expand...

It is in the oath, indirectly as it relates to discharging the duties of one's office. Part of discharging your duties AND bearing true faith to the Constitution is following existing regulations and laws. There are plenty of laws on the books about using one's active duty rank for personal gain and political activity. There is also plenty of law/precedent etc in regards to civilian control and oversight of the military.

By writing the article as LTC Bateman, instead of Mr. Bateman he colored the article in terms of the U.S. Military criticizing one of the civilian branches of government responsible for the oversight of the institution which gave him that rank.

In short, he has a right to his opinion but he does not have a right to color, or present, that opinion in his official capacity as an active duty commissioned officer in the U.S. military.

He a POS perfumed prince angling for some political office or cushy think tank job post-retirement.

SMS said:

It is in the oath, indirectly as it relates to discharging the duties of one's office. Part of discharging your duties AND bearing true faith to the Constitution is following existing regulations and laws. There are plenty of laws on the books about using one's active duty rank for personal gain and political activity. There is also plenty of law/precedent etc in regards to civilian control and oversight of the military.

By writing the article as LTC Bateman, instead of Mr. Bateman he colored the article in terms of the U.S. Military criticizing one of the civilian branches of government responsible for the oversight of the institution which gave him that rank.

In short, he has a right to his opinion but he does not have a right to color, or present, that opinion in his official capacity as an active duty commissioned officer in the U.S. military.

He a POS perfumed prince angling for some political office or cushy think tank job post-retirement.

Click to expand...

You are correct, I misspoke. What I SHOULD have said that was that his oath didn't say he could never be a dumba$$. Now, should he be punished? Absolutely. I just don't think you go nuclear on him for it and erase his years of service. The UCMJ provides for ways of punishment other than tossing someone. I'd be completely on board if he were to be given an article 15. That would effectively stop any upward mobility through the ranks for him and allow him to retire. As for political aspirations? Let him at at. He has to answer to whatever constituency he'd have elect him to office. There are parts of the country where I'm sure he'd fit right in.