I'm not willing to agree that "words don't mean shit when a contract is involved?"

Many people have been duped into signing things that turn out to be other then what they believe they agreed upon. There's a lot of folks around the US currently facing foreclosure on their homes because a mortgage broker told them one thing and they signed a contract that stated a completely different set of terms. Dumb? I think so. Fair? questionable. Legal? Most likely.

But we're not talking about some slick banker talking some poor old couple into signing a contract they have no way of paying off. We're talking about government officials, people paid by our tax dollars, misleading and out and out lying to young impressionable kids.

Great analogy, I've been toying with it myself.

So we all agree that lying is wrong. Great, how please tell me how you plan to enforce it. I pointed out two pages ago that it boils down to hearsay. Would you be willing to end a person's career on hearsay, mercy to whether or not the person likes the service they entered?

We both know through our military service there is always those people who complain about everything. Give them enough time to complain and the Recruiter always comes up. Whether he actually lied or not, it's a common method of pushing the blame. It's similar to those who blame their parents for acts they do when they're 40, it's just an easy buck to pass. For those people whom we both know, would you be willing to take them on their word and end their career?

Not sure you understand what exactly amounts to hearsay for the purposes of evidence.

"most evidentiary codes defining hearsay adopt verbatim the rule as laid out in the Federal Rules of Evidence [1], which generally defines hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Rule 801, 28 U.S.C. App. See Rule for Courts-Martial 801, Manual for Court Martial, United States (2005 ed.)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay...ted_States_law

So, in very basic terms, hearsay means the person giving the evidence is not the person who directly witnesses something.

From what I've read here that's not what we're discussing. Most examples I've read here consist of people stating, effectively, I was present when the recruiter lied regarding this issue or that. I.E. I was there when the recruiter lied to my daughter. Or the recruiter told me ____ and it turned out to be a lie.

These not examples of hearsay they're examples of eye witness testimony, completely separate legal terms.

I believe you're talking about the credibility of the eye witness testimony. Feel free to correct me if I'm missing the intent of your comments.


All that side, if we agree that lying is wrong and that, in some cases, recruiters are being dishonest with perspective recruits. Then it comes down to, as you put it- how you plan to enforce it. I would start with the UCMJ.

If you really wanted total accountability you could incorporate some type of independent oversight. I have a feeling there's a whole lot of groups and individuals out there willing to sit in on these recruitment efforts and insure there's no misinformation being spread. With a simple administrative rule you could allow interested parties attend, possibly even record, any and all recruitment efforts. These interested parties, by rule, would not be allowed any input during the recruitment effort but would be able to provide oversight. If the recruiters are being honest then there's no problem, if not then there's a record of who said what to whom.

And for the record- no, I wouldn't be interested in ending a good career based on the word of someone if that word is highly questionable. I would be interested in ensuring the youth of the US are not being lied to in an attempt to get them join the military. All the recruiters I've ever known have been Non-Coms. As you well know anyone in the service is sworn to uphold the laws of the US and conduct themselves in an ethical manner. If you've made the rank of E-4 or above you should certainly be held accountable if you're engaging in legal or unethical behavior.

Very nice post Mars, I concede many of your points.

I do recall, as you might with your daughter, a second NCO ask me if what was stated in the contract different from which the recruiter had talked to me. This might be what you were suggesting, but as I was never in that area I do not know their procedures. If you, or your daughter, recall something similar it might already be in place.

Not completely off topic, just love this pic. An unidentified man owns a protester who tried to stop him from entering the recruitment station. Owned:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/200...s02_181_pc.jpg

Add "you cannot willfully lie to recruits" to the UCMJ or something. Right now, it's allowed. Once it becomes against the rules, it will be far less prevalent. In addition, one could make it legal for people to record the conversations between recruiters and potential recruits.

I don't think there's any reason to add anything to the UCMJ regarding this issue. Article 107 covers "False Official Statements." It's my understanding that 107 covers "official documents and official statements including all documents and statements made in the line of duty." I'm no military law expert but it's my understanding that knowingly making false statements in the line of duty would include lying while attempting to recruit someone.

Now I could be wrong. The UCMJ, like most federal and state statutes, can be difficult for the layperson to interpret correctly. Basically there's a reason the bar exam requires significant effort to pass.

But if I am wrong in regards to Article 107, there's always Article 134. It's basically an end all, catch all article. We used to refer to it as the "don't be an asshole article." I have little doubt that lying in the attempt to recruit someone would be covered by this article.

So, as I see it additional laws and articles are not the issue. It's getting the military to adhere to the standards of ethics already covered. Unfortunately I think there's the serious possibility that, at times, that may not be seen as being in the best interest of the military by the upper level command that would be responsible for enforcing such articles.

So, I agree there could be a logical reason for some type of civilian oversight. How that's done with any reasonable effectiveness is beyond me. But many states have civilian oversight for police, fire, and family services. I know that whenever a child is removed from the home of an Oregon resident the case is not only sent to the citizen's review board but also, at times, a childs advocate is assigned by the court. Perhaps some type of oversight could be modeled after these civilian involvements.

Thanks.

I don't recall any NCO questioning me about what my recruiter did or did not tell me, but that was 25 yrs. ago. I really didn't much care. I was flipping burgers when I joined and was happy to never again have to ask anyone if they "wanted fries with that?" Then again there were no wars going on when I joined, it was a totally different time in history. I was surprised to find out that after my four years were up I would be in the in active reserve and could be returned to duty, no questions asked at anytime during that two years. I remember specifically asking if the fours years was it and my recruiter told me "even if WWIII breaks out you'll be done and out after four years." That was a lie.

It's possible my daughter was asked these questions upon getting to Cape May, really don't know. I didn't think her CG recruiter was attempting to be dishonest with her for the most part. But we also made it clear early on that we been there, done that and bought the t-shirt with the Navy and Air Force. So??? Honestly I don't think the CG is having much difficultly in recruitment. I know I read one report (DoD, can't remember?) last summer stating of the 400 plus applicants from Oregon in 2006 they ended up accepting somewhere around 53.

I think the USMC took about 90% of their applicants during the same reporting period.

I'm sure these numbers are available somewhere.

with this in mind, where are the parents then when these kids are talking to recruiters? Isn't it the parents responsibility to guide their children in realizing what a contract is compared to verbal statements?

Pfft, according to this thread?

Legal, 18-year-old adults ("kids") don't have parents OR read contracts OR understand the "buyer beware" concept.

Good point. All too often the parents in the US have been less and less involved in their children's lives, IMO. I've known parents who seem to expect the schools to be responsible for everything from day care to college planning.

It's a parent's responsibility to get their kid into college, too, but if you're signing up at 18 that probably didn't work or you found the best damn recruiter ever.

Are you saying because my father and mother didn't want to pay for me to attend college that they were shitty parents?

Or that my choice to enlist, have the military pay for school so I could graduate without debt, and attend college afterwards was a bad decision?

...

Man, I wish I was rich.

Come on bro, you know there are people in this thread that know whats better for you than you do. :eek:

I was lied to by my recruiter also, he told me I would be fucking Tichonoy's wife on the Kremlin lawn by 1981, god dam no good recruiters.

Edit to add, After over 4 years of this country being at war, with it plastered all over the media, a kid walks into a recruiters office and he doesn't have a clue where he is going. It might be time for this little hippie town to acess its
public school system becuase they are not college material.

I think Navy recruiters lie the most. :D They have a hard sell.

I mean, who wants to be nut-to-butt with sweaty men for 9 months?

Only time I was ever N2B was in the back of a C130 at 1000' AGL.

I was demonstrating that the responsibility of a parent was subjective. What one person believes to be a parent's responsibility another person will not. I don't think it's a parent's responsibility to baby their 18 year old by following them to the recruiter's office, but DK does.

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at in a not-a-genius kinda way.

At 18? You don't have to be a parent anymore. Your offspring is an adult.

Most parents don't stop because they feel a sense of obligation.

Some parents don't see it like that, though. They push you out on your own.

But it is ok for those same parents to follow little maryjane rottencrotch to the admissions office of the local "U" ?

Reread what I wrote. You completely misunderstood it.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess many of the post here are from people who either don't have children or at least don't have adult children.

My child is nearly 22 now and at 18 she moved out of the house and was basically on her own. Raising a child is no easy task and no one is exactly right. In fact, IMO, it's much easier to be wrong then right when it comes to parenting. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. My position alway was when she was too young to know better I decided for her, period, end of story. As she matured and was able to be more responsible she was allowed to make her own choices, within what I considered to be "reason." When she was 18 she wanted to move in with friends, fine by me with the understanding that my door is and will be always open. But the decisions you make and problems you make for yourself are problems you need to solve by yourself. There was a period of time there where she had all the answers and knew more about stuff then I did. I had all the answers when I was 19 too, wish I did now. By the time she reached 20 or so she was asking more and more for my advice. More then willing to help her decide whats the best deal for a car, where to continue school, what branch of military to consider and so on.

It's not easy, it never ends and I wouldn't have it any other way.

This statement, from this thread, is why I respectfully disagree with you, Halx.

How often do we get to see honest concessions in Tilted Politics? I'd venture a guess that it's rare. Most threads here that are adversarial don't ever get to see a concession on either side. For that reason, I'd call this thread a smashing success.

If this was a barrage, istead of a discussion, how do you account for the series of posts begun by military veteran, "Tully Mars", in his post #57 ?

How do you broach a subject such as this, a symptom of what happens in a "this is my country, right or wrong, no matter what policies it's government pursues", political atmosphere?

Consider the negative references towards Berkeley, historically, all the way back to Reagan's first campaign for California governor, in the mid 1960's.

Consider the fact that even with the US leadership "lying us into war in Iraq", the expose of military recruiting abuses in the film, Farenheit 911, the outrageous and grievously counterproductive and offensive military decisions and practices exposed via photoraphic evidence at Abu Ghraid prison (the US military decided to continue using the most dreaded and torture associated prision of the regime it ousted, for the same purpose, holding Iraqis indefinitely without trail or charges and abusing them in heinous ways...), consider that only ENLISTED US military personnel were jailed for the offenses at Abu Ghraib, and the overriiding consideration:
The conduct and deceit of the US commander and chief and the military, in justifying war, conducting war, in accountability, or not, and in abusive, deceitful recruiting, is still considered acceptable, the norm, and the reaction to recruiters in Berkeley is said to be, by the majority....fringe. extreme left thinking and action.

How should I have worded the title, to balance upside down thinking? Who's sensibilities was I supposed to tread more softly on, the people who take offense about the description of military recruiters, as described in the title, even though the description is accurate and the background is, if it encompassed the deeds of belligerence done by another country, an assault on even the value systems of those blinded by the flag and 9/11?

Is THAT what you garnered by my post? Talk about subjective....

If, by the age of 18, a kid doesn't know that they need to be responsible by reading fine print of a contract before signing one, then the parents FAILED. What I hear you saying is that parents shouldn't HAVE to be responsible...that everyone else should just be trustworthy and honorable and while that would be nice, it's a fools dream to believe that possible.

So if I started a thread saying "Do liberals hate America or just the Military" based on the code pink actions in Berkly, you wouldn't complain about questioning your patriotism?

Please host, just stop.

I dont see anything wrong with the thread title.

The fact that some recruiters use deceptive practices is irrefutable. DoD has acknowledged it as well as acknowledging that they dont have the process or the capacity in place to investigate every allegation.

Given those facts, the thread title is completely appropriate.

I'm guessing at least one person in every occupation lies. Recruiters? Yep. Does that make the entire US military a liar? Is it DoD policy to lie?

What about DoD internet sites, posters, fliers? Those are "methods," too. Do they lie through deceptive display of the job / false promises?

It's DoD policy not to do anything about the lying that they're aware of.

Sarcasm aside, I sincerely doubt that's in the books.

Seriously, it's not illegal for the recruiters to lie. The DoD doesn't have to do shit, and they don't. No sarcasm about it.

I'd imagine it's not illegal for the 1% of recruiters that do lie to do such because regardless of what they say... if it isn't on the enlistment contract... you aren't getting it.


(insert stereotypical car salesman analogy here)

I totally get it. I'm trying to protect idiots. It happens a lot. It's a big part of being a liberal.

What idiots? Oh, you mean adults signing a thick, binding document without reading it?

Sorry, you can't protect all of them. We still live in a free country.

...

This is what happens when the TeeVee becomes the country's religion.

Maybe I should ask you this: did you real the whole thing? Every word? I don't read all the crap on software before I hit "accept", so I could be agreeing to slavery for all I know for installing a new version of iTunes.

Yeah, I read every last word. Ya believe that? :D It was long and boring, too. I have four copies of it printed out in a folder with all of my other DoD papers. Want a copy for giggles? You'd get a laugh from all the legalese.

When they say that you're signing away your life? They aren't kidding. It sobers you up really quick and most mature types take it very seriously. They actually read the documentation before signing it. I racked up like $20 on my cell phone just calling the E-7 at the station to ask questions about MOS choices / bonus info / dates of training / jump school / unit selection, etc.

I signed up for 3 years active duty, 5 years reserve... with the possibility of being extended. I knew it when I signed up. When I got SL/SM? I was pissed but I wasn't going, "Man, those motherfuckers lied to me!" Why? Because I knew it when I signed up.

...

My experience is a fallacy.

You know about the "No WMD clause" in iTunes, right?

I honestly don't think that's true. In fact I believe there are policies and UCMJ articles in place that contradict your statement. What DoD policy states what you're claiming?

I sure as hell do. Broke it within 15 minutes of downloading it.
Media contact, actually. I'm repeating what they've said, not what's written.

I think a title to convey a mirror opposite opinion from mine would be:
<i>Is this reasonable if US military is carrying out, "by the book", it's mission of recruiting youths?</i>

It would be a difficult title to defend though, judging by what has been posted in this thread, and by other information that I've heard and read.

I think you missed the point.

Nope, Seaver's assuming the title is biased. It's not. The reasonable case has already been successfully made that makes it clear that military does use deceptive methods. The title is factual. The question would be: is Berkeley being reasonable about it?

Saying 'that the military does use deceptive methods' is to imply its systemic and condoned by the high command.

A few 'my recruiter said this and this happened' doesn't establish it.

Plus you do miss the point as well, its an inflammatory title and I do not believe that 'blatantly deceptive methods' have been proven just because you said so.

Halx posted what he did with good reason.

There's no implication. They (military recruiters, who are part of the military) do use deceptive methods in recruitment as is demonstrated by witnesses in this very thread. Did you miss those posts?
Here:
Post #57
Post #86
Post #88
It has been proven because military officers have told you. If you choose to believe that this whole case is based on "because I said so", do you believe that I am posting under the names Tully Mars, dksuddeth, and quasimondo?

Oh god, those are your blatantly deceptive methods?

I guess 'they didn't have a job for me as the cold war ended'
They didn't kick me out for former drug use when I wanted to use it as an excuse.
And a semi-joking post are those awful deceptive methods.

Christ, now I know why I got the PM I did.

Enjoy the mockery this thread is.

They lied intentionally. Lying intentionally is a blatantly deceptive method.
BTW, you may want to read these before your ditch gets too deep:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in692361.shtml
http://www.wlwt.com/news/4508233/detail.html
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2626032
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1542907/posts
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/27/na.../27duluth.html
http://newsbusters.org/node/10000

Who can forget this thread, where information was posted about the repugnant practice of military recruiters' attempts to "harvest" our youth, still attending high school, via not generally publicized requirments of the "No Child Lett Behind Act" ?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=88666

That thread was started back when some of the posters in this thread were certain that the war in Iraq was "going well", back when 2200 fewer of our soldiers had lost their lives there, than today.

wait, I post a dozen seperate incidents of police misconduct, brutality, and rights violations and they get called 'isolated incidents', yet you want to use 3 peoples experience on a message board to define military recruitment deception as systemic and prolific? :orly:

I base it more on 6,660 alleged incidents of recruiter irregularities (by just over 13,000 recruiters) noted in the GAO report.

As well as an internal DoD survey in 2005 which reported that about 20% of active duty recruiters believe that recruiter irregularities occur frequently.

Personally, I think the bigger concern should be over military using dirty tricks to prevent people from leaving the military.. like overriding medical officers opinion and redeploying injured men. Things like this are happening alot now.

If someone joins the service under with unrealistic notions, they didn't do their due diligence. Its their fault.

I think if we question military recruiters we also need to question union organizers and how they get people to sign up. Or, for that matter, headhunters who try to get people to switch jobs.

Very few bag boys at Safeway are at risk of driving over an IED. Also, if you quit Safeway.... you're out of the union.

Not the same.

:shy: I can't believe you're a liberal. You have such a good heart inside.

I'm trying to prevent recruiters taking advantage of the uninformed, the naive, and the simple. If you are told and believe that you won't go to Iraq and you go to Iraq, someone has been victimized. Yes, it's all in the contract, but the contract is not just a half a page of reading and some people do trust the recruiters' word. It's those people who are victimized by the lies.

Comparing that situation to unions is silly.

I agree that's a bad analogy. Private enterprises and tax paid governmental agencies are in no way equal.

Actually, my point (which people here decided to miss) is that recruiters often try to benefit themselves rather than the people being recruited. That's why it should surprise no one that it happens in the military, which is composed of human beings just like every other human endeavor is. Obviously the military isn't like a union - the military is the one government function that everyone (even hardcore libertarians) agrees is something that government should be handling rather than private enterprise. That doesn't mean there won't be human failings associated with it just as there are with anything else.

I think the point which some here decided to miss is that the Pentagon has acknowledged that recruiter irregularities are a problem and they dont have the process in place nor the manpower to effectively oversee the practices of their recruiters.

well, dc_dux, then they should have some kind of program put into place, right? It's not like the military is the first organization to have, um, "overenthusiasm" in the lower ranks. (how's that for a euphemism?)

Right.

And until they do, IMO its reasonable for cities to act in the manner that Berkeley did.

BTW, beyond the "overenthusiam" of recruiters, Berkeley's action was also a protest against the military's discriminatory "hiring practices" (hows that for a euphemism?) that are illegal in any other "industry".

uh, no, it's not reasonable for Berkeley to behave that way for anyone. Nor is it reasonable for them to single out the Marine Corps based on a small sample of bad apples unless they're prepared to do it to every organization that has some bad apples in it.

You're looking for retroactive justifications for bad behavior, and I'm sorry, but it's just not persuasive.

Its not unreasonable for a city council to act in a manner that reflects the wishes of a majority of its constituents unless if would result in an illegal act.

I didn't decide to miss anything. You've mentioned the union before in a less than stellar light, your wording was clear, and I was building off that. This looks like backpedaling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

So to summarize your clarified point: it's okay for military recruiters to lie to recruits because the recruiters are just human.

You know these just-humans are taught to kill right? And that the job of these humans is to get someone to sign away the next 4+ years of their life? Are you sure you want to excuse their actions with "they're just human"?

It's not responsible to protect your 18-22 year olds who are in a good school from predatory and dishonest tactics by the Marines? BTW, I am not aware of any other organization with bad apples in Berkeley that makes you sign a contract that includes jail time for leaving early.

uh, no. I didn't say it was all right to lie. I said it's silly for you to expect that all military recruiters will be paragons of moral perfection if you're not willing to hold other organizations to the same standards.

And yes, 18-22 year olds are adults - they can decide to buy a car, have an abortion, buy cigarettes or do all sorts of other things. Like all other adults, they have a right not to be lied to - by anyone, whether military recruiter or used car salesman. There are plenty of contracts adults can sign that will subject them to very adverse consequences. And many contracts don't give signatories the sort of experience, training and benefits that soldiers get (for which they risk their lives, yes, but you'd have to be a moron not to know that if you sign up for the frickin' MILITARY you might get shot at).

Fact is, will, you're trying to impose standards on the military that you're not willing to impose on organizations toward which you feel more warmly. What I'm saying is that you have to recognize that no organization of any kind will ever be perfect because it's populated by humans. I'd hope the military would be better - and maybe it is, I'm not aware of studies that compare rates of deception - but hope and expectation are not the same. I'd want the military to be better, but again, what I want and what I expect are two different things. And we certainly should try to make the military better. That doesn't mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

By law, Berkeley (or any city) cant throw military recruiters out ...they can only express the "sense of the city" that they are "unwanted guests".

I addressed this. I'd expect more of other organizations if they were as serious as the military. Quite frankly, the military is in a league of it's own. It's the only profession where you cannot quit once you've discovered you've been lied to. That fact alone means that it's not silly for me to expect they'd act responsibly. One does not need to be a paragon of moral perfection not to willfully lie to recruits. One simply should read the UCMJ, as Tully Mars correctly pointed out.

That's true. I was speaking figuratively - that we shouldnt' condemn the military altogether merely because they have the same issues that most large organizations have.

will, what you just said is why we need to keep the number of arms of government to a minimum, precisely because they have coercive power. The military is unique only in that you can get shot at. It's not unique in terms of the govt's ability to impose severe penalties on you if you don't follow its rules, even if it lies to you. I've represented people who were lied to by the govt, will, and the recourse people have isn't what it should be, because the govt gets to make the rules.

As for the contract terms, I addressed that too - it's not all a one-way street.

I'm condemning recruiters who purposefully misinform potential recruits. I find their behavior reprehensible and I would hope they'd be penalized. The problem is that the behavior is known to the whole military, but no steps have been taken to avoid it. That is where the broader condemnation comes from. "We see this is wrong, but we're okay with the results so don't expect us to do anything about it."

Cops get shot at, but the can quit. Also, they're not stop-lossed. The military is unique in their contract. Yes, it's not a one way street, but I challenge you to join up tomorrow and leave within a week. I'm sure the people you represented would appreciate the efforts of Berkeley.

Will, I don't approve of deception, and I believe I said up above that the military should have procedures in place to get rid of bad apples - just like every other large organization should (and as most do).

That said, I'm sure that if the horror of a terror attack hits the Bay Area tomorrow, Berkeleyans won't refuse the protection of these unwelcome intruders. They should start behaving like adults.

Wait, so we're arguing the same point?
We're more likely to be attacked by Bill O'Reilly than terrorists... and the military really didn't do anything to protect New York. The only way I'd need the military is if I were a contractor, and a lot of Berkeley agrees with me.

Will, we were never disagreeing that deception is a bad thing. We were disagreeing about whether we should be surprised that this can happen in the military, and whether the military should be singled out for criticism. We both agree that we should strive to have the highest standards for our uniformed services. At least I think we do.

As for Berkeley, well, it's easy to make ostentatious shows about their political positions when they know there's no price to be paid. They can't opt out of being defended. I'm sure they are making themselves feel real good about themselves and their precious moral purity, and at no cost.

Look at it this way, though, your solution is to punish the bad apples... but the military has had ample time to do that and it hasn't happened. As DC cited, over 6,660 alleged incidents of recruiter irregularities have occurred and nothing has been done about it.

Speaking on behalf of myself and my friendly, flower loving friends at Berkeley: we'd be overjoyed if the military punished these people. Unfortunately, that just doesn't seem to be happening and it's because there isn't enough pressure on the military. How does one apply pressure? Media coverage. How does one get media coverage? Outrageous behavior. This is Liberalism 101. Does Berkeley expect to win? Of course not. It'd be funny, but it's not legal. What has happened, though is people are talking about it. This will be post #167. The more people talk about the recruiters lying, the more pressure there will be for the military to do the right thing.

No, it's not responsible. At 18, that 'child' is an adult and the protection and teaching by the parent should have been done BEFORE said person turned 18.

Where does this right exist? I'm sure alot of people that were lied to by cops in order to confess would be seriously interested in this.

That's true, if one is ever tricked for any reason then the parents obviously failed. Amway is full of em.

I didn't mean a legal right - though in certain circumstances there is such a right.

You have a right not to be verbally abused by strangers on the street, too, but you can't do anything about it legally.

This is not correct either.

DK, as a proponent of the "right to drive" I'd think that you would be more open minded when it comes to stuff like this. What liq is suggesting is not unreasonable at all. If one is verbally abused by someone on the street and a police car is driving by, it's within the rights of the police officer to pull over and attempt to break it up in the interest of protecting the peace.

Then you are guilty of not understanding the context of my statement.

If someone is verbally abusing you on the street and there is no police car present, what would you do?

What my mother taught me to do - ignore them. It's served me well since I learned that lesson in about 7th grade.

What would YOU do? I'm almost afraid of the answer....

If they aren't right up in my face or in any other way preventing me from leaving the area, then I ignore them and go on my way.

If I'm being hindered from leaving the area, then I have every right to use the necessary force to move them so that I can leave.

But that doesn't cover the issue of somebody having the 'right' to not be verbally abused'. If we actually had that right, then we'd also have a legal defense to prosecution if we took violent measures to stop that abuse, would we not? Therefore, nobody actually has a 'right' to not be verbally abused, just like nobody has a 'right' not to be lied to.

http://www.smileyhut.com/weapons/dropcheer.gif

Sorry, but I've been sitting on this smiley for weeks. I couldn't wait any longer and I don't think it would have been appropriate in addressing McCain's policy on Iran. To be clear, this post is made in jest.

Of course it's reasonable. Not many people would want to join if they knew the truth.

Whether it's ethical is of course a completely different question.

people have the legal right to be assholes, guys. you can't sue people for being jerks. I have gotten lawsuits like that thrown out.

dk, why do you assume that it's reasonable to respond to disagreeable words with physical violence?

assholes are in the eye of the beholder.

Really?... I don't know what to say to that. I never thought it would be reasonable to willingly destruct government property because there is a 2.5% error. Can I go burn a police car because there are a few dirty cops?

So how about this Wil, can I as a 25 year old get out of a mortgage because I claim they promised me a free massage every friday even though nothing appeared on the contract? How about at 18, could I?

Sorry, they're adults. If we trust them enough to get a full job, live on their own terms, smoke, and GOD FORBID VOTE; we should trust them enough to read a freaking contract which effects their entire life.

What property was destroyed?

And you error margin is way off.

destruct? wtf?

I'm not asking for the soldiers to be let out of their contracts, so it's a false comparison. Besides, if the mortgage companies lied to clients faces, they could be held responsible even though it wasn't in the mortgage agreement.

I have to say its really shocking to me to see so much animosity towards citizens who are simply expressing their right to petition their (local) government for redress of grievances (remember the 1st amendment? :confused: )....and for the city to respond, if only in a symbolic manner, which is the case in Berkeley.

I did not say that it is. I said that if the verbal abuse is also accompanied by a proximity of intimidation, then it is.

Wow, just saw this video....

Trying to inform recruits of deceptive practices is one thing... this is entirely a whole new level of stupid. These morons chained themselves to the door, and are refusing citizens entry into the recruiting office.

<div><object width="420" height="339"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x49wnb" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x49wnb" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="339" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x49wnb">Code pink</a></b><br /><i>by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/krs601">krs601</a></i></div>

I appreciate non-violent protest, but I can't condone that.

You consider this violent? If not, why can't you condone it?

I dont think he was calling it violent.

I'm saying that despite the fact that it's violent, I can't support it. Why? They don't know the first thing about protesting. You don't protest to make yourself feel better by doing something active. That's for idiots. You protest to get things done. All they're going to do is piss people off and probably get attacked a lot.

Because it's stupid.

Yeah, they should have had a better plan, been more organized.

I'm proud of you, Will. That's very perceptive. A huge percentage of the public posturing that people do is to make themselves feel better, even though it has next to zero chance of changing anything.

I've been protesting for over 8 years. It's something I'm deeply proud of. When I see knobs "protesting" in a way that won't do anything but make them feel like they're as cool as me I get perturbed. They won't be as cool as me until they get something done.

Actually, I think stupid protests make it harder for authentic protesters to do their thing.

Actually, a large percentage of EVERYTHING people do is done to make themselves feel better.

I'm going to try to play catch-up in this thread a bit, which means it'll be a huge post. Probably not a good idea for my first venture into the politics forum, but I bet a mod will let me know either way real quick.

Anyway, topic:

Not to nitpick too much, but the "Moment of Truth" that USMC recruiters play up so much is not really a good comparison. As one of the other posts pointed out, a recruiter at MEPS will usually verify that the station or sub-station recruiters didn't promise you anything extra or tell you to hide pre-existing medical conditions. Those in charge at boot camp/basic training usually ask the same thing about the MEPS guys.

But yeah, the same exact thing happened to me.

I don't see many regular citizens, much less political figures, falling into that mindset at all. Especially not after we all re-elected Bush and he continued fuckin' up. Hell, I have a tough time finding folks who are patriotic at all, most days.

You could have called it "Berkeley City Council Opposes Marine Recruiters".

I don't wanna get off on the wrong foot with you, host, but honestly - just the tone of the title pissed me off and drew me in here. I've since calmed down and seen a lot of good discussion in the thread - from other posters.


That's gotta be a quote of the year or something. Seriously, that just cracks my shit up, no matter who you're talking about. :)


Spot-on. As much as the Berkeley CC has been beating the Corps over the head with the 'recruiting lies argument', I'd imagine there's plenty of other immoral and unethical (possibly even ecologically unsound) activity perpetrated daily by other organizations/leaseholders in that city (as with any other). Of course, anything involving the war in Iraq is a guaranteed draw for media regardless of bias, which may or may not have anything to do with the Council's course of action.

I have to disagree with loq on this one. Those standards should be imposed on the military from within. As a career military man - and much, much more so as a Marine - it seriously upsets me when <STRIKE>those</STRIKE> our standards are called into question, justly or otherwise. It hurts a lot worse when there's not something I can personally do to correct it. This is the standard that every American should expect from the Marine Corps, if not all military members.

I might be a brainwashed, torture-promulgatin' lifer, but I sincerely do believe that with all my heart.


Just an aside, but, um... it's within the assigned, sworn duties of the police officer to intervene - moreso if the rights of someone else are being infringed. I'm not a law-ttorney, but I think that one might be called "battery".

That's about the best summation of this whole topic that I've seen to date.

Now that I've provided some observations on this thread, I think I'll use a separate post for thoughts on the issue itself... and also provide an opportunity for Halx (or another mod) to lay a gigantic slap on my pee-pee, if needed. :)

Verbal abuse isn't battery. Battery is physical.

Stop offer-type assaulting him.

When this first hit the news and more or less ever since, there are a few key points that, really, just bug the crap out of me.

The fact that the Berkeley CC is beating the Corps over the head with the 'recruiting lies' argument in order to grant some special privileges to Code Pink is pretty flawed from the start. I've had to look completely outside Berkeley media (and dig pretty deep in any other coverage) to find mention of the fact that this is an OFFICER SELECTION OFFICE, which means that you either have a college degree or are well on your way to completing one before you can even get the proverbial foot in the door. Well, that, and apparently bring some bolt cutters, Ben & Jerry's, and chronic to get past the protestors.

I'm pretty certain that the "dumbass 18-year-old" used for argument's sake will not be an issue in the Berkeley OSO. However, since there are many more recruiting stations than OSOs in the country (much like there are many more enlisted than officers in the military), it's a valid debate - if a bit out of place in this thread and grossly overused in Berkeley.

I am upset at the inflammatory language used by the City Council in their original recommendations. I believe one or two of the Council members, who later came forward in interviews saying they felt the wording was wrong, even before they went home that night. Not so much Mayor Tom Bates, though.

I find it amusing, if predictable, that within a few days of approving their recommendations with but one dissenting vote, members of the Council and the Mayor himself tried to make half-assed apologies for the language they used, and stated more than once that they support the troops, just not the war or our government. Mayor Bates and the Council last week even decided not to send their "Hans Blix Very Angry Letter" to the Commandant, which is a shame.

If you're gonna stand up for something, stand up for it, stick with it, and don't bullshit anybody. Right or wrong, it builds character and generally earns respect from friend and foe alike... but I digress.

My gut feelings, without the nice language: The fact that leadership of any city would enact resolutions KNOWING that they would result in the over-the-top bullshit that Code Pink has pulled - just during this series of events - is mind-boggling. I've long, long since given up the notion that our Federal government doesn't have its own interests and organizations that it's in bed with. But at a local level, I'd really hope that some modicum of objectivity would be present.

Don't even get me started on the prior military service of the Mayor, who claims to "support our troops". Coming from him, after what's happened, is even worse bullshit than hearing it from anyone else in that zip code. It wouldn't surprise me at all to hear that he's bangin' one of the Code Pink chicks, but whatever. He can kiss my ass.

I'm not losing sleep over this, but I am frustrated that actions by an ignorant and noisy group of citizens on one extreme end of the political spectrum (City Council, Code Pink, etc.) will likely be met by further action by the most ignorant and noisy representatives of a different point of view (that dumbass SC Senator, for one).

It's a great way to start your own circus, but it makes rational solutions to the situation very, very unlikely.

I did have some serious questions about the legality of physically blocking the office, chaining yourself to property that isn't yours, and noise ordnances that aren't mentioned (but would probably be enforced in a heartbeat if I drove down that street blasting some Mudvayne or Jay-Z).

But it all subsided, and I sort of shrugged my shoulders thinking "It's fuckin' Berkeley, dude. Whatcha gonna do?"

One of my good friends is a recruiting commander. In the past year he has canned 5 recruiters for unethical practice (lying). Check yourself.