Can military bases discriminate?

[Sonora Rebel]

That is a big ole strawman, hyperbolic red herring.

Yeah? Come aboard NAS Fallon with whatever you please as a vistor too? Good luck with that.

 

[wrightme]

Yeah? Come aboard NAS Fallon with whatever you please as a vistor too? Good luck with that.

Nope. No one except you is making ANY argument for or against that. It is hyperbole.

 

[wrightme]

Apparently you don't (or won't) read much. Above posts (by me) identify the origin of this prohibition. Again... the person with the dog was a visitor... not a retiree or otherwise employed on the installation.

Not accurate. In the OP, the visitor was identified as a veteran, and whether he was a retiree or not wasn't stated.
You could have easily made that point without the bolded snipe.

And my "lawful order" comment was direct, and did not say a thing about whether a person was or wasn't a visitor.

Military members are not required to follow ALL orders, which was what you were claiming. The requirement is to follow lawful orders.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

Not accurate. In the OP, the visitor was identified as a veteran, and whether he was a retiree or not wasn't stated.
You could have easily made that point without the bolded snipe.

And my "lawful order" comment was direct, and did not say a thing about whether a person was or wasn't a visitor.

Military members are not required to follow ALL orders, which was what you were claiming. The requirement is to follow lawful orders.

Veteran status doesn't matter. You must be a retiree (with ID CARD)... or you're just another face in the crowd. 'Tell ya what pal... you follow the last order given until that order is recinded... lawful or not. Now.. you can write a written protest with a witness... but you WILL obey the order. Are you a military member?

As for the Op: "My father is a Master Sergeant in the Army Reserves, and recently was taking my uncle (which is his brother) on base at Fort Lewis. My uncle is visually and hearing impaired, and thus has a service dog in which is uses to help guide him, and alert him to sounds when he's at home or in public."

Where does it indicate that the brother is a vet? The MSGT was acting as sponsor to a civilian guest. Since the guest had no actual use for the dog in the company of a human being... what is the purpose of the dog?

 

[wrightme]

Veteran status doesn't matter. You must be a retiree (with ID CARD)... or you're just another face in the crowd. 'Tell ya what pal... you follow the last order given until that order is recinded... lawful or not. Now.. you can write a written protest with a witness... but you WILL obey the order. Are you a military member?

Yes, and I do disagree with you. There is NO onus to obey unlawful orders.


If an officer ordered you to shoot a non-combatant, would you?


Or, as you claim, you would "write a written protest with a witness" THEN shoot?

 

[Sonora Rebel]

Yes, and I do disagree with you. There is NO onus to obey unlawful orders.


If an officer ordered you to shoot a non-combatant, would you?


Or, as you claim, you would "write a written protest with a witness" THEN shoot?

You know zip about the actual dynamic existing in the military. You've never been in have you? Talk about stawman crap. IF the Skipper doesn't want such and such on his base... then such and such is not gettin' on his base. Period! 'You got a problem with that then take it up with the OOD or CDO to resolve the issue... but if you would choose to force the safeguard... then I'd have no problem lightin' you (or anyone else) up. I've stood enough watches under arms to do just that.

 

[wrightme]

You know zip about the actual dynamic existing in the military. You've never been in have you? Talk about stawman crap. IF the Skipper doesn't want such and such on his base... then such and such is not gettin' on his base. Period! 'You got a problem with that then take it up with the OOD or CDO to resolve the issue... but if you would choose to force the safeguard... then I'd have no problem lightin' you (or anyone else) up. I've stood enough watches under arms to do just that.

Kent State. Just following orders, right?

I already responded that I have been in the military.

And I DO know that military members are not required to follow unlawful orders. The rest of your response IS a strawman argument against a position that I have not taken.

So now I see that you are aware that my reference to an order to murder is a hyperbolic strawman? That is exactly what you did with your "take anything you desire on base" argument.
Your response about "lightin' you up" isn't relevant. My response to you was specifically about order vs lawful order. It wasn't about whether someone gets on base or not.

Military service members are NOT required to follow unlawful orders, and CAN effectively refuse to follow them. But they better be darn sure that they ARE unlawful orders. I specifically used the "shoot a noncombatant" as an extreme example because of your "anything on base" extreme example. Both are hyperbolic stretches of the statement of the other, and constitute an exaggerated strawman to make it appear that the opponent advocates something not stated.

 

[diesel556]

Yes, and I do disagree with you. There is NO onus to obey unlawful orders.


If an officer ordered you to shoot a non-combatant, would you?


Or, as you claim, you would "write a written protest with a witness" THEN shoot?

Anyone who says that they "have" to obey an unlawful order is just hiding behind bureaucracy. Though I'm very sure people get away with it on a daily basis, it doesn't always work out so well United States v. Keenan.

If your sense of ethics allows you to avoid the possibility of being disciplined at the cost of obeying an unlawful order then I feel sorry for you.

 

[eye95]

Anyone who says that they "have" to obey an unlawful order is just hiding behind bureaucracy. Though I'm very sure people get away with it on a daily basis, it doesn't always work out so well United States v. Keenan.

If your sense of ethics allows you to avoid the possibility of being disciplined at the cost of obeying an unlawful order then I feel sorry for you.

That raises the question: What would you have done, being the gate guard?

I might have ignorantly initially said the dog could not come on base due to the ban. Once informed that it was a guide dog, I would have quietly made the exception myself. If I turned out to be wrong and if it came to the attention of my superiors and if they took exception (a whole lot of ifs), then I guess I'd deal with the consequences, which I don't expect would be much.

Doing the right thing isn't always costly.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

That raises the question: What would you have done, being the gate guard?

I might have ignorantly initially said the dog could not come on base due to the ban. Once informed that it was a guide dog, I would have quietly made the exception myself. If I turned out to be wrong and if it came to the attention of my superiors and if they took exception (a whole lot of ifs), then I guess I'd deal with the consequences, which I don't expect would be much.

Doing the right thing isn't always costly.

You don't have the discretionary authority to do that. You weren't much of a sentry were you? You must've been a reservist or somethin'... Ignorantly? WTF are you talkin' about? You've got specific standing orders not to do something ... but you'd make up your own criteria? B.S.!

 

[Sonora Rebel]

Kent State. Just following orders, right?

I already responded that I have been in the military.

And I DO know that military members are not required to follow unlawful orders. The rest of your response IS a strawman argument against a position that I have not taken.

So now I see that you are aware that my reference to an order to murder is a hyperbolic strawman? That is exactly what you did with your "take anything you desire on base" argument.
Your response about "lightin' you up" isn't relevant. My response to you was specifically about order vs lawful order. It wasn't about whether someone gets on base or not.

Military service members are NOT required to follow unlawful orders, and CAN effectively refuse to follow them. But they better be darn sure that they ARE unlawful orders. I specifically used the "shoot a noncombatant" as an extreme example because of your "anything on base" extreme example. Both are hyperbolic stretches of the statement of the other, and constitute an exaggerated strawman to make it appear that the opponent advocates something not stated.

You weren't even born when Kent State happened. Nobody ordered anybody to fire... it was spontaneous among undisciplined raw NG's. You 'were in the military' huh? What... rank/rate and how long?

 

[Jim675]

Oh its easy to out-military the military.
Have you received training on identifying pits from other similar breeds?
Does the ban include 100% pits only, registered only, 10% and above? How can you tell by looking?
Are you going to demand AKC paperwork to clarify before allowing any dog on base? That COL's wife with the poodle is going to get seriously pissed.
Do you search the vehicle for pits or only stop the vehicle if the dog's head is out the window on your side?
If its on the other side is your eye calibrated enough to recognize a north-facing pit by its south end?

All of this assumes you have heard of the ban and have not heard of the ADA, when in fact the opposite is far more likely.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

Oh its easy to out-military the military.
Have you received training on identifying pits from other similar breeds?
Does the ban include 100% pits only, registered only, 10% and above? How can you tell by looking?
Are you going to demand AKC paperwork to clarify before allowing any dog on base? That COL's wife with the poodle is going to get seriously pissed.
Do you search the vehicle for pits or only stop the vehicle if the dog's head is out the window on your side?
If its on the other side is your eye calibrated enough to recognize a north-facing pit by its south end?

All of this assumes you have heard of the ban and have not heard of the ADA, when in fact the opposite is far more likely.

Is that right? You have personal experience I s'pose? Pits aren't the only breed banned. Pretty sure there'd be a 'poster' of such breeds for recognition by the sentries. Pretty certain they'd be versed in such... which is this case. COMMENT REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack

 

[wrightme]

Anyone who says that they "have" to obey an unlawful order is just hiding behind bureaucracy. Though I'm very sure people get away with it on a daily basis, it doesn't always work out so well United States v. Keenan.

If your sense of ethics allows you to avoid the possibility of being disciplined at the cost of obeying an unlawful order then I feel sorry for you.

Huh? Are you responding to me with that comment? It sounds as if you agree with me. I do not feel that anyone has to obey an unlawful order. In fact, I feel the exact opposite. Mr. Rebel feels that he has to obey an unlawful order.

 

[Jim675]

The military that I was in encouraged us to keep possession of our faculties at all times. I was always responsible for my actions.

Step one is always to recognize whether an order is lawful or unlawful.
If unlawful speak up and do not comply.
If unsure ask or verify if possible. If unable to prove an order is unlawful and not certain in my own mind, comply.

I have indeed refused an unlawful order and had a mighty uncomfortable few hours followed by a few days of uncertainty about whether next orders might be to America's heartland.

It came out just fine and somewhere out there a CW3 is wiser for the experience.

 

[wrightme]

You weren't even born when Kent State happened.

Correct. But. There are other examples, including examples where following orders DID result in criminal charges.

Nobody ordered anybody to fire... it was spontaneous among undisciplined raw NG's. You 'were in the military' huh? What... rank/rate and how long?

It is completely irrelevant. There is NO onus upon a military member to obey an unlawful order. In fact, quite the opposite.


http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm An excerpt from this link speaks of the Keenan case previously mentioned:

In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal."

Military members are NOT required to follow unlawful orders. How you believe it to be so is beyond me. Blind obedience is NOT the norm these days; though it might have been in your days. Hmm, well, maybe not. Keenan was from the Vietnam war, well before these days. I guess things haven't changed that much, eh? It wasn't required (nor was it affirmative defense) to follow unlawful orders even almost 50 years ago. When were YOU in the military?

 

[wrightme]

Is that right? You have personal experience I s'pose? Pits aren't the only breed banned. Pretty sure there'd be a 'poster' of such breeds for recognition by the sentries. Pretty certain they'd be versed in such... which is this case. you guys are a joke.

You should be reasonably able to discuss without insult.

 

[diesel556]

Huh? Are you responding to me with that comment? It sounds as if you agree with me. I do not feel that anyone has to obey an unlawful order. In fact, I feel the exact opposite. Mr. Rebel feels that he has to obey an unlawful order.

I was definitely agreeing with your response. I just didn't want to do a simple +1. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

 

[Jim675]

Is that right? You have personal experience I s'pose? Pits aren't the only breed banned. Pretty sure there'd be a 'poster' of such breeds for recognition by the sentries. Pretty certain they'd be versed in such... which is this case. you guys are a joke.

I stood my share of guard mounts on many different posts. Can't say as I ever once got a portfolio of dog breed pictures, known felons, or quarantined produce to keep off post. Despite your scorn and bluster your realm of experience in insufficient to support your statements.

 

[diesel556]

You should be reasonably able to discuss without insult.

That is not likely to happen, unfortunately. Prove me wrong Sonora!