Critical of leaders?

[RiverAux]

Having been on this forum for years I can't think of any threads where any President was criticized, probably because there are very few situations where the President has anything to do with CAP.  Since this forum is fairly restrictive on what subjects can be discussed, I don't see it as any sort of issue.

Now, we have talked about Congress in regards to various CAP-related bills and I recall a few hits on John McCain for statements he made about CAP many years ago. 

IMHO, it is perfectly acceptable to criticize CAP and its national leaders as well as the AF and its leaders for policies and other decisions that they make so long as you're not just launching nasty personal attacks on them.  I'm fine with someone saying that Gen. X made a stupid decision, but calling General X stupid is a different story. 

[BillB]

Over the past seven years I could have made negative comments on the National Legal Officer, several Wings Commanders and a former disgraced National Commander. But if you look at my posts all have been positive. Well, Ok, some were humorous. I see no reason to bring dirty laundry to CAP Talk and vent or rant. CAP Talk serves a purpose of informing the members of CAP or those interested in the organization. A few people that post on CAP Talk have had negative actions taken against them, and none that I have seen have posted critical comments about the leadership involved. There was one person years ago that did but was barred and returned under another name and was barred again. That that was only one person with an axe to grind. If anyone has the "right" to make critical comments oabout the leadership of CAP it's me, but you will not ever see my posts with negative comments. MY venting on CAP Talk with negative comments about Bag of doughnuts only hurts the organization and accomplishs nothing constructive.
Many posts bring up problems internal to CAP. discussion of these may provide some answers that have some value. But in general little can be done to correct the problems by ranting about them on this forum. After 50 years in CAP, I value the organization to much to critize the leadership or the missions of the organization.

[lordmonar]

Critical of leaders?    Yes we can be critial of leaders in and out of CAP.

Our Core Value of RESPECT alwasy rules though.

It is okay to say "I think (The Presidient/NHQ/Gen Carr/My wing Commander/my Flight Sgt) mad a bad decision....let's discuss it".
It is wrong to day "The POTUS/NHQ/Gen Carr/My wing Commander/My Flight Sgt) is a [censored].....let's call him names and belittle him/her/them."

[RogueLeader]

Cyborg, my comment was that we do NOT have a commander in chief like the military. I agree with you that it is in poor taste to bash them. Even if it might be warranted.

[krnlpanick]

My understanding is that in day-to-day business the CoC ends with the National Commander and when on AFAM the CoC then changes to SECAF then CinC.

[RogueLeader]

My understanding is that in day-to-day business the CoC ends with the National Commander and when on AFAM the CoC then changes to SECAF then CinC.

Unless there is some provision in any cap regulation, that is the case, and I've never heard of it. I KNOW we would have talked about it, RM would have made a point of it I'm sure.

[MSG Mac]

My understanding is that in day-to-day business the CoC ends with the National Commander and when on AFAM the CoC then changes to SECAF then CinC.

Unless there is some provision in any cap regulation, that is the case, and I've never heard of it. I KNOW we would have talked about it, RM would have made a point of it I'm sure.

No he's too busy worrying about all us wannabees joining CAP and using up his benefits.

[RiverAux]

My understanding is that in day-to-day business the CoC ends with the National Commander and when on AFAM the CoC then changes to SECAF then CinC.

Nope, CAP is always ONLY under the command of CAP.  The AF can tell us to stand down from a mission and the State Director has some authority to stop certain activities but in no way are they in our chain of command even on an AF authorized (not commanded) mission.  If we're on an AFAM and General Blowhard orders that we search grid 241B rather than 241A we can tell him no. 

[krnlpanick]

I stand corrected - thanks for clarifying

[RogueLeader]

One would think that they would have the sense to not overstep their bounds.  From what I've seen, they stay in their lanes.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Ok, I have read through this entire thread in one sit down, and by the fourth post I was surprised that RM hadn't came up, and about post ten, I thought... Cool, maybe it is being gotten over, but I can see now hat it is not. It's been a few days since I have noticed a post from him, maybe I have gotten good at blocking him out, but let's just drop it, and see how long he is gone for.

I take the stance on this topic as I was ordered to in the Army.
You can have your own opinions and views and beliefs, but keep them to yourself. We have no reason or gain from speaking about POTUS or any high ranking military official personally no matter in a good light or negative. Speak of the policies, discuss about how you view the policy and if you think it is a good one or not, and how it helps or hinders, but do not speak of the individual or individuals that made the policy. Nor should you us any sort of language that can be used to identify a person. The term stupid should not be used because a person can be called stupid, thus could be construed as you stating that you think the policy maker is stupid.

There is no reason that I can see that we should be talking about the individual policy maker, because even if we are speaking of them in a good light, it could be construed as an endorsement by our organization.

[Major Lord]

Is it appropriate for CAP members to be publicly critical of CAP leaders, military leaders and elected officials?   
I know that membership in an organization does not take away individual rights.  To ask another way, is it appropriate in this forum to speak ill of an USAF general or the President?

Captalk is essentially private property, so the "owners" ( which may be too nebulous a word) get to decide where the boundaries lie. I think that if you choose to keep to the facts, that they would not object to criticism of anyone, insofar, at least, as  it relates to CAP. I think its important to distinguish between critical observation, and baseless criticism when you offer critical comments about anyone inside our chain of command (or higher) . An example might be that calling the POTUS a "Kenyan" is unsupportable by the facts on record, but calling him a "Keynesian" is clearly supported by a basis in fact. The truth of the latter proposition is so self-evident that many might not even consider it "criticism", and many proudly wear the description without shame.

Major Lord

[Extremepredjudice]

Owner. http://whois.domaintools.com/captalk.net

Only one person is on the WHOIS data.

[SarDragon]

Owner. http://whois.domaintools.com/captalk.net

Only one person is on the WHOIS data.

I think we can include at least Messrs. Kieloch and Horn into the 'owner' group. They run the site. There are also moderators who participate in control functions.

[Eclipse]

Domain contact information means zero in terms of ownership.

Bottom line, some people view "Free Speech" in the same way they view "All You Can Eat" - as a challenge.
If you act that way, there may well be consequences.

[SARDOC]

CAP Talk has a code of conduct of which the mods enforce very well.  "Criticizing" anyone is considered, IMO, a violation of the code however, there is nothing wrong with giving criticism on actions or policies of Civil Air Patrol or its leadership.  It's what makes this forum tick.  As far as our president is concerned; his actions and policies are open to critical commentary too.  There is no regulation prohibiting open and honest discusion or, our feelings about the happenings of our organization or country... As long as we keep it civil.

Unless you are in the Armed Forces.

Members of the Military just as in this forum are more than welcome to disagree with the Commander in Chief on policy as does any citizen on this forum.  The Marine that was recently discharged went further than just stating he disagreed with policies.  He made libelous comments and even stated he would not obey the orders of the Commander in Chief which is in direct contradiction to the Oath of Enlistment to which he was sworn to.  So the Question is did he lie about not being willing to obey lawfully issued orders or did he lie when he took his oath of enlistment?  Very different. 
 

[RogueLeader]

As an aside, he said he would disobey UNLAWFUL orders, and never said, posted,commented, etc that he would disobey any lawful order.

[SARDOC]

As an aside, he said he would disobey UNLAWFUL orders, and never said, posted,commented, etc that he would disobey any lawful order.

It is the duty of all soldiers to not obey an unlawful order.  He was under the impression that the Commander in Chief was unqualified for the job making all orders issued therefor unlawful.  He's not the first to try that argument, he's also not the first to lose at that argument.

[abdsp51]

As an aside, he said he would disobey UNLAWFUL orders, and never said, posted,commented, etc that he would disobey any lawful order.

It is the duty of all soldiers to not obey an unlawful order.  He was under the impression that the Commander in Chief was unqualified for the job making all orders issued therefor unlawful.  He's not the first to try that argument, he's also not the first to lose at that argument.

But yet a senior officer can make contemptuous remarks about former President Bush and get off scott free.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I'm not aware of the above incident, but if the President is out of office, then he is not the Commander in Chief.