Army officials condemn West Point grad for pro-Kaepernick tweets
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Army officials condemn West Point grad for pro-Kaepernick tweets

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cobbs Creek, VA
    Posts
    15,746

    Army officials condemn West Point grad for pro-Kaepernick tweets

    Army officials condemn West Point grad for pro-Kaepernick tweets
    .
    By Chris Perez
    .
    The US Army has condemned the actions of a West Point grad and current infantry officer who has been posting pro-communism messages on social media as a show of support for Colin Kaepernick.
    .
    In one of his most recent posts, Second Lt. Spenser Rapone can be seen wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt under his military uniform.
    .
    In another, he holds up a fist and points his cap toward the camera — showing the words “Communism will win” scrawled on the inside.
    .
    “#VeteransForKaepernick,” Rapone wrote in the now-viral tweet, which was posted Sunday amid the NFL’s headline-grabbing national anthem protests.
    .
    The post prompted Army officials to open an investigation Tuesday after it sparked widespread outrage on social media.
    .
    “Hey @realDonaldTrump, can you pass this along to Secretary Mattis? He might want to know about open Communists in the ranks,” wrote one Twitter user.
    .
    “West Point cadets are under contract with the DoD,” another said in response. “This is a punishable offense under the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice]. Making political statements while in uniform.”
    .
    Army officials issued a statement Tuesday condemning Rapone’s actions.
    .
    “The U.S. Military Academy strives to develop leaders who internalize the academy’s motto of Duty, Honor, Country, and who live the Army values. Second Lieutenant Rapone’s actions in no way reflect the values of the U.S. Military Academy or the U.S. Army,” the statement said.
    .
    “As figures of public trust, members of the military must exhibit exemplary conduct, and are prohibited from engaging in certain expressions of political speech in uniform. Second Lieutenant Rapone’s chain of command is aware of his actions and is looking into the matter. The academy is prepared to assist the officer’s chain of command as required.”
    .
    After his photo supporting Kaepernick went viral, Rapone appeared to mock the ensuing outrage.
    .
    “In case there was any lingering doubt, hasta la victoria siempre,” Rapone tweeted Monday, attaching the photo showing the Guevara shirt. The latter Spanish phrase translates as “Ever onward to victory” and was a favorite of Guevara’s. It was also the title of a 1997 movie about Guevara’s life.
    .
    The infantry officer has never been one to shy away from his political views.
    .
    He has admitted being a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and has even posted pictures showing his membership card — alongside his military name patch.
    .
    “Let there be no doubt that we have unequivocal solidarity with and pride in Spenser. He’s an exceptional soldier,” the Twitter account, @DSAVeterans, wrote Tuesday.
    .
    The DSA’s Veterans Working Group, of which Rapone is a member, also offered support to him in a statement.
    .
    “Spenser Rapone is our comrade and we fully support, defend, and encourage him to take whatever steps he sees necessary to express his political beliefs and continue to organize towards a socialist future,” the group said.
    .
    Rapone has displayed his pro-communism views in many different ways — posting selfies with “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx and pictures of One World Trade Center with a red star on the top of its spire.
    .
    He has previously complained about the military reifying “capitalism/imperialism with a brutally hierarchical rank structure.”
    .
    Read More: Army officials condemn West Point grad for pro-Kaepernick tweets | New York Post
    .
    My Thoughts:
    .
    Get this trash out of the Army. He needs to be held accountable for making political statements while in uniform. He is a disgrace to the uniform. SOD Mattis needs to lower the hammer on this POS.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  2.   
  3. #2
    Or defending a persons First Amendment Rights?
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cobbs Creek, VA
    Posts
    15,746
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    Or defending a persons First Amendment Rights?
    His first Amendment Rights don't come in effect, his making political statements while in uniform, is against the UCMJ and he should know that when he signed his name on the dotted line in accepting his acceptance to enter the military. Going to school at West Point at a cost of hundreds of thousands of tax payers money, which he didn't have to pay back by only agreeing to complete 6 years in the service in the Army and getting paid while he doing it, is a steal.
    .
    His complete disregard for what the military stands for, is disrespectful to the country and to the thousands of Army men and women that came before him, PERIOD, something you find hard to understand.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    His first Amendment Rights don't come in effect, his making political statements while in uniform, is against the UCMJ and he should know that when he signed his name on the dotted line in accepting his acceptance to enter the military. Going to school at West Point at a cost of hundreds of thousands of tax payers money, which he didn't have to pay back by only agreeing to complete 6 years in the service in the Army and getting paid while he doing it, is a steal.
    .
    His complete disregard for what the military stands for, is disrespectful to the country and to the thousands of Army men and women that came before him, PERIOD, something you find hard to understand.
    I'll type slowly so you can follow.

    I did not say exercising his rights, I said defending the person's right of free speech.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  6. Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    I'll type slowly so you can follow.

    I did not say exercising his rights, I said defending the person's right of free speech.
    If you really want to know what can or cannot be done then Google UCMJ article 88. That's the catch all for political activities. It's different for active, reserve, retired too so it can be about as clear as mud in some cases.

    The Place to Be

  7. #6
    The young lieutenant is about to find out, the hard way, that the military doesn't operate like a democracy. He does give up some rights by being a member.



    “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

    Elements
    (1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;


    (2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;

    (3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and

    (4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element

    (5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.

    Explanation
    The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity.

    If not personally contemptuous, adverse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.

    Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged.


    Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.

    https://www.thebalance.com/punitive-...e-ucmj-3356854

    Another possible charge:


    https://www.army.mil/article/73367/S...ble_under_UCMJ

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Oldgrunt View Post
    The young lieutenant is about to find out, the hard way, that the military doesn't operate like a democracy. He does give up some rights by being a member.



    “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

    Elements
    (1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;


    (2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;

    (3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and

    (4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element

    (5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.

    Explanation
    The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity.

    If not personally contemptuous, adverse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.

    Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged.


    Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.

    https://www.thebalance.com/punitive-...e-ucmj-3356854

    Another possible charge:


    https://www.army.mil/article/73367/S...ble_under_UCMJ
    Oldest trick in the book for service academy grifters and loafers. Do something with a light courts martial gig (used to be saying they were gay), get a free undergraduate (or most of one) degree, and a slap on the wrist and then jettisoned.

    I would expect they will be a sight more prickly about a communist that can't shut his mouth or wears their uniform while espousing their views. That statement inside his cover is going really piss off some people on his Courts Martial. I predict him paying back every nickel.

    The Place to Be

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cobbs Creek, VA
    Posts
    15,746
    His actions is proof positive that stupid actions have consequences.
    .
    Different subject: Anyone know what's going on in the Bergdahl Courts Martial and your opinion what should happen to him?
    .
    My opinion is, he chose to desert his post during a military conflict to go over to the enemies side, so a dishonorable discharge and a few years in Leavenworth would be my recommendation.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  10. Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    His actions is proof positive that stupid actions have consequences.
    .
    Different subject: Anyone know what's going on in the Bergdahl Courts Martial and your opinion what should happen to him?
    .
    My opinion is, he chose to desert his post during a military conflict to go over to the enemies side, so a dishonorable discharge and a few years in Leavenworth would be my recommendation.
    Bergdahl's guilt is just fact. He left his post and headed in the direction of the enemy vice retreating. Either direction is wrong but does perhaps speak to motive. I know he goes on trial sometime this Fall and unless they have evidence that speaks to his motives, then he should be charged only with what the facts support. He would end up in a Federal lock up based on just the basic facts of the case.

    The bigger and more egregious crime will never be prosecuted. Trading Bergdahl for 5 Taliban fighters. Save the moral arguments for us being in Afghanistan in the first place if you would. Wars are only moral for the winners and losers generally don't get a vote. Neither do the troops that fight them.

    We've been there a loonnngggg time and I don't see us winning. Whatever that is supposed to look like anyway. Ask for an opinion from some of these vets you see living under bridges or trying to put their memories in the rear view mirror sitting on a stool at the VFW or The Legion.

    The Place to Be

  11. #10
    This is the group that the officer (?) belongs to. From their banner, they seem to be people from the Vietnam era as opposed to today. Just think, if the guy gets kicked out of the service, he may go on to become a senator one day. It has happened before. Or even Secy of State. Damn, what a world we live in!


    https://twitter.com/DSAVeterans/media

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast