Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (15938)	11/12/2003 12:37:02 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

Loose lips sink ships when you divulge classified operational intelligence. I did not mean by that expression that there was classified info involved. If there is some subtlety specific to classified information in that expression that I overlooked, I apologize for my error. I meant it simply as mouthing off in a way that gives advantage to the enemy in a time of war. Reasonable people can disagree about whether his words were helpful or harmful to our war effort, or whether they didn't matter at all. My point is simply that that issue is the crux of the Boykin matter--whether it was appropriate for him to make those statements--rather than a question of religious freedom as some have made it. The religious aspects of this are a red herring, IMO. I am familiar with the ethics requirements of the Feds. They differ somewhat from department to department, but they do typically limit speech. There are two common constraints on speech that apply here. One is that speakers typically need advance clearance of any speech. The other is that speakers are required to make clear to their audience that they are speaking for themselves, not from their official position. It is doubtful to me that his speech would have passed muster with the ethics czars, given that it was utterly opposed to the position taken by the President. And it is clear to me that, since he spoke in uniform, that he didn't differentiate sufficiently between his personal opinion and his official position. What he did has all the earmarks of an ethics violation. At the very least, he showed poor judgment. It was a mistake to do what he did. He has apparently ceased that activity. Hopefully there is greater awareness of the impropriety of his actions. All this shouting about religious freedom overlooks the reality of an ethical violation by an otherwise good soldier. Even good soldiers sometimes make mistakes.