General Speaks and Claims 'Personal Views'

I was a member of the military for 10 years including 2 years inactive duty.

CNN Article

I know exactly what it means to make a public statement in uniform. This is something that is taught when you start out in the military in Basic military training.

1) When you are in uniform you are not to make any public statements unless specifically authorized to do so.

2) Any public statemens made while in uniform are to be official communications of the military.

3) You do not have freedom of speech while you are performing your military duty in a public forum.

So General Pace as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would certainly have authorization to make public statements at any time even as high up as he is in the military he is still restricted by the second two 'rules'.

He should have the self-control to not make public statements while in uniform or performing his duty that might be considered military policy when in fact they are not.

He cannot claim that any statements made while serving and making statements publically are his personal views or by implication protecting his 'first amendment' rights to free speech, when in fact free speech does not exist for a military person serving and making public statements.

I'm sure he can appreciate that he wouldn't want his soldiers under him to discover free speech and first amendment protections any time they have a personal opinion about his orders. Nor can he make first amendment statements while in uniform serving his duty and making public statements.

Calls for him to apologize are foolish. You should never apologize for a statement that is a true representation for who you are and he shouldn't apologize for his statement. General Pace; however, should apologize to the military and himself for losing his battle of self-control and making personal statements as a public representative of the military. He knows he did something wrong (even if it isn't what people think he did wrong) and should make amends.

He has revealed his true beliefs that a fairly large percentage of his comrades in arms are people that he dispises and feels are immoral.

If, as one of the major leaders of the military, he believes as he does that gay activities are immoral and criminal then he should be true to himself. He should pursue gay activities just as much as he would pursue any other known criminals in the military. After all, what kind of moral integrity does he have if he'll allow the known immoral and criminal to fight for his country? He has revealed himself as a bigot and hypocrite.

A bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ - so much so that he believes these people who perform sexual practices that are unlike his own are criminal.

He is a hypocrite - a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs - in that he calls the actions of gay people crimes but does nothing to pursue them.

Those that are strong in to military virtues, regardless of their moral beliefs, should no longer want to be lead by a General who lack so much self-control.