I don't thing it's possible to be a member without being a participant. I think just being member constitutes participation.

---

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix

I prefer my Nazis on the other side (of a punch, bayonet, rifle, rocket, missile, etc, etc, etc) getting their asses kicked by the US Military not members of it.

I'm not sure if this gray area is a new interpretation or a long standing policy.

I've always had the same opinion as Gen Neller (when he was Commandant of the Marine Corps) that there is "no place" for racists in the US Military.

From a couple of years ago:



No wonder Stars and Stripes is in jeopardy of losing its funding recently ... with a closing paragraph like this:

https://www.stripes.com/...rns-persist-1.483558

---

Suffer Well.

I was recently talking to one former Marine officer, and he was telling me that around that same time (but might have been the 80's), the Marine Corps. basically lost control of Camp Pendleton. There was open gang membership, and places you couldn't go at night, etc. Much better now.

My Dad was commissioned in 1970 in the Marines. Race relations were awful for most of that decade and saw improvements in the 80's.

The summary you posted here of stories you heard are accurate.

https://www.wunc.org/...es-fought-each-other

---

Suffer Well.

Wait. This is peculiar.

Aren't some neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups considered terrorist organizations by the FBI?

So, by extension, does this mean that all members or terrorist organizations can be in the US Military? Or just said groups that are "ok"?

Disclaimer: I am a non-USA people.


ETA: Domestic terrorist organizations by the FBI

In 1976 while my ship was in overhaul at the Bethlehem steel shipyard in East Boston, we would escort our black sailors to and from the only gym in town to play basketball. On board the ship race relations were just part and parcel of good order and discipline.

Today's neo nazi white supremist activity in the ranks is acknowledged and while passive endorsement or membership won't get you removed from service, the commanders commitment to and responsibility for maintaining good order and discipline remains unchanged.

Gay men and women serve. Christians and Muslims serve. Ex-felons and would be felons serve. Pacifists and war mongers serve. Sexual predators and eunuchs serve. It is not so much as "Uncle Sam Wants You (the neo nazi)! But more like "Uncle Sam Will Take You" but you must know we have some rules and boundaries on how we all might get along and see to our mission. So it really is our way or the highway. It is the recruits choice to follow and the leaders to lead. You never know when a skinhead will enter the service , honorably serve and then leave the service as a first class citizen accepting of all races and creeds.

If it's okay for neo-Nazis to work in the White House, then why shouldn't we have them in the army as well?

Personally I think this shows very low standards. I certainly wouldn't hire, wish to work with, nor especially put my life in the hands of someone who claimed membership in any hate group.

Where and how will the lines be drawn? A supervisor can keep an eye on an airman who is an acknowledged member of the neo-Nazi Atomwaffen Division to see if he is an "active participant" or not, but then what? What about a Jewish lieutenant in a squadron where the squadron commander is a member (but not an "active participant") in this organization? Will he/she get the same treatment when it comes to subjective assignments and promotions as the non-Jewish members of the squadron?

I don't see a need to recruit or retain neo-Nazis, anti-gay, MS-13, Hell's Angels, etc., group members in the US military. It doesn't matter whether or not they are simply "members" or "active participants".

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

I served from '91-'13, from my perspective a fairly benign period of racial undertones. One thing during my time that still stands out to me to this day, tattoos. In the late 90's or early 00's the Marine Corps changed its policy for selection to officer programs (from the enlisted ranks). In my case, selection to Warrant Officer. I had a good friend, from the south, who sported a confederate flag tattoo. He was easily one of the greatest guys I knew, treated everyone fairly and with respect. He was also thought to be one of the most technically proficient Marines within his occ field, a slam dunk for selection. The year we put in applications was the first or second year Marines were required to submit photos of all tattoos and a brief description of their meaning. His description of his confederate flag tattoo was innocuous, and 100% believable as something a dumb 18 y/o from the south does to fit in. He did not get selected, and while the selection boards do not give any reason outside of the briefing room, all common wisdom at that time was it was because of his one tattoo.

While my friend was never accused of or claimed to be associated with any kind of hate group, he was likely identified and denied promotion opportunities because of the association his tattoo had. He ultimately he had it removed, served out the rest of his time honorably and moved on with life.

So while there may be concerns, and rightly so, about letting young men and women with known associations with hate groups join the military, there are no doubt still safe guards in place to prevent them from sticking around too long.

I cannot speak to the other services, but the Marine Corps is so small, if any one Marine has a particular animosity towards another because of race, that shit bird generally gets ostracized, as there is no room or tolerance for that kind of belief system. Just my .02 after a 22 year career dealing with young men from every conceivable background.

---

--------------------------
The secret of a long life is you try not to shorten it.
-Nobody

I can only echo mck414 comments. No you don't actively recruit and probably should ask or train the recruit force to passively screen out those who volunteer they might lean towards those groups. Once in the force the bad apples will make themselves known is irritants to good order and discipline and will be eased out of the service under less than honorable conditions or not be reenlisted.

WRT to officer corps, I would hope that command screening would preclude such situations. In your example, squadron Cdr and jewish Lt. I would hope that Lt has recourse for external review.

But, if somebody pledges allegiance to some kind of religious group in the M.E...........then........Guantanamo?

Right.........

Did I say that? Am unsure of your position here. Might you help me out of the box either I have put myself in or that you have put me in. To clarify, I will leave it simply as religious freedoms are a given with service to country. Practice freely. Serve openly. Chaplains remain in place to allow expression for said religious freedom. It gets sticky when religion spills into job performance or matters of good order and discipline and here is where leadership resolves matters, hopefully far short of detention in Guantanamo or appearance in UCMJ defined courtroom.

You didn't say anything of the sort.

But, I'll swallow the hook..........

If a person pledges allegiance to a known violent and terrorist organization then they're an enemy combatant against the US. That is, if it's Isis. Obviously. As they should be.

But, if a person pledges allegiance to a known domestic terror group like neo Nazis or some other group (who have in the past and recently actually plotted and succeeded in domestic terror)................then it's just a bunch of good ole boy white guys doing old school and a little unsavory good ole boy white guy things. Despite the fact that a few times over the years that fun has turned deadly (in fact, more deadly domestically in the post-911 era than M.E. based terrorism has been on US soil).

It's not a one size fits all shoe, surely. Not all skinheads and white supremacists go around stringing people up and bombing churches any more. But some have done things the past few years. The strings are there. And the military is OK with people being a member of an organization that has those ties? However loose?

I'm not ok with it.

I was never a recruiter, but knew many of them over my time. Yes, at times, they signup less than stellar individuals, but I doubt and would bet a substantial amount of money they never knowingly recruited members of terrorist organizations (foreign or domestic).

I was recruited in July 1991, I don't remember my recruiter asking me anything about associations with unsavory groups, only being asked about drug use and homosexual activity. I wouldn't be surprised if they ask about the unsavory groups now. Unfortunately, recruiters are limited to simple criminal background checks and keep their ears open for anything you might say that sounds an alarm. Unless a recruiter is given full reign to review your social media history, there is now way for them to verify you are not affiliated with any kind of hate group. However, as a few of us pointed out, there are mechanisms in place to identify and weed out those who subscribe to such groups.

As for pledging of allegiances, my memory of the UCMJ is a bit rusty, but the Oath of Office (for officers) is legally binding. I am not 100% certain about the Oath of Enlistment for the enlisted ranks as they sign a contract for a specified period. No pledges would be recognized by the military legal system.

---

--------------------------
The secret of a long life is you try not to shorten it.
-Nobody

That helps. So we are not talking religion. We are talking domestic terror group member then becoming a member of the armed forces. I am sure the military is not OK with said people as well. To what extent do we vet for that? I do not know. Or better yet how do we vet for that? As an old man I can't remember how clueless I was at the age of 18 or 19 or how impressionable I was at that age either. I do know my time in the service changed me profoundly.

So do we have the recruiter vet the man and obtain a confession "bless me sargeant I have sinned, for I am a member of a hate group and I am sorry and pledge to renounce said membership." This man then takes an enlistment oath and he promptly goes back on his word, causes all sorts of headaches and is shit canned out. Or is it that we have this same young man and not vet him thoroughly to obtain his admission of membership in a domestic terror group, and his tour of duty involves more than one firefight in combat and he now owes his life to a black man who saved his ass. He separates from the service and is friends for life with this black man, runs for elected office and is instrumental on helping to establish programs to defeat this domestic terrorism? Or as a third instance, do we just show this wannabe fighter recruit the door never allowing him to raise his right hand and we then alert the FBI and have them put him under a 24hr watch?

How about we let the military do the best they can to field a professional armed force worthy of our respect and gratitude. Being OK or not OK with a complex issue is far different than making it work.

Limiting this to neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

This bit in the link I posted earlier is what I found disturbing.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/02/12/neo-nazi-group-membership-may-not-get-you-booted-military-officials-say.html

Robert Grabosky, deputy director of Law Enforcement at the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.
Grabosky said that membership in a white nationalist group "is not prohibited," but "active participation" in the group could lead to an administrative discharge, at a commander's discretion.

The link also included the following.

Air Force Master Sgt. Cory Reeves, allegedly a leader in the Colorado branch of the supremacist group Identity Evropa, who posted racist memes and spread far-right propaganda.
In November 2019, the Air Force demoted Reeves to technical sergeant, but he was initially allowed to remain in the service. In December, the Air Force announced that proceedings had begun to dismiss him from the service.


Someone who is a leader in a white supremacist group and who is posting racist memes ought to be removed from service. None of this "active participation" nonsense. The military shouldn't spilt hairs trying to determine how actively someone is participating. When an individual enters the military, tell them if they choose to become members or maintain membership in one of these groups, they are also choosing to leave the service.

As far as membership in ISIS, MS-13, etc., that shouldn't even be a discussion.

I ran across some folks in the USAF with fairly whacky religious views. The "commander's discretion" solution generally worked in these situations, but sometimes there were situations that had to be elevated above the unit commander's level.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a nonprofit that advocates for separation of church and state in the military, sent the letter after receiving what its founder and president Michael "Mikey" Weinstein said were 41 complaints about Brigadier General E. John Teichert.
Teichert, who flew combat missions over Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, according to his official bio, runs a website called Prayers at Lunchtime for the United States (PLUS). On it, in addition to short essays on Bible passages, and calls to pray to make America more Christian, he identifies himself only as "John." The website doesn't mention Edwards Air Force Base, but Teichert recently posted a picture of his newly acquired general's epaulet star, alongside a note about his new rank on the PLUS site.


https://www.newsweek.com/trump-evangelicals-god-prayer-air-force-secret-christian-online-ministry-1070772

Religious intolerance is systemic and pervasive at the Air Force Academy and, if nothing changes, it could result in “prolonged and costly” litigation, according to a report issued by a group advocating strict separation of church and state.
The 14-page report, released Thursday, listed incidents of mandatory prayers, proselytizing by teachers, insensitivity to religious minorities and allegations that evangelical Christianity is the preferred faith at the institution.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/evangelical-christians-dominate-air-force-academy-report-says/

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

I know militarily members have reduced civil liberties i.e. speech could the membership allowed versus active participation be so as not to infringe on free association rights? Otherwise the reasoning is illogical

Doesn't the military have a 'we'll fix you mentality'. Break them down then build them up? Sure, you want the best and brightest but you're also willing to take in people where the Service is their last resort. Sure, there has to be boundaries and maybe what your describing is outside of that but the institution is stronger than the individual.

Its an interesting topic.

Hm...I never actually thought of it this way. Interesting comment. I've watched a couple of documentaries on white supremacy, and often times, you just see a bunch of kids who never had a family to speak of, low SES, no education, and they get preyed on by long time white supremacy folks. I suppose the military could be a good way to beat his shit out of these ill-guided kids.

Thanks for the additional links and further clarification. I don't see much daylight between our positions except that I would still split the hair for the recruit and first term enlistee to allow for passive membership, if provided some form of confession up front ; or if while serving there is no indication within the command of a negative climate because of membership. Not quite "don't ask, don't tell" more like "don't self ID and don't contribute to a negative command climate". You never know if a change of heart will overwhelm the youngster.

There should be no splittng for all others. Membership in and of itself ought be a disqualifier along the line of our zero drug tolerance. Pop positive and you are out. Do not pass go, do not collect and you have no appeal.

As for the subject of religiosity and all things military, that is why we have chaplains. Commanders command troops and chaplains lead troops in worship. If a commander has any say about religion, it is only to direct the chaplain to pray.

I am glad to read that the Government is limiting job interviews with Communist Liberals shitheads. Thank you.

Only if they are active participants.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

That reminds of an incident I had while on duty in Okinawa, Camp Hanson. The base SgtMaj stopped in and told us there were some Marines practicing witchcraft and to leave them the hell alone. Now you cannot tell a Marine Sergeant and a young 2ndLt, with nothing better to do than wait for a phone to ring, to leave someone the hell alone. The OOD and I jumped into the duty vehicle and drove out to some remote part of the base to watch find out what was really going on. Come to find out, they were Wiccan and celebrating some Wiccan event. By the time the Wiccans were done with their Love of Trees dance (that's the only way I can describe it), a small crowd had assembled, and we all slightly more entertained than before.

---

--------------------------
The secret of a long life is you try not to shorten it.
-Nobody

Really don't like the title of this thread--AT ALL

I fully acknowledge that the US Military has wrestled with its share of our social ills.

Sure, when i came into the Army we were coming out of the Vietnam War and as much that war had been traumatic for our Nation--it was much more so in the US Army. So sure I had to wear a .45 when I was on staff duty; and i didn't dare go into the barracks unless accompanied by another officer or senior NCO. It was a crappy time. But we fought our way out of that.

That time was based on our social challenges and ills at that time. To try to ascribe those problems in the US Military to white supremacy, etc is just a load of crap.

Now some silly shithead is gonna try to twist the above statement into 'the fact' that Black Power rebellion within the US Military was due to inherent White Supremecy within the military.

Just a load of crap

We're very fortunate that we (the US Military are a reflection of our society--and as such remain connected to our society). We merely suffered from the same malaise as the Country we protect.

And were foremost in healing its ills.

PS: Malefactors are always trying to infiltrate us to their own nefarious purposes. To the best extent possible the US Military combats against this thru various methods (tattoo examination upon initial entry; drug testing; security clearance investigations, etc)

---

Steve