Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Judge orders accused Fort Hood shooter to have his beard shaved [View all]LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)119. It's actually not, enlisted service members VOLUNTARILY GIVE UP SOME RIGHTS, whether YOU
think that's Constitutional or not. They give up their right to Free Speech, and agree their appearance will adhere to military code.
Can an enlisted member sport a brink pink mohawk? It's free expression, right? HOW MANY OF THEM DO YOU SEE? I am an Army brat, and I can tell you right now that you are wrong.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
122 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Between his trial and his execution, he'll have plenty of time to re-grow the beard
slackmaster
Sep 2012
#12
That all sounds great in theory, but in reality all rights are subject to restriction
slackmaster
Sep 2012
#39
Defending one's rights against infringement takes more resources than most can muster
slackmaster
Sep 2012
#104
It's actually not, enlisted service members VOLUNTARILY GIVE UP SOME RIGHTS, whether YOU
LaydeeBug
Sep 2012
#119
First, strict scutiny analysis doesn't apply to the UCMJ. Read Parker v. Levy and Quarles.
msanthrope
Sep 2012
#88
Except he didnt ask for a waiver when he signed up and instead agreed to abide by the military rules
cstanleytech
Sep 2012
#50
Then try looking at it as a contract. When he signed up he agreed with the contract
cstanleytech
Sep 2012
#65
If he were really serious about practicing his religion, he wouldn't have shot 42 people
Freddie Stubbs
Sep 2012
#100
US constitution does not govern miltary trials. try and wrap your head around that.
pasto76
Sep 2012
#75
Since logic. Has to be tried before can be found guilty of a crime worthy of punishment & discharge.
Bernardo de La Paz
Sep 2012
#30
He is still military and subject to its rules and regulations. His protestations of faith are a sham
Bernardo de La Paz
Sep 2012
#40
A sham. He shaved before he went psycho. He can shave now without religious exemption. nt.
Bernardo de La Paz
Sep 2012
#56
Exercise of authority (military discipline) is how it protects and defends. Now just let it rest.
Bernardo de La Paz
Sep 2012
#68
Endless repitition does not make your point clearer or stronger. It makes it less convincing.
Bernardo de La Paz
Sep 2012
#31
Could it be argued his "conscience" led to him shooting and killing?(n/m)
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
Sep 2012
#17
If people were tried only based on what they did and not what they thought, the term "hate crime"...
slackmaster
Sep 2012
#35
WADR to his choice of religion, he's using the beard issue to delay the administration of justice
slackmaster
Sep 2012
#29
I don't care much about what happens to Hassan as long as he's kept out of circulation
slackmaster
Sep 2012
#69
Not that it matters to me, but the Xian bible has prohibitions against shaving...one
spayneuter
Sep 2012
#115
If only his conscience were as staunchly against murdering innocents in cold blood
4th law of robotics
Sep 2012
#47
Yes and it says that to US it doesn't matter what sky fairies you worship
4th law of robotics
Sep 2012
#93
People who are not legal experts and have no knowledge of the military say one thing
4th law of robotics
Sep 2012
#91
I wonder why he didn't use the defense that his "religion" requires him to kill infidels?
spayneuter
Sep 2012
#42
Having the beard will prejudice his trial. The military is going to be scrupulous in this case
riderinthestorm
Sep 2012
#45
Why? Because you have used pretty much the same argument with everyone in this thread who
cstanleytech
Sep 2012
#92