West Point graduate and Army infantry officer Spenser Rapone has been drummed out of the military after receiving an “other than honorable discharge” from the military. He caused a stir with a posted photo of his West Point cap with the words “Communism will win” written inside. He also displayed a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath his uniform jacket. Rapone is clearly a dedicated socialist, but the action raises the issue of whether being a communist or socialist is disqualifying. His removal is widely tied to a letter sent by Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fl.). Rapone is scheduled to be a featured speaker at the conference “Socialism 2018” in Chicago this year.
Rapone’s “Communism will win” message in his graduation cap set off a firestorm but that message was not on the outside of the cap. He was active on social media advocating for the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and heralding Communist figures like Che Guevara. He was however clearly a good soldier given his assignment to the heralded 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y. He has also deployed to Afghanistan and received a combat infantryman badge (CIB).
The question is whether his political views — and his use of social media — warranted an other than honorable discharge given his service in a combat area.
Rapone uses the Twitter handle is “punkproletarian.” The cited reason appears to be his violation of uniform regulations though the teeshirt and graduation message were covered up.
A more serious problem may have been revealed on his website, where Rapone declared that he “could no longer stomach the immorality of U.S. imperialism.” It also notes that he resigned his commission.
He will now likely become a rallying figure for both communists and socialists in the United States.
if you are dedicated to communism, then you are not dedicated to the US Constitution. In other words you are a traitor and should not be in the military.
I disagree that his assignment as a 2nd Lt to the 10th Mountain is indicative of his skills as a soldier. He was, at that point, a green Army officer so they put him where ever they needed him. Now, had he been assigned to say, 10th SFG, that might be a different story.
In any case, his political career has been launchd.
Rapone declared that he “could no longer stomach the immorality of U.S. imperialism.”
Not including the M.I.C., Rapone has a lot of company.
War is a racket.
If he were authentic he wouldn’t have attended West Point. Leftst politics are a racket and this Rapone clown simply pulled a John Kerry. That’s all.
Rubio is Not half the man this young man is! Rubio is a small vindictive and corrupt human being. As a Senator he is arrogrant and incompetent. I’m appalled that West Point would do anything on the basis of his request. I’d like to know to whom I can write a letter to to get Rubio and the rest of his Republican Kleotocrats out of the Senate and the Congress and the Whitehouse!
Nice way to coward yourself out of the issue at hand. Let me know when you put on your big boy panties and want to talk substance.
So you want to talk substance…let’s do that big boy. First Amendment, did you hear about it? That’s what our soldiers have fought for! He can say what he wants as long as when he is called to serve he does and does so honorably. It appears by his record he has. So why was he booted. According to our learned professor because the courageous chicken hawk Senator Marco “send me a check Rubio” sent a letter! Those are the reported facts. His tee shirt and his hat don’t rise to the level of bootable violations you and I both know that. He was booted because the little, tiny guy said he had to go. It’s disgusting.
By the way I didn’t know he had taken an oath of loyalty to American Imperialism. He took an oath to defend the CONSITUTION. I don’t see Rubio doing much of that lately!
As to capitalism, lots of people are sick of unbridled and unregulated capitalism as it is practiced in the US. Even Adam Smith wouldn’t approve.
As to Che Guevara, get a life. I don’t like him either but there are plenty of people with tee shirts like that. Are they all traitors?
Happy now?!
DEFEND THE Constitution. I hate typos!
“He took an oath to defend the CONSITUTION.”
From the cited article: “Rapone’s social media profiles revealed that he does ***not support the U.S. Constitution*** and believes that our government cannot be reformed.”
If the article is correct he lied when he took his oath.
Sounds like somebody else we know..But he’s busy making Russia great again, and making sure China has jobs for ZTE.
Trump is doing a great job. Some people’s minds are not set to explore how foreign policy should be explored.
Like a spur of the moment? With Trump? We better check if Wake Island or Hawaii or Guam still is ours after that guy gets his deal. But I’m sure he will get his Trump hotel on a beach somewhere in North Korea.
You don’t make any sense.
FishWings never makes any sense. What we are going to see unfold in coming years on the Korean peninsula will be nothing short of amazing. I imagine, once Trump Plaza in Inchon is open for business, even FIshWings will book a room overlooking the bay.
Ha, ha, ha!
“Ha, ha, ha!”
Holmes, Sounds like you have gotten yourself locked up in a mental facility and are going for your lobotomy.
I have a Che, murdered by the CIA, Guevara t-shirt.
Except he wasn’t murdered, wasn’t killed by the CIA, and in getting himself killed improved the quality of life in Bolivia and every other place he might have though of infesting.
DSS – I remember reading the diary of Che that was found on his body when he was KIA. It came with pictures of his dead body and autopsy photos. 🙂
Che was killer. Next thing we will see is a Jeffry Dahmer shirt worn by bettykath saying eat me.
First Amendment, did you hear about it? That’s what our soldiers have fought for! H
And which doesn’t entitle you to an officer’s commission.
because the courageous chicken hawk Senator Marco
For anyone born after 1953, military service has been an occupational decision’. Perhaps 12% of a typical male cohort of that vintage will have a tour in the military. The recruitment goals of the services haven’t required any more than that. Rubio was never subject to military conscription. The 1st Gulf War was fought by activating the Reserves. He wasn’t in the Reserves. He had dependent children at the time of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. How is he supposed to be a ‘chicken-hawk’? Do you know the meaning of half of the adolescent insults you throw out? Do partisan Democrats ever stop lying about the service records of their opponents?
Senator Marco Rubio stated very good suggestions. Lets hope the US Army follows through… pay back the cost of his education and revoke his degree. Then drop his scrawny ass in Venezuela, parachute optional. He can use his Che Guevara shirt, or Bernie’s boxers, as a patachute 🖕🏾
“Additional posts on social media by Rapone broadcast his devotion to the communist cause and his plans to infiltrate and sabotage the military. His conduct, writings, and sympathies for American adversaries predates his commission in the Army. Therefore, I respectfully request the United States Army immediately nullify Rapone’s commission and pursue all available disciplinary options under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Rapone should be required to pay back in full the cost of his education and the United States Military Academy should consider revoking his degree.”
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=16F921F4-8A1A-46CC-9CEC-06C6567783A6
I suggest you, and other haters of the Unites States Constitution like yourself, actually actually read the document before making any further unpatriotic comments which only serve to display your ignorance. Pro tip: the First Amendment means what it says.
This is to “maybe it would be better to have Putin as our king” RX
It’s like the way they read their bible, only the parts they like.
You’re a fat hypocrite. You’d be hard put to find a major legislative initiative undertaken between 1932 and 1941 which is consistent with Article I.
Oh, btw, Roe v. Wade is humbug.
the First Amendment means what it says.
And is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Marky Mark Mark – when in uniform, the military has limited 1st Amendment rights. For example, the Marines who travel on Marine One and salute the President as he gets on and off are not allowed to flip him off instead just because they don’t like him or his politics. Super Pro Tip. Learn what you are talking about.
Does this guy know that Venezuela’s calling?
Can he be stationed down at gitmo and then be forced to live off base?
They should have put him in front of a firing squad
He literally politically opposes the country whose military he joined. This is not even remotely a free speech issue. This is a major loyalty issue. How can you take an oath to the Constitution all while secretly opposing it.
Back when i was in the Navy, the rule was that there were to be no political statements of any kind while in uniform — that was a content-neutral rule.
I think that there is a further issue, though, in that his statements about imperialism* seem to indicate that he would not carry out lawful orders in furtherance of objectives that he disagreed with.
*I think that it is inaccurate to describe US actions and policies as “imperialistic,” (whether one agrees or disagrees with them). I think that “hegemonic” would be more accurate. We keep describing our country as the only remaining superpower, so I would think that the exercise of that superpower status would qualify as hegemonism. You don’t need to incorporate other states into an empire if you can dominate them from afar.
>> The cited reason appears to be his violation of uniform regulations though the teeshirt and graduation message were covered up. <<
That is a demonstrably false statement. Photographic evidence demonstrates the teeshirt and graduation message are not covered up. Nobody asserts the photos have been doctored.
I don't know if he is in strict strict compliance with AR 670-1, "Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia", or not. I doubt it.
I'm not going to read the reg to find out.
There’s a place for him in the Venezuelan military, Bon Voyage.
+1
+2
+3
While he has the right—for which many gave all to preserve—to freely speak his mind without fear of forced deportation to anywhere (contrary to the reddit-quality commentariat) the Army was also within its right to separate him from the service for a myriad of grounds.
Apart from capitalist propaganda that demonizes it, what is wrong democratic socialism? And what is right about U.S. capitalist imperialism? I think Rapone might have the qualities of leadership, just not in the military of the imperialist military.
Apart from capitalist propaganda that demonizes it, what is wrong democratic socialism?
For starters, there is hardly any such thing anymore.
That aside, markets economize on information and private businessmen putting their own money on the line make systematically better business decisions than do planning authorities. State enterprises are commonly subsidy suckers and responsive to imperatives other than shareholder value, all the moreso when their labor force is working under collective bargaining agreements.
Public housing means poor maintenance. Problems are exacerbated when landlord=tenant law and tenant-association pressure protect bad actors and where rent-controls are in effect.
Re-distributive measures are less troublesome. The problem arises with the relationship between politicians, provider guilds, and clients. Redistribution policies tend toward ever escalating shares of national product. See contemporary France.
Of interest, I think Betty Kath would be one of the first persons to complain of segregation and would state that housing developments should have the ability include all races. I would agree, but then I have to think what is the entity that creates the most segregation in housing developments and at least in the past and probably today as well forces that segregation onto the people?
Betty Kath, do you wish to answer?
I’ll tell you. The democratic socialism of NYC that pushes segregation in their housing projects. (I think it continues today but cannot be sure.)
Public housing doesn’t force segregation. Projects tip because the local government doesn’t police them properly or maintain standards of conduct over and above what the penal code requires. They also tip because black lumpenproletarians tend to have terrible manners and people move away from them. The distinction in manners also causes conflict between some working-class blacks and others. That’s just not going to go away. If you had no public housing, you’d still have a great deal of segregation.
More precisely, public ownership per se doesn’t cause segregation. It does alter incentives in unsalutary ways. Private landlords want good tenants and will evict bad tenants as long as the gauntlet of tenant protection is not unreasonable. The incentives with which public housing managers are faced do not promote order on the premises to nearly the same degree.
NYC has large public housing projects even in Manhattan. If one needed housing and met the criteria for the housing projects then they would be granted a place to live and which project was chosen for them was based on their color. That is most definitely segregation by a government entity, NYC.
Where the person wasn’t going into one of these designated projects there was a choice and most of the segregation that occurred had to do with social factors and a person’s personal choice.
New York City had (and may still have) ‘occupancy controls’. The purpose of the occupancy controls was to forestall tipping of projects. The housing authorities had discovered that stable equilibria in the % of blacks in a project was to be found below 35% or above 90%. Once the black share exceeded 35%, you had a mass exodus of non-black tenants. Laissez-faire meant more segregation.
You are assuming there was a choice. If so that would be incorrect.
I didn’t discuss the rationals behind such segregation. I asked a question about segregation in housing markets and answered it myself: “The democratic socialism of NYC that pushes segregation in their housing projects.”
You disagreed saying it “doesn’t force segregation.” and presently you are sidestepping that issue.
Allan, ‘segregation’ does not mean what you think it means. If you live in a project that is 35% black, you are not living in a segregated environment
“Allan, ‘segregation’ does not mean what you think it means. If you live in a project that is 35% black, you are not living in a segregated environment”
Segregation def: “The enforced separation of different racial groups”
That is exactly what NYC did in its housing projects. You are having a hard time justifying your initial response. Therefore, instead of replying to the discussion at hand, you keep creating a new parallel discussion while avoiding the real one.
Nice try, but go back to the original comments, parts of which, I have copied again and again. Stop sidestepping the issue.
Segregation def: “The enforced separation of different racial groups” That is exactly what NYC did in its housing projects.
No, that’s exactly what they’re not doing. The social engineering engaged in is to keep the populations mixed. This isn’t that difficult.
“The social engineering engaged in is to keep the populations mixed. This isn’t that difficult.”
Apparently, it is difficult for you. They weren’t doing a very good job if one NYC housing project is white and another black and that came to be because they were divided up that way.
Nice try, but go back to the original comments, parts of which, I have copied again and again. Stop sidestepping the issue.
I haven’t sidestepped the issue at all. You are persistently mislabeling the policy.
“You are persistently mislabeling the policy.”
Tell us in simple words for all our simple minds how NYC determined which housing project a person would be sent to if they met the criteria for housing project status.
“Pyublic housing doesn’t force segregation. ”
In NYC, public housing (housing provided by the city) at least in the relatively recent past did force segregation. When provided with housing the city would place one color in one project and another color in another project.
There is no question that without government involvement and rules that a lot of segregation would be the norm. This has been demonstrated.
No, Allan, it did not force segregation. They did not have race neutral assignment, but that’s a different issue.
“They did not have race neutral assignment, but that’s a different issue.”
Is this another way of ‘muddling’ an issue like you did with the distinction between one applying for CO status based on individual beliefs and one that doesn’t believe in the Constitution?
The assignments to the various housing projects were race-based. The assignments were enforced by official policy.
How is the enforced assignment by race, race-neutral?
“Projects tip because the local government doesn’t police them properly or maintain standards of conduct over and above what the penal code requires.”
Nay. The culture is rotten to the core. That is not the fault nor responsibility of the police
“There are meaningful warnings which history gives a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, the decadence of art, or a lack of great statesmen. There are open and evident warnings, too. The center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc. The smooth surface film must be very thin, then, the social system quite unstable and unhealthy.”
– Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
A World Split Apart
Commencement Speech delivered 8 June 1978, Harvard University
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/alexandersolzhenitsynharvard.htm
Nay. The culture is rotten to the core. That is not the fault nor responsibility of the police
This is a nonsense statement.
If you want the law respected, you have to enforce it. That’s a more labor intensive task in some loci than others.
” U.S. capitalist imperialism” capitalism
U.S. capitalist imperialism: “a policy that involves a nation extending its power by the acquisition of lands by purchase, diplomacy or military force.”
How, in today’s world, do you consider the US imperialistic, unless, of course, you find most nations imperialistic as well?
Capitalism: Free markets
What in particular do you find wrong with an underlying free market system, though admittedly most systems are hybrids?
Hey betty, “what is wrong with democratic socialism”=Everything!
“what is right about U.S. capitalist imperialism”=Everthing!
And what is right about U.S. capitalist imperialism?
There is no imperialism, capitalist or otherwise.
“I think Rapone might have the qualities of leadership, just not in the military of the imperialist military.”
It’s a darned shame that regular posters here do not have the ability to extrapolate simple scenarios for themselves. Yikes. See Joe Stalin.
A couple of things. One problem with democratic socialists is that they often aren’t. When I see those in power that support democratic socialism move out of their large homes into small apartments, sell their expensive cars, send their children to public schools and be willing to live like a middle class American, maybe I will rethink it. When they donate all their extra income to healthcare for all and free college I might consider that they actually mean what they say. History would not suggest that that is the case. I also think that the assumption that taking care of each other means turning that power over to the government puts far more trust in that body than I am willing to do. Our system is based on the fallibility of man. communist and socialist don’t account for that problematic detail. Although democratic socialism might be considered socialism lite, it still ends up being a form of authoritarianism where an elitist few dictate how to live to the many.
I think you’ve scrambled several distinct phenomena here and you need to unscramble them.
My response to Betkath earlier in the thread, but I don’t think I have scrambled anything. If you think I have scrambled something, feel free to say how so.
A couple of things. One problem with democratic socialists is that they often aren’t. When I see those in power that support democratic socialism move out of their large homes into small apartments, sell their expensive cars, send their children to public schools and be willing to live like a middle class American, maybe I will rethink it. When they donate all their extra income to healthcare for all and free college I might consider that they actually mean what they say. History would not suggest that that is the case. I also think that the assumption that taking care of each other means turning that power over to the government puts far more trust in that body than I am willing to do. Our system is based on the fallibility of man. communist and socialist don’t account for that problematic detail. Although democratic socialism might be considered socialism lite, it still ends up being a form of authoritarianism where an elitist few dictate how to live to the many.
1. You’re not defining your terms.
2. You’re confounding decision-making about household expenditure with public policy stances.
3. Because you didn’t define your terms, you’re attributing to principles they don’t necessarily hold and rebuking them for not adhering to principles they may never have adhered to.
4. You’re last sentence is particularly problematic when you’re not defining your terms.
“3. Because you didn’t define your terms, you’re attributing to people principles they don’t necessarily hold and rebuking them for not adhering to principles to which they may never have subscribed.”
“A couple of things. One problem with democratic socialists is that they often aren’t. ”
In other words, you think of democratic socialism as a dream that has not and cannot be accomplished. Therefore, one has to choose another system.
What you tend to do is compare a functional system that works pretty well with this dream that doesn’t exist in reality. That doesn’t lead to any useful thinking.
Not exactly. I think people have tried to accomplish it with no or limited success because people love to preach but when it comes to practicing they often aren’t very good at that. I don’t think it is a dream, I think it is an ideal and like many ideals, it only sees half of the picture. Aspects of democratic socialism are incorporated into our system, but they are tempered by free market capitalism. As a pure form of government, I don’t believe it will work. It was specifically in response to Betkath’s comment above.
Kathy, without objection to what you say, most things that involve a lot of people evolve into compromises. This nation has a Constitution and the closer we follow that Constitution the better off for our wellbeing.
Socialism is a creeping type of entity and is creepy as well for there are always the elites that make the final decisions. Look at healthcare and see how the elite Congresspersons and their staffs have avoided the problems with Obamacare socializing medicine in a way that the common folk has to pay with their dollars and their lives.
Communism ≠ Democratic Socialism
For example, consider the difference between Sweden and North Korea.
They are all commies to this group.
To some, you’re right, but certainly not most. The inability to appreciate the difference between Communism and Democratic Socialism would mark someone as a moron, and I truly don’t see many morons here.
No one’s defined their terms.
I trust you know the difference.
The difference between what and what?
Communism and Democratic Socialism.
“What is wrong [with] democratic socialism?”
Democratic Socialism is just another word for Soft communism. Communism was violent revolution. Democratic Socialism is Socialism arrived by vote. Democratic Socialism is International Socialism, a gnostic movement to destroy nations/races. That is why the adjective “International”. In other words, Marxism—a Jewish ideology of nation-killing. It is about implementing the ideas of World Unity and World Utopia. It is a very genocidal ideology. Bernie Sanders is a proud member of Democratic Socialism. Since Socialism is Idealism–it destroys all customs, traditions and is nihilistic. Democratic Socialism engages in soft genocide: The Many Forms of Genocide: Hard and Soft. 5th Rev.
https://www.academia.edu/34936383/
I think I would boil this down to (what has been discussed here many times). The core question in the very end is, “an individual’s rights” vs. “a communal ideal.” Once you go down the road of socialism, you surrender the right of any individual to the broad ideal. Once that happens, individuals become cheap. Any person can be thrown under the bus in support of the communist ideal. See socialism/communism 20th century.
Communism is just a bigger party than fascism. I love when today’s socialist leaning individual’s call someone a “Nazi–” in effect saying, “my world-wide ideal of a totalitarian society devoid of any individual rights is better than your state-level totalitarian society devoid of any individual rights.”
I guess we could argue those two based on body-count, but that is another argument.
Democratic socialism seems to work in Scandinavia.
Work toward what end?
“Democratic socialism seems to work in Scandinavia.”
“Seems to be work” is just a casual observation. Winds of change are developing quickly there.
Anyone know why the full country alert in Sweden right now? I would add “seems to be a lot of contradictions in their governing policies” now. Systems with lots of people take a while to play out. Will be interesting.
I love it when the left brings up Scandanavia as the lone and sole example of a place where so-called Democratic Socialism works, To begin with, the broad brush approach fails to take into consideration the true nature of their economies and the fact that most are dependent upon singular and highly subsidized economic sectors. One could assert that Scandanavian economies are little different from wealthy Arabian Gulf nations that hitched the wagon that is their economies to petroleum.
It’s also worth noting, Scandanavian countries for the most part reject high tax rates especially on corporaitons.
Finally, back to the point: are we asserting here that Rapone with his Che’ shirt is advocating Democratic Socialism or Marxism? Seems to me the latter. Funny how the left wants to pretend there is no difference between so-called Scandanvian socialism and Marxism. There’s a reason they pretend.
Rapone is clearly a dedicated socialist, but the actionraises the issue of whether being a communist or socialist is disqualifying.
A dear friend of mine was a combat veteran and a member of the old American Labor Party, though not during the period when it turned into a collecting pool of crypto-communists like Howard Zinn. That was then, not now. People who subscribe to The Nation are what Thomas Sowell has called ‘one-uppers’. They’re not loyal to the country in which they live and have contempt for the rest of us. They don’t belong in the military.
If the draft was in existence today would you afford those people that “don’t belong in the military” a status similar to CO status?
No.
The question: “If the draft was in existence today would you afford those people that “don’t belong in the military” a status similar to CO status?”
NII’s reply: “No”
But you say “They don’t belong in the military.”.
What is your solution?
Spencer Rapone was not inducted as a buck private. Admission to service academies is quite selective. One thing that’s been bruited about is that there’s been a collapse of discipline at West Point in the last dozen years and that’s how Rapone (having slipped in) was not weeded out. Not sure what Trump’s people are doing about the disciplinary issues at West Point. It’s alumni who have been complaining publicly. The problems evidently started during the Bush Administration.
Common soldiers can be discharged if they cause trouble and excluded if they’re demonstrable security risks. The military has muddled through without CO status for self-declared political sectaries, so there is no pressing reason to institute it.
There shouldn’t be a Conscientious Objector status for the political sectaries that advocate against the Constitution but that wasn’t the question which was more limited.
In our previous discussion, you were against providing CO status to an individual (a believer in the Constitution) whose personal religious morality as opposed to a groups religious morality would as you said would make him not eligible for CO status. Are you now saying such CO status would be approved by you under an alternative name, ‘muddling through’, for such an individual?
Do you give more leeway to the person that doesn’t believe in the Constitution than the person that does?
No, I’m not saying that. I am saying that Rapone should have been denied entrance to any service academy and not given a commission, and that should apply in any circumstance.
You raised the hypothetical of what’s done in times of conscription. You have conscription when you have to dig deep in your available manpower pool. You’re necessarily less selective about your recruits, in part because there isn’t time to vet them in a granular way.
I agree Rapone shouldn’t have been admitted to the academy but that is not the question. The questions revolve around your statements of your personal acceptance of CO status mentioned in an earlier blog of Professor Turley’s.
I am not asking all the questions you are responding to rather asking for your solution.
In times of conscription do we use the ‘muddle approach’ for people like Rapone? …And the more important question, the one actually being asked, what do we do with those whose religious morality doesn’t permit them to serve yet they don’t belong to a designated group? Do we deny them CO status and induct them as you previously suggested? Why the ‘muddled approach’ for those that have disdain for the Constitution and not use CO status or the ‘muddled approach’ for those that can prove their individual CO status? This was NOT a hypothetical question as you suggest above.
Allan, I can explain my view to you. Once I have explained it, I cannot comprehend it for you. This is not that difficult.
“Allan, I can explain my view to you. Once I have explained it, I cannot comprehend it for you.”
You cannot explain your view to anyone for your underlying premise is wrong. Changing the nature of the question doesn’t explain your view either. It only confuses the issue under discussion.
Comprehension is not the problem. We both understand the topic. You refuse to correct a mistake you made despite the fact that I recopied areas of the discussion. Your oblique replies substantiate the fact that you cannot get out of the situation you placed yourself in.
From the cited article: “Rapone’s social media profiles revealed that he does ***not support the U.S. Constitution*** and believes that our government cannot be reformed”
Professor Turley’s question is “The question is whether his political views — and his use of social media — warranted an other than honorable discharge given his service in a combat area.”
I don’t know the terminology of discharges from the services. He wasn’t dishonorable in his combat service but he certainly wasn’t honorable to the Constitution he pledged to stand behind (based on the article). Maybe Olly has a better understanding of the terminology available to be used in this case.
I think they’re saying he got a general discharge. Kelly Flinn was mustered out of the Air Force in 1998 with one of those.
Are there only three discharges in existence?
Maybe there would be no reason for a column on this if Professor Turley stated that he received a general discharge rather than an “other than honorable discharge”. That is not an ‘honorable’ way of promoting a discussion since it creates the impression that Rapone was not honorable in his actual commitment to combat service.
In this case, it would be an other than honorable discharge because he resigned his commission. An officer generally has that right. An honorable discharge usually only comes when a soldier completes his contract and does not extend, or is discharged for reasons beyond his control, such as medical.
William, would it read ‘other than honorable’ or read ‘general discharge’? Alternatively is there another term not yet mentioned?
A general discharge is only something that applies to enlisted, and is very limited.
How would his discharge be labeled on his discharge papers?
He wasn’t dishonorable in his combat service but he certainly wasn’t honorable to the Constitution he pledged to stand behind (based on the article).
It’s very disappointing this blog post has so many comments in support of Rapone or Che or communism or marxism or democratic socialism, etc. It reminds me of Bill Maher’s recent comment that he would like to see our economy collapse to usher in a different regime. I’m certain he has plenty of followers believing exactly the same thing and perhaps worse. If you want to understand the purpose of the OTH for Rapone, then you don’t need to look at anything more than his impact on morale and good order and discipline within the armed forces. Rapone is Bill Maher in uniform.
There is no way Rapone’s politics were an unknown before during and after West Point. What have his classmates said of him, what have the soldiers in his command said about him? I know when I took my oaths I didn’t fully understand the meaning of it beyond committing myself to loyally serve. Rapone was not just an idiot soldier partying too hard out on the town wearing a Che shirt for fun. He was making a sober and conscious decision in uniform at a West Point graduation to come out for an ideology that is openly hostile to the US economic and political system. It concerns me what influence he’s had on others. The fact he wasn’t immediately forced to resign his commission is stunning.
What this proves is mass insanity exists and too many people are living in an unreal world. PC is infiltrating everything and is a cultural disaster.
What will or should Rapone’s discharge papers read as?
What will or should Rapone’s discharge papers read as?
A step in the right direction. They need to do a six degrees of separation with Rapone and interview everyone holding a weapon and security clearance. Clean house.
Dollars to doughnuts he sought to enter the military in order to cause trouble. Discharge his tuchus.
I think he wanted a free education from a highly regarded college, but did not want to perform the military service. He should have to repay the cost of his education. I suspect some of his ideology is fake. Why did he publicize it at his West Point graduation? He wanted to gain requisite attention so that the Army would have to discharge him before being shipped off to the Middle East. If he were a genuine socialist, he could have attended Evergreen College where he would have been among comrades, instead of West Point. It was all a manipulative fraud, in my opinion.
“West Point graduate and Army infantry officer Spenser Rapone has been drummed out of the military after receiving an “other than honorable discharge” from the military.”
How about this/
He should be ordered / forced, to pay back the cost of his West Point education. Someone more deserving missed out on a West Point education because of the space he took up.
Ted, this is a good point I didn’t consider in my comment. The question, I think, is whether or not he supported the U.S. Constitution before or after his admission to the academy.
He will be. If a graduate of one of the military academies does not complete his 6 year contract, except for reasons beyond his control such as medical, than he has to pay back his education.
Ted – I agree with you 110% he should pay it back with interest.
Elizabeth Warren’s choice for Secretary of Defense.
LOL
another Bernie sanders follower.
You can’t uphold the Constitution and be a communist at the same time. You take the oath under false pretenses and that is reason to discharge under less than honorable.
Exactly! His discharge should have been full “dishonorable!”
A dishonorable discharge can only be given to an enlisted soldier by a general court martial. An officer can only be dismissed from the service.
Thanks for bringing “facts” to our corner of bedlam.
To robelen
William Robelen: Was he considered an “officer” while still a cadet? Did he become an Army Officer upon enrolling at West Point, or upon graduating? Just curious…..
@P. Barber June 10, 2018 at 9:53 AM
“You can’t uphold the Constitution and be a communist at the same time.”
You also can’t uphold the Constitution and at the same time participate in imperialist military offensives in foreign countries.
Name some imperialist foreign adventures you believe the US is currently engaged in.
“You also can’t uphold the Constitution and at the same time participate in imperialist military offensives in foreign countries.”
Ken, Not that I favor imperialistic military offensives but where in the Constitution does it say that? Is there an Article 8 I have missed?
There aren’t any. And any there might be are not constitutionally proscribed.