Would President Paul Make Any Changes to the UCMJ?

[Jake Ralston]

The UCMJ strictly limits the freedoms/liberties of our troops. What is the libertarian view on this?



1. Is it a "necessary evil" to maintain order and discipline within our military?


2. Or, do the troops deserve the same freedoms/liberties as our civilian counterparts?



I understand the wars would come to an end. But even being stationed stateside, the troops are not allowed to do certain things. A few examples:


-Getting called in on your day off to work extra duty.

-Not being able to travel to Mexico, at all.

-Not being able to smoke marijuana, yet you can drink yourself into oblivion as long as there is no incident.

-Not being able to view Wikileaks cables.

-Not being able to sue military doctors for legitimate malpractice.

-Not having the freedom of speech.

-Having your own money forfeited as means of punishment. Yes, they can take your money away from you.

[JohnGalt23g]

UCMJ is law as written by Congress, under their Art I Sec 8 authority to make rules for land and naval forces. The only thing President Paul could do is either sign or veto any changes as Congress would pass.

[Jake Ralston]

UCMJ is law as written by Congress, under their Art I Sec 8 authority to make rules for land and naval forces. The only thing President Paul could do is either sign or veto any changes as Congress would pass.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

With that known, would President Paul advocate for Congress to make any changes?

What i'm getting at though, is does the libertarian philosophy disagree with our current UCMJ and its restrictions on freedoms/liberties of our troops.