http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/15/americas-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-treason-to-love.aspx

quote:

---

Prefacing comments with a promise to "deny it" if quoted, the Air Combat Command vice commander apparently threatened officers supporting the A-10 Thunderbolt II fighter-bomber with prison time if they spoke out publicly against Air Force plans to retire the plane. Specifically, Post said: "Anyone who is passing information to Congress about A-10 capabilities is committing treason."

Pentagon spinmasters promptly clarified that the general was only trying "to communicate the Air Force's position ... on recommended actions and strategic choices faced for the current constrained fiscal environment," according to an email from a spokesperson to Military.com. An Air Combat Command spokesperson similarly characterized the general's use of the word "treason" as intentional hyperbole.

---

That's got to be good for morale - even if you are an AF pilot that does not support the A-10. This month it's treason to be an A-10 supporter. What will be treasonous next month?

The closest issue I can remember is when I was in the AF in the late 70's, early 80's. TAC fighter pilots were complaining they weren't allowed to practice the low-level tactics they would have to use in a real war.

The TAC leadership at the time thought there had been too many accidents and were trying to improve the overall flying safety rates. Many TAC pilots voiced their opinions on the subject (in a professional manner as I recall) and they eventually got their way when the TAC CC retired and his replacement changed the rules. I never heard it said that anyone's career was threatened over the issue.

This story is a month old. The AF had begun an investigation. Military members' ability to communicate candidly with Congress is protected by law, so these comments should never have been made.

Ignorant Airman here, which law says that?

quote:

---

...which law says that?

---

10 USC 1034(a)(1): No person may restrict a member of the armed forces in communicating with a Member of Congress or an Inspector General.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a communication that is unlawful.

We need a new Vice Commander !

Thank you much!

& backed up by dozens of Federal Court decisions.

This was a ludicrous discussion to begin with... dude made a joke and a certain group decided to make a fuss over it for political reasons.

The AF has decided it was NOT a joke. Reprimand and removal from position.

http://news.yahoo.com/air-force-general-reprimanded-over-10-treason-remark-153303632.html

quote:

---

An Air Force major general has been formally reprimanded and removed from his job for telling a group of officers that talking to Congress in a bid to block retirement of the A-10 Warthog amounted to "treason," the Air Force said on Friday.

An investigation of remarks by Major General James Post III, who was the vice commander of Air Combat Command, found that his words to some 300 airmen at Nellis Air Force Base on Jan. 10 may have had a "chilling effect" on some of them, convincing them not to speak with lawmakers.
Representative Mac Thornberry, chairman of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, said the Air Force action against Post was "important and correct."

"Members of Congress must be able to receive unfiltered facts and opinions from service members...," he said in a statement. "Attempts to prevent or restrict that communication cannot be allowed."

---

Senior leaders of any large organization need to master basic concepts of strategic communication. It was a boneheaded thing to say, and the Air Force did what we all expected it to do.