AD Army Corporal voices R. Paul support

[Lonestar]

Just within the last hour or so, someone already put it up on Youtube:

Youtube Link because I can't seem to get the youtube code working

I am also reliably informed that he also gave a speech at the podium on Paul's behalf, but I haven't tracked down the video yet.

Also, 10 years and a Corporal? Man, that is some Manning-level of Hardcharging right there.

I hope his command crawls up his ass and BCD's him. This is way worse than what Klingenschmitt did, from a strict interpretation of the rules POV.

[Lord Zentei]

You need to snip all the stuff after the basic video ID code (in other words, the & and all that follows it):

Code: Select all

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxbR8EvdrDM[/youtube]

[Lonestar]

Thanks, I just cut and pasted it from a thread I started on another forum I frequent. I guess that messageboard automatically corrects.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

This guy really needs to be talked to by his chain of command. We are not supposed to give any type of public political opinion at all. We can vote and that is thankfully private.

[Grumman]

First, a disclaimer: Yes, I know about the law.

Now that's out of the way, morally, I don't take issue with what he said. He said he'd like it if the troops came home, and that he voted for the only candidate who has taken a stand on that issue.

[Knife]

It's just not law, it's ethics. Wearing the uniform implies he speaks for the service; it's the whole idea of a uniform, and he in no way represents an authority of the service. His personal opinion may be acceptable, hell I want us out of Afghanistan, but that's not the same as an official representative of the service saying that; which is what someone standing up there in uniform implies; which is why it's both ethically and lawfully wrong to do what he did.

If he wants to stand up there in jeans and a T-shirt and say that, or hell a suit; then that's great, more power to him. Put on your uniform and you shut the fuck up about it. Take it off and babble all you want. Put it on and you're apart of that organization, take it off and you're a private opinion that may have been influence by your time in that organization. You may agree with what he says, but that doesn't change the fact that he is using the pomp and prestige of the service to lend credibility to his position that the actual organization does not hold. In most other cases, that's called fraud.

[Knife]

I didn't get that implication, and he said "I believe", not "the Army believes".

That's a person who happens to be a soldier, not the embodiment of the service. Anyone with half a brain can see that clearly; there's no misrepresentation, and any law limiting his freedom of political speech is unjust and should be opposed.

Sorry, he signed them away in a contract. If he didn't want to, he shouldn't have signed.

[Zaune]

Point of clarification: I raised concerns about the wisdom of active-duty personnel showing up to various Occupy protests and you all insisted that there was no danger of them getting in trouble. Is endorsing a particular Presidential candidate so very different?

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

And what a fucking shit bag 10 years and he's not even a SGT yet? What the hell?

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Point of clarification: I raised concerns about the wisdom of active-duty personnel showing up to various Occupy protests and you all insisted that there was no danger of them getting in trouble. Is endorsing a particular Presidential candidate so very different?

They should not have been there either. Especially if they were in uniform.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Are you conceding that it's simply a matter of being in the contract rather than being unethical by itself?

Everyone is entitled to their political opinion. EVERYONE. However as a representative of the service he has no right, legally, nor morally to, especially while wearing uniform and identifying himself as an active duty member of the US armed forces. I would still be irked if he simply identified himself by name in civilians but it's different when you go about in uniform. When he does that he represents the service as a whole and while he was doing so he had no right to make his statement about Ron Paul. It's the same reason McChrystal didn't say who he voted for or who's policies he agreed with and why he got canned when HIS STAFF decided to open their big mouths.

[Losonti Tokash]

Why does it bother you if active duty or retired soldiers go to a rally in civvies?

I understand and don't have a problem with not being allowed to do so in uniform, I even take off my badge when I walk over to the camp, but saying you'd be irked if they identify themselves or even show up seems weird.

[Knife]

Are you conceding that it's simply a matter of being in the contract rather than being unethical by itself?

No, I'm countering your point about his constitutional rights.

[Knife]

Point of clarification: I raised concerns about the wisdom of active-duty personnel showing up to various Occupy protests and you all insisted that there was no danger of them getting in trouble. Is endorsing a particular Presidential candidate so very different?

I don't recall that coming up, nor do I know the circumstances. Were they in uniform? If so, yes they were wrong. Did they show up in incomplete uniforms; ie: cammies with no insignias or inappropriate insignias worn as a jacket? I have no problem with. Were they just active duty personel in street clothes? I have no problem with that, neither does the military.

[Knife]

No, I'm countering your point about his constitutional rights.

Unjust or unconsciousable contracts are also... well, unjust, even if they are legal.

Well, go ahead and pontificate on why you think that that is unjust or unconscionable.

[Steve]

I think it's because it's seen as politicizing the service? The military is supposed to be apolitical; having soldiers openly advocating this or that as soldiers, as opposed to private citizens with no overt mention of the military is seen as breaking that.

Of course, it's ridiculous to ask soldiers to not have political views (though to be fair it's clear the problem isn't having them but openly proclaiming them, again, with the uniform being invoked), and it's a rule that can be inappropriately enforced just like, well, every other rule out there I suppose.

[Knife]

When he does that he represents the service as a whole and while he was doing so he had no right to make his statement about Ron Paul.

I can buy that for someone like McChrystal, since his position was a public figure, known to be in charge. I can understand how people might confuse a personal statement from him or his staff for an official statement.


But, this guy wasn't a policy maker nor pretending to be one. He was just a random American, who happened to be an army soldier, out to vote who presumably approached by reporter and asked to speak his mind. All his words were "I" - obviously speaking for himself, and he was in a public place - not an Army office or anything like that.

There's no room for confusion here.

Please, if that was the case he wouldn't be in uniform. It's not like he got all caught up in the moment and forgot he was in one. He wore it to lend credence to his position which is exactly why you aren't supposed to wear it to do that sort of thing.

To go even further, all services, to one point or anther, have specific rules as to when and how and what you can wear a uniform. They differ per service and differ per particular uniform. For example, while I was in the Marines, most of the time the uniform of the day were your cammies. However, you were not allowed to be out in town in a pair of cammies. Sure, if you lived off base you could drive to base in your uniform, some allowances were made for 'putting gas in the car' on your way to 'work'. That said, you were a sorry fellow if a Sgt or higher caught you in Ralphs or Smiths or Taco Bell in cammies, kiss your liberty goodbye. Other uniforms were allowed 'out in town' but again for specific reasons and usually official reasons with some allowances made again for 'gas' or 'pick up dry cleaning' with very little wiggle room.

So the idea that this guy just happened to be in uniform and it shouldn't matter if he was or not is ridiculous.

[Phil Skayhan]

But, this guy wasn't a policy maker nor pretending to be one. He was just a random American, who happened to be an army soldier, out to vote who presumably approached by reporter and asked to speak his mind. All his words were "I" - obviously speaking for himself, and he was in a public place - not an Army office or anything like that.

There's no room for confusion here.

Heh... random he says..

Let's turn this around a little. He's not active duty so it isn't as if he was on his way home from post and on the spur of the moment decided to attend. He actually had no legitimate reason to even be in uniform yet he deliberately put on his ACU to wear at this political rally.

So why do you think he wore his uniform to that event?

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Why does it bother you if active duty or retired soldiers go to a rally in civvies?

I understand and don't have a problem with not being allowed to do so in uniform, I even take off my badge when I walk over to the camp, but saying you'd be irked if they identify themselves or even show up seems weird.

Retirees don't bother me. They're civilians, they can do what they want. Active duty military are not supposed to voice our opinions to public media, it's one of those things we give up putting on the uniform. Now if some soldier shares a philosophical leaning with a particular group of people that's oki doki. But if they go to a rally, especially one such as occupy they run the risk of being arrested and being identified as a member of the armed forces and thusly being identified as a member of the armed forces and a member of whatever political rally he's at, making it appear as though the military leans one way or another. It's irksome to me because I personally feel that's one of the rights you eschew when you join. You're not supposed to wear the uniform to something like that and if you must be there because it's so important to you, go there in civvies shut your mouth and if you absolutely must open said mouth identify yourself as you Mr. Joe Snuffy not PVT/SGT/CAPT/LT Snuffy of the Army/Navy/Marines/AF/CG.

[Knife]

I see soldiers in uniform on the street all the time.

I don't assume they wanted to make a point of being in the military when they go to the grocery store, and when they say something, I most certainly don't come to the conclusion that they're speaking for the whole army!

It's just people in clothes.

Gotcha, they're just clothes and mean nothing. So why did he have his on? He is a reservist, not on a weekend a month, and since he was there, not deployed. So... why did he have it on at all?

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

I see soldiers in uniform on the street all the time.

I don't assume they wanted to make a point of being in the military when they go to the grocery store, and when they say something, I most certainly don't come to the conclusion that they're speaking for the whole army!

It's just people in clothes.

You don't understand the point do you? If he was having having a casual conversation with you, privately, go ahead say what you want. But he was AT A POLITICAL RALLY supporting A POLITICAL CANDIDATE on NATIONAL TV.

It's not just clothes either. They identify us as members of the US Armed forces, or are you not familiar with the Geneva conventions? There is not only a traditional, but a legal reason why we wear them.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Because he wanted to put it on?

This is a free country. Individuals don't have to justify their choice of clothing nor voicing their opinions. You're saying we should use force to stop it.... that is what needs justification.


Is there anybody who honestly thought this guy was speaking for the army?

I don't think he's speaking for the army, he's speaking for that retarded corporal self of his. However I'm not everyone who watched that clip. Some people who watched that will say "SEE DEM BOYS LOVE 'PUBLICANS! GOD BLESS AMURIKA!" someone else will say "HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!! US ARMY GUY IN POLITICS!!! WE'RE DOOMED CONSPIRZORZZ!!". That's why we don't do it, we do not violate the a political nature of our service by being in uniform and speaking as a member in any public political manner.

[Knife]

Because he wanted to put it on?

Your a retard and this has been spelled out on the first page. They are not 'just clothes', they are a uniform officially representing a government agency. Being part of that government agency means that if you put on the uniform, you are putting on the authority and the power of that organization. The people of the organization know this and have long had rules about what you can and can't do in uniform and have even incorporated it into both the UCMJ and the fucking contract. People who come into the service are specifically told this and repeatably told not to do it.

Or in short, it's not his to 'just put on' and do whatever with.

This is a free country.

And he freely joined the organization which specifically forbids it.

Individuals don't have to justify their choice of clothing nor voicing their opinions.

Yes they do. Hell, you're some sort of buisness owner aren't you? Do you let just anyone, or any employee use your companies assets for any political use you may or may not know about or agree with?

You're saying we should use force to stop it.... that is what needs justification.

And has been spelled out.

Is there anybody who honestly thought this guy was speaking for the army?

I'm sure they're plenty. And you still didn't answer the question, if it's just 'some clothes' and means nothing why did he go through the trouble to put them on?

[Simon_Jester]

D-XIII, you're being disingenuous; there's no such thing as an organized hierarchy of all women, while there's definitely an organized hierarchy of people in the military. It's that hierarchy that puts you under an obligation to watch what you say, when you've got your "I'm part of the hierarchy" hat on.


Also, you know how sometimes a rule is important enough that you need to enforce borderline cases of it, because you don't want to set bad precedents? This is one of those times.

I'm not saying the army should drop a large hammer on this corporal- the fact that he's one non-commissioned officer and didn't claim to speak for the whole army are extenuating circumstances. But where do we draw the line about when the military is allowed to express political opinions and when it isn't?

Is a sergeant allowed to endorse a political candidate? What about a captain? A colonel? A four-star general? Can two guys who are Army buddies attend a rally and hang together to express their support for the candidate? What about four? Ten? A whole platoon?

What happens if an army major orders a company of infantry to march to a rally and wave signs? Or even just orders them to march to the rally and stand there not saying anything? Can you see how that might have all kinds of undesirable effects on the political climate?

So, I repeat, where do we draw the line, if not at "strict separation of military and political affairs?"

[Omega18]

I understand the point just fine.... but it's bullshit.

Let's apply this reasoning to something else. What if a woman said she supports Ron Paul? Maybe there's someone, somewhere who will see that as "SEE WOMEN LOVE DR. PAUL! GOD BLESS AMURIKA!". Maybe there's someone who says "HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!! WOMEN IN POLITICS!!! WE'RE DOOMED EVIL WOMENFOLKZ"

Should we restrict women from discussing politics in public too? Or is it ok only if they dress to look like men?

The point you are making seems to be really foolish at this point. (It simply doesn't vaguely resemble the issue at hand.)

While I realize there is some debate beyond this issue in this thread, all the individual in question had to do in this situation is not wear his uniform and he would be fine.

To put things in perspective, there are private jobs where someone could get disciplined or fired for wearing his company uniform and appearing prominently at a political event like that, and it would be completely legal. (The key requirement would be a clear company policy against this spelled out in writing in advance.) The point is the company can take the position that when wearing the uniform you are representing the company, so they can reasonably prohibit certain activities when wearing it.

In the case of the military, clear politicization can be even more obviously problematic. If nothing else there is the practical issue that ultimately the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces (the President), can end up being the person the soldier opposed and its clearly understood they still need to follow that individual's orders. While this has never been an issue in the US, there are also certainly allot of countries out there where the military interference with the country's electoral process and elected government has had nasty consequences. (It simply seems prudent for the US military to stay as far away from that sort of thing as possible.)