AD Army Corporal voices R. Paul support

[Darth Yoshi]

BTW, are US servicemembers even allowed to be interviewed in uniform (on any subject) freely? Over here, at least, any interview of an active-duty soldier without prior approval is against regs (I know a guy who got four weeks in lockup for violating that). Come to think of it, an IDF reservist could face a numebr of additional charges for such a stunt if the army so desired (I'm not sure you're allowed to even wear your uniform if not on active duty, and for that matter given his rank he could be prosecuted for theft of a uniform if the army was feeling nasty)

While I was in the Air Force, the standard answer we were required to give was always along the lines of "please talk to the base PR office, I'm not authorized to answer that."

[Lonestar]

First off, is the dogpile really necessary? We've got about five people saying one thing.

Secondly, I'm confused, is this youtube-army-guy an devious creep who is blatantly fooling people into thinking he's the official voice of the armed forces... or is he a forgettable incompetent who should be laughed out of the service for only getting one major promotion in a decade? The two positions seem at odds to each other, and if the numbnuts here can immediately latch onto the latter and deride him for it, the argument that he can fool everyone else doesn't really hold water.

Your thesis is that you have to be "devious" in order to to aware that the American public generally has a positive view of the military.

[Simon_Jester]

Secondly, I'm confused, is this youtube-army-guy an devious creep who is blatantly fooling people into thinking he's the official voice of the armed forces... or is he a forgettable incompetent who should be laughed out of the service for only getting one major promotion in a decade? The two positions seem at odds to each other, and if the numbnuts here can immediately latch onto the latter and deride him for it, the argument that he can fool everyone else doesn't really hold water.

I don't think the man's devious; I'm not qualified to say if he's a creep. It's not so much that he's got some evil mastermind scheme. It's that he's breaking a rule that was put into place to stop devious creeps (and jingoistic myrmidons in uniform) from interfering in civilian politics.

The rule is pretty important, so he gets in trouble for breaking it even if he personally isn't some kind of supervillain. Most lawbreakers aren't.

[Panzersharkcat]

While I was in the Air Force, the standard answer we were required to give was always along the lines of "please talk to the base PR office, I'm not authorized to answer that."

Same here. We were ordered to say, "Go talk to the cadre" and move on.

@Destructionator XIII: I apologize for jumping in as part of a dog pile.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I used to do consulting for city and county departments (Water, power, etc). One thing I found out is that in order to keep up the image that state agencies don't support specific candidates, when one of my co-workers' wives was running for Sacramento City Council he was forbidden to openly display his agency's logo at any of her political events, and he had to take the decals off his vehicle when he wasn't going to or from work.

The government has to appear impartial, as must all of its' agents.

[Darth Yoshi]

On the subject of punishment, it's not like the prohibition against political statements or whatever is obscure. IIRC it's part of the UCMJ, and even if I'm wrong about that it gets emphasized enough as an established policy that a person should know better. Part of the enlistment process is signing a contract stating that you'll abide by the rules of the military, and it's not like the guy joined under duress or anything. Ultimately, it's his bad for breaking a rule that he agreed to abide by. *shrugs*

With that said, I doubt he'll get kicked out, unless he's already on a shitlist for previous shenanigans. They'll probably give him an official reprimand and assign him crappy duties for a while.

[Lonestar]

On the subject of punishment, it's not like the prohibition against political statements or whatever is obscure. IIRC it's part of the UCMJ, and even if I'm wrong about that it gets emphasized enough as an established policy that a person should know better. Part of the enlistment process is signing a contract stating that you'll abide by the rules of the military, and it's not like the guy joined under duress or anything. Ultimately, it's his bad for breaking a rule that he agreed to abide by. *shrugs*

With that said, I doubt he'll get kicked out, unless he's already on a shitlist for previous shenanigans. They'll probably give him an official reprimand and assign him crappy duties for a while.

Here's the actual directive:

4.1.2. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:
4.1.2.1. Participate in partisan political fundraising activities (except as permitted in
subparagraph 4.1.1.7.), rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof),
management of campaigns, or debates, either on one’s own behalf or on that of another, without
respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement.
Participation includes more than mere attendance as a spectator. (See subparagraph 4.1.1.9.)

And if they kicked out LT Klingenschmitt there is zero reason for this jackhole to not get kicked out.

[Lonestar]

(The above is not to be construed as me saying they shouldn't have kicked out Klingenschmitt)

[dragon]

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

maybe he got demoted does happens a lot in the army and alot of times for bs reasons.

As to what army soliders can and can not say as well as the legality of free speech well read below.

Soldiers on Active Duty May:

1. Register, vote, and express their opinions on political candidates and issues, but not as representatives of the Armed Forces;

2. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political meetings or rallies as spectators, however, they may not attend: (a) in uniform, (b) during duty hours, (c) when violence is likely to result, or (d) when their activities constitute a breach of law and order;

3. Make monetary contributions to a political organization, but not to other members of the Armed Forces on active duty or employees of the Federal Government, and subject to the following:

a. 18 U.S.C. § 607 prohibits anyone “receiving any salary or compensation for services from money derived from the Treasury of the United States” to solicit a political contribution from any other such person;

b. 18 U.S.C. § 603 prohibits officers and employees of the Federal Government, and anyone “receiving salary or compensation for service from money derived from the Treasury of the United States” from making a political contribution to any other such person who is the “employer or employing authority” of the contributor;

1). This prohibits both contributions to the individual and to the individual’s campaign committee, but does not prohibit contributions to political parties;

2). In 1991, the Counsel to the President issued an opinion that this statute “may prohibit any Federal employee from contributing to the authorized campaign committee of the President;”

4. May encourage other military members to vote;

5. Serve as an election official, if such service (a) is not in uniform, (b) does not interfere with military duties, and (c) has the prior approval of the installation commander;

6. Sign a petition for legislative action or to place a candidate’s name on the ballot, but only in the soldier’s personal capacity;

7. Write a letter to the editor expressing personal views, and place bumper stickers on cars (but not large banners or posters).

Soldiers on Active Duty May Not:

1. Use their official authority or influence for interfering with an election, soliciting votes for a particular candidate or issue, or requiring or soliciting political contributions from others;

2. Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions;

3. Write and publish partisan political articles that solicit votes for or against a partisan political party or candidate, speak before partisan political gatherings, or participate in partisan political radio or television shows;

4. Serve in any capacity or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club;

5. Distribute partisan political literature or conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political group;

6. Use contemptuous words against the President, Vice President, Congress, the Secretaries of the military departments, Defense, or Transportation, and the Governors or legislatures of any state or territory where the soldier is on duty;

7. Engage in fund-raising activities for partisan political causes on military reservations or in Federal offices or facilities;

8. Attend partisan political events as official representatives of the Armed Forces.

See DoD Directive 1344.10, “Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces,” dated February 19, 2008 for a more detailed outlining of the regulations.

These rules are longstanding. Military personnel do, in fact, give up a significant portion of their 1st Amendment freedoms as a condition of their service. The courts have upheld these restrictions, repeatedly, as necessary for good order and discipline.

link

[Lonestar]

maybe he got demoted does happens a lot in the army and alot of times for bs reasons.

As to what army soliders can and can not say as well as the legality of free speech well read below.

(1)No, it doesn't. Not for "bs reasons".

(2)I posted the link to the DOD directive in the post(well, two posts) immediately above you. You couldn't even be arsed to look at the last post in the thread.

[Darth Wong]

With that established, next up: is this worth the infringement of personal liberty? Does it justify the response? The infringement is small enough: you can do it, you don't have to hide yourself, but just don't use our brand. Small problem countered with another small problem. It balances out.

Why do you think the infringement is small? The idea of a partisan armed services is extremely disturbing. The last thing you want is a repeat of the Praetorians.

[dragon]

maybe he got demoted does happens a lot in the army and alot of times for bs reasons.

As to what army soliders can and can not say as well as the legality of free speech well read below.

(1)No, it doesn't. Not for "bs reasons".

(2)I posted the link to the DOD directive in the post(well, two posts) immediately above you. You couldn't even be arsed to look at the last post in the thread.

Actually does I saw 4 NCO's in one year get an field grade AR15 and got demoted. Reason they stood up for their soliders and the Sereagnt Major didn't like so he looked for the slightest reason and was buddy with the general that was all she wrote.
I knew two other NCO's demoted granted it was DUI so not a BS reason.
This was in Stuttgart Germany
Here at Ft. Sill I handle the domain accounts and one of my jobs is to input the changes in status into AD. I see on average between 5 and 10 documents a month to change rank from E5 to E4, granted this is a training base with everthing from BCT up to NCO, 1SG schools hell I think theres even an SGM school here and students do tend to miss behave.

One of my civilain coworker is a retired Lt. Col he also agrees that there are way too many demotions.
My boss was 1sg and when I asked him he said he process many AR15 forms through that ended up with demotions.

So yeah there's alot but since the army is pretty big it's hard to see the big picture, but if your're in aplace that can see a larger portion then you being to notice patterns. The BS portion ok maybe thats an exgration at for NCO's anyway.

[Darth Wong]

The link between one low level guy voicing his opinion and the whole service being partisan is very weak.

No it isn't. If you treat it as a trivial infraction, then it could become widespread. You wrote earlier of why habitual individual respect of law and order is important, but you still don't seem to understand why.

[Knife]

You don't get to use other peoples shit to make it seem like you're pissant opinion is more than it is.

Here's a new argument though: he shouldn't have used their property for personal use.

This is different than you are previous arguments, though, you probably lack the mental capacity to realize it, or at least the intellectual honesty to acknowledge it. Previously, you said it was ethically wrong because he was speaking for the service. That's bullshit, so the conclusion falls apart.

(Then, you immediately shifted to "he signed a contract", which doesn't even answer right vs wrong, then you shifted to a hybrid of the two defeated arguments, then shifted to an appeal to motive, then went back to the original line and the contract, and then finally ownership, which is where we are now.

No they are not, they are all facets of the same thing. As a service member, you freely signed up, read the contract, took the oath, and subscribed yourself to the rules and regulations of the service. All of those things are involved in signing up. As such, as part of that organization you get the uniform that represents that organization, with all the prestige, authority, tradition, and power it represents; even if you personally don't wield all that power.

That this douche was wearing his uniform, but was a reservist not on active duty with no reason to be wearing his uniform, again there are rules as to when, where, and why you wear specific uniforms and picking up diapers at Walmart on the way home is way different than attending a political rally, this is a party event, not an election. He wore it to leech off the authority and prestige of the organization so that his opinion had more weight. In this circumstance, he had no right to use it that way, the authority and credibility he was trying to add to his opinion wasn't his. To use it was unethical and pretty much fraud, and there is no way he didn't know. Being unethical and illegal and straight up wrong.

But, seriously, you are posts are not doing a very good job at either sticking to a line of reasoning, or admitting defeat. Just throw it up enough time and see what sticks, eh?)

LOL, mine are consistant. So are yours: "I like the message so no matter how it came about, it's right" usually known as 'end justifies the means'.

And you actually has something that sticks. I'm willing to concede that intellectual property rights, of all things, can justify the government's position here (assuming you accept IP rights as valid in the first place, which I will for this).

The next question is of course: do the government's IP rights exist here? And then, do they outweigh the impact on personal liberty?

Yes you have 3 pages of people explaining a neutral and political unbiased military and other government services to you. You just don't want to listen.

I'll answer the second one first: since all he had to do is change his clothes to make the statement, the impact is small. So I think that's an acceptable trade off.

Bullshit, it changes it from using the prestige and pomp of the service to back up your opinions to just your opinions. If he wasn't in uniform, with it's prestige and authority, chances are the media wouldn't even had gone up to douche bag and interviewed him. Which is why you don't do that sort of thing in uniform. Second, if he gets away with it, how many have to do it to be a big deal?

Now, do the government's IP rights exist? Well, on the face of it, no. The government isn't a person, and in America, government things are owned by "the people", so that'd seemingly invalidate it too.

The government represents us, all of us. Wrap yourself in the authority of all of us and you have to speak to all of us, not just a portion.

But, I think I have to actually say that yes, they do. Branding is something the government can use, in theory, for good things, so granting it to them is generally a positive so long as the costs are small, which we already established.


So, yeah, you've finally come to a good argument: the government has the right to control its intellectual and physical property, which includes the uniform and its insignia. I'm forced to concede this as being a justification.

(A shitty one, mind you, but a logical justification.)

Whatever. Accepted.

Now, answer me why you think he wore his uniform.

[Terralthra]

(Then, you immediately shifted to "he signed a contract", which doesn't even answer right vs wrong, then you shifted to a hybrid of the two defeated arguments, then shifted to an appeal to motive, then went back to the original line and the contract, and then finally ownership, which is where we are now.

No they are not, they are all facets of the same thing. As a service member, you freely signed up, read the contract, took the oath, and subscribed yourself to the rules and regulations of the service. All of those things are involved in signing up. As such, as part of that organization you get the uniform that represents that organization, with all the prestige, authority, tradition, and power it represents; even if you personally don't wield all that power.

The rebuttal that he gave up his free speech rights as part of a voluntary association with the military is not a good one in the United States, I don't think. There are many ghettoes and barrios where a poor (poorly educated and marginalized) male coming of age has as his only options to join a gang at the point of a gun or enlist and get away from there. If that's the "freely signed up," then I don't really give that "free choice" an awful lot of credence.

[Knife]

(Then, you immediately shifted to "he signed a contract", which doesn't even answer right vs wrong, then you shifted to a hybrid of the two defeated arguments, then shifted to an appeal to motive, then went back to the original line and the contract, and then finally ownership, which is where we are now.

No they are not, they are all facets of the same thing. As a service member, you freely signed up, read the contract, took the oath, and subscribed yourself to the rules and regulations of the service. All of those things are involved in signing up. As such, as part of that organization you get the uniform that represents that organization, with all the prestige, authority, tradition, and power it represents; even if you personally don't wield all that power.

The rebuttal that he gave up his free speech rights as part of a voluntary association with the military is not a good one in the United States, I don't think. There are many ghettoes and barrios where a poor (poorly educated and marginalized) male coming of age has as his only options to join a gang at the point of a gun or enlist and get away from there. If that's the "freely signed up," then I don't really give that "free choice" an awful lot of credence.

LOL, and I'm sure that guy in your example was just a wellspring of poitical activity in the barrio too. Economic factors motivating you to get a job doesn't negate that you freely sign up. Whether from the barrio or from bumblefuck hickvile. Your right to stand up at a political rally with your Walmart badge on is severly limited, I would assume, as well no matter if you make $8 and hour as a door greeter or as a $40 a year regional manager. You freely gave up that one too just because you needed a job.

[Terralthra]

The rebuttal that he gave up his free speech rights as part of a voluntary association with the military is not a good one in the United States, I don't think. There are many ghettoes and barrios where a poor (poorly educated and marginalized) male coming of age has as his only options to join a gang at the point of a gun or enlist and get away from there. If that's the "freely signed up," then I don't really give that "free choice" an awful lot of credence.

LOL, and I'm sure that guy in your example was just a wellspring of poitical activity in the barrio too. Economic factors motivating you to get a job doesn't negate that you freely sign up. Whether from the barrio or from bumblefuck hickvile. Your right to stand up at a political rally with your Walmart badge on is severly limited, I would assume, as well no matter if you make $8 and hour as a door greeter or as a $40 a year regional manager. You freely gave up that one too just because you needed a job.

It's nice to know that you think of "Kill someone to get in the gang or we'll kill you instead" as an "economic factor." Wal-Mart jobs are a completely irrelevant tangent.

[Knife]

The rebuttal that he gave up his free speech rights as part of a voluntary association with the military is not a good one in the United States, I don't think. There are many ghettoes and barrios where a poor (poorly educated and marginalized) male coming of age has as his only options to join a gang at the point of a gun or enlist and get away from there. If that's the "freely signed up," then I don't really give that "free choice" an awful lot of credence.

LOL, and I'm sure that guy in your example was just a wellspring of poitical activity in the barrio too. Economic factors motivating you to get a job doesn't negate that you freely sign up. Whether from the barrio or from bumblefuck hickvile. Your right to stand up at a political rally with your Walmart badge on is severly limited, I would assume, as well no matter if you make $8 and hour as a door greeter or as a $40 a year regional manager. You freely gave up that one too just because you needed a job.

It's nice to know that you think of "Kill someone to get in the gang or we'll kill you instead" as an "economic factor." Wal-Mart jobs are a completely irrelevant tangent.

Nice to know that you think that fleeing unfortunate circumstances alleviates you from the choices you make.

[Terralthra]

It's not just me that thinks that, you know. By arguing against me, you are also arguing against the duress defense, which (successfully) holds that choices made with a gun to your head can not be said to be freely made.

[Knife]

It's not just me that thinks that, you know. By arguing against me, you are also arguing against the duress defense, which (successfully) holds that choices made with a gun to your head can not be said to be freely made.

LOL you're silly. For your argument to be correct, you literally have to have no other option than 'stay in the hood and be a drug dealing criminal' and 'join the military and sign some of your political rights away'. That is bullshit and a black and white fallacy and you know it. Let alone, that even if true (and I don't believe it to be), it would have to be in significant quantities to warrant a change in the system. On top of all that, you're not signing away all your rights, you're signing away your right to be in uniform and talk shit while in uniform.

[Darth Wong]

No they are not, they are all facets of the same thing. As a service member, you freely signed up, read the contract, took the oath, and subscribed yourself to the rules and regulations of the service. All of those things are involved in signing up. As such, as part of that organization you get the uniform that represents that organization, with all the prestige, authority, tradition, and power it represents; even if you personally don't wield all that power.

The rebuttal that he gave up his free speech rights as part of a voluntary association with the military is not a good one in the United States, I don't think.

No one is saying he "gave up his free speech rights", Einstein. Don't misrepresent people. They're just saying he should not do it while wearing his uniform.

[Flagg]

No they are not, they are all facets of the same thing. As a service member, you freely signed up, read the contract, took the oath, and subscribed yourself to the rules and regulations of the service. All of those things are involved in signing up. As such, as part of that organization you get the uniform that represents that organization, with all the prestige, authority, tradition, and power it represents; even if you personally don't wield all that power.

The rebuttal that he gave up his free speech rights as part of a voluntary association with the military is not a good one in the United States, I don't think.

No one is saying he "gave up his free speech rights", Einstein. Don't misrepresent people. They're just saying he should not do it while wearing his uniform.

Except he essentially did give up large portions of his free speech rights. For instance, he cannot criticize the President due to issues with chain of command.

[Darth Wong]

Except he essentially did give up large portions of his free speech rights. For instance, he cannot criticize the President due to issues with chain of command.

Even when he's at home?

[Flagg]

Except he essentially did give up large portions of his free speech rights. For instance, he cannot criticize the President due to issues with chain of command.

Even when he's at home?

Oh no, I meant publicly.

[Darth Wong]

Except he essentially did give up large portions of his free speech rights. For instance, he cannot criticize the President due to issues with chain of command.

Even when he's at home?

Oh no, I meant publicly.

Even when they're not on active duty, and not representing themselves in a military capacity?