Two Airmen Breastfeed in Uniform

[Simon_Jester]

* I'm assuming "uniform" isn't restricted to it's literal reading, since that'd be pretty silly too. Calling yourself "Colonel, US Army" is obviously associating yourself with the military, just like the uniform, and should get the same treatment, if that association is the root of the problem.

Not quite. The root of the problem is the idea that the army told you to express this or that political idea. The army makes a point of staying out of politics, and trying to avoid even giving the impression that they're in politics. There are really good reasons to keep armies out of politics; army-ocracy stinks.

If a soldier retires, he is no longer subject to military command. Whatever he says, it isn't what the army, the actual institution, told him to say. That's the appearance the army is trying to avoid: the appearance that a political message comes with an appendix "this message approved by the US Army." They work really hard to avoid that appearance, to the point where it even gets kind of unreasonable in certain specific cases, because they don't want to get a foot in the door. Because given the actual political views of real soldiers, it wouldn't take long before you'd see soldiers showing up in uniform to partisan rallies and thinking it's just as "reasonable" as the breastfeeding case.

There's a difference between "retired colonel Joe Smith" and "the US Army," and I think it makes sense that this difference means that the retired colonel can speak freely now, where he could not when he was on duty.

[Lonestar]

Maybe the US military could take a leaf from other militariesand stop wasting time and harming morale with excessive uniform regulation.

Are you fucking kidding me.

You're argument is that posing in uniform for a civilian or political cause is "excessive"?

Yes, absolutely. One thing we need is every fuckstick who thinks Obama was born in Kenya showing up at Tea Party rallies in uniform. That'll keep the military in a democratic society apolitical.

Dumbass.

[Beowulf]

just because something is illegal doesn't mean that there's any punishment entailed. See the flag code.

[Lonestar]

I wouldn't say that, of the Armed Forces the only one I can actually say differentiates a whole lot is the Navy, the secretary at my MEPS was Navy personnel and she took up the entire space of a pair of glass doors.

Army and Marine chicks are pretty fucking ugly, sorry, there's no way to get around that.

[RogueIce]

[If army uniforms are trademarked, can I make a movie that makes the army look bad without the Pentagon stopping me? Remember who would have control over the trademark. Would that be progress?

Coming back to this... apparently that's the status quo!

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C45.txt

Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of
the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may
wear -
(1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the
Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or
(2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive
part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine
Corps.

[...]

(f) While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or
Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or motion-picture production
may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not
tend to discredit that armed force.

Actually, that is not the case according to the Supreme Court. They struck out the part saying "if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force" though the rest remains valid.

So a likely answer to your earlier question about that AmeriCU commercial is probably that there's nothing the military can do about it, because AmeriCU and whoever made the commercial don't fall under military law. Service members, obviously, are subject to military on the other hand.

[Lonestar]

If this rule is to safeguard our democracy, how did we manage 120 years without it?

AD military were not allowed to vote until the Civil War. Don't act as if measures weren't taken to keep the military as apolitical as possible from the start.

If it is meant to protect soldiers from being used by the military establishment to seize more power, well, letting the military establishment punish soldiers for speaking out is just a stupid way to do that. I've seen a lot of instances of little guys being punished for speaking against government policy. How often are people punished for attending a pro-government rally (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED) in uniform?

Show me 5 that didn't occur on base or on ship.

[Lonestar]

Show me 5 that didn't occur on base or on ship.

Seriously, retirees usually have RETIRED or (Ret) afterwards, and are not wearing uniform material. This here is a huge difference.

As it stands, those "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" "rallies"(lol at an all-hands call being a "rally") you talk about happen on base or on a ship. Show me these "pro-government rallies" that happen that are open to the public and have AD military in uniform.

[Lonestar]

Over the next 220 years, we mostly expanded the freedoms. I ran out of time to fuck with this shit a while ago tonight, but I wonder what event prompted the change. I doubt it came completely out of the blue.

It was so Union troop votes would vote to keep prosecuting the war.

Even been to a parade? Uniformed soldiers and military weapons rolling down the street as people pass out little flags to the people watching on the side of the road.

You mean one that is typically managed by the locality, during a holiday? Come on. Still not a "pro-government rally", unless you are so fucking stupid as to interpet "I love my country" as being exactly the same as "I love my countrys government".

Granted, there's no specific political message there, but Occupy Wall Street doesn't have a specific message either, and uniformed military people get a lot of shit there.

(1)Those guys in the parade are ordered(voluntold) to show up. There's usually the AD guys who do I&I for the local reservists. Sauce: When my Dad was a LTC in the Marines he was in charge of I&I for the Marine reservists in the SF Bay area. It's something they are ordered to do to show the flag, not "push a political message".

(2) Those guys showing up in uniform at Occupy Wallstreet are doing so voluntarily.

(3)Malarky that Occupy Wall Street doesn't have a "specific message". Because I'm pretty sure that if you ask a occupy type they will tell you that they are upset with(at last the perception) that the very wealthy and corporations wield undue influence in politics. This is much more specific and political than "it's the 4th of July, I need volunteers to drive a humvee in the parade. If I don't get any I'm picking them."

Now, show me 5 anti-government or anti-military demonstrations that were permitted on base or on ship.

Boy, it's almost as if there is legitimate security concerns to holding anti-government/military rallies on base.

And, since you decided to ignore it, I'm going to repeat this:

As it stands, those "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" "rallies"(lol at an all-hands call being a "rally")

All-hands calls are not fucking rallies.

[Lonestar]

So when the military elite order sailors to appear in blatant pro-government propaganda, that's perfectly fine.

Duder, it's like this:

"Hey guys, the CMC of PACFLT is visiting the ship today and wants there to be an all hands call. He wants to say some things and he'll take questions".

Is that a "pro-government rally"?

No, it isn't.

So if SECDEF or POTUS has a similar situation, again, is it a rally? Nope, sure isn't. Come back to me when you've dug up photos of sailors on the Lincoln holding big ass signs that say BUSH IN 08. By the way, bringing overt political signage to a all-hands call when someone political is there is against the rules too.

Of course, it's also fucking asinine to whine that the military("the government") engages in "pro-government rallies" on base.

But when individual Americans, of their own free will, exercise their constitutional right to free speech, they're "idiots" who ought to be punished.

If they do it in uniform at a unofficial function, yes.

These airmen had an important message to deliver: women, whoever they are, whatever they do for a job, are free to feed their children as they see fit. You might agree with that and you might not, but this is America, and they have a right to say it either way.

And they can, just NOT IN UNIFORM.

[Block]

Yet, at the start, they saw fit to write "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech", not "members of the Armed Forces are prohibited from participating in off-post demonstrations [...]".

Dumbest argument ever. Congress has fuck all to do with it. The Armed forces self-govern because it is important to the institution itself to be seen as remaining politically neutral. Further, parades celebrating Independance day, Memorial day and Veteran's day are not partisan because they show no support for anything other than, ya know, the existence of the country.

[Block]

"The Congress shall have Power [...] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces."

Irrelevent. This is an internal rule. The DoD has lots of them. Congress has no need or desire to overrule it.

[tim31]

Well, for now. It's these kind of stunts that garner national attention for exactly that reason. Broad publicity etc.

Army and Marine chicks are pretty fucking ugly, sorry, there's no way to get around that.

I hear they're working on that

[RogueIce]

This essay discusses the role of politics in the military, why the military would (or should) see it as a negative, and the regulations put into place over time to try and maintain the military's apolitical nature.

As a fairly major theme it also brings up D13's complaint regarding the whole retired officers angle. And while yes, it is technically illegal for them to do so (unless they give up their retirement checks I guess) prosecutions of retired military personnel for violating the UCMJ are extremely rare, and prosecuting for political speech while using the whole "COL US Army (Ret)" tag is a bit of a gray area.

One solution the essay proposes (and one I think is a good idea) would be a law to effectively ban the use of those titles. In other words, retired officers and the like can go on the news channels or campaign speeches or whatever and say what they will, they just can't have the "Retired General, US Army" tagline below their name or use their status as part of the speech. They'd just be yet another pundit/campaign speaker, basically.

Granted not being able to use the "retired general" tag would probably make it less attractive to use them, unless said general/admiral was fairly well known already, otherwise the public would probably be like, "Who's this guy and why should I care?" But them's the breaks.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Maybe the US military could take a leaf from other militariesand stop wasting time and harming morale with excessive uniform regulation.

Are you fucking kidding me.

You're argument is that posing in uniform for a civilian or political cause is "excessive"?

Yes, absolutely. One thing we need is every fuckstick who thinks Obama was born in Kenya showing up at Tea Party rallies in uniform. That'll keep the military in a democratic society apolitical.

Dumbass.

No. Having useless excessive regulation like REGULATION BLOUSING and SLEEVE ROLLING ACTION and MOOSTACHE HAIR reduces the validity of regulations that actually exist for a purpose like the ban on using uniform for political purposes.

99% of the uniform code being about useless shit reduces the effectiveness of the important stuff, reduces organizational respect for management, reduces employee buyin and ruins the ability of officers to actually lead by turning them into glorified grooming inspectors.


Hr101

[Lonestar]

None of which have to do with two female airmen whipping out their titties in uniform and posing for a cause.

[Lonestar]

I hear they're working on that

Well, so is the army.

[Siege]

One solution the essay proposes (and one I think is a good idea) would be a law to effectively ban the use of those titles. In other words, retired officers and the like can go on the news channels or campaign speeches or whatever and say what they will, they just can't have the "Retired General, US Army" tagline below their name or use their status as part of the speech. They'd just be yet another pundit/campaign speaker, basically.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to this idea but honestly, in case such a law was implemented the news channel would just prompt the anchor to ask the guy "you were a general in the US Army for X years, were you not" and one or two quick follow-ups to establish said guy's military credibility and achieve precisely the same effect the name tag does now. Then you'd have to forbid news anchors from bringing up the guy's former occupation, or forbid officers from appearing on the news altogether, and that would lead to all kinds of undesirable silliness.

[Grumman]

If you're going to forbid soldiers from promoting a cause while in uniform so that it doesn't look like the service itself supports that cause, wouldn't it make more sense to limit that to causes the service does not, in fact, support?

[RogueIce]

Moreover, this isn't the only political things the military influences. The Secretary of Defense - an individual we can reasonably assume speaks for the military as a whole - has recently been talking about budget cuts, saying they would be "disasterous" and would raise unemployment.

That's another political position: we need to spend our money on the military. He's not just saying we want it, but referring to potential problems you, the voter, might face if a cut in military spending hurts the economy. That is likely to influence public opinion.

The Secretary of Defense is a politician, so I can't see a problem with him making political statements. Unless you also think the President (who is Commander in Chief) should also not make political statements?

The civilian leadership being political isn't what the military wants to avoid; arguably it is the civilian leadership's job to do so, to influence Congress and the American public and the like. What the military wants to avoid is the uniformed leadership from becoming overtly political. Civilian control of the military and all that.

With regards to "well it's no big deal for the lower enlisted to be political" well maybe you're right. But then what's the cutoff? When you're promoted to a flag rank STFU, but Colonel/(Navy) Captain and below can say whatever? What about if those Colonels and Captains want to be Generals and Admirals one day but they've already been too political? Whoops. Even PFCs and Petty Officers could become the senior leadership one day (through various enlisted commissioning programs) so it's better that the rule be applied to all.

That and general fairness. I mean c'mon, are you going to say that they lose the ability to support a cause in uniform/while making their military status clear just because they got promoted past a certain point?

One solution the essay proposes (and one I think is a good idea) would be a law to effectively ban the use of those titles. In other words, retired officers and the like can go on the news channels or campaign speeches or whatever and say what they will, they just can't have the "Retired General, US Army" tagline below their name or use their status as part of the speech. They'd just be yet another pundit/campaign speaker, basically.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to this idea but honestly, in case such a law was implemented the news channel would just prompt the anchor to ask the guy "you were a general in the US Army for X years, were you not" and one or two quick follow-ups to establish said guy's military credibility and achieve precisely the same effect the name tag does now. Then you'd have to forbid news anchors from bringing up the guy's former occupation, or forbid officers from appearing on the news altogether, and that would lead to all kinds of undesirable silliness.

That is an obvious potential loophole in such a law, and TBH I have no idea what you'd do about it. I mean I guess said retired officer(s) could just sidestep the question or something, but yeah, it's not perfect. I'm not sure how to deal with it, which is really the problem I think the essay kind of explains WRT the retired officers: how do you prevent them from using their former status (which is technically illegal though clearly rarely enforced) to back this or that political agenda?

Aside from just blanketly stating that once you're retired, so be it we can't stop you. But we can prevent those still serving from doing so. Which seems to be the present, if technically unofficial, way the military is handling it. The essay itself even points out that, really, the only way to ultimately prevent it is through such unoffical means, by instilling in the officers that they shouldn't go be pundits broadcasting their former rank in retirement and, I guess, hoping they heed that mentality afterwards.

[RogueIce]

If you're going to forbid soldiers from promoting a cause while in uniform so that it doesn't look like the service itself supports that cause, wouldn't it make more sense to limit that to causes the service does not, in fact, support?

This creates an obvious problem where the actions of some junior enlisted personnel, whether for good intentions or not, force the military to declare whether they support this or that position.

Take for instance a case where somebody shows up in uniform to a, let's say, pro gay marriage rally. They get up and speak and make national newstime.

So under your system, the military now has to basically declare whether or not they support gay marriage. If they prosecute the service member, they're saying they're against it; if they don't they just threw the military's support behind gay marriage.

Apply this to just about any controversial political cause you care to name: Occupy Wall Street, abortion, stand your ground laws, stem cell research, etc.

Hell, look at that Ron Paul thing from before: if they don't go after the guy, the military is saying they support Ron Paul's candidacy. If they do go after him, they're saying the military is against Paul's bid for the nomination.

I imagine it's a whole lot better for the military (which, in theory, is trying to promote their apolitical image) to just say they're prosecuting simply because the member broke the rules about wearing the uniform for political reasons, without having to really say whether or not they support said cause.

[Grumman]

So under your system, the military now has to basically declare whether or not they support gay marriage. If they prosecute the service member, they're saying they're against it; if they don't they just threw the military's support behind gay marriage.

No, it could simply be a political issue where the military has no official opinion.

This is not such an issue. When you have an order from the Secretary of the Air Force stating that breastfeeding is a good thing and listing all the advantages, I see no danger from a couple of airmen advocating the same position.

[Block]

So under your system, the military now has to basically declare whether or not they support gay marriage. If they prosecute the service member, they're saying they're against it; if they don't they just threw the military's support behind gay marriage.

No, it could simply be a political issue where the military has no official opinion.

This is not such an issue. When you have an order from the Secretary of the Air Force stating that breastfeeding is a good thing and listing all the advantages, I see no danger from a couple of airmen advocating the same position.

The danger is that they disobeyed orders as part of a political campaign. It's not allowed, for any reason, for any cause. The end.

[Thanas]

Yeah. Total non-story here as far as I am concerned.

[Block]

Yes, I could live with that. I'd really prefer not to censor anyone, but I'd be OK with a compromise saying the privileges of generalship come with a responsibility to be apolitical. That's a trade off the individual can make when deciding if they want to take that job.

See, you're still not getting it. People voluntarily sign away certain rights when they join. That is a well known precondition.

[Aaron MkII]

Have you written your congress troll to inform him of your position? Because you should.