Corporal Jesse Thorsen is getting attacked for supporting Paul in uniform!

[Mini-Me]

You know there IS a legit reason why military service members can't politic in uniform, and some folks are highlighting it. The military is supposed to have no formal role in politics, because if they did then it calls into question the legitimacy of the candidate being endorsed. Was he elected because of his values and beliefs and policy suggestions and ideas, or because the military liked him? Or do certain policies get passed or not passed on their merits, or because the military doesn't like it?

If you wear the uniform, you are a spokesman for the armed forces. If someone in uniform speaks a certain way for a particular candiate, it will be perceived that this is the official policy of the military when it is NOT. In order to avoid these types of distractions and potential conflicts that are not good for protecting the nation, the military basically stays silent and tells everyone of all ranks to be a-political WHILE IN UNIFORM.

However, if you are out of uniform, you can practice politics however you want as long as it doesn't interfere with your normal job just like everyone else. As long as you leave the military out of it and don't try to USE YOUR STATUS AS A MILITARY MEMBER TO SWAY PUBLIC OPINION, you're free to do what you want.

Doing otherwise compromises the integrity of the military and, if left un checked, can open a pandora's box that nobody wants.

I can see the aspect of trying to avoid political intimidation by a politically involved military. However, is that the real reason for the rule? The policy doesn't prevent political intimidation or involvement by an out-of-control military anyway, because an out-of-control military could easily instruct its soldiers to engage in certain political activity in plain clothes...which could turn into a covert coup at the extreme end of the spectrum. For that reason and others, I wonder if the given reason is just a pretext, whereas the real reason may involve the dehumanization of soldiers. (While they're part of the military, they are strictly order-following killing machines, and individual opinions or critical thought are discouraged.)

In general, if every individual soldier was allowed to speak their mind in uniform, their differing opinions would make it clear that none of them are official military viewpoints. I understand that anyone wearing a military uniform is indirectly representing the military, much like anyone wearing a Steak and Shake uniform is indirectly representing Steak and Shake...but the difference is that you're allowed to quit working at Steak and Shake when you're dissatisfied, whereas the military presumes to own your life until it sees fit to discharge you. Perhaps if they changed that, it wouldn't be so necessary for uniformed soldiers to speak out about wanting to come home. (They're essentially complaining to their boss's boss's bosses...which would be us.)

If an individual is a soldier in the military, that forms part of their identity, and it forms part of their reason for holding their views. The public SHOULD be allowed to know what individual soldiers are thinking, and how they feel about these very political conflicts that they are being shanghaied into (e.g. this guy, who was drafted for his later tours of duty)...and the public should be allowed to know that these guys feel this way precisely because they're soldiers. The uniform accomplishes that.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Your argument is not really relevant to the topic.

It is NOT COOL to use the uniform for POLITICAL purposes. This is a fact. The Corporal broke the law and will face the consequences. This is NOT how you practice civil disobedience. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a ban on practicing politics IN UNIFORM.

Nothing he did JUSTIFIES breaking this PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE RULE. You only practice civil disobedience if the rule is NOT LEGITIMATE. For example, criticizing the government if such criticism is criminalized in the law is an example of LEGITIMATE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. Appearance in the media and saying stuff in uniform, NOT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.

I say screw the UCMJ. Our support from the military has been blacked out mostly by the media. It's about time the troops start standing up to represent the man trying to save their lives, and our country. Some of the rules are not going to mean anything anymore, nor do they with the potential repercussions coming if Ron Paul isn't in the White House.

It's time people start thinking with their heart as well as their head.

 

[JasonM]

Well, you just brought up one of the first precepts of civil disobedience of any kind: there are inherent consequences to practicing it. In a way, you can say that US personnel involved with NATO's action with Libya despite Obama evading any kind of authorization from Congress were following UNLAWFUL ORDERS after a certain point.

Whether the orders were unlawful or not is ultimately up to a court to decide. If the courts don't agree with you (which I suspect is the case, rightly or wrongly), then it's up to you to convince the folks in congress to change the law by 2/3rds majority in each house to change this law. And if the president disregards this rule, then it's up to you to compel congress to impeach the president.

If a serviceman disagrees with this, then they are free to speak out in a public forum WHILE NOT IN UNIFORM OR OVERTLY ADVERTISING THEIR STATUS AS A MILITARY PERSON.

With the indefinite military detentions of US Citizens allowed now on US soil, at what point does it become acceptable to practice civil disobedience with military code?

If a person in the military is told to arrest a person without charge and bad stuff happens, and someone involved takes measures to expose what's going on (much like the person responsible for exposing the Abu Ghraib incident did), and gets in serious trouble for it, then that's an example of civil disobedience. When you see something seriously messed up going on and speak up with proof and evidence against orders, and get in trouble, that's legit disobedience.

But that's not the case here.

Perhaps if Cpl Thorsen hadn't have been cut off, we would have heard him say something about NDAA and how that would force him to break his oath to defend the Constitution. Did he speak at the caucus? If he did, what did he bring up while in uniform?

If you're not working on official business, you don't wear the uniform or advertise your status to influence public opinion on an issue (although if they ask what you do, then it's ok)

I agree with you that the no politics in uniform rule is a good one in general, but when the US military ends up actually becoming the bad guy as far as allowing for unlawful orders in the real of defending the Constitution, this could be an act of civil disobedience depending on what he said at the caucus and what he was going to say on CNN if given the chance.

I disagree. There are many forums and other things you can do to be effective without having to break UCMJ rules. If he had not been in uniform, everything would have been fine. Don't break the law if you don't NEED to break the law, and don't try to play spokesman for the military on these controversial issues.

 

[kah13176]

I agree, Mini-Me. With a dampened political voice, soldiers are even more disadvantaged by the political process. People should know exactly how the soldiers feel before voting for warmongering politicians.

Also, if the military and the government always operated within Constitutional confines, a fear that the military as a whole could influence the political process would be irrational. Therefore, that's where the suppression should come in, not upon soldiers' 1st amendment rights in civilian life.

 

[LiveForHonortune]

Our servicemen and women overwhelming support Ron Paul so they better watch what they say about him.

 

[JasonM]

I can see the aspect of trying to avoid political intimidation by a politically involved military. However, is that the real reason for the rule? The policy doesn't prevent political intimidation or involvement by an out-of-control military anyway, because an out-of-control military could easily instruct its soldiers to engage in certain political activity in plain clothes...which could turn into a covert coup at the extreme end of the spectrum. For that reason and others, I wonder if the given reason is just a pretext, whereas the real reason may involve the dehumanization of soldiers. (While they're part of the military, they are strictly order-following killing machines, and individual opinions or critical thought are discouraged.)

In general, if every individual soldier was allowed to speak their mind in uniform, their differing opinions would make it clear that none of them are official military viewpoints. I understand that anyone wearing a military uniform is indirectly representing the military, much like anyone wearing a Steak and Shake uniform is indirectly representing Steak and Shake...but the difference is that you're allowed to quit working at Steak and Shake when you're dissatisfied, whereas the military presumes to own your life until it sees fit to discharge you. Perhaps if they changed that, it wouldn't be so necessary for uniformed soldiers to speak out about wanting to come home.

If an individual is a soldier in the military, that forms part of their identity, and it forms part of their reason for holding their views. The public SHOULD be allowed to know what individual soldiers are thinking, and how they feel about these very political conflicts that they are being shanghaied into (e.g. this guy, who was drafted for his later tours of duty)...and the public should be allowed to know that these guys feel this way precisely because they're soldiers. The uniform accomplishes that.

Well, if you want to try to get congress to change the rules of the UCMJ so that they can engage in political activism in uniform, then you're welcome to try. But to join, you have to sign a piece of paper saying you will obey the UCMJ as part of your oath. If you don't like the UCMJ or what the military does, you're free to leave once the contract is up (sometimes earlier depending on how you work it and your individual circumstances).

But there are much better ways of discretely letting people know what the troops are thinking without having one go on record in uniform. Anonymous polls, surveys or interviews that allow one to give an opinion without being personally identified is one method (and in fact, that is what the military brass did to find out the troops' honest opinion regarding the "don't ask don't tell" thing without fear of recrimination).

The troops CAN speak up, just not on TV in a uniform.

Again, it's not the message that's the issue. It's the "you did something publicly in uniform without authorization while not on official business" part. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Mini-Me]

Well, if you want to try to get congress to change the rules of the UCMJ so that they can engage in political activism in uniform, then you're welcome to try. But to join, you have to sign a piece of paper saying you will obey the UCMJ as part of your oath. If you don't like the UCMJ or what the military does, you're free to leave once the contract is up (sometimes earlier depending on how you work it and your individual circumstances).

Those military contracts are part of my issue: From my understanding, any remotely ethical contract either has an escape/termination clause, or it's implied that breaking it will result in a lawsuit, where the aggrieved party will be awarded compensation for their losses (including reasonable opportunity costs perhaps). Military contracts are more like the kind of contracts people sign onto in the movie Repo Men, where the counterparty is above [civilian] law and allowed to directly enforce the contract (rather than breaches being solved in civil court, where violating a person's life/body/liberty is off limits). It would be one thing if soldiers could leave of their own free will before their contract expired, even if they had to repay the military some reasonable financial debt...but the current situation is a form of inescapable indentured servitude. There's no, "Obey our rules, or leave." It's just, "OBEY our rules, or OBEY our rules and punishments," and that doesn't sit right with me.

But there are much better ways of discretely letting people know what the troops are thinking without having one go on record in uniform. Anonymous polls, surveys or interviews that allow one to give an opinion without being personally identified is one method (and in fact, that is what the military brass did to find out the troops' honest opinion regarding the "don't ask don't tell" thing without fear of recrimination).

The troops CAN speak up, just not on TV in a uniform.

Anonymous polls and such don't have the same kind of emotional impact on people as really hearing some kid telling his story right from his mouth though. The anonymity takes the individuality and humanity out of people, and so it makes them easier to ignore. If you were to hear straight from some 20-something-year-old that he's tired of killing people, tired of occupying other people's lands, and that he just wants to stay home and raise a family, that's going to have a much bigger impact on most people than seeing some anonymous survey statistic in the corner of page 8 of the Tuesday newspaper.

Telling soldiers they can speak up, but not on TV or in uniform, is the same thing as saying, "You're allowed to give an opinion, but you're not allowed to give your credentials or show how you're personally affected by the political choices people are making." That doesn't sit right with me.

 

[libertythor]

With the way things are going, there may be a point to where the US military in itself is the enemy and breaking its rules and actively opposing it as a member the honorable thing to do.

I don't think that point has been reached yet, and I do agree with you that the long-standing rule against politicking in uniform is a good one. Also, when and if that point is reached, simply speaking out in uniform would be a near death sentence that wouldn't achieve anything. Desertion would be the logical solution in that case.

Cpl Thorsen would have definitely been better off being sharply-dressed with a nice-looking jacket that said US Army on it or a lapel pin. His crew cut and demeanor in itself would have been convincing enough as a caucus participant.

Whether the orders were unlawful or not is ultimately up to a court to decide. If the courts don't agree with you (which I suspect is the case, rightly or wrongly), then it's up to you to convince the folks in congress to change the law by 2/3rds majority in each house to change this law. And if the president disregards this rule, then it's up to you to compel congress to impeach the president.

If a serviceman disagrees with this, then they are free to speak out in a public forum WHILE NOT IN UNIFORM OR OVERTLY ADVERTISING THEIR STATUS AS A MILITARY PERSON.




If a person in the military is told to arrest a person without charge and bad stuff happens, and someone involved takes measures to expose what's going on (much like the person responsible for exposing the Abu Ghraib incident did), and gets in serious trouble for it, then that's an example of civil disobedience. When you see something seriously messed up going on and speak up with proof and evidence against orders, and get in trouble, that's legit disobedience.

But that's not the case here.



If you're not working on official business, you don't wear the uniform or advertise your status to influence public opinion on an issue (although if they ask what you do, then it's ok)




I disagree. There are many forums and other things you can do to be effective without having to break UCMJ rules. If he had not been in uniform, everything would have been fine. Don't break the law if you don't NEED to break the law, and don't try to play spokesman for the military on these controversial issues.

 

[BigByrd47119]

I have to agree with Mini on this one. Military personnel, whom are still American citizens despite the federal governments own impressions, are entitled to make their opinion known and should not be required to do so "anonymously" or "discreetly."

We all see veterans speak every day, but none of them deliver the message that a young 20-somthing delivers while in uniform. It makes his argument valid, and for that, he must be punished apparently.

For the record, I could go down to the local military surplus store, buy a uniform, and go campaign for Dr. Paul. Would I get in trouble? I have never served in the military, but I think it obvious the answer is no!

If you want to get technical, it could even be considered a form of collectivism. "I saw a soldier support RP so therefore all military members and the military itself must also support RP." Its ludicrous!

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Having never been in the military I may be mistaken but isn't the definition of "in uniform" when you are wearing your stripes and other identification rather than a particular type of clothing?? Couldn't an active duty military man or woman show up in generic BDU's with no identification badges or patches and make any statement they want? In this way, they are clearly perceived as military personal yet technically "out of uniform"??

 

[Sullivan*]

It's a shame he will get in trouble for this, but it also means more people will hear about it. I think this is a great story for the campaign. A marine sticking his neck out to show support for the one candidate that he thinks really cares about the troops. My hat is off to him for taking this one for the team. Because of the controversy more people wil know now that soldiers support ron paul above all others.

I think he was army... Semantics, I know.

 

[eleganz]

He woke up to his oath to the Constitution.

The people appreciate him, the establishment might want to use him as an example.

WHATEVER, sacrifices need to be made either way, 10 more will step out after him, and more, and more.

Jesse made us proud, we will be behind him if anybody tries anything with him.

Now go back to listening to Kelly Clarkson.

See you all on the phone lines!

 

[speciallyblend]

Having never been in the military I may be mistaken but isn't the definition of "in uniform" when you are wearing your stripes and other identification rather than a particular type of clothing?? Couldn't an active duty military man or woman show up in generic BDU's with no identification badges or patches and make any statement they want? In this way, they are clearly perceived as military personal yet technically "out of uniform"??

good point but then couldn't they go after him for impersonating military even though he is in the military? just wondering. It would seem that is how they could go after him then since he is not wearing his uniform and is wearing a uniform that is not his or should i say the governments.

 

[TheDriver]

Honestly, the campaign should have known better (when Ron and company put him in-front of the mic). I like what he said, but campaigning with soldiers in uniforms is a big no, no in politics--and any staffer that has worked in a campaign before, should know that.

 

[vita3]

I support anyone that speaks his mind, especially when "ordered" not to.

 

[Tinnuhana]

Don't know if this has been said, yet, but it's front page of Stars & Stripes today.

 

[Ranger29860]

Don't know if this has been said, yet, but it's front page of Stars & Stripes today.

He is beyond screwed now. if it made the cover of starts and stripes they are going to make an example of him. He is now looking at jail time.

 

[Mini-Me]

He is beyond screwed now. if it made the cover of starts and stripes they are going to make an example of him. He is now looking at jail time.

I love that, when courts decide to "make an example" out of people and deliver a completely disproportionate sentence. Justice!

 

[Krugerrand]

He is beyond screwed now. if it made the cover of starts and stripes they are going to make an example of him. He is now looking at jail time.

Do those rule apply to the Commander and Chief? What about Generals running for office?

 

[Ranger29860]

good point but then couldn't they go after him for impersonating military even though he is in the military? just wondering. It would seem that is how they could go after him then since he is not wearing his uniform and is wearing a uniform that is not his or should i say the governments.

There is a law about impersonating a soldier but you have to actually be trying to get access to thing and be wearing all parts of the uniform. Veterans including myself still wear bits of our uniforms like the pants(comfortable) I wear my Army jacket all the time. Now there is the Stolen Valor Act" but that only covers if I were to walk around with a medal that i did not earn pinned on me or my uniform.