Military Warns Active Duty, Reservists, and Retirees Not To March for Ron Paul on 20 Feb.

[abruzz0]

MARCH ON KOKESH!!!!!!!!

 

[KevinYeaux]

Not seeing that this march is going to help much... I know a lot of servicemen, including my dad (retired Army) who were not pleased at the Paul campaign's stunt involving the serviceman IN UNIFORM at their Iowa victory party.

The only part I think is weird is the requirement, which I didn't know about, that active duty can't be involved at all. That I disagree with. But I see no issue with the DoD saying no one can attend in uniform.

 

[JasonM]

I think I made the point by posting that Bush pic.

If that isn't "selective" I don't know what is.

Bush is not campaigning on behalf of anybody here and this is NOT a political rally for any other candidate (plus he's a "civilian" not bound by the UCMJ). Also he's the commander in chief, which means he can change the DoD regs any which way he likes through executive order or get a general to re-write it.

Don't twist my words. I was talking about active duty campaigning for specific candidates.

 

[row333au]

In a democratic republic country even military personnel and their community with active duty status (along with non-active, reserves and to some extent retired) have rights and privileges that even the military authorities and command must observe and cannot violate such as oath to the constitution, constitutional rights, human rights and sovereignty rights over military jurisdiction. This is where the military organizations going through due process that it can qualify and adhere to satisfy those rights by having protocols and procedures where at the same time respects the chain of commands.

So if a soldier (or group of soldiers) has an issue they are allowed and open to take actions (jag, military courts, etch) when its done within those rules in order to keep the code of conducts intact while their duty to each other as a corp.

Any military who served knows this well (usually common under belligerent or disputes), and it also depends on the strength of how its encourage or discourage by the top brass (even how embedded they are with politicians and lobbyist - see Pentagon and Government administration structure) in terms of how autocratic or dictatorial the high management of the collectively military are going to be.

 

[Diurdi]

That e-mail is completely fine.

People should not wear the uniform and endorse a specific candidate, as while wearing it you represent the military. The military does not endorse any candidates and neither should people that represent it.

The question if active duty military should be allowed to participate in these marches in civilian clothes is up for debate though.

 

[cheapseats]

Active Duty and Reservists can be punished for violating the UCMJ (Article 92) and DoD Directives; while Retired personnel can have their pensions under review. Perhaps this should only include veterans who are not contractually bound by the UCMJ under IRR.

This is my understanding.

 

[cheapseats]

To be honest, I'd be worried if the Military just went along with this. It's makes sense to me that the Military can not be seen as picking/choosing one political figure over another. It can set a bad precedent and be viewed as a Military Coup of sorts.

Active Duty marching FOR someone who is trying to unseat the Commander-in-Chief . . . in other words, effectively marching AGAINST the presiding Commander-in-Chief . . . yes, it can be interpreted as quite a bit worse than "picking political figures".

Separately from revolutions and coups, political marching/rallying/demonstrating in defiance of directive AGAINST display of political preference is clear INSUBORDINATION.

 

[cheapseats]

A man in the military can't exercise his right to free speech and support a political candidate of his choice.

The Military is NOT a democracy.

But it's perfectly OK to that same man to be used like this:

Is George Bush despicable? In my book, yes.

Was MISSION ACCOMPLISHED bullshit? Yes.

Was the invasion of Iraq bogus? I think so.

Is is "perfectly okay" for the Commander-in-Chief to address Troops? Yes.

For the presiding Commander-in-Chief to pose in in front of Troops for his OWN Kodak Moment is not "perfectly moral", but it IS perfectly common.

 

[donnay]

It's not personal against Ron Paul. They would say the same thing if it was a veteran's march for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. Political activism by contractually bound veterans is highly regulated and abridged. It's even illegal for commanders to tell troops to vote democrat or republican, even if the vast majority tend to be republican. All they can do is encourage folks to vote (a tall order since most troops fall within the under age 45 category that is the worst about not voting).

So, don't get your conspiracy panties up in a bunch. This is standard procedure. What would be disturbing is if they only SELECTIVELY tried to enforce this rule. THEN something fishy is going on.

My conspiracy panties are in a bunch because we are told time and time again that the military is fighting for our freedom. So it's okay for people to think they are fighting for our freedom on some foreign battle field, illegally, but not okay, domestically, fight for our freedoms as per the First amendment?



"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)


Well I support our troops 150% by marching in DC (The District of Criminals), they are actively fighting for our freedom domestically where it should be!! What this proves to me is the Pentagon doesn't really support the troops, it's all an illusion!

 

[cheapseats]

Can anyone now deny that the government is in collusion against Ron Paul?

It is much easier for Ostriches to deny collusion against a Ron Paul candidacy when Ron Paul Supporters interpret policies existent BEFORE Ron Paul's candidacy as concerted efforts against Ron Paul.

Why else would the DOD be so worried about this march?

I'M not in the Department of Defense and I'M worried about this march.

Why? Because Military have NOT defied and are NOT defying Military Protocol in order to defend CIVILIAN Demonstrators who are being manhandled and even brutalized by the OTHER uniforms theoretically devoted to and restrained by our Constitution.

 

[cheapseats]

How can you guys complain when people willfully and voluntarily sign a contract. Nobody forced them to join or sign. Libertarians believe in contracts.

Yep. Rules 'n Regulations R Us.

Active Duty would be constrained politically even if they'd been DRAFTED.

But they WEREN'T drafted.

 

[cheapseats]

The amount of military hate in this thread is disgusting.

Kindly delineate "military hate" evidenced in this thread . . . I DARE ya.

 

[anewvoice]

Yep. Rules 'n Regulations R Us.

Active Duty would be constrained politically even if they'd been DRAFTED.

But they WEREN'T drafted.

Thought provoking. Freedom of speech is a right, not a privilege and as such is not something that can be taken away from you or infringed. My understanding of the points from this thread regarding the military contract is that by enlisting voluntarily you are also voluntarily infringing your own rights which makes it an individual decision requiring then individual accountability for said decision.

Okay.

Now let's say the draft is instituted and I am forced into said contract. At this point then there is a srtong argument to be made that I have not voluntarily agreed to anything and my rights are mine, not to be infringed by anyone else, government or military.

This is a theoretical exercise of course but I would see a Constitutional issue in a draft situation.

 

[cheapseats]

I was young and trusted my government back then.

I lately had a Ron Paul Supporter accuse me of wanting to KILL BROWN BABIES FOR OIL, if I vote for anyone but Ron Paul. Turns out he, not I, fell for TRANSPARENT Iraq hype and he, not I, ENLISTED. The dude who got HOODWINKED, the dude who DID kill people for oil, had the chutzpah to level at me what he thought was a most damning insult. He called me a . . . CAREER CIVILIAN.

I wear it with pride.

They gave you documents to read and sign on multiple forms. I knew what I was signing up for though.

People do and DON'T know what all they sign up for, when affixing signatures on pages and pages of THIS IS ALL ABOUT YOU TOWING LINES FOR OUR GREATER GOOD legal-eze.

What CHOICE, but agree to the terms, WHATEVER they are . . . if one wants the loan, the job, the internet service, the driver's license, the software license.

Even when it IS a seller's market for Labor, military personnel must play by a different set of sticks.

And this is NOT a seller's market for Labor.

 

[cheapseats]

Freedom of speech is a right, not a privilege and as such is not something that can be taken away from you or infringed.

THEORETICALLY.

Blowing yer head off WILL effectively take away your "right" to Free Speech.

Locking you away indefinitely in solitary confinement effectively takes away your "right" to Free Speech.

Now let's say . . . theoretical exercise of course but I would see a Constitutional issue in a draft situation.

This march is imminent, yes?

It is not the time for Constitutional hypotheticals.

It is time to decide whether Active Duty actively demonstrating in presidential politics might be an ironic incident of SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER.

 

[parocks]

Not seeing that this march is going to help much... I know a lot of servicemen, including my dad (retired Army) who were not pleased at the Paul campaign's stunt involving the serviceman IN UNIFORM at their Iowa victory party.

The only part I think is weird is the requirement, which I didn't know about, that active duty can't be involved at all. That I disagree with. But I see no issue with the DoD saying no one can attend in uniform.

It combines getting people "not pleased" with Paul with a waste of time, money and everything else. Is Zak Carter involved? Elections are boring. Let's do marches instead</s>

 

[Svenskar_för_Ron_Paul]

Wasn't GWB Commander if Chief at that time for the picture?

 

[wstrucke]

speaking of which -- what happened to the poor fellow who was interviewed on CNN during the Iowa caucuses in full uniform?

 

[vechorik]

I'm a Viet Nam vet and didn't like the sound of this march in the first place. I voiced my opinion when it was being contemplated.

What is the purpose of this march? To gain votes for Ron Paul, or to make Adam more visible to the media?
If anyone is arrested, I hope it's Adam for conspiring to break the law. Make an example of him and leave the soldiers alone.
This will definitely LOSE votes for Dr. Paul when the media finishes with it.
I'm a RP supporter and I don't like Adam's insanity one damn bit --because Dr. Paul will be blamed for it and it accomplishes nothing good.

 

[azxd]

I'm a Viet Nam vet and didn't like the sound of this march in the first place. I voiced my opinion when it was being contemplated.

What is the purpose of this march? To gain votes for Ron Paul, or to make Adam more visible to the media?
If anyone is arrested, I hope it's Adam for conspiring to break the law. Make an example of him and leave the soldiers alone.
This will definitely LOSE votes for Dr. Paul when the media finishes with it.
I'm a RP supporter and I don't like Adam's insanity one damn bit --because Dr. Paul will be blamed for it and it accomplishes nothing good.

That's how I see it, also.

To those who see nothing wrong with this ... Remove Paul from the situation, and ask yourself how you would feel to wake up, turn on the TV, and hear the media telling you about a military force attempting to storm the Whitehouse.
Guns or not, that's what people will say.

The MSM has been marginalizing Paul and his supporters for years.
Do you really think they will miss this opportunity to totally destroy his support base ?