Paul Supporter Likely Violated Military Conduct Code

[MrScorpio]

Following a third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, Ron Paul held a boisterous rally, featuring a speech from Army Corporal Jesse Thorsen. Thorsen, who was in uniform, voiced impassioned support for Paul's non-interventionist views. "We don't need to be picking fights overseas," he said, and pledged to help "make sure this man is the next president of the United States."

It was an understandable sentiment from a soldier who said he had served in the military for 10 years, which included tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the appearance likely violated the protocols for service members included in Defense Department Directive 1344.10, which states explicitly that they are not to participate in political rallies as anything more than spectators. And if they do attend a political function, they're not supposed to do so in uniform.

Active-duty service members can "register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces," the directive states. It also stipulates:

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.
And it says that service-members shall not:

4.1.2.5. Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
4.1.2.6. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/paul-supporter-jesse-thorsen-likely-violated-military-conduct-code

[bowens43]

1. who cares?

[patrice]

3. Good question. How about a test? Find a public speaking Obama supporter in uniform and

we'll see.

[MineralMan]

4. The military cares. Personnel may not campaign or do such

things in uniform or representing themselves a military. Why? Because the military is specifically not a political organization. They serve under the direction of the President, no matter what party the President represents. The military takes no political positions. It's a serious offense.

[TheDebbieDee]

6. I care. Lapses in protocol like this can lead to bigger, more dangerous

infractions of the military rules..........

I know that you will think I'm blowing this out of proportion, but a "who cares" attitude can lead to soldiers believing that their rules don't matter, so they just do what they want!

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. The military cares

it is called good order and discipline. And it is not exclusive to the US military either. When I was in uniform, somewhere else, I had the exact same limits...

[yellowcanine]

37. I care. Keeping the military non political is a basic tenet of our country and it has served us

quite well. Going down that road is how we get a banana republic.

[limpyhobbler]

2. it's an important regulation, to keep the military out of politics.

But to be honest he seemed like a nice young man.
It seems like it was an honest mistake.

[Prometheus Bound]

5. Picayune. Pretty clear to everyone he was not pretending to represent the armed forces.

[patrice]

7. Whether the person claims or pretends representation does not matter. The reg is simply

about service members in uniform. Period.

[Prometheus Bound]

11. can "...express a personal opinion on...issues, but not as a representative of the armed forces."

letter vs spirit

[patrice]

21. "issues" as opposed to candidates?

It's interesting how we expect laws, or any regulations, to be perfect when we want them to be, e.g. indefinite detention in the NDAA, and then we also tolerate gray areas when we want to: e.g. the presence of military in uniforms at candidate events, as long as they represent issues, which is similar to our tolerance for political organizing in churches as long as they "educate" "on the issues".

Personally, given the nature of the primary tool here, our language and semiotics, I think these kinds of situational judgements are unavoidable and, actually, necessary. It's just that we almost never say that to one another, so the critical analyses that underlie this kind of stuff almost never gets externalized and evaluated by either/both sides of any issue and that's important because that is what makes oppression possible. The end result, on balance, is that most of it gets used against us, instead of for us as would be the case if everyone knew more about why/how things are the way that they are.

[joshcryer]

26. Fascinating observation.

I do find duplicity with regards to how laws are drafted, or enforced, quite interesting to say the least. I personally have no problem being against some laws, and being for others. But when I observe that some people are for laws that have similar purposes, yet show neutrality if not full on support for those laws in a given circumstance, while being against those same laws in another circumstance, I'm quite perplexed.

[patrice]

30. No answers here. Other than the whole thing should be more "on the table". Let's ALL admit to

subjectivity honestly and in the open.

I don't buy into the subjective : objective truth duality. Everything must begin within and of one's self, to whatever extent something is understood or recognized, that has to begin as an internal/individual event in a context. If all of us could just admit to and articulate our subjective truths, perhaps we could find enough over-lap that we could hypothesize somekind of "objectivity" out of what is actually shared, instead of having all of this used against us all of the time because we are unaware of what we are doing.

Just some thoughts from my life and from being around the Occupy . . . .

[Major Hogwash]

36. It's the uniform.

And the military doesn't give one ounce of a shit about intentions, dreams, wishes, or wants.

[sabrina 1]

8. Why try to get him in trouble?

Seems petty frankly, there are other ways to go after Paul. Using a soldier isn't a good one imho.

[joshcryer]

10. A DUer actually caught it within moments of his speech.

I don't think anyone is "trying to get him in trouble," just expressing support for separation of powers. Were not a junta, yet.

[sabrina 1]

14. Oh please, a young soldier making a minor error is going to turn us into a junta??

I'm more worried about those further up the chain of command, speaking of juntas, who have yet to prosecuted for the crimes they committed, starting with the CIC who lied us into war and all those responsible for the war crimes, speaking of the uniform they so discredited.

The military has a lot more to fix than a soldier wearing his uniform at a political event.

Talk about skewed priorities.

[joshcryer]

19. No, separation of powers is going to keep us from turning into a junta.

If you just start saying "Oh it's OK" for military folks to be politically involved, the next thing you know Rodriguez is standing there announcing dictatorial policies. The rules are there for a reason, I was merely explaining the reason the rule exists.

I personally don't think it's a big deal.

[DURHAM D]

28. I recall reading that Gen. George Marshall (yes as in the Marshall Plan) did not think

that people in the military should even be allowed to vote. He felt that they may vote as a block and have too much influence in chosing their CIC.

He also felt (correctly imo) they would turn into a forceful lobbying group seeking funding for the DOD from their nearby taxpayer funded big building just across the Potomoc River and with their unlimited resources would make mischief with the political process. He was correct in suggesting that they would have undue influence on the legislature and the executive branch.

[joshcryer]

33. Good points, all around.

And why I said we're not a junta, yet. We really should be against MIC lobbying and power in our politics. This may be a minor issue (and I said as much), but it does underscore a powerful point about separation of powers.

Not sure I would go as far as saying military shouldn't be able to vote, of course, but we do need some checks there in the future as the MIC is not going to go down without a fight.

Thanks for the thoughtful post and I'm going to look up that bit about Marshall not thinking they should be allowed to vote, I feint memory of that, but it sounds interesting enough to look back up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. That is NOT a minor error

people get this drilled in boot... HARD.

[sufrommich]

13. It has nothing to do with Paul,

military personel are not allowed to wear their uniforms at campaign events. He was shown on national TV at a political event, it's not as if someone is trying to get him in trouble, my guess is that his superiors knew about it seconds after it happened.

[sabrina 1]

16. Is he on active duty?

[sufrommich]

18. I doubt that it matters, he wore his

military uniform to a political event. There's good reason to discourage a blatant military presence at a political event in a democracy, it crosses a line.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Yes, if he had gone to the event OUT OF UNIFORM

that is fine.

[sabrina 1]

41. Yes, I know that, but I have seen reports that he is not on active duty.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. If he is NOT on active duty then he is clear

even if he is wearing full dress... if he is in active duty, then there is something to prosecute for.

Why my local marine (ret) who showed at a local ows event is in the clear, even though he was wearing his Battle Dress Uniform. In fact, having a flag pin on it was out of spec.

Yes they are that annal.

[Major Hogwash]

38. Well, I don't think that is it, to be honest with you.

They make an example out of someone in every single class -- in boot camp, in AIT, in "A" school, what have you -- when you are in the military in every single branch of the military.

[DURHAM D]

9. Do we know for sure he is active duty?

The tattoos gave me pause.

On edit: I see in the update he is not active duty.

[itsrobert]

12. Uniform regulations are no different for Guard, Reserve, or Active Duty.

so that's a moot detail.

[DURHAM D]

15. I am more focused on the tats.

I don't think the highly visible neck tattoo would be ok if he was active duty. Now that he is in the reserves maybe they let it go.

[sufrommich]

20. I know a guy in the National Guard with many tats, I

don't think there are regulations against them.

[XemaSab]

25. On the neck?

[sufrommich]

27. Nope, but on his wrist and ring finger. nt

[DURHAM D]

29. Finger and wrist is allowed.

But on he neck above the collar not so much.

[sammytko]

17. So is that why he is only an E-4 after 10 years?

Reserve or guard?

[MFrohike]

39. I hate to admit it

I wondered the same thing.

[Earth_First]

31. This is the most ridiculous shit I've read all day...

Bravo, solider!

While it may not be my candidate you speak for, you have earned my respect.

[DURHAM D]

40. Not mine - he was out of line and was used as a political prop.

I don't like it when Presidents (D or R) or anyone else in elected office or campaign does it.

[neverforget]

32. What some on this thread are missing is that if this soldier was in civilian clothes,

he would be fine expressing his support for Paul publicly they way he did. However, it's because he was in uniform and publicly expressed support for Paul that makes it a problem.

[Major Hogwash]

35. Exactly.

And that's why we don't see Generals or Admirals speaking at political rallies.

The military is supposed to be politically neutral.

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. Adam Kokesh got in big trouble for doing this exact thing

He was nearly stripped of his honorable discharge.

I think it was 2007?