bringing several interesting questions along with it
…On Thursday, the military issued a warning to the organizers of the march (who are not affiliated with or funded by the Paul campaign) and reminded them of DoD Directive 1344.10 paragraph 4.1.2.10 that restricts active duty personnel from participating in political marches that could be viewed as an official endorsement of a candidate, whether dressed in uniform or civilian clothes. Kokesh and Cox have encouraged attendees to act according to their own conscience. In a message on the Facebook event page, they wrote,
It is an absurd proposition to say that members of the military supporting candidates in uniform would be construed to represent official positions of the government and rules regarding free speech for members of the military have only been used to silence dissent and keep the true will of the troops from being relevant in the American political discourse. Well, NOT ANY MORE!
*
From: Weger, Joel A CIV OGC, Ethics [mailto:joel.weger@NAVY.MIL]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:17
To: ETHICS@LISTSERV.LAW.NAVY.MIL
Subject: [ETHICS] Partisan Political March
Importance: High
It has come to our attention that a partisan political march targeting military personnel is being organized for February 20, 2012. See link
below: http://www.facebook.com/events/192677970828185/?ref=notif¬if_t=event_inviteAs a reminder, active duty personnel are prohibited by DoD Directive 1344.10 paragraph 4.1.2.10 from marching in a partisan political parade regardless of whether they are in uniform or civilian clothes. Reservists not on active duty and retirees may not march in uniform pursuant to paragraph 4.1.4. Reservists not on active duty and retirees may march in civilian clothes provided that they do not otherwise act in a manner that could reasonably give rise to the inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement.
The directive is a lawful general regulation. Violations of paragraphs 4.1. through 4.5. of the Directive by persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice are punishable under Article 92, “Failure to Obey Order or Regulation.”
In addition, DODI 1334.01, paragraph 3.1.2 prohibits the wearing of the uniform by members of the armed forces (including retired members and members of reserve components) during or in connection with political activities.
You may wish to advise your command regarding this particular event because of the apparent solicitation of active duty personnel.
Joel A. Weger
Senior Attorney
Department of the Navy
Office of the Assistant General Counsel (Ethics)
That policy was put in place for a reason. This country established that the Civilians would be in charge of the Military for a reason.
Yet Weger specifically said “parade:” I assume for a reason. Does that mean a “gathering” would be viewed differently?
I’m interested in the impressions and views of those who have waaaay more experience and historic background than I on this…
I will also be interested to see the coverage — if any — by the LSM. This seems to be a significant symptom of Teh Times.
Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
20 Comments!
Methinks that ol’Adam just got himself added to a List.
Claire, I’m not the expert you’re looking for, but for what it’s worth, I think this thing is Not Good both in respect to the event itself and to a general view that is growing in our society.
We’ve already got an administration (and indeed an entire political party) who thinks that the ends justify the means to the extent that the actions of the President can, and I’m being kind here, be “extra-constitutional.” We’ve seen a similar attitude in a Pelosi congress.
Now we’ve got an alleged libertarian (conservative?) political movement that seeks to draw the military into politics, which should have any sane person’s first reflexive thought be: “banana republic!”
However well intended the first step, this is a slippery slope.
It’s not that I fear a military coup is right around the corner.
It’s the growing attitude in many parts of society that breaking the rules and disrupting the fabric of our democracy is all right, as long as it’s for whatever cause some think is good.
I’m pressed for time, writing badly, and perhaps not quite getting to the heart of this. I hope some other people here will do a better job in discussing it.
OBTW: not that I think this is the case here, of course; but if I were a political activist who wanted to further discredit the Republican party and/or conservative movements with the general voting population, I might think of promoting something like this…..
Kokesh was thrown out of the Military basically and is a big time douchebag and works for the Propaganda tv station Russia TV put on by Pooty Poot
Don’t suppose Adam is David’s brother?
You can read it on line.
4.1.2. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:
4.1.2.10. March or ride in a partisan political parade.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Stix1972 : Kokesh is either “an anti-war smear merchant in GOP clothing” (Michelle Malkin) or “a revolutionary patriot” (Adam Kokesh). The wikipedia article is a bit biased towards him (about that discharge, “all he did was …..”).
And he’s certainly not doing Ron Paul any favors.
Out of curiosity … do the same rules apply if the military member is endorsing the current Commander in Chief?
^ well in theory sure, but do I sense some crafty trap in Peggy’s question?
Offhand, I can think of some very good reasons for that directive.
Here are a few quick’n dirty ones:
• Military personnel are under discipline and are vulnerable to being mis-used by politicized officers and officials. There is great and ugly temptation, here.
• It’s easy for propaganda merchants to mis-label military participation, even out of uniform, as evidence of official sanction or of military disintegration/faction/rebellion/disloyalty or of military interest in or influence on the election process.
• The military should never be seen as participating in partisan politics in any way. They are in sworn service to the Constitution in the interests of all the people, not just a faction.
As far as personal rights go:
• Active-duty military are not always able to exercise their rights.
The military operates under separate laws, morality, discipline, and behavior.
That’s one reason for uniforms, so they and we know they’re under separate rules.
• Temporarily sacrificing your rights as a free citizen to a military code, while on active duty, is necessary to the controlled employment of force by a free republic; but “Militarism” as a method of civil governance is anathema in a free republic.
Do not mix them.
DougM: That’s it exactly. You’ve hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head (presumably with the proverbial hammer).
That was one thing the brighter recruits in Basic wondered about – if we’re all here to preserve liberty and guarantee freedom, how come we ain’t got none?
“That’s one reason they wear uniforms, so you can tell the two apart.”
In wartime, the uniform (on all sides) is the mark that says “shoot me, not the guy in civvies (unless, of course, I shoot you first)”.
Certain groups of a more or less fundamentalist leaning don’t wear uniforms for that exact reason.
There really should be more attention paid to “separation of state and military”. In some South American countries, they just don’t understand that principle, and El Generalissimo and his friends decide they would be better off running the country than that idiot who got most of the votes.
Then I suppose that when Teh Won (or any other pol, for that matter) goes to a military base to make some announcement or speech or whatever, the troops are within their (limited) rights to refuse to serve as living ornaments, standing behind said pol for the video clip that will appear on the nightly news.
Cuz if that ain’t “being mis-used by politicized officers and officials”, I don’t know what is.
This is what had me asking that question, specifically this passage from that article:
Veterans and Military Families for Progress is a 501(c)(4) non-partisan, not-for-profit veterans organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. It is a 21st Century organization made up of members located throughout the country, and from across the breadth of rank and military services, who served, are serving, or are family members of those who have heeded the call to serve their country in the U.S. armed forces. VMFP’s endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President is based upon a number of non-partisan criteria assessed for major party candidates for this office, including support of VMFP’s mission, proposed policy agendas — especially those focused on coming home issues — grades, rankings and ratings of other veteran-related interest groups, and each candidate’s actions in the Senate.
So is it ok if you are active duty military to endorse a candidate as long as you issue a disclaimer that your choice is strictly “nonpartisan”?
^ I will add that the endorsement was for the 2008 race, not this year’s. I am trying to determine if they still exist, and if they still support Obama.
This is all a result of OBoBo`s Class warfare. DO NOT take the bait!!!!!!!!
His wording implies that all or a majority of the military is for Ron Paul for President.
Right or wrong about Ron Paul being the best man for the job, Adam is dead wrong and has a hell of a nerve in claiming to speak for the all the military.
Serve him right if a bunch of serving men and women bury his mailbox in disclaimers, and go on record saying they resent the arrogance and the theft of their prerogative to choose.
PeggyU,
Thanks for posting that ‘mission statement’ of the VMPF.
A skillfully written leftist screed that seems intended to
recruit naive military people & their family members into
an organization that supports leftist causes & candidates.
I also wonder if the demonstration by ‘thousands’ of military
‘marchers’ will be interpreted by the LSM as the ‘clear choice
of the troops’ for Luap Nor! If so, it will be an astounding
success for the leftist, dems, etc. As if a coupla thousand
VMPF’ers represent the almost 1.5 million active duty
members of our Armed forces plus even more veterans.
Rereading Kokesh’s letter to BamBam, I noticed
a gigantic amount of unbelievable arrogance.
A nutcase or is he just a typical Paultard??
ZZMike (10)
The “uniformed politician” thing has always amused me.
I dunno, it’s just so … you know, operetta buffa.
Gilbert & Sullivan thrived on poking fun of it.
Actually, I’m sure it has a simple purpose in statist systems.
It’s the illusion of authority, power, and discipline.
It’s how you tell the bossers and bossees apart.
• I have more braid and baubles and a wider sash than anybody else here, so I’m probably really, really important.
• I have a uniform, so the Army will probably do what I tell it to do to you if you don’t recognize your good fortune in having meee to run your lives.
• Look at this outfit, willya? Man, it’s like spotless! Now, look at yourselves.
No wonder I’m in charge. Yeah, I knowwww ! You’re welcome!
People are told that the gov’t is in charge of their society, so they expect to see an in-charge guy; and in-charge guys need their I’m-the-in-charge-guy costumes, I guess.
Okay, there’s a traditional reason for the uniformed boss man: kings and chiefs were warlords, originally. In colonial administrations, too, civilian bigwigs (Viceroys and Ambassadors) wore mainly ceremonial uniforms as representatives of their hometown warlord-descendant.
Yeah, civilians in snazzy uniforms impress the easily impressed
… especially themselves.
Personally? When it comes to petty dictators?
I think there’s an, uhm, major “compensation” thing involved, too.
ya mean this?
Not the UCMJ I know. Perhaps there has been a change. Active Duty military MAY NOT/shall not wear a uniform in a partisan event/parade speechifying event unless held by their leadership and the crown.
You may parade your gay ass down mainstreet so long as you wear civilian attire.