How can DK'ers make their argument out of uniform?
At least this woman is properly tin-foily attired...
If the dummie pandering Presidential candidates don’t immediately leave that “convention,” I hope the RNC gets some spicy video of the incident for use during the general election campaign next year.
The “company you keep” says more about you than anything else.
Can’t wear the uniform and play in politics. If he was in civies, it would have been OK.
Sticky subject... I’m not sure that I would have attended the meeting in uniform, or any protest/counterprotest for that matter. But you would think that these people would have the courage to at least hear him out.
As for the Weasel... F him.
Semper Fi
NYleatherneck
At least this woman is properly tin-foily attired...
JVB is correct. Political speech is prohibited while in uniform.
Republican Party needs George S. Patton, not Miss Manners running the campaign.
A long time ago.
It would have really made the point if he stripped to his undergarments and finished his discussion.
Censorship as usual from the left.
E3.3. EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES In accordance with the statutory restrictions in 10 U.S.C. 973(b) (reference (b)) and references (g) and (h), and the policies established in section 4., above, of this Directive, a member on active duty shall not:
E3.3.1. Use official authority or influence to: interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others.
E3.3.2. Be a candidate for civil office in Federal, State, or local government, except as authorized in paragraph 4.2., above, of this Directive, or engage in public or organized soliciting of others to become partisan candidates for nomination or election to civil office.
E3.3.3. Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions (except as a spectator when not in uniform), or make public speeches in the course thereof.
E3.3.4. Make a contribution to another member of the Armed Forces or a civilian officer or employee of the United States for the purpose of promoting a political objective or cause, including a political campaign.
E3.3.5. Solicit or receive a contribution from another member of the Armed Forces or a civilian officer or employee of the United States for the purpose of promoting a political objective or cause, including a political campaign.
E3.3.6. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
E3.3.7. Serve in any official capacity or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club.
E3.3.8. Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
E3.3.9. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against of a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
E3.3.10. Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political group or distribute partisan political literature.
E3.3.11. Use contemptuous words against the officeholders described in 10 U.S.C. 888 (reference (b)), or participate in activities proscribed by references (c) and (d).
E3.3.12. Perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political committee during a campaign or on an election day.
E3.3.13. Solicit or otherwise engage in fundraising activities in Federal offices or facilities, including military reservations, for a partisan political cause or candidate.
E3.3.14. March or ride in a partisan political parade.
E3.3.15. Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a bumper sticker) on the top or side of a private vehicle.
E3.3.16. Participate in any organized effort to provide voters with transportation to the polls if the effort is organized by, or associated with, a partisan political party or candidate.
E3.3.17. Sell tickets for, or otherwise actively promote, political dinners and similar fundraising events.
E3.3.18. Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed Forces.
It’s just that the tolerant, open-tent liberals simply cannot tolerate anyone that has an opinion differing from their own. Combine this with their natural cowardice and you get this kind of reaction.
I’ve always hoped that Jack Bauer will one day strap a leftist into his chair and “break him” by forcing him to listen to Fox News.
DoD Directive 1325.6 and DoD Directive 7050.6 (pdf).
Needless to say, the Democrats should not have cut the soldier off. They are not MPs and are not briefed on the UCMJ.
Don't they have to have souls first?
How is saying the “surge was working, and cutting down on Iraqi casualties” political speech?
“Wes Clark took the mic and tried to explain what had just occurred: The argument appears to be that you’re not allowed to participate in politics while wearing a uniform”
So when Kerry was protesting the Vietnam war in fatigues and uniform, that was just a made-up costume?
Oh the irony!
Update: Ironically, Kos himself wrote a post just last month arguing that vets should be allowed to wear their cammies to political events and naturally concluded by pronouncing anyone who disagreed “legitimately and objectively un-American.” Jeff Emanuel quoted him chapter and verse at Red State by way of an answer. The relevant DoD reg appears to be 1334.01, which provides in pertinent part:
3.1. The wearing of the uniform by members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of Reserve components) is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:…
3.1.2. During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.
3.1.3. Except when authorized by the approval authorities in subparagraph 4.1.1., when participating in activities such as unofficial public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration, which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.
Even though it’s almost certainly not true, an inference of military sponsorship can be pretty clearly drawn from the fact that he’s asking a question that’s in line with current military policy. JD Johannes seems to think so too, as he e-mails to say that taking part in an inherently political event is a violation of the UCMJ. The counterargument, I guess, is that he wasn’t really engaging in “political” activity, just debating the facts about current military strategy, but I don’t know if that flies.
You think?