Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: presidio9

IMHO POTUS should not salute. They are civilians. This is one protocol that President Reagan should not have initiated.I think if one looks in the FM 22-5 instructions will be found for how long a saluting soldier will hold his salute and what cues he will use when saluting a civilian.


4 posted on 04/17/2012 1:52:05 PM PDT by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: xkaydet65
IMHO POTUS should not salute. They are civilians.

The Commander in Chief should not salute the troops?

I don't have a problem with it.

14 posted on 04/17/2012 2:05:44 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: xkaydet65

Sorry, the president is the military commander-in-chief. He is to be saluted because of his rank, not whether he is miltary or civilian. You are saluting the rank.


16 posted on 04/17/2012 2:10:07 PM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: xkaydet65
IMHO POTUS should not salute. They are civilians. This is one protocol that President Reagan should not have initiated.I think if one looks in the FM 22-5 instructions will be found for how long a saluting soldier will hold his salute and what cues he will use when saluting a civilian.

POTUS is more than a civilian - he is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Therefore, his protocol is different from that of an ordinary civilian.

In addition, since President Reagan made the decision that saluting was appropriate for the CIC when he was, in fact, the CIC, then the issue is settled for military people and not subject to disagreement. And there are any number of manuals one can turn to to find out whether military personnel must follow lawful orders.

18 posted on 04/17/2012 2:15:53 PM PDT by Talisker (He who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: xkaydet65

They are Commander in Chief of the military. They should salute.


19 posted on 04/17/2012 2:19:15 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: xkaydet65
Agreed. This is one of the cultural changes of the POTUS.

Pres. Eisenhower and other from the past didn't salute. This is a recent phenomenon. And, as for the military, the POTUS is only CIC when called into service, and doesn't have have sway of large amounts of our forces like our National Guard, unless they are mobilized by Congress.

Congress has more power and authority than the POTUS.

Saluting became a image concept to grant more a 'authority' like presence to someone, and is great for the sheep who prefer image over substance.

23 posted on 04/17/2012 2:41:55 PM PDT by Theoria (Rush Limbaugh: Ron Paul sounds like an Islamic terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: xkaydet65

Sorry, he’s commander in chief. His salute should be a return though.


25 posted on 04/17/2012 2:57:29 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: xkaydet65

It is always appropriate for the Commander in Chief to return the salute of a military member under his authority.

Colonel, USAFR


26 posted on 04/17/2012 3:01:30 PM PDT by jagusafr ("Write in Palin and prepare for war...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: xkaydet65
IMHO POTUS should not salute. They are civilians. This is one protocol that President Reagan should not have initiated.I think if one looks in the FM 22-5 instructions will be found for how long a saluting soldier will hold his salute and what cues he will use when saluting a civilian.
Fully understood. But Reagan was a special case. Colin Powell wrote (I drew a blank trying to do a search, but I know it was online) in which he said that he met with Reagan once in California (pretty sure it was after Reagan left office), and Reagan indicated that he had heard that there was some objection to his saluting soldiers, and asked General Powell his opinion. Powell wrote that if he had told Reagan to discontinue it, and his comrades-in-arms had ever gotten wind of it, that his name would have been Mudd in the military forever after.
I think it is a Catch-22 situation - a Reagan sets the precedent, and a Clinton picks up on it and turns it into something you wish never got started. At this point it would take an act of Congress to terminate the precedent.

35 posted on 04/17/2012 4:28:34 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson