This is sort of a question, but since it will likely trigger a debate, I’ll put it here.
There’s been a few news articles recently about a marine, honourably discharged after serving in Iraq, who’s been involved in protests against the war. During one of those protests, he wore a camoflage uniform, but without any indicators of rank, marine status, etc. He’s been charged by the Marines under miltary law “during or in connection with furthering political activities … when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.” The basis for military law applying to him is that although honourably discharged, he’s still in the Individual Ready Reserve.
That article raises some interesting questions, but the point I’m curious about: what about those events where the President is making a public speech, usuallly with political content, at a military base, in front of, or to, rows of uniformed military men and women? Doesn’t that raise questions about the conduct of the military people?
I’ve always wondered about the times where the Prez is speaking with the military as a backdrop. In these cases, aren’t the military being used to give implicit military cred to the Prez? Why is that permitted?
One legitimate reason for doing this is to keep the morale of the troops up. You get the president showing up, and saying he thinks your doing a fine job. He’s usually reassuring them that the job that they are doing (and any sacrifices that job may require, like family seperation) is a worthwhile one.
I think that is a part of his job.
I cant seem to recall the President making a speech on a military base that did not involve the War on Terror, or Active Duty/Veterans Affair type concerns. If the Prez showed up to talk about late term abortion, or the Gay Marriage Act, I might agree with you.
I know i shouldn’t answer a question with a question, but do you think that they should refuse to be seen when the Prez decides to come give them an “atta-boy”?
Well, there is that, too. But the current Prez is definately not the first to have done this…
One of the fringe bennies of the job, I guess. Do you feel that when Bush landed on the carrier, and gave the sailors his “atta-boy, we won” speech, that the sailors were in violation of the “Do not attend public demonstrations in uniform” rules?
Where it becomes sticky is when we are dealing with an elected official. That person is a politician - but also obviously is an official in the government, and thus often must speak at numerous events. And there is no reason why those speeches must omit political comment if uniformed servicemembers are in the audience.
So no sweat there for the servicemember, especially if he clears his attendance at the event with his chain of command beforehand, or was ordered to attend by same chain (like with the Bush event on the Abraham Lincoln, or uniformed color guard at the Democratic National Convention.)
There are specific rules about attending political rallies, protests, and antiwar demonstrations while in uniform. Servicemembers are trained on these rules. That Marine really didn’t have an excuse.
While that would be extraordinarily amusing, this is probably the answer. It would simply be too much of a hassle to have them all change just because this time it’s a politician addressing them. He comes to their workplace and they wear their work clothes.
Being spoken to by the President does not imply sponsorship of any political activity, any more than I sponsored PETA by watching that goofy hot girl/cow udder milk video on youtube.
Participating in a political protest (or rally) while you’re in the military is different from just being in an audience.
There’s also a decent argument for Bush’s visits to military bases not being political activity, unless someone can point to any statements he made during these visits about how they should cast their vote. Aren’t those rallies just a bunch of “Yay America!” morale boosts?
It would be a start. Does any public figure besides Bush and Cheney make speeches to the troops? It is my impression that politicians that resort to such captive audiences do so as a last resort to avoid negative reactions they would be subjected to in more open venues.
Of course the troops are a symbolic, disciplined, uniformed background for a politician. They love a captive audience.
Now I’m all for our leaders telling the troops how much the country appreciates them. I don’t mind if the commentary over the pictures says ‘Today the Prime Minister visited our brave troops on active duty in …’.
But I object to political propaganda e.g. about how justified the Iraq war was, using a background of troops (or unfurling banners about ‘Mission Accomplished’ on warships).
Soldiers put their life on the line for their country. They should be treated with respect, not used as political cannon-fodder.
Pretty much every President we’ve had at least since Truman has made speeches to soldiers, during wars and during times of peace, pretty much regardless of approval rating. When Bush’s approval rating was in the stratosphere he spoke to groups of soldiers.
The definition of political activity that service members are not allowed to engage in while in uniform is that it advances a partisan cause or a political party. The President showing up and saying “you’re doing well” may arguably do that, but realistically that isn’t considered a partisan political event that is trying to advance a partisan cause or a political party. Plus, as the Commander-in-Chief it’d be a bit ludicrous for a soldier to be unable to listen to the President speak at a non-political event, especially in situations where it isn’t even feasible to not attend (like on the deck of an aircraft carrier.)
In the few cases I experienced, it was voluntary. The attendees get excused from their regular duties. While you may have to spend a little time ensuring that your uniform is pressed, it still felt like you were getting time off. There is usually no shortage of volunteers. (Unless its really really hot, or raining, or some such.)
Educated guess: Yes.
McCain would be allowed on any base, no prob, he’s a Senator, and a war veteran.
Someone not a vet or currently holding a national level elected position, like John Edwards, could contact the CO of the base, and try to get an invite, through the Public Affairs Office. I believe that someone of sufficient gravitas, like Edwards, would not be turned away.
The only folks I would expect not to receive access are those that might be those advocating the destruction or disruption of the current government as part of their platform, or those that are from another jurisdiction that dont seem to have a snow balls chance of winning some kind of election.
Of the pictures I can find, it looks like this guy was wearing something anyone could put together with a trip to a military surplus store. Actually, a civilian could put together a uniform with all the service patches and identifications.
That the guy was in the USMC and is Ready Reserve is incidental. If you saw him and his street theater group you’d go “Hey, guys in costume doing a protest!” not “Hey, members of the United States armed forces acting in an official capacity!”
While whether or not he wore a “uniform” seems to be something of a gray area (and the VoFW is lobbying for the Marines to drop this), there doesn’t seem to be any question that he swore at a superior officer, which is a no no without any gray area.
Too true. And since the former Marine in question in the OP alleges he had no branch, rank, or unit identifiers on his remnant uniforms, I don’t see where they are going with this investigation. He did his time, served honorably, and, as a civilian, expressed his right to free speech. As far as I’m concerned, he’s in the clear WRT to the demonstration/protest.
If he did indeed disrespect the Major in an e-mail, well, there’s a record of that. And if the record bears out the charge of disrespect, that’s actionable. I think reducing his Honorable Discharge is way over the top, though.
