Can't wear uniform at political events - so what about soldiers standing behind Bush?

[Northern Piper]

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.

Article here: Marine's war protest brings charges, clash

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?

[elucidator]

Scott Rltter. As iron ass a Marine as ever was born. Where is his Medal of Fredom?

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

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?

What the fuck would you have all these servicemembers do? Change into Easter Bunny outfits?

Or have government officials (including Congress) stop speaking publicly to our military personnel?

[mlees]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

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?

Well, there are a couple reasons.

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.

Doesn't that raise questions about the conduct of the military people?

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"?

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?

Well, there is that, too. But the current Prez is definately not the first to have done this...

Why is that permitted?

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?

[Mr. Moto]

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.

[Dunderman]

Originally Posted by ExTank

What the fuck would you have all these servicemembers do? Change into Easter Bunny outfits?

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.

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

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?

Well, he is their supreme commander.

[Mosier]

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?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by ExTank

Or have government officials (including Congress) stop speaking publicly to our military personnel?

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.

[glee]

It's an interesting topic about top politicians visiting troops.

1. It's very popular here in the UK - usually a tank or artillery is in the background as well as pictures of 'our leader' speaking to 'our boys'.

Thatcher

Blair

2. 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).

3. Soldiers put their life on the line for their country. They should be treated with respect, not used as political cannon-fodder.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

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.

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.)

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

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.

Two questions:
1. When the CIC goes on base to make a political speech, is attendance voluntary or mandatory?
2. Are other candidates, of either party, allowed on base under the same rules?

[mlees]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Two questions:
1. When the CIC goes on base to make a political speech, is attendance voluntary or mandatory?

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.)

2. Are other candidates, of either party, allowed on base under the same rules?

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.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Scott Rltter. As iron ass a Marine as ever was born. Where is his Medal of Fredom?

Did he wear his uniform at a political event?

[1010011010]

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!"

[Apos]

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.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Two questions:
1. When the CIC goes on base to make a political speech, is attendance voluntary or mandatory?
2. Are other candidates, of either party, allowed on base under the same rules?

1. IME (admittedly dated), mandatory.

2. IME (admittedly dated), no.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by 1010011010

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!"

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.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by ExTank

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...

I think they want em to wear clown suits for this sort of thing.

Even the reactionaries at the VFW think the charges are asshatery:
VFW to Corps: Don’t Stifle Freedom of Speech

[1010011010]

Originally Posted by Squink

I think they want em to wear clown suits for this sort of thing.

Be All the Clown You Can Be!

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Did he wear his uniform at a political event?

You never expect the Thread Monitor.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by ExTank

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.

Is the guy a civilian? If he is, why can't tell the major to go f*ck off? The article mentions him being part of the "Ready Reserves". What's that? According to DoD 1334.1, it looks like it doesn't matter whether it's all or part of his uniform if he is now a civilian:

3.2. Former members of the Armed Forces, unless under another provision of this Instruction or under the terms of Section 772 of title 10, United States Code (reference (d)), who served honorably during a declared or undeclared war and whose most recent service was terminated under honorable conditions may wear the uniform in the highest grade held during such war service only on the following occasions and in the course of travel incident thereto:

3.2.1. Military funerals, memorial services, weddings, and inaugurals.

3.2.2. Parades on National or State holidays; or other parades or ceremonies of a patriotic character in which any Active or Reserve United States military unit is taking part.

3.2.3. Wearing of the uniform or any part thereof at any other time or for any other purposes is prohibited.

Also not that, according this directive, the ban on political events goes beyond just whether the person is in uniform or not:

Though no rule banning members from attending any of these events exists, people should be aware that making an announcement that they are a military member, could also bring punishment.

"Let's say you go to an anti-abortion rally in civilian clothes," said Booker. "It's fine for you to be there, but you cannot stand up there and say 'Hi, I am a corporal in the United States Marine Corps and this is where I stand.'"

I'd also like the OP to clarify specifically which event or event is in question wrt the president. Is it your contention that the president not be allowed to address the troops on camera?

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by ExTank

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.

If telling your former CO what he can do to himself is all it takes to get out of the risk of being back-door drafted and shipped back out again, look for it to happen a helluva lot more often now, wouldn'tja say?

[elucidator]

No, I wouldn't. The intensity of the emotional committment of comrades in combat to each other is incredible. Even men who know full well that they are being set to a fool's mission will volunteer out of loyalty to their fellows. And, no, it doesn't make any sense, but what about war ever did?

[ElvisL1ves]

Once they're back home, and in civilian life again, and the buddies whose lives they've depended upon are too, that esprit de corps is more of a fond memory. The daily fear and hopelessness of the situation, and the sights of some of their buddies getting blown up, are pretty strong memories too - and motivators for all of them.

[elucidator]

Maybe they actually did learn something from Viet Nam. They learned that uniformed wearing veterans of the combat in question lend a lot of credibility to the protest. The Viet Nam Veterans Against the War were enormously effective as a group. Of course, the protesting veteran could carry some other sort of marker, a sign, maybe, something like that, but nothing is as visually effective as the actual uniform, it makes a powerful statement.

[ElvisL1ves]

And apparently they removed all insignia first. Anyone could have bought the same clothing at a surplus store.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

If telling your former CO what he can do to himself is all it takes to get out of the risk of being back-door drafted and shipped back out again, look for it to happen a helluva lot more often now, wouldn'tja say?

MAJ Whyte isn't a "former CO." According to the article linked in the OP, he is a Personnel Officer of some sort working in the Marine's IRR Center in Kansas City.

Originally Posted by John Mace

Is the guy a civilian? If he is, why can't tell the major to go f*ck off? The article mentions him being part of the "Ready Reserves". What's that? According to DoD 1334.1, it looks like it doesn't matter whether it's all or part of his uniform if he is now a civilian:

On reflection, actually, I think you're right.

When I left the Army in '91, I was told about my IRR obligation. I was told that I was to consider myself to be in the U.S. Army Reserve, unassigned to any unit, not obligated to be present at any unit drill or function, but to keep my uniforms until my IRR obligation expired.

I would assume that any official military correspondence received while on IRR status would be handled with the due decorum as befits the rank/authority of the sender.

What was emphasized was that I was essentially 99% out of the military. 99% is not 100%, so CPL Kokesh may very well be in some trouble if he did indeed communicate inappropriately with MAJ Whyte.

And if he did strip down a uniform he was supposed to keep up, or even if he bought a brand new one from the U.S. Cavalry Store, and wear it to a political event, he would be in violation of regs.

[JThunder]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

It would be a start. Does any public figure besides Bush and Cheney make speeches to the troops?

Pretty much every US President for the past several decades.

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by ExTank

What the fuck would you have all these servicemembers do? Change into Easter Bunny outfits?

Or have government officials (including Congress) stop speaking publicly to our military personnel?

It's one thing to speak to service members, it's another thing entirely to put up a "Mission Accomplished" banner or have a soldier stand right behind you while you make a speech at the White House to bash Democrats efforts to set a timetable.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by Blalron

It's one thing to speak to service members, it's another thing entirely to put up a "Mission Accomplished" banner or have a soldier stand right behind you while you make a speech at the White House to bash Democrats efforts to set a timetable.

I agree the whole "Mission Accomplished" thing was kinda cheesy, but that was a Presidential visit to an Aircraft Carrier, something well within his rights as C-in-C of the U.S. Armed Forces. Some "HOO-RAH" bullshit was as inevitable this time around as it was the last time around.

There's nothing in your photos to indicate whether they were there in an official capacity or not. Do you have some more information to elaborate on your point? Bear in mind, I didn't hear/see this speech directly.

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by ExTank

There's nothing in your photos to indicate whether they were there in an official capacity or not. Do you have some more information to elaborate on your point? Bear in mind, I didn't hear/see this speech directly.

I do not know the official explanation for the soldier's presence. All I know is that a uniformed soldier was standing behind the President while he was making a speech in front of the cameras, at the White House, bashing the Democratic Congress. On the face of it, it looks like Bush was using soldiers as a political prop.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by Blalron

I do not know the official explanation for the soldier's presence. All I know is that a uniformed soldier was standing behind the President while he was making a speech in front of the cameras, at the White House, bashing the Democratic Congress. On the face of it, it looks like Bush was using soldiers as a political prop.

More context would be in order for me to comment beyond uninformed speculation.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Blalron

I do not know the official explanation for the soldier's presence. All I know is that a uniformed soldier was standing behind the President while he was making a speech in front of the cameras, at the White House, bashing the Democratic Congress. On the face of it, it looks like Bush was using soldiers as a political prop.

Are you suggesting that the military personnel in those pictures be prosecuted? Even if Bush were delivering a completely political speech (which you have not in any way proven that he was), remember it's not illegal to hold a political event in which military types are present, it's against military regs for the military types to be there.

[mlees]

Originally Posted by Blalron

I do not know the official explanation for the soldier's presence. All I know is that a uniformed soldier was standing behind the President while he was making a speech in front of the cameras, at the White House, bashing the Democratic Congress. On the face of it, it looks like Bush was using soldiers as a political prop.

Sometimes the CINC will combine a speech on the lawn of the White House with a military awards ceremony. They would be technically two seperate functions (scheduled back to back).

Or, the uniformed person behind him could be some kind of aide, or advisor that he thought he might need to answer a question on the status of some activity in Iraq. As the speech was directly about Iraq, the Prez might need the military guy to step up and say stuff like "The surge is going well. We reduced violence by 'x' amount. The next six months will be crucial".

A uniform in attendance of a speech about the war is not surprising. One present during a speech on Global Warming would be...

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Are you suggesting that the military personnel in those pictures be prosecuted?

If they they are violating the law, are you suggesting they should not be prosecuted?

Even if Bush were delivering a completely political speech (which you have not in any way proven that he was), remember it's not illegal to hold a political event in which military types are present...

So Bush is not subject to prosecution.

...it's against military regs for the military types to be there.

So they should be prosecuted, if that standard is being applied to members of the military attending political events sponsored by groups opposing the war and the administration.

Am I parsing you correctly?

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Are you suggesting that the military personnel in those pictures be prosecuted? Even if Bush were delivering a completely political speech (which you have not in any way proven that he was), remember it's not illegal to hold a political event in which military types are present, it's against military regs for the military types to be there.

Regardless of whether the soldiers knew about it in advance, Bush knew about the speech in advance and it was inappropriate for Bush to use the soldiers as a backdrop for his speech.

[elucidator]

It could, perhaps, be something other than a presidential credibility enhancement mission. Could be.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

If they they are violating the law, are you suggesting they should not be prosecuted? So Bush is not subject to prosecution. So they should be prosecuted, if that standard is being applied to members of the military attending political events sponsored by groups opposing the war and the administration.

Am I parsing you correctly?

It's not a "law", it's a military regulation. I see no evidence that said regulation was being violated, so no, I don't think they should be prosecuted.

However, let's suppose that Bush orders a military person to stand behind him while he makes a political speech. Let's even suppose that he tells that person the speech is entirely political. Now, the person has to decide whether to follow that particular regulation or to disregard a direct order from the Commander in Chief. In that case, I would not prosecute the person.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Blalron

Regardless of whether the soldiers knew about it in advance, Bush knew about the speech in advance and it was inappropriate for Bush to use the soldiers as a backdrop for his speech.

Eh. First, we don't have any evidence that he was giving a political speech. Second, the president is surrounded by military guards while he's at the WH. This kind of stuff is going to happen, even when Ms. Clinton moves back into that residence. Sorry, but I can't manufacture any outrage over this particular thing.

[Squink]

President Bush Discusses Iraq War Emergency Supplemental March 23, 2007

Today I'm joined here at the White House by veterans, family members of people serving in combat, family members of those who have sacrificed. I am honored that they have joined me here today.
...
The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq. They set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal without regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror. This bill has too much pork, too many conditions and an artificial timetable for withdrawal.
...
Amid the real challenges in Iraq, we're beginning to see some signs of progress. Yet, to score political points, the Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground.
...
Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects.

The servicemembers were clearly used solely as props for the President's political activities. They were wearing their uniforms, so they should be charged under section 3.1.2 of directive 1334.01

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.

[mlees]

Originally Posted by Squink

The servicemembers were clearly used solely as props for the President's political activities. They were wearing their uniforms, so they should be charged under section 3.1.2 of directive 1334.01

I daresay that such a move would make the Democratic opponents less popular...

Disobeying the orders of the CINC is a pretty bold step for a soldier to take. He better make daam sure he knows what he is doing...

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Eh. First, we don't have any evidence that he was giving a political speech. Second, the president is surrounded by military guards while he's at the WH. This kind of stuff is going to happen, even when Ms. Clinton moves back into that residence. Sorry, but I can't manufacture any outrage over this particular thing.

I agree with you that there is no practical way to hold Bush to account for this, since he is the Commander In Chief and heads the Executive Branch. And the soldiers can hardly be blamed for being where they are told to be.

It's convenient on his part that he can get away with it. But that still doesn't make it right.

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by John Mace

This kind of stuff is going to happen, even when Ms. Clinton moves back into that residence. Sorry, but I can't manufacture any outrage over this particular thing.

No. This kind of stuff doesn't "just happen." In this day and age, everything the president utters in public is carefully screened beforehand by his advisors. Every photo op is pre-planned. Nothing is spontaneous. Anybody who gets within touching distance of the President is there because his handlers have allowed it.

Isn't it the Secret Service that guards the President personally? I know that there are marines that are stationed outside the White House with some very intimidating weapons, but they aren't his personal bodyguards. They aren't going to just be randomly hanging out behind him while he's on camera.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Blalron

I agree with you that there is no practical way to hold Bush to account for this, since he is the Commander In Chief and heads the Executive Branch. And the soldiers can hardly be blamed for being where they are told to be.

It's convenient on his part that he can get away with it. But that still doesn't make it right.

OK, I can agree that a president shouldn't use the military for political props. I would go so far as to say that they should go out of their way not to appear to be doing so. When we have such a president in the Whitehouse, I'll send some of my old winter coats to those poor souls in hell-- a place that may very well hold more ex-presidents than that other place.

Bush may do this kind of stuff more often than others, but it's just not realistic to think that presidents aren't going to be shameless when pimping their policies.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by John Mace

It's not a "law", it's a military regulation. I see no evidence that said regulation was being violated, so no, I don't think they should be prosecuted.

So if a servicemember, dressed in the same uniform he wore attending the (hypothetical) political speech by Bush, attends a political speech by Hillary, should he be prosecuted under military regulations?

[Mr. Moto]

When FDR addressed the 1944 Democratic National Convention, he did so remotely from a navy base, where he was "in the performance of my duties under the Constitution."

That sure didn't stop him from taking potshots at his political opponents in that speech.

So he used his office, and the military trappings, and a blistering attack on his opponents in one speech. I'm sure there was lots of grumbling about it at the time. But suggestions that Roosevelt be punished for it would have been seen as unseemly, and suggestions that the military that facilitated such by punished would have been seen as more so.

I guess times were different then. After all, there was a war on.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

I guess times were different then. After all, there was a war on.

Well, that was in the days before a president told us with a straight face that "when the president does it that means that it is not illegal." We need to be a little more careful about selective application of the laws in this post-Nixon era.
Or is that the principle you're arguing for here?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

So if a servicemember, dressed in the same uniform he wore attending the (hypothetical) political speech by Bush, attends a political speech by Hillary, should he be prosecuted under military regulations?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Ms. Clinton is a candidate for president, and will be holding and/or attending many purely political rallies between now and when she wins. The way I read the rules, it would be improper for military or ex-military folks to attend such a rally while in uniform. But if she were giving a press conference to discuss legislation pending in the Senate, it's unclear (to me, at least) whether that would be considered a political event. She will no doubt visit Iraq sometime between now and the election, and it's likely that she'll be photographed with and/or interviewed with military personnel present. I don't see that as a political event.

But I still think Bush is a unique figure wrt this regulation and his military policies, because it's main purpose is to ensure that no one gives the military stamp of approval, even implicitly, to a political event. But it's the job of the military to carry out the administration's policies, like the war in Iraq. Asking "what is the military's position on abortion" is different from asking "what is the military's position on the war in Iraq". The answer to the former is "there isn't one", but the answer to the later is "we support it".

Bush will no doubt be seen pushing his vision for what we need to do in Iraq with General Petreaus, in uniform, by his side later this summer. I don't see anything wrong with that. But if he were doing so when he was talking about abortion or immigration, then that would be inappropriate.

Of course, this is just my interpretation.

Originally Posted by squink

Well, that was in the days before a president told us with a straight face that "when the president does it that means that it is not illegal." We need to be a little more careful about selective application of the laws in this post-Nixon era.
Or is that the principle you're arguing for here?

What did Bush do that was illegal here?

You know, this is really getting silly. We get it that you you don't like Bush. Pretending that he broke some law because he gave a press conference with a few soldiers is ludicrous.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

A serviceman in uniform attends a political speech by George Bush on a military base. The next day, also in uniform, he attends a political speech by Hillary Clinton at a civic auditorium.

Should he be prosecuted under military regulations for either of the acts?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

A serviceman in uniform attends a political speech by George Bush on a military base. The next day, also in uniform, he attends a political speech by Hillary Clinton at a civic auditorium.

Should he be prosecuted under military regulations for either of the acts?

Well, the regulation makes an exception for patriotic functions. Attending a Bush rally is patriotic. Attending a rally for Clinton is not. I think that should be obvious.