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