Political Statements in Uniform

Before anyone misunderstands my position, please realize I describe Jon Stolz as a:

"bullying hypocritical buffoonish asshole."

John from OPFOR, I agree with you completely things should be as you say, and I'm stunned they're not... according to armylawyer, who I assume knows more than I do, Sergeant Aguina isn't subject to UCMJ including Paragraph 4.1.1.3 of DOD Directive 1344.10 and Section j of Paragraph 1-10 of AR 670-1 because he's a reservist and not on active duty.

This perplexes me and I just made this point to armylawyer:

major john at Hot Air seems to think Title 32 [US Code] might come into effect for a reservist disgracing their uniform, as I referred to in comments 1 and 4.

[And if NOT subject to UCMJ… can reservists strip in public, wear partial uniforms, soil their uniforms in protest, etc?]

I know you’re an expert on active duty members, not reservists, BUT... surely your country at large has SOME method of making sure reservists don’t dust off their uniforms and engage in whatever tomfoolery they want, don’t they?

The average American wouldn’t have a clue what the difference is between a reservist wearing a uniform and a 1 ID soldier wearing the same uniform with slightly different badges.

As a one-time reservist, I was taught by my country (Canada) we’re subject to military justice when we’re on active duty, deployed in a theatre of operations, on Department of National Defence property, or wearing our uniform in public.

They were very explicit about that.

Surely your country doesn’t have less control over its members than Canada, does it?

It may be so — but it’s retarded if it is.

So according to the best information I have been able to find, and as much as I agree completely with the tenor, reasoning, and even morality of OPFOR's post: Political Statements in Uniform, it appears you're wrong anyway.

And for that matter I'm wrong.

Are you sure the law is on your side? I'm not.

One case where a reservist not on active duty was deemed subject to UCMJ by the courts was US vs. Phillips in 2004.

However, the member was being paid for the day and traveling to a duty assignment, so the parallel isn't there: so the parallel isn’t there: She was not deemed subject to UCMJ because she was in uniform, but because she was traveling to her duty station and being paid for the day.

What say you?
 
 
[Cross posted at Hot Air]

Christoph,
Interesting point. I will research that and get back to you. IMO, the underlying principles remain the same. The IRR Marine who appeared at a protest in a desert camouflage boonie cover was roundly criticized for wearing an article of military clothing at a political event, after all. What SGT Aguina did is, in principle, no different.

Sure, Slab, please research and get back to me... fyi, armylawyer mentioned Title 10 USC might apply, but doesn't know whether it does or not.

One of the criticisms I've seen, and it was pointed out by a Kos diarist, is that Stolz has been in MANY places making political statements in uniform and now decides UCMJ applies.

I'm not arguing he's wrong, just that he's a hypocrite.

I was a tanker so UCMJ was only something to avoid for me, I make NO claims that I know any legalities about this situation, but Christoph makes a great point......

Old Tanker, you may find this post interesting at Hot Air.

Many of the commentators are misinterpreting my position that there should be a regulation against reservists donning their uniforms to make political points, endorse candidates, protest, etc., to mean I dislike the Sgt.

Hardly.

Anyway, it's an interesting post and discussion.

I always liked GEN Macarthur's speech for some good guidance on politics and active duty...

For the Reserve question? That will require some research...

Christoph,
Still researching your answer. Article 2 of the UCMJ does seem pretty clear that it only applies to members of the reserve component while on inactive-duty training. However, AR 670-1 and DOD Instruction 1334.1 make no such stipulations. I'm not sure how they are meant to be enforced ithe UCMJ does not apply. However, 10 USC 10141 says that members of the Selected Reserve and Individual Ready Reserve are in an "active status". Frankly, it's all a bit confusing for this simple grunt, but I'll see if I can figure it out this week.

The fact of the matter is that NO federal employee is permitted to engage in political activity while "wearing an official uniform" or "on duty". These prohibitions are in the Hatch Act. The military departments have distributed more specific regulations that promulgate the Hatch Act for their members incorporating the realities of uniformed service. The realities of military service are that a member must never wear the uniform or use their rank in partisan or non-partisan situations where the impression of support or participation by the service could be perceived.

Two things.

Thing 1 what that Sgt said was not political. It was an accurate statement about the surge working.

Thing 2 That wasteoid former general (Westley Somedamnedthing) sat there and did nothing to take control of that situation and calm it. He did nothing to take care of that trooper. No wonder why so many enlisted men resent officers. To that loser x general it's all about him. Respect and loyalty go up ... never down. He is a total puke.

He shouldn't have been there, jim b.

I could show up at the DNC and argue with them giving accurate info about how abortions work... it's still not appropriate in uniform.

And don't fall back that dKos isn't political. Alas, it isn't so (and everyone knows it, including them). From their FAQs:

This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory. And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog. The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable

It is my understanding that this Sergeant wasn't making a political statement so much as he was clarifying a point of fact.

If this is now considered "political" to speak truth, then I am in trouble.

However the point is well made is that this convention was obviously political in nature, and just showing up in uniform makes a political statement regardless of which side you support.

So if the moderator in question had really been enforcing Army regulations, then he should have made everyone wearing a uniform leave the room before allowing any panel discussion.

In the end all this does is reflect the foolishness of the soldier, while reflecting what a true ass this moderator really is.

Agreed, Lawrence.

When the uniform goes on, that person IS the Army (or other service) - Reservist, Regular, National Guard - they are the representative of that service. So the argument of whether UCMJ applies to reservists is one of nuance and convenience (as to whether it is of convenience to process for prosecution or not). It'll come to a moral judgement - to prosecute SGT Aguinia AND CPT Stoltz, or not prosecute them.

I am glad the sergeant did what he did, and had the guts to go back in civvies to continue being a presence.

I am glad the sergeant did what he did(1), and had the guts to go back in civvies to continue being a presence(2).

And that's what he was doing by wearing the uniform.

If he'd brought 20 friends with him and a wazoo I'd have said go for it. But not his class A's.

IMHO

Granted he should not have been there in uniform, the reserve Capt. should not have been there playing NIGYYSOB, with a well intentioned enlisted type who in his mind was exercising initiative.

They let him in and they hoped he was on their side. They only shut him down when he spoke. They did it in a was so as to go from hello Sgt to I will have you dishonorably discharged.

The Capt and the General were more negligent than the Sgt. It is their job to take care of the troops.

He was there and he did make a statement.

They handled it in a way that went from Chickenshit to negligence.

Unless of course you hold the position that officers .... to whom much is given, are not required much more.

I doubt that anyone ever instructed the Sgt on appearing in uniform.

You could be right about the Sergeant never having been instructed on appearing in uniform. As slab is discovering, the actual legal authority for what all of us agree is the correct principal is rather hard to find.

The Captain was amazingly Captain Cainish and it would have been better if General Clark had had the wherewithal to speak up sooner. He could have cut his younger "compatriot" off before he made a complete jerk of himself.

Unlike Captain Stolz, he appeared to be somewhat concerned with Sgt. Aguina at the end, in my opinion, but he simply didn't reach fast enough to do anything. Is anyone here surprised Clark didn't act quickly and decisively on his own initiative to solve a problem where tempers were flaring and cameras rolling?

I'm not.

*react

"Unlike Captain Stolz, he appeared to be somewhat concerned with Sgt. Aguina at the end, in my opinion, but he simply didn't reach fast enough to do anything. Is anyone here surprised Clark didn't act quickly and decisively on his own initiative to solve a problem where tempers were flaring and cameras rolling? ...I'm not."

I'm not either - Clark was caught by surprise - nothing in the incident came across as scripted so as a matter of course the general did not know his lines.

I remain stuck on the entire point to Stoltz's website/movement/raison d'etre is him in his uniform - him having served... so his words and behaviour undermine his message and damage his credentials. I can only imagine the counseling that jerk is getting today.

We've come to expect this kind of nonsense from people like Clark.

He leverages his own experience in the same way he complains about others doing the same thing. That whole absolute moral authority thing when your a leftist standing up against 'the establishment'.

How 1960s of him/them.

Note to Clark. Time to retire from the spotlight. Your political retoric is 40 years old.

Note to Koskids. Grow up.

Note to soldiers. Don't be stupid about attending political functions.

In this day and age, maintaining an "absence" from political discourse, solely because one is in the military, is not a wise course of action.

War has become so political now, that active participation in the debate of those in the know (us) is necessary to accomplish the mission.

Had our general leadership been more actively and vocally involved in the months leading up to the war in Iraq, we might have been much more succesful there than we have been. Generals would have stood up to Rumsfeld and demanded a thorough post-war plan, instead of the total absence of one.

With the reins of the nation changing hands to the Democrat party (barring a miracle, they will likely win the presidency in '08), military members NEED to stand up and offer their advice so that the Democrats do not make critical errors as the current administration has.

Veterans are few and far between nowadays. Not many Americans choose to wear the uniform anymore. Yet, many of these same people who do NOT serve end up in positions of authority or on staffs where their opinions influence policy.

Our voices NEED to be heard. And we cannot remain silent out of some sort of anachronistic "we're all Americans" mindset. The political parties of this country do not think like that. To stave off disaster (which, ultimately those in uniform pay for... not civilians), we need to be more politically vocal.

So is this like when Lt. Kerry gave highly politicized testimony (ie lies) to congress while in uniform with very long hair? I know he was officially in the reserves at the time.

You and Capt. Soltz would be correct IF this was a public event. It was not, because it was a private paid event.