Corporal Jesse Thorsen is getting attacked for supporting Paul in uniform!

[Highstreet]

http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/04/a-soldiers-dilemma-should-corporal-thorsen-have-endorsed-ron-paul/?iid=ent-main-mostpop2

Time opinion piece. Please be respectful, we all represent Paul now.

[eleganz]

Don't give these 'opinion pieces' any attention.

It's not like the entire country is now angry he did it in uniform, just some typical anti-Pauls...what are we gonna do?


Ignore them and focus on productivity, we have less than a week to pull off a miracle.

[realtonygoodwin]

That isn't an attack.

[thehungarian]

Saw this story linked on twitter: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/04/army-soldier-rallying-for-paul-violated-military-ban-on-political-activity/


On Tuesday evening, Paul Rieckhoff, executive director and founder of the veterans' advocacy organization Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, wrote on his Facebook page that Thorsen would likely be reprimanded.

"The soldier that spoke tonight on behalf of Ron Paul is gonna be in a bit of trouble," Rieckhoff said. "Politics in uniform is a big no-go. And Paul and his campaign should know better. Troops are bound by the (Uniform Code of Military Justice)."

He is likely to be reprimanded for this, which is a shame. You'd think someone on the campaign would have known better.

[BUSHLIED]

Good points raise in the article:

“If this uniform means so much, why do so many service members take off our uniforms to find ourselves jobless and homeless?

If this uniform means so much, why didn’t you or your child put one on, so that I didn’t have to leave my family for three tours of duty?”



Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/04/a-soldiers-dilemma-should-corporal-thorsen-have-endorsed-ron-paul/#ixzz1iWvIsx7S

[unknown]

They're already controlling shaping the debate.

Now the sheeple will talk about whether or not someone in uniform or active duty should have blah blah.

This is the point: the military support Ron Paul. They are tired of these wars. They want to come home. Enough already.

[moonshine5757]

To be fair Ron Paul's people should've known that rule and informed him of that. BUT TO BE EVEN MORE FAIR CNN reporter should've known the rule and protected the soldier by not interviewing him. ... which was then cut off by the bias media.

[Brandon Todd Carr]

Sacrifice life for America.

Can't wear the clothes you want.

[ThePursuitOfLiberty]

"The soldier that spoke tonight on behalf of Ron Paul is gonna be in a bit of trouble," Rieckhoff said. "Politics in uniform is a big no-go. And Paul and his campaign should know better. Troops are bound by the (Uniform Code of Military Justice)."

I'd like to see them try to enforce this...
I do enough work on military bases to know that there are PLENTY of politically active troops.... bumper stickers, shirts, hats, etc.

I've seen enough Ron Paul 2012 bumper stickers on military bases to know they would never be able to enforce this.

[nobody's_hero]

I'm sure that Ron Paul and Corporal Jesse know about the UCMJ, and I'm sure that the civil disobedient side of them felt that the risk of violating a silly rule was worth the reward.

As [eleganz] said, the people who are going to make the biggest stink about this are the ones who wouldn't support Ron Paul anyway, so we shouldn't be crying about it.

[vita3]

This is the no#1 comment on the time piece w/ 87 "likes"

"The Military overwhelmingly supports one candidate, Ron Paul. The establishment would love to silence Iraq War Vets, since they are the best people to lead the revolution. They risked their life for the US Constitution and they came home and only Ron Paul cares about the constitution so who do you think they are going to side with?"

[jct74]

"Big Peace" has a pretty detailed article on this if anyone is interested:
http://bigpeace.com/jsshapiro/2012/01/04/exclusive-military-probing-army-reserve-corporal-who-campaigned-for-ron-paul-in-uniform-in-iowa/

There is also a facebook page set up to discuss his actions last night:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Corporal-Jesse-Thorsen/270842646306011?sk=wall

[Romulus]

civil disobedience FTW.

[misterx]

It's a shame he will get in trouble for this, but it also means more people will hear about it. I think this is a great story for the campaign. A marine sticking his neck out to show support for the one candidate that he thinks really cares about the troops. My hat is off to him for taking this one for the team. Because of the controversy more people wil know now that soldiers support ron paul above all others.

[GunnyFreedom]

"The soldier that spoke tonight on behalf of Ron Paul is gonna be in a bit of trouble," Rieckhoff said. "Politics in uniform is a big no-go. And Paul and his campaign should know better. Troops are bound by the (Uniform Code of Military Justice)."

I'd like to see them try to enforce this...
I do enough work on military bases to know that there are PLENTY of politically active troops.... bumper stickers, shirts, hats, etc.

I've seen enough Ron Paul 2012 bumper stickers on military bases to know they would never be able to enforce this.

No, that stuff is allowed. Politicking in uniform, however, is a court martialable offense, and could (on an outside stretch) land him in the brig. errm. stockade.

More likely NJP busted to private, on base restriction, extra duty, and half pay for 3 months.

But this has ALWAYS been a big deal. They aren't going to do it because it's Ron Paul, they've always done it. It was a big deal in 93-94.

[libertygrl]

Good points raise in the article:

“If this uniform means so much, why do so many service members take off our uniforms to find ourselves jobless and homeless?

If this uniform means so much, why didn’t you or your child put one on, so that I didn’t have to leave my family for three tours of duty?”



Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/04/a-soldiers-dilemma-should-corporal-thorsen-have-endorsed-ron-paul/#ixzz1iWvIsx7S

They play politics with the people in uniform every day! A soldier can get killed to protect our constitutional rights, but he's not allowed to exercise his first amendment right? :confused:

[Bruno]

If anyone should be able to have their voice heard, it should be those in harm's way who are directly affected by our foreign policy as well as when, how, why, and with whom our country wages war.

[vechorik]

"The soldier that spoke tonight on behalf of Ron Paul is gonna be in a bit of trouble," Rieckhoff said. "Politics in uniform is a big no-go. And Paul and his campaign should know better. Troops are bound by the (Uniform Code of Military Justice)."

I'd like to see them try to enforce this...
I do enough work on military bases to know that there are PLENTY of politically active troops.... bumper stickers, shirts, hats, etc.

I've seen enough Ron Paul 2012 bumper stickers on military bases to know they would never be able to enforce this.

I don't think a bumper sticker compares with being on national television.
They are right -- violation.
Best to ignore it.

The UNIFORM represents the United States of America and he could have taken it off and put on civilian clothing if he wanted to speak for Dr. Paul. I'm sorry he is in trouble, but every soldier knows to respect the uniform. It's part of military training.

[Aratus]

Gunny is correct. No two ways about this.


No, that stuff is allowed. Politicking in uniform, however, is a court martialable offense, and could (on an outside stretch) land him in the brig. errm. stockade.

More likely NJP busted to private, on base restriction, extra duty, and half pay for 3 months.

But this has ALWAYS been a big deal. They aren't going to do it because it's Ron Paul, they've always done it. It was a big deal in 93-94.

[Mahkato]

He screwed up, and he can rightly be disciplined. If he were drafted, I would feel differently.

[Delivered4000]

Worth the trouble

[singe22]

Being a Army vet myself there is no way around it. It doesnt matter what your good intentions are.

If you snuck away and went AWOL to watch the birth of your first child and then comeback you still would be screwed. UCMJ does not turn a blind eye. This was shown on national tv.

[ONUV]

he should do it again and again if he feels he needs to.

[vita3]

Good for him.

Nothing is changing in this Country without people sticking their necks out.

[Cowlesy]

He was excited, caught up in the moment and his enthusiasm got the best of him. Guy has already done two tours in Afghanistan, right? I imagine he'll be reprimanded, but the military is lucky to have guys like the Corporal willing to serve.

[singe22]

The next time he does it he will seal the deal on being called a "former military memeber". Not to mention getting a dishonarble discharge and losing his veteran benefits.

[donnay]

It appears that Military.com has posted his video too.

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/wartime/cnn-cuts-off-soldier-ron-paul-lets-finish/1365497869001/

[nobody's_hero]

He screwed up, and he can rightly be disciplined. If he were drafted, I would feel differently.

He volunteered once. He's been drafted ever since.

If you want to say he should have never signed a dotted line, I'll agree with you. But let's not pretend that these troops who have gone back two or three or more times somehow have the freedom to just say, "Oh well, this isn't fun anymore. I'm just gonna go home."

[nobody's_hero]

It appears that Military.com has posted his video too.

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/wartime/cnn-cuts-off-soldier-ron-paul-lets-finish/1365497869001/

I can only see that working in our favor, considering the support Ron Paul has among the military.

[Paulitics 2011]

Grasping at straws here.

[nobody's_hero]

Let me add as well that Corporal Jesse's actions last night are the only thing that's made me feel good since we did not win Iowa. I was feeling rather let-down this morning when I saw the results, but I'm inspired to keep fighting now.

"hoo-ah!"

[singe22]

He is Ranger tabbed with no CIB (combat infantry Badge) after 2 tours in the ghani?

[vechorik]

Gunny is correct. No two ways about this.

The nay-sayers haven't been in the military. I have.
Look at it this way, civilians -- When you join the military, you become USDA grade A MEAT, belonging to the USA.
You do what they say.....and you WILL like it!
Ignorance is no excuse either .... you'll get punished for NOT KNOWING.

[demolama]

He is Ranger tabbed with no CIB (combat infantry Badge) after 2 tours in the ghani?


You can be tabbed without being infantry.

[RayB]

If it comes up in an interview, I think I would appreciate Dr. Paul owning all responsibility for any unintended consequences of the emotional moment- to ‘stand in harm’s way’ so to speak for the soldier.
However making it clear not compromising the corporals personal liberty to make a choice, and sometimes a man’s got to do what a man’s got to do.

[klamath]

He is Ranger tabbed with no CIB (combat infantry Badge) after 2 tours in the ghani?
Good point. I hope this guy isn't a fake.

[dillo]

My view

A soldier is willing to face punishment from the military industrial complex because he believes in Ron Paul that much

also is this the same guy that got cut off by cnn when he said israel?

[singe22]

Maybe i just didnt see that alot during my time. I saw former infantry going to other mos's and you can still wear your badges.

[coastie]

What the guy did took balls, and I fully support him in his effort. HOWEVER-if this was for any other candidate and for any other reason, I would not support him at all. Those rules are in place for a reason, and the current choices the troops have(other than Ron Paul) for their next CIC being that very reason. I would honestly be scared if someone like Santorum had the support from the troops that Ron Paul does, in the same political climate we are in now....:eek::toady::eek:

This is different. Our politicians are setting American history on a course into the treacherous waters of tyranny, and I will support any "crew member" on this "ship" of ours that is America that stands up and says "listen to me".

If that entails everyone of them showing up at Ron Paul's next rally in uniform, so be it.

[nobody's_hero]

What the guy did took balls, and I fully support him in his effort. HOWEVER-if this was for any other candidate and for any other reason, I would not support him at all. Those rules are in place for a reason, and the current choices the troops have(other than Ron Paul) for their next CIC being that very reason. I would honestly be scared if someone like Santorum had the support from the troops that Ron Paul does, in the same political climate we are in now....:eek::toady::eek:

I hear what you are saying, and after thinking about it, I think I'd still support the troops if they ended up becoming politically involved with another candidate than Ron Paul, although I'd be questioning their judgement while simultaneously acknowledging their right to speak.

I don't see this simply as an issue of right or wrong, or rule breaking.

I see this as a pressure relief valve. Point being:

Limit the troops in their ability to change government through the election process, and all it does is build up pressure that has no where to go until the lid pops off and they reach for their guns. As JFK once said, "those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."

Having said all that, I'm glad to see that so many servicemembers support the one true defender of the Constitution in Washington. It's comforting that they're on our side. I'm glad to see that the opportunity for peaceful revolution still exists.

Somewhat off topic:

What really perplexes me are those servicemen and women who seem to take pride almost in the fact that they'll fight but they won't vote. I mean, is there supposed to be some point to that? What was the purpose of serving and taking an oath if they won't even try to defend the Constitution through elections (yeah I know it hasn't proven to be very effective in protecting the Constitution so far, but it beats going back home and staring at some medals hung on the wall)? I'm glad to see that the idea that freedom can only be defended by taking up arms and traveling across the world is slowly losing popularity. I hope even more troops realize that they could do more to preserve freedom by getting involved here at home than they ever could in downtown Baghdad.

[kah13176]

The nay-sayers haven't been in the military. I have.
Look at it this way, civilians -- When you join the military, you become USDA grade A MEAT, belonging to the USA.
You do what they say.....and you WILL like it!
Ignorance is no excuse either .... you'll get punished for NOT KNOWING.

So what? That doesn't make it right. If more soldiers would disobey illegal orders, they wouldn't have enough troops to fight their unconstitutional wars. This guy is a hero. So is Adam Kokesh, and so is Bradley Manning.

Plus, I bet the people doing the reprimanding were never on the ground anywhere. I bet they're desktop bureaucrats. If that's true, they're the scum of the earth. Seriously below swine in my eyes, and deserve to be mocked and rejected by society.

Civil disobedience should be praised and encouraged.

Also, anyone who studies contract law in a market-anarchist society (a truly free society) knows that the military contracts are bullshit and antithetical to free men fighting for liberty.

[Babylon]

http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/04/a-soldiers-dilemma-should-corporal-thorsen-have-endorsed-ron-paul/?iid=ent-main-mostpop2

Time opinion piece. Please be respectful, we all represent Paul now.

Mention it at the debate.

Ron Paul says something along these lines:

"I'd like to take this opportunity to get something straight. A young soldier took the podium at my request after the Iowa Caucus. Someone [look accusingly at the others] seems to be going out of his way to have charges brought against him for doing so. I want to know, right now, who among you has a problem with this young man standing alongside 21% of Iowa voters and supporting the Constitution?"

hehehe...
That would be cool.

[ShaneEnochs]

Can commander-in-chiefs set rules for the military? Like if Ron wanted to, could he get rid of a rule like that?

[walt]

Saw this story linked on twitter: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/04/army-soldier-rallying-for-paul-violated-military-ban-on-political-activity/

He is likely to be reprimanded for this, which is a shame. You'd think someone on the campaign would have known better.

this campaign?

[virginiakid]

How many Vietnam Vets were reprimanded for wearing uniforms to political events, protest, etc...during the Vietnam War?

[Cigaboo]

I feel sorry for Jesse Thorsen if he expressed his opinions without fully knowing the possible consequences of doing so while in uniform. On the other hand, if he continues to stand up for his beliefs despite the attacks on him, such as that his oath to uphold the constitution and support Ron Paul are inseparable, the controversy might help backfire on the media and allow for a dialogue about our military support for Ron Paul's views on foreign policy.

[papitosabe]

This is the point: the military support Ron Paul. They are tired of these wars. They want to come home. Enough already.

yup...and another point is why they want to come home...alot of them are brainwashed into thinking they are there for humanitarian reasons or to protect this country...then they find out the truth...now if you speak to alot of military that are not deployed, you will hear the same ole mumbo jumbo...

[Korey Kaczynski]

To be fair Ron Paul's people should've known that rule and informed him of that. BUT TO BE EVEN MORE FAIR CNN reporter should've known the rule and protected the soldier by not interviewing him. ... which was then cut off by the bias media.

They probably did. I'm guessing they were like "you sure you want to do this?"

For fucks sake, everyone on these forums thinks that the campaign is some entity without any clue whatsoever, sometime.

[Korey Kaczynski]

I feel sorry for Jesse Thorsen if he expressed his opinions without fully knowing the possible consequences of doing so while in uniform. On the other hand, if he continues to stand up for his beliefs despite the attacks on him, such as that his oath to uphold the constitution and support Ron Paul are inseparable, the controversy might help backfire on the media and allow for a dialogue about our military support for Ron Paul's views on foreign policy.

Watching him speak I get the impression he knew what he was doing.

[donnay]

I can only see that working in our favor, considering the support Ron Paul has among the military.

I definitely agree.

[Kevin Smyth]

Watching him speak I get the impression he knew what he was doing.

I don't think he did.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

The fact of the matter is . . . our country has better things to worry about than Military Uniform Code.

I believe the collapse of our nation holds precedent over what fashion statement one makes.

[ronpaulitician]

They should lock him up indefinitely.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

There's a thread floating around where Paul invited him to speak.

[Kevin Smyth]

There's a thread floating around where Paul invited him to speak.

But he had already appeared on CNN and violated the rule then so this isn't Paul's fault, the deed had already been done.

[Mini-Me]

So what? That doesn't make it right. If more soldiers would disobey illegal orders, they wouldn't have enough troops to fight their unconstitutional wars. This guy is a hero. So is Adam Kokesh, and so is Bradley Manning.

Plus, I bet the people doing the reprimanding were never on the ground anywhere. I bet they're desktop bureaucrats. If that's true, they're the scum of the earth. Seriously below swine in my eyes, and deserve to be mocked and rejected by society.

Civil disobedience should be praised and encouraged.

Also, anyone who studies contract law in a market-anarchist society (a truly free society) knows that the military contracts are bullshit and antithetical to free men fighting for liberty.

This. He's going to have to suffer the consequences for his civil disobedience, sure...but that is what makes him a hero.

[JasonM]

This. He's going to have to suffer the consequences for his civil disobedience, sure...but that is what makes him a hero.

You know there IS a legit reason why military service members can't politic in uniform, and some folks are highlighting it. The military is supposed to have no formal role in politics, because if they did then it calls into question the legitimacy of the candidate being endorsed. Was he elected because of his values and beliefs and policy suggestions and ideas, or because the military liked him? Or do certain policies get passed or not passed on their merits, or because the military doesn't like it?

If you wear the uniform, you are a spokesman for the armed forces. If someone in uniform speaks a certain way for a particular candiate, it will be perceived that this is the official policy of the military when it is NOT. In order to avoid these types of distractions and potential conflicts that are not good for protecting the nation, the military basically stays silent and tells everyone of all ranks to be a-political WHILE IN UNIFORM.

However, if you are out of uniform, you can practice politics however you want as long as it doesn't interfere with your normal job just like everyone else. As long as you leave the military out of it and don't try to USE YOUR STATUS AS A MILITARY MEMBER TO SWAY PUBLIC OPINION, you're free to do what you want.

Doing otherwise compromises the integrity of the military and, if left un checked, can open a pandora's box that nobody wants.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

You know there IS a legit reason why military service members can't politic in uniform, and some folks are highlighting it. The military is supposed to have no formal role in politics, because if they did then it calls into question the legitimacy of the candidate being endorsed. Was he elected because of his values and beliefs and policy suggestions and ideas, or because the military liked him? Or do certain policies get passed or not passed on their merits, or because the military doesn't like it?

If you wear the uniform, you are a spokesman for the armed forces. If someone in uniform speaks a certain way for a particular candiate, it will be perceived that this is the official policy of the military when it is NOT. In order to avoid these types of distractions and potential conflicts that are not good for protecting the nation, the military basically stays silent and tells everyone of all ranks to be a-political WHILE IN UNIFORM.

However, if you are out of uniform, you can practice politics however you want as long as it doesn't interfere with your normal job just like everyone else. As long as you leave the military out of it and don't try to USE YOUR STATUS AS A MILITARY MEMBER TO SWAY PUBLIC OPINION, you're free to do what you want.

Doing otherwise compromises the integrity of the military and, if left un checked, can open a pandora's box that nobody wants.

While true. The Constitution is the spokesman of the military, and Ron Paul is the spokesman of the Constitution.

[JasonM]

While true. The Constitution is the spokesman of the military, and Ron Paul is the spokesman of the Constitution.

Your argument is not really relevant to the topic.

It is NOT COOL to use the uniform for POLITICAL purposes. This is a fact. The Corporal broke the law and will face the consequences. This is NOT how you practice civil disobedience. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a ban on practicing politics IN UNIFORM.

Nothing he did JUSTIFIES breaking this PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE RULE. You only practice civil disobedience if the rule is NOT LEGITIMATE. For example, criticizing the government if such criticism is criminalized in the law is an example of LEGITIMATE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. Appearance in the media and saying stuff in uniform, NOT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.

[libertythor]

Your argument is not really relevant to the topic.

It is NOT COOL to use the uniform for POLITICAL purposes. This is a fact. The Corporal broke the law and will face the consequences. This is NOT how you practice civil disobedience. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a ban on practicing politics IN UNIFORM.

Well, you just brought up one of the first precepts of civil disobedience of any kind: there are inherent consequences to practicing it. In a way, you can say that US personnel involved with NATO's action with Libya despite Obama evading any kind of authorization from Congress were following UNLAWFUL ORDERS after a certain point.

With the indefinite military detentions of US Citizens allowed now on US soil, at what point does it become acceptable to practice civil disobedience with military code? Perhaps if Cpl Thorsen hadn't have been cut off, we would have heard him say something about NDAA and how that would force him to break his oath to defend the Constitution. Did he speak at the caucus? If he did, what did he bring up while in uniform?

I agree with you that the no politics in uniform rule is a good one in general, but when the US military ends up actually becoming the bad guy as far as allowing for unlawful orders in the real of defending the Constitution, this could be an act of civil disobedience depending on what he said at the caucus and what he was going to say on CNN if given the chance.

[Mini-Me]

You know there IS a legit reason why military service members can't politic in uniform, and some folks are highlighting it. The military is supposed to have no formal role in politics, because if they did then it calls into question the legitimacy of the candidate being endorsed. Was he elected because of his values and beliefs and policy suggestions and ideas, or because the military liked him? Or do certain policies get passed or not passed on their merits, or because the military doesn't like it?

If you wear the uniform, you are a spokesman for the armed forces. If someone in uniform speaks a certain way for a particular candiate, it will be perceived that this is the official policy of the military when it is NOT. In order to avoid these types of distractions and potential conflicts that are not good for protecting the nation, the military basically stays silent and tells everyone of all ranks to be a-political WHILE IN UNIFORM.

However, if you are out of uniform, you can practice politics however you want as long as it doesn't interfere with your normal job just like everyone else. As long as you leave the military out of it and don't try to USE YOUR STATUS AS A MILITARY MEMBER TO SWAY PUBLIC OPINION, you're free to do what you want.

Doing otherwise compromises the integrity of the military and, if left un checked, can open a pandora's box that nobody wants.

I can see the aspect of trying to avoid political intimidation by a politically involved military. However, is that the real reason for the rule? The policy doesn't prevent political intimidation or involvement by an out-of-control military anyway, because an out-of-control military could easily instruct its soldiers to engage in certain political activity in plain clothes...which could turn into a covert coup at the extreme end of the spectrum. For that reason and others, I wonder if the given reason is just a pretext, whereas the real reason may involve the dehumanization of soldiers. (While they're part of the military, they are strictly order-following killing machines, and individual opinions or critical thought are discouraged.)

In general, if every individual soldier was allowed to speak their mind in uniform, their differing opinions would make it clear that none of them are official military viewpoints. I understand that anyone wearing a military uniform is indirectly representing the military, much like anyone wearing a Steak and Shake uniform is indirectly representing Steak and Shake...but the difference is that you're allowed to quit working at Steak and Shake when you're dissatisfied, whereas the military presumes to own your life until it sees fit to discharge you. Perhaps if they changed that, it wouldn't be so necessary for uniformed soldiers to speak out about wanting to come home. (They're essentially complaining to their boss's boss's bosses...which would be us.)

If an individual is a soldier in the military, that forms part of their identity, and it forms part of their reason for holding their views. The public SHOULD be allowed to know what individual soldiers are thinking, and how they feel about these very political conflicts that they are being shanghaied into (e.g. this guy, who was drafted for his later tours of duty)...and the public should be allowed to know that these guys feel this way precisely because they're soldiers. The uniform accomplishes that.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Your argument is not really relevant to the topic.

It is NOT COOL to use the uniform for POLITICAL purposes. This is a fact. The Corporal broke the law and will face the consequences. This is NOT how you practice civil disobedience. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a ban on practicing politics IN UNIFORM.

Nothing he did JUSTIFIES breaking this PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE RULE. You only practice civil disobedience if the rule is NOT LEGITIMATE. For example, criticizing the government if such criticism is criminalized in the law is an example of LEGITIMATE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. Appearance in the media and saying stuff in uniform, NOT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.

I say screw the UCMJ. Our support from the military has been blacked out mostly by the media. It's about time the troops start standing up to represent the man trying to save their lives, and our country. Some of the rules are not going to mean anything anymore, nor do they with the potential repercussions coming if Ron Paul isn't in the White House.

It's time people start thinking with their heart as well as their head.

[JasonM]

Well, you just brought up one of the first precepts of civil disobedience of any kind: there are inherent consequences to practicing it. In a way, you can say that US personnel involved with NATO's action with Libya despite Obama evading any kind of authorization from Congress were following UNLAWFUL ORDERS after a certain point.

Whether the orders were unlawful or not is ultimately up to a court to decide. If the courts don't agree with you (which I suspect is the case, rightly or wrongly), then it's up to you to convince the folks in congress to change the law by 2/3rds majority in each house to change this law. And if the president disregards this rule, then it's up to you to compel congress to impeach the president.

If a serviceman disagrees with this, then they are free to speak out in a public forum WHILE NOT IN UNIFORM OR OVERTLY ADVERTISING THEIR STATUS AS A MILITARY PERSON.




With the indefinite military detentions of US Citizens allowed now on US soil, at what point does it become acceptable to practice civil disobedience with military code?


If a person in the military is told to arrest a person without charge and bad stuff happens, and someone involved takes measures to expose what's going on (much like the person responsible for exposing the Abu Ghraib incident did), and gets in serious trouble for it, then that's an example of civil disobedience. When you see something seriously messed up going on and speak up with proof and evidence against orders, and get in trouble, that's legit disobedience.

But that's not the case here.



Perhaps if Cpl Thorsen hadn't have been cut off, we would have heard him say something about NDAA and how that would force him to break his oath to defend the Constitution. Did he speak at the caucus? If he did, what did he bring up while in uniform?


If you're not working on official business, you don't wear the uniform or advertise your status to influence public opinion on an issue (although if they ask what you do, then it's ok)




I agree with you that the no politics in uniform rule is a good one in general, but when the US military ends up actually becoming the bad guy as far as allowing for unlawful orders in the real of defending the Constitution, this could be an act of civil disobedience depending on what he said at the caucus and what he was going to say on CNN if given the chance.

I disagree. There are many forums and other things you can do to be effective without having to break UCMJ rules. If he had not been in uniform, everything would have been fine. Don't break the law if you don't NEED to break the law, and don't try to play spokesman for the military on these controversial issues.

[kah13176]

I agree, Mini-Me. With a dampened political voice, soldiers are even more disadvantaged by the political process. People should know exactly how the soldiers feel before voting for warmongering politicians.

Also, if the military and the government always operated within Constitutional confines, a fear that the military as a whole could influence the political process would be irrational. Therefore, that's where the suppression should come in, not upon soldiers' 1st amendment rights in civilian life.

[LiveForHonortune]

Our servicemen and women overwhelming support Ron Paul so they better watch what they say about him.

[JasonM]

I can see the aspect of trying to avoid political intimidation by a politically involved military. However, is that the real reason for the rule? The policy doesn't prevent political intimidation or involvement by an out-of-control military anyway, because an out-of-control military could easily instruct its soldiers to engage in certain political activity in plain clothes...which could turn into a covert coup at the extreme end of the spectrum. For that reason and others, I wonder if the given reason is just a pretext, whereas the real reason may involve the dehumanization of soldiers. (While they're part of the military, they are strictly order-following killing machines, and individual opinions or critical thought are discouraged.)

In general, if every individual soldier was allowed to speak their mind in uniform, their differing opinions would make it clear that none of them are official military viewpoints. I understand that anyone wearing a military uniform is indirectly representing the military, much like anyone wearing a Steak and Shake uniform is indirectly representing Steak and Shake...but the difference is that you're allowed to quit working at Steak and Shake when you're dissatisfied, whereas the military presumes to own your life until it sees fit to discharge you. Perhaps if they changed that, it wouldn't be so necessary for uniformed soldiers to speak out about wanting to come home.

If an individual is a soldier in the military, that forms part of their identity, and it forms part of their reason for holding their views. The public SHOULD be allowed to know what individual soldiers are thinking, and how they feel about these very political conflicts that they are being shanghaied into (e.g. this guy, who was drafted for his later tours of duty)...and the public should be allowed to know that these guys feel this way precisely because they're soldiers. The uniform accomplishes that.

Well, if you want to try to get congress to change the rules of the UCMJ so that they can engage in political activism in uniform, then you're welcome to try. But to join, you have to sign a piece of paper saying you will obey the UCMJ as part of your oath. If you don't like the UCMJ or what the military does, you're free to leave once the contract is up (sometimes earlier depending on how you work it and your individual circumstances).

But there are much better ways of discretely letting people know what the troops are thinking without having one go on record in uniform. Anonymous polls, surveys or interviews that allow one to give an opinion without being personally identified is one method (and in fact, that is what the military brass did to find out the troops' honest opinion regarding the "don't ask don't tell" thing without fear of recrimination).

The troops CAN speak up, just not on TV in a uniform.

Again, it's not the message that's the issue. It's the "you did something publicly in uniform without authorization while not on official business" part. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Mini-Me]

Well, if you want to try to get congress to change the rules of the UCMJ so that they can engage in political activism in uniform, then you're welcome to try. But to join, you have to sign a piece of paper saying you will obey the UCMJ as part of your oath. If you don't like the UCMJ or what the military does, you're free to leave once the contract is up (sometimes earlier depending on how you work it and your individual circumstances).
Those military contracts are part of my issue: From my understanding, any remotely ethical contract either has an escape/termination clause, or it's implied that breaking it will result in a lawsuit, where the aggrieved party will be awarded compensation for their losses (including reasonable opportunity costs perhaps). Military contracts are more like the kind of contracts people sign onto in the movie Repo Men, where the counterparty is above [civilian] law and allowed to directly enforce the contract (rather than breaches being solved in civil court, where violating a person's life/body/liberty is off limits). It would be one thing if soldiers could leave of their own free will before their contract expired, even if they had to repay the military some reasonable financial debt...but the current situation is a form of inescapable indentured servitude. There's no, "Obey our rules, or leave." It's just, "OBEY our rules, or OBEY our rules and punishments," and that doesn't sit right with me.


But there are much better ways of discretely letting people know what the troops are thinking without having one go on record in uniform. Anonymous polls, surveys or interviews that allow one to give an opinion without being personally identified is one method (and in fact, that is what the military brass did to find out the troops' honest opinion regarding the "don't ask don't tell" thing without fear of recrimination).

The troops CAN speak up, just not on TV in a uniform.

Anonymous polls and such don't have the same kind of emotional impact on people as really hearing some kid telling his story right from his mouth though. The anonymity takes the individuality and humanity out of people, and so it makes them easier to ignore. If you were to hear straight from some 20-something-year-old that he's tired of killing people, tired of occupying other people's lands, and that he just wants to stay home and raise a family, that's going to have a much bigger impact on most people than seeing some anonymous survey statistic in the corner of page 8 of the Tuesday newspaper.

Telling soldiers they can speak up, but not on TV or in uniform, is the same thing as saying, "You're allowed to give an opinion, but you're not allowed to give your credentials or show how you're personally affected by the political choices people are making." That doesn't sit right with me.

[libertythor]

With the way things are going, there may be a point to where the US military in itself is the enemy and breaking its rules and actively opposing it as a member the honorable thing to do.

I don't think that point has been reached yet, and I do agree with you that the long-standing rule against politicking in uniform is a good one. Also, when and if that point is reached, simply speaking out in uniform would be a near death sentence that wouldn't achieve anything. Desertion would be the logical solution in that case.

Cpl Thorsen would have definitely been better off being sharply-dressed with a nice-looking jacket that said US Army on it or a lapel pin. His crew cut and demeanor in itself would have been convincing enough as a caucus participant.




Whether the orders were unlawful or not is ultimately up to a court to decide. If the courts don't agree with you (which I suspect is the case, rightly or wrongly), then it's up to you to convince the folks in congress to change the law by 2/3rds majority in each house to change this law. And if the president disregards this rule, then it's up to you to compel congress to impeach the president.

If a serviceman disagrees with this, then they are free to speak out in a public forum WHILE NOT IN UNIFORM OR OVERTLY ADVERTISING THEIR STATUS AS A MILITARY PERSON.




If a person in the military is told to arrest a person without charge and bad stuff happens, and someone involved takes measures to expose what's going on (much like the person responsible for exposing the Abu Ghraib incident did), and gets in serious trouble for it, then that's an example of civil disobedience. When you see something seriously messed up going on and speak up with proof and evidence against orders, and get in trouble, that's legit disobedience.

But that's not the case here.



If you're not working on official business, you don't wear the uniform or advertise your status to influence public opinion on an issue (although if they ask what you do, then it's ok)




I disagree. There are many forums and other things you can do to be effective without having to break UCMJ rules. If he had not been in uniform, everything would have been fine. Don't break the law if you don't NEED to break the law, and don't try to play spokesman for the military on these controversial issues.

[BigByrd47119]

I have to agree with Mini on this one. Military personnel, whom are still American citizens despite the federal governments own impressions, are entitled to make their opinion known and should not be required to do so "anonymously" or "discreetly."

We all see veterans speak every day, but none of them deliver the message that a young 20-somthing delivers while in uniform. It makes his argument valid, and for that, he must be punished apparently.

For the record, I could go down to the local military surplus store, buy a uniform, and go campaign for Dr. Paul. Would I get in trouble? I have never served in the military, but I think it obvious the answer is no!

If you want to get technical, it could even be considered a form of collectivism. "I saw a soldier support RP so therefore all military members and the military itself must also support RP." Its ludicrous!

[ChristianAnarchist]

Having never been in the military I may be mistaken but isn't the definition of "in uniform" when you are wearing your stripes and other identification rather than a particular type of clothing?? Couldn't an active duty military man or woman show up in generic BDU's with no identification badges or patches and make any statement they want? In this way, they are clearly perceived as military personal yet technically "out of uniform"??

[Sullivan*]

It's a shame he will get in trouble for this, but it also means more people will hear about it. I think this is a great story for the campaign. A marine sticking his neck out to show support for the one candidate that he thinks really cares about the troops. My hat is off to him for taking this one for the team. Because of the controversy more people wil know now that soldiers support ron paul above all others.
I think he was army... Semantics, I know.

[eleganz]

He woke up to his oath to the Constitution.

The people appreciate him, the establishment might want to use him as an example.

WHATEVER, sacrifices need to be made either way, 10 more will step out after him, and more, and more.

Jesse made us proud, we will be behind him if anybody tries anything with him.

Now go back to listening to Kelly Clarkson.

See you all on the phone lines!

[speciallyblend]

Having never been in the military I may be mistaken but isn't the definition of "in uniform" when you are wearing your stripes and other identification rather than a particular type of clothing?? Couldn't an active duty military man or woman show up in generic BDU's with no identification badges or patches and make any statement they want? In this way, they are clearly perceived as military personal yet technically "out of uniform"??

good point but then couldn't they go after him for impersonating military even though he is in the military? just wondering. It would seem that is how they could go after him then since he is not wearing his uniform and is wearing a uniform that is not his or should i say the governments.

[TheDriver]

Honestly, the campaign should have known better (when Ron and company put him in-front of the mic). I like what he said, but campaigning with soldiers in uniforms is a big no, no in politics--and any staffer that has worked in a campaign before, should know that.

[vita3]

I support anyone that speaks his mind, especially when "ordered" not to.

[Tinnuhana]

Don't know if this has been said, yet, but it's front page of Stars & Stripes today.

[Ranger29860]

Don't know if this has been said, yet, but it's front page of Stars & Stripes today.

He is beyond screwed now. if it made the cover of starts and stripes they are going to make an example of him. He is now looking at jail time.

[Mini-Me]

He is beyond screwed now. if it made the cover of starts and stripes they are going to make an example of him. He is now looking at jail time.

I love that, when courts decide to "make an example" out of people and deliver a completely disproportionate sentence. Justice! :rolleyes:

[Krugerrand]

He is beyond screwed now. if it made the cover of starts and stripes they are going to make an example of him. He is now looking at jail time.

Do those rule apply to the Commander and Chief? What about Generals running for office?

[Ranger29860]

good point but then couldn't they go after him for impersonating military even though he is in the military? just wondering. It would seem that is how they could go after him then since he is not wearing his uniform and is wearing a uniform that is not his or should i say the governments.

There is a law about impersonating a soldier but you have to actually be trying to get access to thing and be wearing all parts of the uniform. Veterans including myself still wear bits of our uniforms like the pants(comfortable) I wear my Army jacket all the time. Now there is the Stolen Valor Act" but that only covers if I were to walk around with a medal that i did not earn pinned on me or my uniform.

[Mini-Me]

Do those rule apply to the Commander and Chief? What about Generals running for office?

Don't be silly. ;) There are rules for "us," and there are rules for "them," and peon soldiers fall under the "us" category. Didn't your mom tell you that's how it's supposed to work? :D

[Krugerrand]

It's time to start organizing by-the-book military rallies for Ron Paul ... let people see who the military really supports.

[bronxboy10]

The Commander in Chief (Barack Obama) disobeys the rules (The Constitution).

[jersdream]

He hardly supports liberty, he committed a burglary. That is the epitome of anti-liberty.

[Bruno]

He is beyond screwed now. if it made the cover of starts and stripes they are going to make an example of him. He is now looking at jail time.

It did not mention jail time in the article. Blowback from actions against him may also be something the military would want to avoid.

[Svenskar_för_Ron_Paul]

Weren't there some controversial things about Joe the Plumber aswell?

[Ranger29860]

It did not mention jail time in the article. Blowback from actions against him may also be something the military would want to avoid.

Just because they didn't say it doesn't mean it won't happen :) ive seen soldiers go to jail for a much more minor action. When they use language like "dismissal from service" that is a nice way of saying dishonorable discharge and that can happen after serving jail time. It was a STUPID move by him he could have just wore civies and have is top open with no tags on it and made the same point.

I feel bad for him he probably just got caught up in the moment and didn't think. It happens to all us sadly :(.... As for blowback most soldiers IMHO will view this as a violation of a very public rule and not really care about the punishment.

That being said i hope he jsut gets a slap on the wrist with a article 15 but with it being so public and on NATIONAL tv i don't think that will happen.

[bronxboy10]

It did not mention jail time in the article. Blowback from actions against him may also be something the military would want to avoid.

"Potential penalties could range from a letter of reprimand to a reduction in rank or dismissal from the service."

Source (http://www.stripes.com/news/soldier-on-stage-with-ron-paul-could-face-punishment-for-politicking-1.165130)

[Bruno]

Just because they didn't say it doesn't mean it won't happen :) ive seen soldiers go to jail for a much more minor action. When they use language like "dismissal from service" that is a nice way of saying dishonorable discharge and that can happen after serving jail time. It was a STUPID move by him he could have just wore civies and have is top open with no tags on it and made the same point.

I feel bad for him he probably just got caught up in the moment and didn't think. It happens to all us sadly :(.... As for blowback most soldiers IMHO will view this as a violation of a very public rule and not really care about the punishment.

That being said i hope he jsut gets a slap on the wrist with a article 15 but with it being so public and on NATIONAL tv i don't think that will happen.

True and thanks for the perspective. Sure hope the hammer doesn't fall hard on him.

[Ted McAvoy]

Well i think he will be fine. I mean remeber a while bach they had some service personel run around with lady gaga. they did not get in trouble. I was in for 8 years and our understanding was you could attend political events envolving elections (protests and ralleys were the no,no). Further UCMJ is totally dependant on chain of command, a good ass chewing and some push ups they will send him on his way. Also, wouldent shaking the POTUS hand and supporting him be a violation........He is after all a politican and running for office.

[Mini-Me]

He hardly supports liberty, he committed a burglary. That is the epitome of anti-liberty.

Who are you referring to, Corporal Jesse Thorsen? If so, when was it? Consider that he has a 9/11 tattoo on his neck and apparently joined the military shortly thereafter, but he is now a big enough Ron Paul supporter to speak out at his own personal risk. Sometimes, people change...and obviously, Jesse has changed quite a bit in the past decade.

[milo10]

I can see the aspect of trying to avoid political intimidation by a politically involved military. However, is that the real reason for the rule? The policy doesn't prevent political intimidation or involvement by an out-of-control military anyway, because an out-of-control military could easily instruct its soldiers to engage in certain political activity in plain clothes...which could turn into a covert coup at the extreme end of the spectrum. For that reason and others, I wonder if the given reason is just a pretext, whereas the real reason may involve the dehumanization of soldiers. (While they're part of the military, they are strictly order-following killing machines, and individual opinions or critical thought are discouraged.)

I'd say that is probably the most important reason today. The other notions brought up were pretty incoherent, although I am sure JasonM is simply relaying the official justification. There may have been some legitimate dynamic it grew out of historically, but if you were to assume that people were so ridiculously stupid that they believe someone wearing a uniform and espousing a view for or against a political candidate automatically reflects the official position of the military, then you have already discounted any type of populace input on anything, whether that be voting, juries, etc.. People would simply be too stupid to do those things.

There is, of course, a legitimate fear of military juntas and so forth, but that is not based on anyone from the military openly supporting an electoral candidate. That means that the military already runs things, and the candidate is meaningless. And if there was a fear of a military takeover, then a top brass endorsement is not going to help.

[voteliberty]

He's not getting attacked. It's the rules. I'm not saying I agree with them, but it's well known what you can and can't do in uniform.

With that said, there are those in the military/veterans who hold a uniform above everything else in life. I didn't and I still don't. I didn't find much pride being dictated directly by politicians. Of course I signed up to do it, so I don't have any room to complain, but then again I was also lied to by our commander in chief.

The soldier felt he needed to make a statement, and he did. Some will agree, some won't.

[JasonM]

Anonymous polls and such don't have the same kind of emotional impact on people as really hearing some kid telling his story right from his mouth though. The anonymity takes the individuality and humanity out of people, and so it makes them easier to ignore. If you were to hear straight from some 20-something-year-old that he's tired of killing people, tired of occupying other people's lands, and that he just wants to stay home and raise a family, that's going to have a much bigger impact on most people than seeing some anonymous survey statistic in the corner of page 8 of the Tuesday newspaper.

Telling soldiers they can speak up, but not on TV or in uniform, is the same thing as saying, "You're allowed to give an opinion, but you're not allowed to give your credentials or show how you're personally affected by the political choices people are making." That doesn't sit right with me.

But therein lies the crux of the problem. How do you think it would feel if someone in uniform (maybe someone with a few stars on his shoulder, or maybe someone with only 2-3 stripes on his shoulder), were to get up in uniform and publicly endorse John McCain in 2008 and basically give off a pro-war speech about how fighting terrorists ensures our continued liberty from the evil Islamist fascists? I'm sure that would piss off a lot of soldiers who didn't agree with him, esp if it gave off the impression that ALL soldiers thought this way. Then, when you get those soldiers driving home from work, their car might be egged.

Again, think about this. A ban against politicization of the uniform is the best thing, because THAT uniform can be used as much against the cause of liberty or pro-liberty candidates as it can in favor of such candidates or liberty. Consider also the negative things that can happen. Suppose someone (maybe someone with 5 or 6 stripes) were to go on record on CNN IN UNIFORM and say a bunch of things on CNN, and say that the Iraq war is all just motivated by oil and corporate greed.

Now that may be his OPINION, but can you imagine the GLEE that this would cause for the terrorists or hostile world powers? They could take his interview and play it over and over again in local channels and gin up anti-american sentiment, making the world that much more unsafe for us outside our own borders. And it might even inspire a few people to get into some cars and blow themselves up, or be used as a recruitment tool and make the blowback worse than it already is.

Do we really want to risk something like that happening? Can the military, responsible for defending our nation and liberty from foreign powers, really risk the potential damage that can result from a soldier doing something utterly stupid and counterproductive? And that is just ONE example of how the uniform can be used against our own country by foreign folks. This is why they tell soldiers to be careful about what they say while captured because of this very danger that can come from Anti-American propaganda.

[JasonM]

Again folks, you only think that folks should be allowed to express their opinions in uniform because it helps our cause, but you never consider that this uniform is a double edged sword that can be used against our cause too. Again, you said it best. Some kid saying something in uniform can be a powerful tool of communication for some folks, do we really want the powers that be to have the option to use that tool against the cause of liberty? By putting this uniform ban in place, it removes the uniform as a factor in the propaganda war we face.

[pixel-chick]

Again folks, you only think that folks should be allowed to express their opinions in uniform because it helps our cause, but you never consider that this uniform is a double edged sword that can be used against our cause too. Again, you said it best. Some kid saying something in uniform can be a powerful tool of communication for some folks, do we really want the powers that be to have the option to use that tool against the cause of liberty? By putting this uniform ban in place, it removes the uniform as a factor in the propaganda war we face.

Hello,

I can see the reasoning in your statement, definitely, and I can see someone egging the car of someone who is pro war and other country's using the footage negatively, but I think there's a HUGE difference between wearing the uniform while discussing pro war agendas to justify heading off someplace to drop bombs, and to wear the uniform while promoting peace and diplomacy. Big, big difference there and I support this man and any soldier who stands up for diplomacy like this, trumping the media and corrupt corporate/military interests in order to save lives. That's the bottom line for me.

[HGN11]

I don't think that it was the best idea for a solider in uniform to be expressing his opinions on politics/politicians, but this is not exactly a straightforward or isolated incident. The blame should be shared three ways between the soldier, Dana Bash / CNN, and to a lesser degree the Paul campaign. All three should have known better; however, once CNN put the guy on the air and then decided to cut him off I don't see how they could justify not following-up with him or else issuing a statement on-air about their error rather than lying and blaming the disconnection on some sort of problem with the feed.

Also, not that I am looking to come to John Kerry's defense, but I don't recall such a stink being made when a group of soliders in uniform on apparently active duty sent out a photo mocking him over some insulting comments he made about them and the Iraq policy at the time.