Video: Pajamas Media interviews soldier who spoke up at Yearly Kos; Update: Soltz’s VoteVets bio features photo of him in uniform
posted at 2:11 pm on August 4, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Even more interesting than the rules governing what he did yesterday will be the rules governing what he can do this week. The media’s going to want to talk to him as much as his commanders are going to want to stop that from happening lest it draw more attention to his probable breach of military regs yesterday. Presumably there’s nothing they can do to stop him once he’s off duty and out of uniform — or can they, given his misconduct? If they can’t, expect him to turn up on Hannity & Colmes imminently.
Meanwhile, enjoy the absurdity of Jon Soltz in high dudgeon over someone else trading on the moral authority of his military service to push a political point. Soltz is the head of the anti-war veterans’ group VoteVets; he’s on cable news every other day precisely because he’s a vet whose view of the war coincides with the media’s. He’s not wearing his uniform in those appearances but he might as well be. The only significant ethical difference between him and the mystery soldier is that an observer might think the mystery soldier is speaking as an official military spokesman. Did anyone there think that was the case? Ezra Klein didn’t seem to.
Click the image to watch.
Update: Exhibit A in leveraging one’s uniform — or “shiny uniform,” as nutroots icon Glenn Ellensburg Greenwald derisively has it — for political legitimacy. Vets for Freedom does the same thing, of course, but then VFF hasn’t thrown any public tantrums when confronted by a soldier in dress making a point they don’t agree with. Thanks to Matt H. for catching that.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Personally I see absolutely nothing wrong with this guy speaking up while in uniform. He’s probably (and rightly) proud of having served his country. Judging from the amount of stuff hanging on his jacket he seems to have served with distinction. Why shouldn’t he be allowed to make that fact clear while speaking up for what he believes in? It gives him some real authority as opposed to the fake moral authority that the left so likes to flaunt.
Aylios on August 4, 2007 at 2:21 PM
This guy could pass for Harry Reid’s illegitimate son. He looks like a second generation talking cadaveur. Very rare form of “life.”
volsense on August 4, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Well,since you deleted my last comment linking to a new video of the unrelated to Hot Air at all, Michelle Malkin, discussing military strategy, also unrelated to this post, with Ralph Peters, I’ll make an on topic comment.
The above video doesn’t work in Firefox 2.0.0.6 — if you’re using Firefox, you may not be able to see it, but open it in I.E., it works fine.
Also, if you have any pull at all with Pajamas Media, you should ask them to work on that coding issue and get a player that works across all browsers!
It’s not like Firefox is one of the most popular browsers of blog commentators or other heavy web users or anything.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Will Kos turn in every anti-war vet in uniform too?
Win Win Win on August 4, 2007 at 2:27 PM
There’s a thread for that in Top Picks.
Allahpundit on August 4, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Kos recently argued in favor of every vet’s “right” to speak out in uniform.
He’s wrong according to UCMJ, but that’s his stance.
Jon Stoltz is just an ass.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Thanks, AP, for clarifying. I missed it. Glad you put it up.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 2:30 PM
No misconduct in it, Allah.
Off duty and out of uniform, a Reservist, as this SGT is, is not subject to the UCMJ. He’d have to make a claim of speaking for the Army or his unit to get in trouble.
RTO Trainer on August 4, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Amazing.
“The terrorists want us to be divided.”
There, in that one sentence, is a more eloquent critique of the present political atmosphere than every bloviation uttered by a talking head on TV and every word written on every blog since this war began.
The contrast between the reality of this guy’s guts, commitment and basic common sense with the caricature painted by Scotty Beauchamp is mind-boggling.
And I loved Soltz, who after all his big talk and machismo on the platform couldn’t even look the guy in the eye in front of a TV camera.
I don’t think the SGT did anything wrong either. But if Soltz gets his way and the Army disciplines him instead of promoting him, he should run for office.
LagunaDave on August 4, 2007 at 2:34 PM
I disagree, RTO Trainer.
In all seriousness, though, the soldier clearly violated (1) and (2).
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I just love how this is going to be about the only news coming out of YearlyKos.
frankj on August 4, 2007 at 2:37 PM
It’s good to finally see the real video (if a bit bogged down and choppy on PM’s servers, which I’m sure will pass.) Big thanks to Andrew Marcus for taking care of business here in Chicago!
Hannibal Smith on August 4, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Whats with the empty seats at the convention? Next year they should downsize the room rental.
malkinmania on August 4, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Christoph, I guess you can feel free to disagree, however, this is a matter in which we receive annual briefings and that’s not how the reg is interpreted.
Political interests are considered to be campaigning or running for office or supporting some specific legislation or proposition.
Public speeches… he’d have to have gone as a participant. i.e.; a panelist or featured speaker or some such. The reg is not inteded to prohibit participation in a discussion just because it’s public.
RTO Trainer on August 4, 2007 at 2:46 PM
[Aylios on August 4, 2007 at 2:21 PM]
Aylios, I don’t doubt he’s proud, I don’t doubt he had served with distinction except, as it seems, for his violation of the rule of not wearing a uniform while participating in a political activity.
An appeal to authority, however, is a logical fallacy, which is one good reason you should ignore this gentleman’s visual appeal to authority by using his uniform to argue (I say that because it appears to have worked on you), just as you should ignore the verbal appeal via vet’s saying “I was in the army, I know, and therefore you should believe me.”
Dusty on August 4, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Hmmm.
So becasue I’m in the Army and I receive training on the meaning and applicaiton of regulations, you shoud not accept the explanations I offer because I said, I’m in the Army and receive instructions on this?
Sorry, but that’s not how the appeal to authority fallacy works. If the authority cited is competent, it’s not a fallacy.
RTO Trainer on August 4, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Wesley Clark must have asked himself why he ended up sitting beside that fool. Particularly when, on the clip LGF has up, you can clearly hear him saying, “Oh no…”
Further, at the end, Clark despite him having an addled brain and being a cowardly ass-kisser as a general, which was a bad quality (if he believed so strongly Bush was wrong he shouldn’t have so publicly supported him! even after leaving the army), made sense at the end.
He said among other things he didn’t know what the result of any investigation would be and he understood why the soldier felt so strongly; indeed, he hoped the soldier’s and his fellow soldiers’ morale was high during the surge.
LGF commentator, Logan, put it well:
He also said it’s not his place to pass any sort of judgment on the outburst and it would be up to the army to see what, if anything, would be done about it.
As far as Stoltz goes, what an ass. He apparently thinks it’s HIS place.
An anti-war leftist who parades his past military service at ever opportunity thinks it’s his place to take to task a serving military men.
If he felt so strongly about doing anything other than advancing his own partisan agenda, he could simply have referred a tape to army JAG and let that be that.
Instead, he had to pull rank HE NO LONGER HAS in the most hypocritical buffoonish way possible.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 2:51 PM
YearlyKOS doesn’t advertise itself as a purely political function. It advertises itself as a bloggers convention.
YearlyKos Convention – n. yier-lee-KOS k&n-’ven(t)-sh&n An annual convention gathering people from all walks of life who belong to the Netroots community, the US-based (but globally focused and inclusive) non-partisan grassroots political action community that uses the Internet and blogs as primary tools for: expressing viewpoints, building consensus, acting to change the status quo, mobilizing huge numbers of people and informing each other and the world about current events, grassroots actions, networks, meetings, policy and more. The YearlyKos Convention is a project of bloggerpower.org with the generous support of the Netroots Arts and Education Initiative (NAEI).
bnelson44 on August 4, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Ezra Klein has a new post ridiculing right-wingers for making such a big issue out of this.
I left her a comment under my Irish “David” pseudonym. (Let’s see how long it stays there.)
Bet she’s sorry she ever opened her mouth!
IrishEi on August 4, 2007 at 2:52 PM
What the heck are you talking about? The army’s not going to sit around debating the finer points of “appeal to authority fallacy” all day.
It’s simply in the regs.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Soltz is the Left’s idea of a soldier. A threatening egomaniac who’s only skill is intimidation.
Does anyone honestly believe Soltz’s objection had anything to do with “regulations?” Please, he objected to not being able to play his only claim to fame, his “moral superiority” card. He objected to having his authority questioned.
As for the Sargent, he seems to have soberly weighed the consequences and chosen to speak anyway. That’s courage.
TheBigOldDog on August 4, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Who cares? The whole regulations debate misses the point of what happened.
TheBigOldDog on August 4, 2007 at 2:57 PM
I agree. I don’t think it’s a mystery to him he could be subject to administrative punishment.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 2:58 PM
It’s
of the points of what happened. I think you put it in context. You can’t pretend it isn’t part of the mix.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Sorry, that “one” should have been in italics, not blockquote — I’m not trying to shout on steroids!
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 2:59 PM
In the interview, he has quite some nice things to say about the YearlyKos people and a good message of unity. The Kos Krowd is really going to shoot themselves in the foot if they try to come down on him — even if the law is on their side.
frankj on August 4, 2007 at 3:02 PM
My father is a Vietnam veteran and a 27-year Marine officer. He was also quite involved, with my considerable encouragement, with the various anti-Kerry veterans activities in the last presidential election. As he was gearing up for the Washington D.C. rally he talked about wearing his old uniform on the plane and to the rally. Well, a fellow vet reminded him and his buddies of the relevant regulations (some of which still apply to officers who are no longer active duty but have not resigned their commissions). My father did the right thing and left the uniform at home.
This solder should have done the same. I was frankly ignorant of the regulations until then but I have to say they make sense. I don’t intend to contradict the commenters here who claim that technically he was not in violation of the standard interpretation of the UCMJ. That may be the case! But I do think that he shouldn’t have worn his uniform to the event, or not attended at all. A man (or woman) in a uniform should set aside politics.
mcg on August 4, 2007 at 3:06 PM
As much as I’d like to concur with you this shows the soldier didn’t violate the regs, he did.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 3:06 PM
There is an appeal that active duty service members can sign here:
http://www.appealforcourage.org
bnelson44 on August 4, 2007 at 3:09 PM
I agree.
In the grand scheme of offenses, it’s hardly the most egregious one, and I respect the soldier’s service and physical courage as well as his position, viewpoint, and intellectual courage… but your dad was right.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Given the level of debate and discussion in this thread and the other, you’d think it was the important issue. It isn’t. Not by a mile. People are playing right into the Left’s hands by focusing on the one issue they want you to focus on.
Again, does anybody really think Soltz’s objection had anything to do with the uniform?
TheBigOldDog on August 4, 2007 at 3:11 PM
[RTO Trainer on August 4, 2007 at 2:49 PM]
Wrong, you cite the rules. Then, that you know them and how you know them is irrelevant. Anything else is an assertion without evidence other than an appeal to authority and, in the example you provide, a logical fallacy.
Dusty on August 4, 2007 at 3:11 PM
No wonder we have such a hard time getting our message out an winning. We are putty in their hands.
TheBigOldDog on August 4, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Respect for army regulations, traditions, and the separation of military and civilian activities are hugely important issues.
From a military perspective, the first two are paramount.
It degrades the fighting effectiveness of the forces if Sergeants feel regulations can be ignored by them when they feel strongly about something. It diminishes their own authority and the authority of their officers, whose mission it is their job to support.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 3:15 PM
mcg, I aggree. Were I someone that this SGT had shared his plan with,I’d have recommended he not wear the uniform. It lends the appearance of impropriety, hence discussions like this one, and that’s enough to cast a shadow on your message and purpose.
However, I’m going to disagree with teh idea of “setting aside politics” at least as you seem to mean it.
We should not be involved in campaigns or issue politicing in uniform. That’s as far as I’m willing to go. Out of uniform, no holds barred. Reservists, while sill serving often run for and hold political office and I think that’s proper. I intend to do it myself. The only restraint there is if called up for over 270 active duty, you have to give up your position unless the service Secretary waives that.
I also blog on politics, and in no way should that be constrained. Though I have been circumspect in the tone of my posts while on active duty or even on my drill weekends, not wanting to get caught up in even the appearance of violating Article 88.
RTO Trainer on August 4, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Maybe the sticking point might be he was a participant in the conference in his uniform, but I really don’t see that he said anything political unless you apply the prevailing winds of the political divide on Iraq. But that would be to ingore the Blue Dog Ds.
And I don’t really see anything different in what he said at a blogger conference than our military in their uniforms say to the print media that on occasion step out of the Green Zone and do some actual reporting about conditions on the ground. They quote military all the time.
And Cudos to YOU Soldier for taking the fight to the enemy!
Texas Gal on August 4, 2007 at 3:19 PM
It also degrades the effectiveness of regulation and tradition to have either roundly misunderstood.
RTO Trainer on August 4, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Yes, RTO Trainer, he could have showed up in in a suit and introduced himself as, “I’m Sergeant so and so with unit X and my recent experience is … I’m speaking solely in capacity for myself as an individual…” and then gone on to make his point.
It’s the wearing of the uniform to that venue to make what amounts to a political speech that was inappropriate.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 3:23 PM
[Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 2:59 PM]
I agree. I agree with TheBigOldDog [August 4, 2007 at 3:11 PM] too. I only watched once but it seemed to me that Stoltz started his authoritarian warnings before any words came from the mouth of the guy in uniform. It was a shout down, but as Hamsher has said, it is their objective to be shrill and self-destructive.
Dusty on August 4, 2007 at 3:23 PM
You don’t see any difference between proactively going to a political action committee in uniform vs. being interviewed by a reporter while in the field?
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Look, I like the Sergeant. There are positive and negative things in what he did. But all the negative ones could have been avoided if he’d just taken my suggestion in 3:23.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Or more accurately, mcg’s suggestion, who put it first and better.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Wrong. Had this guy left his uniform at home you never would have seen this. You never would have seen the real Stoltz. You never would have heard the rank hypocrisy about blackmail out of Wes Clark’s mouth. You would not have had such a dramatic demonstration of the Left’s hypocrisy about soldiers speaking out.
The Sergeant chose to take the punishment to expose these things. By focusing on the legality of wearing the uniform you cheapen his conscious sacrifice by missing the things he exposed.
TheBigOldDog on August 4, 2007 at 3:32 PM
It’s absurd to see this as a case raising military discipline issues.
This soldier weighed in on the facts, not a political campaign.
Don’t buy the Left’s characterization of the facts on the ground in Iraq as a “political” issue. It’s an issue of reality vs. reality distortion. Indeed, journalists are embedded with troops not only to observe operations, but talk to our soldiers, understand their impressions and learn their stories.
Anil Petra on August 4, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Well, then maybe the soldier made a strategic decision (I’ve already acknowledged that he did agreeing with you on this point) and even a good one.
But I don’t, and won’t, concur with your point that army regulations are irrelevant and it’s unimportant when Sergeants take it upon themselves to publicly flaunt them.
If Anil Petra is right, so be it. I’m not an expert in military law or disciplinary practices.
But were I that soldier’s CO… I would discipline him. With a bemused smile, perhaps (I’ve had it done to me), but to maintain the integrity of the service and its regulations, I would apply some type or reasonable punishment.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Now I have a questions, I have attended several (ok dozens) of conventions where panels included military historians and uniformed members of the military. They sat on panels, gave talks, and discused what was then current military operations. So all of these captains, majors, etc broke the UCMJ? I don’t think so. At one conference the Marines actually sponsored several of the panels.
David on August 4, 2007 at 3:45 PM
What type of conventions?
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Christoph, did you miss my 1st paragraph? I said:
Maybe the sticking point might be he was a participant in the conference in his uniform, but I really don’t see that he said anything political unless you apply the prevailing winds of the political divide on Iraq. But that would be to ingore the Blue Dog Ds.
But see you interpret his intent for attending this conference as political and you interpret that DK is a political action committee based on their mission statement. You seem to be making assumptions to draw your conclusions.
Are they actually registered as a PAC? Actually, DK functions more like an internet media outlet, and we all know that. I think they’d have to actually do some legal IRS kind of stuff to be a PAC.
Texas Gal on August 4, 2007 at 3:46 PM
They are unimportant to this incident and by focusing on them, you miss the opportunity to discuss the important issues about the Left in this country exposed by the Sergeant. That’s my point.
Look at the update AP put up at the top. Low and behold it’s Stoltz in uniform on his VoteVet website. See what I mean now?
TheBigOldDog on August 4, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Christoph – so what would you do as discipline, based on what, and by what procedure? Article 15? – refer for CM?
major john on August 4, 2007 at 3:49 PM
They claimed a political purpose in their mission statement, regardless of their legal designation. It is common knowledge they act in a political way, to further political interests.
You’re splitting hairs, but not even from the right scalp.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 3:52 PM
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/81
terryannonline on August 4, 2007 at 3:54 PM
A fairly minor administrative punishment (I used that term in this thread, never did I once refer to court martial).
I’m not familiar with the exact workings of the U.S. disciplinary procedures in these cases — I’ve only been disciplined under Canadian military law.
And I broke the regulation in question and have no qualms with the minor punishment I received.
In a case like this? Probably a fine and a few days confined to barracks.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Oh and look, it’s Wes Clark in uniform on his WesPac website. How nice.
Let’s debate the UCMJ some more…
Goiod work terryannonline!
TheBigOldDog on August 4, 2007 at 3:58 PM
One JAG officer’s opinion (as well as an enlighetning remark about the applicable AR) can be found in the comments here.
major john on August 4, 2007 at 4:00 PM
terryannonline and BogOldDog, I’m not saying I don’t get your substantive point… but where is the military regulation about images taken when you were quite clearly a soldier engaged in the performance of your duties not being used on future websites, which clearly indicate you are no longer an active duty member of the military?
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Funny, you want to make a decision about something that would be a legal matter for the military but you want to abandon the prime issue of whether or not the conference was a political gathering by ignoring the legal aspects of DK not being a PAC based on IRS code.
And now that I see you are Canadian, I can understand that you might not understand the importance of that designation in order for the SGT to have violated military codes.
Texas Gal on August 4, 2007 at 4:03 PM
RTO Trainer: I did not mean to suggest that the SGT or any other member of the military should refrain from political involvement! Only that it should be done out of uniform, that’s all. The only reason I suggested he “not attend at all” was if for some reason he was unable to wear his civvies that day for some other reason. Sorry for the confusion.
mcg on August 4, 2007 at 4:05 PM
What is telling about the kos is the Red Chinese Commie star in their yearly kos sign.
TheSitRep on August 4, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Thanks for pointing that out, Major John. Army Lawyer also makes BigDog’s, Allah’s, and for that matter, my point about the yKos crowd applying their outrage at military regulations being crossed rather selectively.
He also states (and I am sure he would know) that 670-1 isn’t “punitive”, but DODI 1334.01 and DODD 1344.10 are at issue.
The most relevant part of his knowledgable comment is:
That’s pretty much my point.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 4:09 PM
They are being used to promote political causes. You’re focusing on legalities to the exclusion of the reality of the pretext they used to try to silence and intimidate this soldier because they disagreed with him. Can you not see the obvious hypocrisy that’s been exposed here? Don’t you think that’s a little more important in the grand scheme of things than whether or not this particular Sergeant can be/will be to disciplined or not?
TheBigOldDog on August 4, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Christoph – you might be mixing Article 15 NJP and “hearing” punishments. I suspect any JAG advising you would tell you that is not a fitting imposition. You would most likely get a recommendation of something like 14 days additional duty, if you decided this was worth invoking article 15. Restriction to company area or such is more often used when someone gets into, uh, a situation off post or maybe at a Community Club, PX, Gym and the like… Taking money – not usually used unless some sort of quasi-criminal or property damage type event has happened.
I have a feeling that for this, most company commanders would put an internal letter of reprimand in his local file. If he stays out of similar trouble – it will go away after some time. If he did it again, then it would act as an aggrivating factor.
Me, I’d just tell ‘em if he does something like that again, he should do so out of uniform, or i will start having to get creative with my copy of the UCMJ…but this sure doesn’t warrant that.
Oh and
who said you did? You don’t have to be so defensive – I was simply asking a question.
major john on August 4, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Texas Gal, it is you who don’t understand.
The military regulations don’t refer to refraining from visiting duly recognized political action committees while in uniform, but from not making public speeches or participating in activity to advance a political interest.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Regarding your 4:10 comment, major john, everything you said was quite reasonable.
I’m more of a stickler type (granted, I’ve never been a military officer and I assume you have or are) so I’d probably carry out some type of minor punishment to drive the point home so it’s remembered, but nothing overly heavy.
As far as confined to base/barracks, it’s probably just more commonly used in the Canadian military… or… doh!… could it be because I left base without permission to see about a lady?
Oops. I deserved what I got, if not what I got if you get the distinction.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Yes. In the grand scheme of things.
But the army doesn’t necessarily take that into consideration, that would be a political distinction.
The soldiers CO will more likely want to use an appropriate punishment and/or warning to make sure his soldier doesn’t get in trouble in the future and can contribute to his unit and their mission.
As I said, “bemused smile”… I don’t imagine his CO will hate the guy.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Christoph,
Yes, my simplistic screen name is a literal one. I am a Major, and my name is John. Heh.
I see the Canadian Army uses confinement the same way we do! Good to know some methods do cross over to more than one Western military…
major john on August 4, 2007 at 4:19 PM
His uniform looks weird to me. I don’t recognize the green tabs on his shoulder epithets, his ribbons look larger than the norm, I don’t know what the brass is above his name plate, nor the large cloth looking symbol directly above the ribbon rack.
I’m not saying we have another Jesse MacBeth, I’m an Air Force guy and it’s been a while since my cadet days at VMI. If I had to take a wild guess, and this is just a guess, I’d say Canadian?
John from OPFOR on August 4, 2007 at 4:22 PM
The video works fine for me in Firefox 2.0.0.6 running under Kubuntu.
Stegall Tx on August 4, 2007 at 4:31 PM
that dude would have never gotten in my face like that, I would have kicked his ASS in uniform..
asshole lefty
Chuck in Detroit on August 4, 2007 at 4:31 PM
I have floated out the idea he was sort of a plant.
Topsecretk9 on August 4, 2007 at 4:34 PM
A plant? You’re on your own on that one, buddy.
John from OPFOR on August 4, 2007 at 4:36 PM
John,
The ribboins are normal size – this isn’t exactly a strapping fellow…
The green tabs are Leader Tabs – by rank, this guy is most likely a Team Leader, or Squad Leader. They have been around on Army Uniforms for a bit now :)
The badge is an Air Assault badge (Dope-on-Rope) – helicopter types, not the maniacs that jump out of perfectly good airplanes, voluntarily. The cloth behind it, I’ll go look that up – that is newer.
major john on August 4, 2007 at 4:38 PM
John and Major John,
I did notice the 3 combat stripes on his right arm.
bnelson44 on August 4, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Man, they’ve added a bunch of new stuff.
Yeah it was that giant looking looking thing above the ribbon rack that threw me in the first place.
John from OPFOR on August 4, 2007 at 4:43 PM
When did the Army add the epaulet schwag, btw?
heh, spelled epaulet wrong in the first post. Durrrr.
John from OPFOR on August 4, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Oh I understand that you want to have it both ways. If the gathering was not political in nature, which without it being either designated as a political gathering or a campaign for a specific candidate or even group of candidates, or hosted by a political group (as designated by the IRS Code) then he did not attend a political gathering no matter what “we all know” is the agenda of DK. I would think that in order for legal action to be taken by the military for a breech of their codes, you would first have to determine if the gathering was indeed a political gathering.
Now you might be able to say that the SGT speaking in public was a public speech but if he wasn’t on an agenda to speak at the conference that might be a stretch. Now as to his participating in activity to advance a political interest. I don’t think you can say that what he said applied to this part of the code. He spoke about was his knowledge of the progress of the surge. He obviously have printed data to support his knowledge.
Now what is political about that? After all, I do believe that even the Ds say they want to be successful in Iraq. No?
Texas Gal on August 4, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Correction, the stripes are overseas stripes.
The green loops (combat leaders identification) is talked about here on document pg 249
The badge above the name plate is probably a regimental distinctive insignia, see pg 253
The color behind the air assault badge (if that is what it is, my eyes aren’t the best) is an airborne background trimming, see pg 272.
The uniform looks legit to me.
bnelson44 on August 4, 2007 at 4:52 PM
looks to me like Jon Soltz was never actually in Iraq…
he was in new jersey… for 365 days… and he trained and deployed people to Iraq, working in logistics.
he was a logistics coordinator… correct me if I’m wrong.
Kaptain Amerika on August 4, 2007 at 4:55 PM
what’s firefox? isn’t that a movie that some nutjob democrat was in in the 80’s?
Kaptain Amerika on August 4, 2007 at 5:00 PM
He was also a tank platoon leader in the Kosovo campaign, according to his bio.
What’s your point? I hope we won’t denigrate into a discussion about whether military logistics and/or training is honourable (and vital) work.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Chock another one up for Linux. I’m using Windows XP.
“Oh, but my multi-media experience and hardware support is second to none,” he said happily.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Green Tab (AR 670-1)
28–21. Leaders identification insignia
a. Leaders in all units (Active Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserves), regardless of unit category
(MTOE or TDA), will wear the leaders identification (LI) insignia.
b. The following specific leaders are authorized to wear the leaders identification insignia.
(1) Commanders.
(2) Deputy commanders.
(3) Platoon leaders.
(4) Command sergeants major.
(5) First sergeants.
(6) Platoon sergeants.
242 AR 670–1 • 3 February 2005
(7) Section leaders.
(8) Squad leaders and tank commanders.
(9) Team leaders.
(10) Assistant SF detachment commanders.
(11) SF operational detachment “B” sergeants major.
(12) SF operational detachment “A” senior sergeants.
c. The LI insignia is a green cloth loop, 15⁄8 inches wide, worn in the middle of both shoulder loops on the Army
green coat, the cold-weather coat (field jacket) and on the center tab of the extended cold-weather clothing system
(ECWCS) (Gortex) parka. When the LI is worn on the parka, personnel wear their grade insignia centered on the LI.
Personnel may wear pin-on grade insignia, or they may sew onto the LI the same cloth grade insignia that is worn on
the collars of the utility uniform (see fig 28–137).
The trimming:
b. Airborne background trimming.
(1) Description. An oval-shaped embroidered device in distinctive colors, 13⁄8 inches in height and 21⁄4 inches in
width.
(2) Approval authority. Subject to the approval of The Institute of Heraldry, U.S. Army, a background trimming is
authorized for organizations designated (by structure, equipment, and mission) “Airborne” or “Air Assault” by HQDA.
Qualified personnel are authorized to wear the background trimming with the Parachutist or Air Assault badges.
Personnel wear only one background trimming at a time. Appropriated funds are used to provide enlisted personnel
with the background trimming without cost. If appropriated funds are not available, units may purchase background
trimming with non-appropriated funds.
(3) How worn.
(a) Personnel wear the background trimming beneath any of the authorized parachutist or air assault badges on the
Army green coat and AG 415 shirt. The basic portion of the badge is centered on the background trimming; however,
the wreath and star on the Master and Senior Parachutist badges project slightly above the background trimming. On
the AG 415 shirt when ribbons are worn, all personnel wear the trimming so the bottom edge of the trimming is 1⁄4 inch
above the ribbons. When ribbons are not worn, males wear the trimming 1⁄4 inch above the pocket seam, and females
wear the trimming in a comparable position.
(b) On the green uniform coat, males wear the background trimming and applicable badge on the pocket flap so the
space between the seam of the pocket flap and the top of the background trimming, wreath, or star is 1⁄8 inch (see fig
28–174). Females wear the trimming and applicable badge on the green coat and the maternity uniform tunic so the
bottom edge of the background trimming is 1⁄4 inch above the ribbons (see fig 28–175). When worn below the ribbons,
the top of the background trimming is 1⁄4 inch below the bottom ribbon row.
264 AR
major john on August 4, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Oh cripes, now I see that this has already been explained. Urk.
major john on August 4, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Texas Gal, what drivel.
Army Lawyer knows what he is talking about and you do not.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Wesley Clark is a subversive, dirt bag, peace of whale sh_t.
I wouldn’t spit on him if he was on fire.
He should have his military retirement canked .
Being at that commie convention is an act of sedition in it’s self.
TheSitRep on August 4, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Well, I don’t think you have to be a lawyer, Army or otherwise, to understand that the entire assumption that the SGT broke military code rest on the determination of was the gathering political. Otherwise, this is all just smoke that has been generated by Soltz when HE determined the regs had been breached because HIS attendance at the conference was entirely for political purposes.
I give the SGT the benefit of the doubt that his motivation to be there was as he stated.
Texas Gal on August 4, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Possibly to be filed under “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!” category, but SERIOUSLY
WHEN CAN WE HAVE OUR OWN “YEARLY HOTAIR” CONVENTION?
NightmareOnKStreet on August 4, 2007 at 5:44 PM
No. It’s not.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 5:49 PM
yes that’s exactly the point… if he hasn’t served there, then he is misleading the whole world by being on a panel about the war, and then intimidating someone who has been.
furthermore, I find that your argument that he broke the rags to be quite strange… this is in fact the “truth” as you want it…
the UCMJ is a manual. it is a rule book, and as anyone here that has served in our military will tell you, it is not only open to debate on interpretation… by whomever your NCO may be… and if he wants to, he or she, will find what they want it to say.
so the fact that we are getting technical with you, on the facts of IRS designation, and what the soldier did or did not say and whether or not he is or is not on active duty. and whether or not he was a speaker or just asking a question about a misrepresentation of facts. these are not only valid arguments but the same arguments his lawyer would make in an CM…
I believe after reading the regs, reading RTO’s posts and an overall understanding of America and the whole reason this rule exists… believe that he was not in breach of the UMCJ… however if his NCO were to be a lefty, he could easily find himself serving in north pole soon…
again I find it strange that you as a Canadian are arguing with American Officers on these points… I guess it’s because it happened to you and you are defending the mentality that had you disciplined, to make you feel like you were not unjustly treated, which I don’t know if you were…
anyway you seem to be enjoying this thread, I think you’re on post 1000 next…
I think the more interesting point here is, Jon Soltz wearing his uniform on his website, and always speaking about what he knows, and how smart he is, and how much experience in these areas he has, but he was never there…
I have a friend, a kid really, he is good friends with my little sister… he is on his 4th tour of Iraq… yes I said 4th… and you know what his job is? Check Points. this kid tells me, that the Iraqis are good people who need him there… and that the people he waves to and sees everyday will die if we leave now… he says it’s getting better there, slowly… I believe him. because he was there.
Kaptain Amerika on August 4, 2007 at 5:50 PM
All this flack over a goddamn UOD nitpick? What kind of crazy pills are these people taking?
The sociopath sitting next to Clark, who claimed to be a “colonel” tried to PULL RANK on a sergeant in a civilian setting – and in the process showed him the respect due a retarded child who just peed his pants.
I guarantee you if this homo was ever in a combat environment, he’d have gotten his ass shot off. I’m a little surprised he could even survive at a desk for more than a few months without “accidentally” having the holy living crap beat out of him.
logis on August 4, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Republican Presidential candidates won’t have to be ashamed to attend. Airlines can co-sponsor without having to defend themselves on O’Reilly.
There can be closets reserved for those from Kos who dare not be seen without fear of reprisal. Invite Soros, et al, even the Clintons, Edwards, AlBores! They could reserve an entire hotel floor for themselves (so they wouldn’t be subjected to hearing any unscripted criticism in the hallways). Besides, I badly need a vacation. /whining off/
How ’bout SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2008… EXACTLY 31 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION? Any takers?
NightmareOnKStreet on August 4, 2007 at 5:59 PM
It’s a pretty basic principle soldiers aren’t supposed to attend political events or make political arguments in uniform.
It’s to show respect for the fact soldiers serve all fellow countrymen of whatever their political persuasion. It’s also to assure the countrymen the military is not politicized.
I believe your friend too and feel it is a noble position.
Yet I suspect your friend would know not to go to yKos in uniform to make it.
If he did, I’d forgive him. Yet my interpretation, matching somewhat the vastly more experienced major john (who I’m not arguing with, I’m agreeing with) and Army Lawyer is it’s a violation of regs.
Not one of us, except perhaps for Army Lawyer from the other thread who hasn’t answered this question, believe there should be a large punishment. Just that, wily nilly, Sergeants don’t decide what regulations to follow — not without consequences anyway.
Yes, regulations can be interpreted largely as the military wants them to be, at least without the intervention of a good lawyer.
But I’m talking about an administrative punishment or warning, not a court martial. I doubt it would ever reach that level.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »