Rick Moran interviews soldier who spoke up at Yearly Kos
posted at 3:25 pm on August 5, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
His name is David Aguina and he’s an Army reservist. His UCMJ claims against Soltz seem thin to me — Article 88 prohibits “contemptuous words” directed at the president, not criticism, and Article 91 seems to apply only to lower-ranking soldiers and only when on duty — but it’s hard not to be moved by his story about his experience with Iraqis.
Meanwhile, via LGF, one of the yKos panelists parries right-wing criticism of the incident with some clever stammering about chickenhawks. Unmentioned in his post: Glenn Greenwald, Atrios, Max Blumenthal, Ken Layne, and the countless millions of other military-age liberals who all presumably support the war in Afghanistan and yet inexplicably haven’t beaten a path down to the local recruiting station after 9/11. Charles Johnson notes in an update an irony I noted myself in my post about this on Friday: Kos himself recently complained about the regs prohibiting vets from wearing their uniforms to political events. Here’s a further irony for you: the dKos diarist who wrote this is himself a member of VoteVets, a group which, like Vets for Freedom, explicitly seeks to derive political advantage from the fact that they’ve worn the uniform. And so I repeat my question from yesterday. Did anyone there really think Aguina was “representing the military,” especially given the fact that he was outnumbered in the room by vets who oppose the war?
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 »
There’s More!
The kos-kiddies and “fearless leader” have their panties in a bunch because the Marine Corps is investigating a Marine wearing his uniform while actively demonstrating at an anti-war protest – Marine Corps Investigation
jdkchem on August 5, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Of course not, but he should not have shown up in uniform. Nor should anyone else who is going to opine, regardless of opinion. They know the rules and should follow them.
Arguments about Bush with troops in the background are as silly as they are irrelevant. He is the CINC and visiting the bases and troops is part of the job. Every president does it and almost always give a speech of some sort.
Bradky on August 5, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Did anyone think Soltz was representing the military when he said “For the sake of the Army, I’d like to thank everyone who came here…” while in the middle of trying to dress Sgt Aguina down?
He seemed to think he was.
Pablo on August 5, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Bradky, it isn’t a political gathering. Read the billing.
As for the Kos complaint:
Bigger than the VFW? I doubt that.
Pablo on August 5, 2007 at 3:52 PM
No no no, AP. Afghanistan is a necessary war while Iraq is an unnecessary war. You only have to serve if you support an unnecessary.
Who decided if a war is necessary? I think that’s determined at a quorum of Greenwald and his puppets.
frankj on August 5, 2007 at 3:52 PM
the billing said (emphasis mine)
Bradky on August 5, 2007 at 3:55 PM
BTW, can a soldier really not say whether a war is going good or bad because that’s considered political speech? That must make communications with soldiers in the field pretty tough.
“How are things going at your position?”
“Pretty good. Resistance has died down.”
“Oh, so the surge is going great then? You’re court marshaled, neocon!”
frankj on August 5, 2007 at 3:55 PM
That’s the difference.
Bradky on August 5, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Ideologically, we’re square in Aguina’s corner.
Procedurally, Soltz was right.
John from OPFOR on August 5, 2007 at 3:58 PM
If it is pursued, what’s the likely penalty?
frankj on August 5, 2007 at 4:05 PM
…among a bunch of other things. But it’s “nonpartisan” and it isn’t pushing a specific issue, so for the purpose of the regs, it isn’t a political event.
The event is what it’s billed as, a nonpartisan networking event and if it wasn’t, it’s an in-kind contribution to the DNC. The panel itself was not political in any way, shape or form.
Furthermore, he didn’t make any political statements, whatsoever. He presented facts and asked questions.
Pablo on August 5, 2007 at 4:06 PM
To illustrate his point, he tells the story of one day while he was on guard duty, protecting a group of Iraqi workers, his command was unable or unwilling to supply him with lunch.
“With the little food they had – and I mean little food – they each pitched in some of their own lunch so that I could eat. It’s amazing that 5 Shiites and 2 Sunnis cared more about my well-being than my own soldiers.
wow…
Kaptain Amerika on August 5, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Probably a verbal counseling. But you can expect to see this issue show up at commander’s calls as they remind us of the rules.
What part of “political action” do you not understand?
Several military folks have commented on this as John from OPFOR did – what is the difficulty in seeing the two separate elements (a) you agree with him (b) he shouldn’t be in uniform
Bradky on August 5, 2007 at 4:10 PM
From the article:
Now I bet that would be a huge PR disaster to us if anyone pursued that. I know from my brother, though, that there are more limits of speech on officers (and my brother checks officers who blog to see whether they step over the line or not).
frankj on August 5, 2007 at 4:11 PM
“Community” Now if it were a “committee”, then we’d have a duly registered political animal running a political event, but we do not. It is not a political event, and if it were it would have to conform to political funding requirements. It isn’t and it doesn’t.
What part of “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 do you not understand?
If you’d like to show me what a “political action community” is and how it’s presence creates a political event, as legally defined, please feel free.
Pablo on August 5, 2007 at 4:24 PM
John,
“He could have handled it better” is a bit of an understatement don’t you think?
bnelson44 on August 5, 2007 at 4:25 PM
With Sept coming up: The Appeal for Courage, an appeal that military members can sign in support of the mission is being reawakened. It is here:
http://appealforcourage.com/
bnelson44 on August 5, 2007 at 4:26 PM
frankj,
An army lawyer told us last night it warrants a counseling statement or at most a local ltr of reprimand. I’d say the same thing had a soldier shown up and spoken out against the surge.
bnelson44 on August 5, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Frank, probably the same type of punishment Beauchamp is facing, only far less severe. I doubt anyone in his chain does anything about it, he’s a reservist, but if they did…
He’d probably just get some kind of letter of counseling on his record.
John from OPFOR on August 5, 2007 at 4:37 PM
bnelson44, read his later comment at 7:49 PM:
He’s in the clear just on that count.
Pablo on August 5, 2007 at 4:43 PM
The consistent focusing on the wearing of the uniform on this board while virtually ignoring the big issues that incident raised is staggering to me. Staggering.
TheBigOldDog on August 5, 2007 at 4:46 PM
TheBigOldDog…
Why?
John from OPFOR on August 5, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Uh huh. Even if this were a violation, it would rank right up there with jaywalking. Instead, it’s become the whole freaking story…Moran’s interview and Allah’s post notwithstanding.
Pablo on August 5, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Also, Frankj’s take on this is pretty effin’ funny:
There’s a big difference between a battlefield assessment up the chain vs. speaking at a political rally, but still…snark on brotha, snark on.
John from OPFOR on August 5, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Pablo,
That only means he didn’t violate the UCMJ, he still violated a DOD regulation.
Still I agree with John from OPFOR, I doubt he will get in much trouble.
Unless he doesn’t like being taken out for beer :->
bnelson44 on August 5, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Read the other threads here on HA if you are sincerely curious. I can’t stand to repeat yet again what I’ve written over and over. Let me just say again however, that had he not worn his uniform the other issues would never have been exposed. He made a conscious decision (based on his own words in the video) to accept the consequences of his actions in order to expose larger truths. To focus on the legality of what he did and ignore what he exposed cheapens the sacrifice he made. The fact that KOS gets it and people here don’t floors me. If I didn’t know better I’d suspect the deflection was intentional.
TheBigOldDog on August 5, 2007 at 5:00 PM
The big story is their attitude towards those in the military. Reasons given at DailyKos for dismissing Aguina’s opinion of the war:
* He may be in violation of a military law most of them had never heard of.
* He’s a chickenhawk, because if he really believed in that war, he’d be going back right now (apparently the only way to avoid the chickenhawk label is if you’re actually being shot at while stating your opinion).
* He’s obviously unhinged.
* He’s obviously brainwashed by the military.
These are why the Kos Krowd shouldn’t even be engaged by intelligent people, including the Democratic leadership.
frankj on August 5, 2007 at 5:01 PM
AMEN!
In uniform. Bad judgment at worse. Going into “enemy territory” with charts, graphs, press releases and other facts to attempt to win a small skirmish against the misinformation spread by the MSM and left. That’s something I respect and admire.
deepdiver on August 5, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Before anyone misunderstands my position, please realize I describe Jon Stolz as a:
John from OPFOR, I agree with you completely things should be as you say, and I’m stunned they’re not… according to armylawyer, who I assume knows more than I do, Sergeant Aguina isn’t subject to UCMJ including Paragraph 4.1.1.3 of DOD Directive 1344.10 and Section j of Paragraph 1-10 of AR 670-1 because he’s a reservist and not on active duty.
This perplexes me and I just made this point to armylawyer:
So according to the best information I have been able to find, and as much as I agree completely with the tenor, reasoning, and even morality of OPFOR’s post: Political Statements in Uniform, it appears you’re wrong anyway.
And for that matter I’m wrong.
Are you sure the law is on your side? I’m not.
One case where a reservist not on active duty was deemed subject to UCMJ by the courts was US vs. Phillips in 2004.
However, the member was being paid for the day and traveling to a duty assignment, so the parallel isn’t there: uniform.
What say you?
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 5:11 PM
sorry, a sentence got truncated. Should have been:
… so the parallel isn’t there: She was not deemed subject to UCMJ because she was in uniform, but because she was traveling to her duty station and being paid for the day.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 5:13 PM
the mere fact that the thrust of his heartfelt-but-sort-of-dumb confrontation was that he was willing to bet the yKos guy “EVERY DOLLAR I HAVE ON ME” if he could disprove the positive impact of the surge. Such a bet makes clear the personal aspect of the exchange and makes it impossible to believe that he was trying to represent himself as an “authorized spokesman” for the military, which is what the military reg. addresses.
wordwarp on August 5, 2007 at 5:27 PM
No, it doesn’t, wordwarp. If a soldier went to a political event and said, “I believe in school vouchers because I have two children, 2 and 4, I’m opposed to abortion, but for gay marriage, and I think we should raise the minimum wage for agricultural workers since my family were hard working immigrants,” these are ALL personal opinions having little or nothing to do with the military.
He could even make them in further colloquial even “dumb” ways.
But not in uniform. Politics in uniform and soldiers don’t mix (unless you’re really a fan of the Pakistani model).
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 5:30 PM
wordwarp,
From the interview:
“This isn’t something political for me. I have an emotional connection with those people in Iraq.”
bnelson44 on August 5, 2007 at 5:45 PM
christoph – the regs as I read them were focused on not presenting yourself as an authorized spokesman for the entire military, not on forbidding the making of political or personal statements while in uniform.
interesting discussion of it at LGF
wordwarp on August 5, 2007 at 6:02 PM
bnelson,
Even if so, who’s gonna prosecute that? A US attorney? Or a more precise question: Who gives a sh*t, other than Kossaks?
Pablo on August 5, 2007 at 6:04 PM
The enforcement of the DOD reg would come via the UCMJ (Article 92–violation of order or regulation).
Not on active duty, no jurisdiction.
And don’t get too caught up in the weeds of whether yKos was a partisan political event or not. The prohibitions on wearing the uniform apply as much to “private organization events” as they do to strictly partisan political events.
If yKos is not strictly partisan, it’s certainly private (non-DoD).
armylawyer on August 5, 2007 at 6:14 PM
One, UCMJ and the above cited regs (see my comment) don’t apply in this case due to jurisdiction over IRR members.
Two, the regulations themselves don’t say anything about not “presenting yourself as an authorized spokesperson for the entire military” — your position is farcical.
And they clearly preclude making political statements:
You can climb down and admit you’re wrong now.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Yeah, what he said.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Who CARES about DOD regs?
I will concede that he violated them.
The point is, Koskidz say they are for the military but they are liars!
Is is ok for soltz to use an order against another soldier (Stand Down!) when soltz is out of uniform?
Is it ok for soltz to use pics of himself in uniform on his political website votevets.org?
Is is ok for him to thank those at the kos junket “on behalf of the army”?
Is it ok for him to continuallly refer to the military uniform as “his” uniform?
The guy is a jackass and a bully! I was so angry after I saw that video and how cowardly to threaten the Sgt. with a DISHONORALBE DISCHARGE! while in a private room of course.
I cannot stand that guy!
ArmyAunt on August 5, 2007 at 6:24 PM
He didn’t violate them. See above.
Agreed. See above.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 6:28 PM
I actually believe he SHOULD be subject to the regulations; in Canada we would be, but apparently your country’s laws are so poorly written there’s no prohibition on an individual ready reserve member putting on their uniform and speaking at political events or, for that matter, campaigning for office. Bizarre. (I’m still doubting armylawyer that this is true, but he doesn’t have any information that it violates any law, except for possibly state law, which he understandably doesn’t know).
I also think there’s a case to be made that the Sergeant’s behavior was such to bring discredit on the Army.
Many people feel strongly about separating military life from political life (regardless of what your views are on the subject, many people feel this way) and there he was arguing on video at the yKos convention in the same week all the Democratic party candidates, including most likely your future president, were speaking.
Further, you have two reserve members, one an officer and one a Sergeant, now arguing on video which is shown around the web and probably TV.
REGARDLESS OF WHICH ONE YOU THINK WAS THE BIGGER A-HOLE (and I think it was Stolz), you now have a public argument at a politcal gathering between an officer and an enlisted man in the public realm. It didn’t need to be there.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Liberals constantly claim that people who aren’t in the military can’t express an opinion about the war.
And now they’re saying that people who are in uniform can’t express an opinion about the war.
So in other words, the only people the liberals will trust are men who tell them they are soldiers, but don’t provide any proof of that.
Man, that explains a LOT. For example, did you ever wonder where liberals came up with the term Chickenhawk? I think it’s a safe bet a lot of them got their start that way.
logis on August 5, 2007 at 7:02 PM
LOL.. I’m appalled … NOT!
Let me just say to the SGT that I applaud his integrity to stand up for his beliefs. I thank him for having first the idea and then the fortitude to sneak into the enemy’s camp obviously in full dress uniform completely undetected in order to defend the mission in the face of liars, charlatans and assorted tinfoil hat wearing moonbats, dingbats and ain’t-got-no-bats!
I do believe that the SGT is more concerned for the lives of the Iraqi people who want to join the freedom loving world than he is for any disciplinary action that he might have to endure.
THAT good people… IS THE STORY!
AND
Sgt. Aquina … THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY!
YOU MAKE ME SO PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!!
Texas Gal on August 5, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Sgt.
AquinaAguinaSorry I’ve got a bad habit of mixing my g’s and my q’s ..:)
Texas Gal on August 5, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Well shoot logis, I always thought they were calling me this cute little guy with an attitude.
Texas Gal on August 5, 2007 at 7:25 PM
As I said once before, I respect your right to your opinion and I disagree with you strongly.
That is NOT the role of the military. You don’t understand your country’s military traditions at all.
OPFOR does.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Some fools assert a rule was broken.
The uniform was part of the statement he delivered loud and clear. Every single bit of controversy on any detail of this incident keeps it alive and kicking. Good!
So maybe he borke a rule, BFD. So did Rosa Parks. Hero, hero.
boris on August 5, 2007 at 7:38 PM
don’t understand your country’s military traditions
BS. Father and uncles seved during WWII
Myself and brother during Nam.
Son and daughter during Gulf War 1.
Nephew currently in Okinawa,(Just over the horizon from Iraq).
boris on August 5, 2007 at 7:42 PM
No, boris, he broke a principal.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Excellent point, except that of course it matters a GREAT DEAL which person committed an arguable UOD faux pas, and which was the one who threw a hysterical temper tantrum at a public gathering, yelling that he was doing it “for the sake of the Army.”
Soltz went completely off the deep end. Hell, the psycho even tried to pretend that he had some bizarre sort of authority to PULL RANK in a civilian setting.
I know it’s asking a lot, but try to think about this for a second. Would any NORMAL person – whether he was in the military or not – have reacted like that? Of course not.
All he’d have to do – whether he was in the military or not – is say “Look, Kos is a politically aligned organization, and we never allow anyone in uniform to speak at our meetings.” Any civilian could have done the exact same thing.
But Soltz didn’t do that. Instead, the sight of a uniform caused him to throw an apoplectic fit.
And now you’re trying to claim that David Aguina is somehow responsible for that humiliating episode? Oh yeah. That makes a lot of sense.
Newsflash: when somebody is an “embarrassment to the uniform,” that’s really just a figure of speech. Nobody really gives a rat’s ass about the cloth; it’s the embarrassment to the service that really matters.
The video didn’t even show Aguina, but even if it did, who cares? The sight of someone in a uniform politely standing at a microphone doesn’t fill most people with disgust and make them question our military’s personnel standards. But I have to admit that Soltz’s infantile and egregious behavior made me feel that way.
logis on August 5, 2007 at 7:46 PM
I thank him for having first the idea and then the fortitude to sneak into the enemy’s camp obviously in full dress uniform completely undetected in order to defend the mission in the face of liars, charlatans and assorted tinfoil hat wearing moonbats, dingbats and ain’t-got-no-bats!
Sneaking into political gatherings of people you disagree with to disagree with them in uniform is NOT the proper place for a soldier.
The proper action for a soldier is to look at them on TV, say, “What a bunch of assholes,” and get back to work.
Or if he must criticize, to do so wearing civies, more clearly indicating he’s speaking just for himself and showing respect for civilian institutions and the Army, including those fellow soldiers who may actually hold different political views than himself.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 7:46 PM
You’re right, but this was entirely a predictable possibility and was predicated by Aguina’s decision to be at this controversial leftist event in uniform.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 7:48 PM
There’s another video that shows Aguina. A post containing it was linked to on Hot Air. While much more polite than Soltz, he shouldn’t have been at the event in uniform.
Except that apparently reservists aren’t covered by UCMJ and can wear their uniforms whenever they want. Mystifying.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Hey, I never thought of it that way before. You’re right, Aguina was at fault here. A reprimand is in clearly order in order as punishment for this gross failure to adequately psychoanalyze a moonbat.
And he should count himself lucky at that; if Soltz had spat or flung feces at the bastard, then I suppose Aguina would have to be Court Martialed.
logis on August 5, 2007 at 7:59 PM
He went there precisely because he felt these people are wrong and he had some information to educate them with. Arguments were predictable.
Soldiers in uniform aren’t supposed to seek out political arguments (or even arguments over military results) at political gatherings.
I don’t think he should be court martialed… I made that point on other threads… but a reprimand and counseling (from an officer) at least for violating the regulations would might be in order. Yet, he didn’t violate them, supposedly, because reservists can do whatever the heck they want in uniform. Supposedly.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 8:04 PM
You seem to have quite a habit of telling me what I don’t understand when you don’t know me from Eve. As a matter of fact the military traditions in my family go back to the colonial days and the members of my family have served in every war this country has fought, including this one!
OK, my turn!
Let me tell you what you don’t understand. The American people and the admiration we have for our military. It probably has something to do with a little thing we had down here called as the American Revolution.
I do believe I read something a while back that Sgt Aguina is a reservist and therefore there was no violation of military codes as they don’t apply. But for some really peculiar reason you just keep right on prosecuting him because you don’t agree with the military code that exempts him.
Texas Gal on August 5, 2007 at 8:07 PM
I know your position is in opposition to the military tradition in every free democracy.
It’s a core principal that politics and the military are separate.
I’m sure members of your family have served for ages. You may have yourself.
I’m criticizing your intelligence.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 8:10 PM
Talk about beating a dead horse. Give it up already. Stop ignoring the fact this guy made a conscious decision to do what he did and accept the consequences. Stop completely ignoring the major freaking hypocrisy he exposed. Stop ignoring the way he was treated and threatened by people who claim to “support the troops” and love “free speech” even when in uniform and who are “open minded”…. It’s like focusing on the legality and appropriate punishment of Gandhi selling salt while ignoring that it was a deliberate act undertaken to expose a larger truth.
TheBigOldDog on August 5, 2007 at 8:14 PM
I acknowledged it.
I’ve acknowledged it with colorful language.
You guessed it — I acknowledged that too.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Christoph
You should be damn glad of the Sgt. and others like him!
He is one of the reasons your country has been kept safe all these years!
You want to keep blathering on about our regs that apply to OUR SOLDIERS. We look at (or I guess I should say I) the Sgt. as a brave man. He had a valid arguement, he presented it with respect, he backed it up with tons of documentation and he has a great caring for the Iraqi people.
Helluva lot more than I can say for that putz soltz.
And I refuse to capitalize that losers name.
ArmyAunt on August 5, 2007 at 8:17 PM
I am. I even said, “I like the Sergeant.”
Completely true. I have made the same point to my fellow countrymen on many occasions.
Categorically true. I admire him for it.
Still, and this is my one remaining point, it’s foolish of your country if you have no regulations governing what a reservist can do in uniform outside of standard criminal law.
What if a reservist decides he wants to smear catchup on his uniform in protest on CNN? Legal, apparently. What if a Lt. General (or Corporal, whatever) reservist wants to show up in uniform at a Democrat rally endorsing Hillary Clinton.
Also apparently legal.
I could go on. This is foolishness. No democratic country allows that, heck, not even mine.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Christoph
I have already ceded the point that he will probably get into trouble for doing this.
I personally don’t know if he will or not.
That will be between him and his commanding officer.
If he broke a reg, you can rest assured he will be punished for it. In what manner, I don’t know.
ArmyAunt
ArmyAunt on August 5, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Meant to add the main point of the story, that keeps getting lost in the reg argument, is that the left SAYS they are for the military, but they are only for the ones that agree with them. If you disagree, you are considered brainwashed, stupid etc.
Far be it from the left to assume that a soldier can come to his own conclusions!
And soltz is a jerk :)
ArmyAunt on August 5, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Soldiers in uniform aren’t supposed …
More drek.
He made his point. You are helping him to make his point. Keep it up!
boris on August 5, 2007 at 8:32 PM
ArmyAunt, I advocated either a very minimal nominal punishment to make the point (I’ve had such punishment applied to me as a reservist soldier multiple times and it hardly ruined me… it’s part of military life) or even a letter of reprimand as recommended by armylaywer and major john. I even said this could be delivered, “with a bemused smile”.
You make a point about if he broke a reg.
Yes, I agree, but that is my point. Apparently you don’t HAVE any regs to prevent any of the situations I described in my 8:25 PM comment.
Surely you understand this is less than optimal?
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 8:32 PM
That will be between him and his commanding officer.
He’s out. They would probably have to recall and activate him to administer anything.
They probably won’t. He’s getting all the attention he could have wanted and then some. Since there is likely no down side for the sgt the lunatuna crowd are already in a hole and just keep digging.
boris on August 5, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Moving on, let’s acknowledge Sgt. Aguina is an excellent man and a devoted patriotic soldier… it’s two years from now.
Scott Beauchamp has left the active duty Army and is finishing his commitment in the Individual Ready Reserve.
By this point, he hates the Army for punishing him in Iraq and discounting his story. He hates Republicans because he’s a liberal and married to a TNR staffer.
So he decides to carry out many political protests in uniform designed to discredit the army. He even decides to deface his uniform (but not permanently damage it because that would be vandalizing government property) at political events.
Under your current regulations… the Individual Ready Reserve can’t even say, “Don’t do this.”
He’s just expressing his right to free speech and not violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Christoph, see Jesse MacBeth.
Pablo on August 5, 2007 at 8:40 PM
I think that’s what rattles the moonbats’ cages more than anything else. In their own twisted minds, they don’t think of anything they did as “threatening”; they consider that to be self-defense.
I’m a little bit surprized that the moonbats seem to have actually gotten some traction out of the idiotic notion that there is something evil about the mere act of wearing a uniform in their presence.
Apparently, the theory is that as long as they don’t wear the offending garment, they can loudly proclaim their own vaguely-defined “service,” and in the same breath accuse the US military of being “Nazis” and “murderers.”
According to the moonbat theory, that’s all perfectly OK – Hell, they even call that being “patriotic.”
But having the incredible disrespect to wear your uniform while you tell someone about your personal experiences in Iraq? VERBOTEN!
logis on August 5, 2007 at 8:40 PM
understand this is less than optimal?
No. The “problem” has been apparent at least since Nam.
If it were a problem (ever hear of the 1st amendment? Oh that’s right … Canadian!) it would have been addressed. Guess fixing the “problem” is a bigger problem than the problem itself.
Me? Don’t see any problem. Don’t see any “principle” that trumps the 1st. Sgt is a US citizen with a uniform.
boris on August 5, 2007 at 8:42 PM
LOL.. I’m not intelligent because you can’t grasp the fact that the regs don’t apply in this case because he is a reservist and you disagree with our military’s “poorly written” regulations.
I find it amazing that you equate what he said as political speech. I thought that was a forum setting. Were audience members not allowed to ask questions of the panel?
Well, at least I’m intelligent enough to not only live of this side of the northern border, but to also live in the GREAT STATE of TEXAS!
Texas Gal on August 5, 2007 at 8:43 PM
Pablo, you’re usually spot on in your comments and insightful beyond the norm… but this time there is no parallel.
armylawyer addressed this on his blog
From Wikipedia, Jesse MacBeth was nailed for:
So these two situations are not related. MacBeth was NOT punished for wearing a uniform as a member of the IRR. These situations are not related.
In the scenario I describe, Scott Beauchamp would be a legitimate member of the IRR. And if he had such a plan of action, and I have no reason to believe he does, Sgt. Aguina has shown the way.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 8:48 PM
Touché.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 8:49 PM
There’s been a problem of Lt. Generals in uniform endorsing presidential candidates since ‘Nam? /sarcasm
So you think it would be healthy if:
1. Active duty military had their rights to make political speeches, endorse candidates, and/or deface their uniforms in public restricted
2. Members of the Individual Ready Reserve could wear their uniform at will to make political speeches, endorse candidates, and/or deface their uniforms in public?
Interesting.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 8:55 PM
So you think it would be healthy if:
US citizens have freedom of expression. Canadians don’t apparently. Sorry about that.
boris on August 5, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Then you ignored 1 obviously, boris, and you’re intellectually dishonest.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Dismissing a straw dummy argument is hardly dishonest. Perhaps I was simply being polite by not pointing out your abysmal shortcomings wrt logic.
boris on August 5, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Then point them out with logic.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Already did. Maybe you can find someone to explain it to you. Not inclined myself.
boris on August 5, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Did anyone catch the byline at the end of the KOS rant?
Thats double-dog bias right there.
Guardian on August 5, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Res ipsa loquitur.
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 10:05 PM
You left out the exlanation. Now who’s intellectually dishonest?
boris on August 5, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Another Kos post (now hidden)
This guy kicks ass!
ArmyAunt on August 5, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Christoph,
SGT Aguina is not a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, he’s a member of the Army Reserve.
Perhaps the problem is that you do not fully understand our laws and the structure of our military, as illustrated.
We do have regulations governing these things. Violations of them simply are not a criminal matter.
If your concern is that somehow the SGT will get off with no repercussion, I’m sure that you can rest easy. However, as the matter will almost certanly be handled with a counseling, none of us will ever know about it unless teh SGT chooses to share that information.
RTO Trainer on August 5, 2007 at 11:29 PM
You’re probably right, I was may have been misusing that term (although after finding it elsewhere applied to him which is no matter).
At any rate, the regulations also according to armylawyer and others don’t apply to “reservists” so it’s moot.
However, as far as having regulations concerning these things, not even an armylawyer can cite one and in fact he says they don’t exist — at least at the national level, maybe at the state, but then he pleads ignorance.
Can you reference one and the jurisdiction that would encompass a reservist not on active duty or should I just take your word over it over his?
Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 11:36 PM
The regulation AR 670-1 says that reservists not in IDT status are not authorized to wear the uniform, except in certain specific kinds of cases, no ne of which apply here.
The UCMJ cannot be used to apply this regulation to a Reserve component soldier, even though the regulation describes activity beyond teh scope of the UCMJ (not in IDT status).
Therefore, once the troop’s chain of command becomes aware of the infraction of the rule, they should make a formal counseling, instructing the Soldier of the rule.
Now, if the Soldier chooses to do it again, despite the counselling, he’s now subject to the UCMJ for violating an order (the counseling).
The operation of the law in this case kind of builds in a Strike 1, Strike 2 requirement.
Now, I myself am a National Guardsman. Do you know that I’m not subject to the UCMJ even in IDT status, only on active duty. When drilling I’m subject to the Oklahoma Code of Military Justice. Each state (and DC and the territories) has one which never ever applies to a member of the Army Reserve.
So, the regs don’t apply as a matter of law, but they still apply as a matter of function and can be made to apply under law as a matter of process.
RTO Trainer on August 5, 2007 at 11:58 PM
That makes sense, RTO Trainer. And yes, I know National Guard fall under their state except federalized on active duty.
I don’t know your explanation is true, however (sounds good… hope it is because having no method of disciplining reservists acting inappropriately in uniform would be daft).
Just to see what he says, I’m going to run it by armylawyer (if I can get it past his spam filter). He seemed to feel AR 670-1 didn’t apply.
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 12:19 AM
If it’s wrong they gotta rewrite the lessons plans at BNCOC.
RTO Trainer on August 6, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Christoph, my point was that he wasn’t prosecuted for the absolute disgrace he made of himself in uniform.
Pablo on August 6, 2007 at 12:48 AM
Oh, okay, Pablo, and then I agree.
Also, RTO Trainer, armylawyer updated his post to say he’s too lazy to figure it out and maybe this applies [(e) only]:
* He doesn’t appear to be taking new questions so he’s out of the discussion.
Thanks for the info!
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Funny how I think you all are missing the point here.
a. he DID break rules, and your defense is just as weak as Kos’s defense of anti-war soldiers wearing their uniforms. “b,b,b,but I AGREE with this soldier’s opinion”. Wow! So do I. If agreement with their viewpoint is the litmus test for the military of what is right/wrong then I think you’ll be pretty shocked at what ensues.
b. Whoever said it, you’re right. This is distracting from the larger issue. He did wear it knowing he was breaking the rules and was willing to accept the consequences. Compare that to that pansy 1LT Watada(excuse me I just threw up a little in my mouth), who wants to make a statement, then get off scott free.
Those of you out here argueing incessently about this rule or that DOD reg or whatever is just stupid. Your searching for an excuse or loophole to what most people in the Military already know is wrong. Politics and the military don’t mix… PERIOD. yea, and to put that arguement to bed here a quote from the Sponsors Blog:
From the DKos FAQ:
So please, by all means continue trying to find loopholes (read: EXCUSE) for this NCO instead of focusing on the important points which are:
1. he broke the rules knowingly and is willing to accept the consequences (something liberal anti-war protesters balk at).
2. His message
3. The shameful hipocracy in the way he was treated by other’s who have used their uniform/servuce for political causes and/or personal gain. (yea, you GEN Clark, sir) Who is the bigger media whore here? The fact that Solz has a picture up on his website of himself in uniform pisses me off to no end.
Oh yea, and I agree with everthing this NCO said 100%. I hope he gets a slap on the wrist… but I also hope he gets punished appropriately (even if that is only counseling).
BadBrad on August 6, 2007 at 6:46 AM
I am with you on that Brad!
And it also pisses me off that soltz has a picture of himself in uniform.
His ridiculous comment of “stand down” made him look like a moron!
ArmyAunt on August 6, 2007 at 9:41 AM
ArmyAunt, are you not awake yet?
He’s talking about the Sgt., whom he agrees with just like I do, deserving appropriate punishment for his actions and breach of an important military no-no.
He’s not talking about Stolz, whom everyone agrees acted like a jerk.
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 9:55 AM
I visited a link to a story on the Washington Post, link courtesy of Drudge), about the lack of diversity at the Kos convention and I caught this little bit in the article.
Markos is not a Gulf War veteran. He was serving in the Army during the time of the Gulf War but he was stationed in Germany I believe in an ADA unit and did not participate in the operation.
LakeRuins on August 6, 2007 at 9:56 AM
Anyway, ArmyAunt… I think you may have understood BadBrad and I think I may have misunderstood you… because I’m not awake yet. Sorry.
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 10:05 AM
Christoph
If the guy broke army rules then he SHOULD be punished for it. I don’t disagree with that at all.
Just as I feel that soltz is deserving of some kind of discipline.
But that is up to the army and their regs.
I wish they would call soltz up for active duty.
Be kinda fun to watch that crybaby poop his pants lol.
Anyways Christoph to reiterate:
ArmyAunt on August 6, 2007 at 10:16 AM
1. If he deserves punishment by the army then so be it. That is the way it should be.
2. I hope soltz deserves the same kind of punishment. His comments of “stand down” and “my uniform” made it appear that he was acting in a military capacity and this is also against the rules.
3. The complete hypocrisy of Koskidz. This is not nor has it ever been about “breaking the rules”. The guy had an opinion that did not agree with theirs, so soltz used his military RANK to try to shut him up.
ArmyAunt on August 6, 2007 at 10:19 AM
ArmyAunt, you’re STILL missing BadBrad’s and, for the most part, my main point… please read this carefully, a couple times if need be… it’s important and I recognize you are making a VERY good faith effort to discuss this…
He’s not saying Sgt. Aguina should be punished because he technically broke a rule… he’s saying Sgt. Aguina should receive some type of punishment because he broke a VERY important military tradition in a democracy, the separation between military activity (in uniform) and politics.
The blurring of this line has often lead to death and tyranny on a large scale. It’s this potential negative outcome he refers to.
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »