National Guard poster boy: Don’t enlist until Bush is gone
posted at 8:00 pm on September 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Or until there’s a new strategy in Iraq, he says. It’s Stewart Zamudio, seen earlier this year in television commercials for New York’s Army National Guard and now devoting his time to anti-war interviews with leftist websites — while in uniform. The reason this isn’t all over the news yet is because it was posted to YouTube only yesterday; expect to see plenty of crowing about it this week on MSNBC, at least, where Chris Matthews will won’t ask Hardball regular and noted uniform stickler Jon Soltz whether he disapproves of troops politicking in Army dress when their message comes from the left, not the right. Soltz would be forced to say that he does or risk looking like the biggest hypocrite who ever came down the pike, but I suspect we’d see some “nuance” in his tone that was strangely absent when he was chewing out David Aguina for standing up at Yearly Kos.
Here’s a brief analysis of statutes after the yKos incident governing a soldier’s right or lack thereof to espouse political views while in uniform. Click the image to watch.
Update: Not exactly breaking news but he’s votin’ Democrat.
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 »
Is there any reason to believe the federal government has jurisdiction over him? (re: your analysis) Isn’t he New York’s problem?
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 8:04 PM
Rules be rules. Left or right. It was this way in 68 and it is this way today. You can say anything you want while you are in your civies.
Limerick on September 15, 2007 at 8:10 PM
The irony is, if he wasn’t Hispanic, he never would have been chosen for that commercial, showing the National Guard in such a “progressive” light. They would have chosen someone else. And this embarrassment to the Guard would have been avoided.
jihadwatcher on September 15, 2007 at 8:11 PM
His myspace page seems to indicate that he’s a Hillary supporter, and that his opposition goes back to 11/06, when he was in a Newsday article.
JiangxiDad on September 15, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Just an observation while halfway through the video… there does seem to be an attitude in your military’s junior ranks that is against the Western military tradition and that taught to officer’s… the speaking out in uniform isn’t acceptable. Military follows civilian orders, not the only way around.
Now three quarters of the way through…
I don’t know what to say about this except as I said during the previous debate, new laws should be written to put your reservists and National Guardsmen on notice that, in uniform, they do not oppose express blatant political views in interviews.
Now there is no law preventing them from doing so that I’m aware of.
Is he a narcissist?
Whatever he is, he’s a piss-poor disloyal soldier. What he’s calling for amounts to little less than mutiny.
There should be a way to discipline such a soldier.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 8:16 PM
I believe it is actually against the military code of conduct,, and perhaps against the law itself for military people to be political while in uniform. Once again, though,, this is an example of not enforcing the law. This has been going on for awhile,, several years back military women in uniform were running the halls of congress trying to influence members to vote about something,, can’t remember what.
JellyToast on September 15, 2007 at 8:24 PM
This guy is standing outdoors uncovered and is rendering a hand salute.
Is the National Guard that different from the Marine Corps?
Anyone?
Stephen M on September 15, 2007 at 8:25 PM
It isn’t. He’s not an active duty regular soldier and therefore he is not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Also, what “law itself” would apply other than UCMJ?
If NY has regulations against this, so be it, but I’m doubtful.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 8:26 PM
Everything is different than the Marine Corps.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 8:26 PM
Here’s a vid. of the guy from 11/06.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.channel&ChannelID=75994361
JiangxiDad on September 15, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Hehe, too bad he isn’t doing it from parade rest (yes, I have seen that done before).
TheEJS on September 15, 2007 at 8:29 PM
NO
I’ve been in uniform 21 years, both active duty and guard. I think it is wrong to promote any political agenda while in uniform. Too many times a newspaper has quoted “an unnamed military source” and it could have been someone like this shooting off his mouth when he shouldn’t.
I’ll show a little of my being a senior NCO here also — that soldier needs a haircut. It’s going below his collar.
Tennessee Dave on September 15, 2007 at 8:32 PM
In the American army. I’ve never seen it done in the Canadian or British armies.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Way too political.
bnelson44 on September 15, 2007 at 8:38 PM
This add says he is a “former” national guard member:
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p189/Stewart_024/Article1copy.jpg
Guess he found a new hobby
bnelson44 on September 15, 2007 at 8:41 PM
I’m reading this page from the Utah National Guard recruiting site. Off topic, to be sure:
Your militarys give rank in return for referrals? Recruiting bonuses, kind of like Amway?
That’s reassuring.
“Hey, Sarge, do you think we’re gonna make it through this? Those mortars landed awfully close.”
“Don’t ask me, son! I became a Sergeant because some of my buddies and I were drinking at the bar and we all went to the recruiting station together. Your guess is as good as mine.”
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 8:41 PM
An military person may sit in the presence of a superior if the superior gives his/her permission.
False.
baldilocks on September 15, 2007 at 8:44 PM
An=A
baldilocks on September 15, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Wonder how much he got paid.
yo on September 15, 2007 at 8:49 PM
If a Reservist/Guard type is on duty–namely the once-a-month weekend duty or the two-week annual tour–and f___s up, he/she is quite subject to the UCMJ. (That activated Reservists/Guard personnel are subject to the UCMJ goes without saying.)
baldilocks on September 15, 2007 at 8:49 PM
baldilocks, do you have to be totally retarded? I’ve served in the military. I’m aware that military people have asses and use them on occasion.
To any military person of any rank, it is almost as offensive and outlandish for a very junior soldier to deign to sit down a four-star general and lecture him on strategy, followed by doing the same to the President of the United States. It’s hard to decide which of those two scenarios is more unlikely.
Speaking of asses, you’re not required to get your facts from yours.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Some people will do or say anything for their 15 minutes of fame. If this POS was to make the same claims without the uniform the message would be lost and wouldn’t carry the same weight. If this “volunteer” fills so strongly about his cause maybe he should get out right now. Tell the Guard to keep their bonuses and educational benefits, that he’ll have nothing to do with “Bush’s money”. Nah, thats asking too much.
Spiff
MSG(RET), USA
SPIFF1669 on September 15, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Is he still in the military? According to one of the links he got out in Apr 06. The answer to that drives which rules he may be breaking. If he is out and the uniform has some part that is not really worn by service members, he may be in the clear. Movies will alter uniforms slightly because there is a rule of some sort about not wearing a uniform without authorization (chiefly you need to actually be in the service and entitled to rank and decs on the uniform).
His message sucks but whether he is breaking a rule or not depends on the above. Other vets/active duty types may be able to elaborate or correct any errors I read into it.
Bradky on September 15, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Au contraire. Only if in federal service.
So let’s salvage something from your embarrassment. You can use this as a test of your honesty. Do you want to retract your misstatement?
This is your opportunity.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Christoph,
It appears that you were correct abut the Guard, at least when they’re not activated. It appears that the states have their own code of military justice for the National Guard.
baldilocks on September 15, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Where is ArmyLawyer when you need him. Haven’t seen him checked in lately.
Limerick on September 15, 2007 at 8:55 PM
He wouldn’t be subject to UCMJ in either case. If he’s still on the books as a National Guardsmen, active duty or not, there may be a NY state regulation he violated. I wouldn’t know the details of that.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Excuse me, Christoph, honey, but I don’t need to prove my honesty to myself or you. You might want to remove that chip from your shoulder.
baldilocks on September 15, 2007 at 8:55 PM
It’s New York and nothing will happen to him. He is getting his 15 minutes. I expect that next year he will probably run and win a congressional seat in New York. A John F. Kerry redux???
Wuptdo on September 15, 2007 at 8:55 PM
And apparently I was typing while you were up on your high horse.
baldilocks on September 15, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Thanks, baldilocks @ 8:54 PM.
His blog is gone. Don’t know what that means. The army tell him to pull it?
Hopefully nothing worse than that.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Whatever.
baldilocks on September 15, 2007 at 8:57 PM
When you stop making statements like:
… I’ll consider it. But as long as you’re going to make blanket statements adamantly calling what I say false twice (8:44 & 8:49) without having a fact to stand on, you can shove it.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 9:00 PM
Um,, I believe it is. Army reg. 670-1 (1) In connection with the furtherance of any political or commercial interests, or when engaged in off-duty civilian employment.
(2) When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except as authorized by competent authority.
(3) When attending any meeting or event that is a function of, or is sponsored by, an extremist organization.
(4) When wearing the uniform would bring discredit upon the Army.
(5) When specifically prohibited by Army regulations. check out the following link,, scroll down to 1-10 when wearing uniform is prohibited
http://www.marlowwhite.com/army-AR-670-1-view.html
JellyToast on September 15, 2007 at 9:00 PM
The US Code applies to all citizens so he may very well be in violation of the part about wear of a uniform by a civilian.
Bradky on September 15, 2007 at 9:01 PM
It says that. However he’s not subject to it.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Son of John Kerry.
petefrt on September 15, 2007 at 9:04 PM
I’ve seen that argument made, Bradky, and don’t know enough to give an opinion on it. I believe I’ve seen it discussed by experts, but can’t find a link to where.
Perhaps it was on ArmyLawyer’s defunct blog? I can’t recall.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Title 18, US Code 912 forbids anyone to impersonate a military person or employee.
bnelson44 on September 15, 2007 at 9:06 PM
thanks!
Bradky on September 15, 2007 at 9:07 PM
JellyToast, if you want to read further on it, here’s a very good article as a starting point.
The man posting it is not a lawyer, but conscientious U.S. officer.
Here’s Part II and Part I is good reading too.
The person should be subject to discipline. However, there does appear to be a whole in your military laws which needs patching, which is the point I made near the beginning of this thread.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 9:08 PM
If I remember correctly, what ArmyLawyer said was if you were in the NG and not in active status you were not under the UCMJ, but were under DoD Regulations.
Now, I say, if you are out completely and a civilian, and impersonating a military enlisted man, you are violating Title 18, US Code 912. Here is a case reference for those who are interested:
bnelson44 on September 15, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Yes, but was he impersonating? I’m doubtful.
One, he may still be a member of the National Guard, but on two year inactive status following six years of drilling status.
This info is from the Utah National Guard site (because NY’s was down when I went their a second ago), but it should be the same in New York:
So I’m doubtful he’s impersonating. Also, veterans are allowed to wear their Class A uniforms in certain circumstances.
Was this a legitimate circumstance and then he gave an impromptu interview?
I’m doubtful Title 18 USC 912 applies those familiar with it are welcome to offer their two cents.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Your response woud be justified had I said something like “you idiot, you don’t know what you’re talking about,” or “you’re lying,” but I said nothing of the kind. Saying that something is erroneous has no bearing on the character of the person making the false statement, nor the good/bad faith nature of the statement. Making errors is part of our nature.
As for me, I made a mistake also and I looked it up quickly, responded, admitting my own error with no need to feel embarrassed about it.
Repeating a part of the quote above:
If your purpose here is to make as many dislike you as possible, you’re doing well. Until a few minutes ago, I was actually entertained by what I thought was your rather contrarian nature. However, I see that I was in error yet again: it isn’t a ‘contrarian nature’; it’s a character flaw.
See ya around.
baldilocks on September 15, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Also, Title 18 USC 912 refers to those referring to anyone pretending to act as an agent of the United States or any agency thereof… unless I’m mistaken, the NY National Guard is not an agency nor department of the United States.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Bye.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Christoph,
If he is in “drilling status” then he is under the DoD Regulations.
He is 26, is appearing uncovered, outside and speaking the way he is, leads me to believe is is out completely.
bnelson44 on September 15, 2007 at 9:20 PM
The Air Force and the Air Guard does this. However, be best you can do is enlist as an E-3. Air Force=Airman First Class (A1C) and the Army=Private First Class (PFC). Due to time in service and time in grade restictions on promotions most people hit the first NCO rank at about the same time no matter whether they enlist as an E-1 or E-3.
Tennessee Dave on September 15, 2007 at 9:21 PM
I want to know the status of this
guardsmanRat Bastard Traitor.If he is still in the military (either active or inactive) then he’s broken all sorts of regulations about politicing while in uniform and subject to UCMJ. Put another way, if a Christian Navy chaplain can’t invoke the name of Jesus in prayer while in uniform why should Stewart Zamudio be able to pray to the Daily Kos moonbats?
In any case, it strikes me as quite interesting that a war that is:
hopeless (Harry Reid),
a quagmire (Teddy Kennedy),
commanded by liars (Hillary Clinton and too many to mention)
With Troops that:
Are forced to become terrorists (John Kerry),
are no better than Nazis or Pol Pot’s regime (Dick Durbin),
are comprised of individuals too damn dumb to get into college or a real Job (John Kerry, Chuck Rangel),
and become cold blooded killers of children (Jack Murtha)
With all of that why is the only one to “step forward” a low level Reservist? Throw in that low level guy who the Reuters reporter got to ask Rumsfeld about armor for the Humvees and the 12 Reservists that recently opined in the NYT that the surge was a big fat fraud. And, of course the “memoirs” of Scott Thomas and a theme is emerging. The left is able to pick off people around the edges who probably are affilitated with the military for all the wrong reasons (like the belief the DOD hands out scholarships). When there is grumbling from the career mid-ggrade troops things are dire. Not from the comments of apart-time soldier and full-time loser with access to YouTube.
highhopes on September 15, 2007 at 9:21 PM
I wouldn’t put much stock in him being “uncovered”… he doesn’t appear to be the most disciplined soldier in history.
I’m not sure whether he’s subject to DoD regulations while in drilling status so I wouldn’t accept or disagree with that without proof… I think the relevant thing, if any, is whether NY state has any regulations.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 9:22 PM
RE: Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 8:02 PM
The NYT ad said, “TODAY”
I’ve been wondering why this hasn’t been picked up more too.
petefrt on September 15, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Christoph, the Militia Act of 1903 organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system. The Army National Guard is part of the United States Army, comprising approximately one half of its available combat forces and approximately one third of its support organization. More information is here:
http://www.arng.army.mil/constitution.aspx
bnelson44 on September 15, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Fair enough, Tennessee Dave, although I’m sure you could see where this would be grounds for humour. I can’t even grasp the concept.
Monetary bonuses? Sure. If you’re going to offer someone cash to sign up, why not offer them cash to bring in others. But rank?
That’s just crazy.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Thanks. They’re part of the U.S. army when federalized. I don’t think it changes the fact there are wholes in your regulations that prevent you from having any legal recourse against non-active duty reservists or non-federalized National Guardsmen should they choose to speak out in uniform.
Which, if I’m right, is bizarre.
Have you read they OPFOR link at 9:08 PM? It’s a good read.
The officer in question did plenty of conscientious research, but couldn’t find a legal theory where discipline beyond administrative discipline could be applied in that case.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 9:26 PM
*holes
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 9:27 PM
In this case, administrative discipline might be a lot. The lad could lose his pension and benefits. Of course if he is being paid by Moveon.org, he might not care (at least not now).
bnelson44 on September 15, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Christoph,
Rank is a monetary bonus!! You get paid more for being an E-3 vs. E-1.
Tennessee Dave on September 15, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Thanks, Tennessee Dave, I understand that. I’ve been in the military (Canadian, not American.)
But it’s also a leg up to promotion one would have to assume, granted, heavily dominated by subsequent performance.
Still, it’s bizarre. If it was about money, the military could just offer a monthly bonus for the period of enlistment provided the member has not been discharged or convicted of legal proceedings resulting in the loss of the bonus.
But “Stripes for Buddies”? C’mon.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 9:34 PM
I’m thinking of a stern talking to by his chain of command and instruction. Not punishment, exactly, because I don’t think there is a legal case for it.
Just instructive teaching I think is all that can be offered here.
How without a trial or finding of him breaking a law would they take away his pension and benefits?
I think you’re overreaching.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 9:36 PM
Nit wit!!!
jeanie on September 15, 2007 at 9:40 PM
Christoph – They could simply administratively seperate him, or bar him from re-enlisting. You don’t need a trial to get a $hitbird out. If you don’t make 20 years of qualified service – no retirement/pension.
major john on September 15, 2007 at 9:47 PM
I would also note that I did an AKO WHitepages search on his name, and I got “no results”. I beleive this does mean he is no longer in the Army under any capacity.
major john on September 15, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Yes, I know that, major john. We discussed that before. He’s left though, I heard on this thread. Does he have a pension to lose?
At any rate as we discussed before, if your regular forces are subject to a prohibition on politicking in uniform backed up by potential penalties it just makes sense to me you should pass similar laws to handle reservists and National Guardsmen. In uniform.
I don’t think it’s too much to ask for them not to make an interview where they are stating their desire to give a four-star general and POTUS a sit-down lecture on the strategy behind the war plus attempting to undo all the work they’ve done in uniform promoting military recruting.
Having such a person in uniform not subject to serious sanction makes a mockery of the principle of not doing politics while in uniform.
I dunno.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 9:55 PM
It doesn’t matter if he is active or inactive in the Army National Guard. If he is in military uniform he can not make political statements in public PERIOD without prior approval from his military public affairs office! Every member of the military knows this simple fact quite well. This guy is a disgrace to the honor of all men and women who serve this great country of ours. He is simply looking for attention and I hope he gets all the attention he deserves from his superiors.
I am a 23 year veteran of the Air Force, Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard and I’m getting tired of these young morons who serve one or two terms in the service and think they have a wealth of knowledge to form an opinion about the military and do so in uniform (disgusting).
When you swear an oath in the military, it is to defend the constitution of the U.S., the President and obey the lawful orders given to you by an officer no matter what your political affiliation may be. If you have a political statement to make, fine. Do it in civilian clothes as an ordinary U.S. citizen!!!!
dddave on September 15, 2007 at 10:09 PM
And if he does?
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 10:10 PM
And ddave, so you don’t misunderstand, I agree with every word you said, quite passionately. However it’s an unfortunate oversight I don’t think there is any law on your side. Nothing with teeth, anyway, and nothing at all that I’m aware of.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Great. Here’s another thread wherein people reveal their personal shortcomings. I have been online for about 12 years and have been working online since the 90s. Per my limited experience, message boards, chatrooms, IMs and now blog comment threads have proved to be very effective at rooting out people with fragile egos.
Many people find comfort in online interactivity because of its anonymous nature. The visual detachment makes some people brave enough to be honest. It makes others honest enough to be the a**holes they really are.
Find your voice, it feels great when you do. But show a little respect. Try not to address anybody online any differently than you would in person. I am sure that will be a challenge for many, impossible for others.
If you feel like this comment is directed at you, you might be an a-hole.
The Race Card on September 15, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Starting on page 313 of Army Regulation AR 670-1 it clearly states what functions/ceremonies a member of the Army Reserve or Army National Guard may wear the Army uniform in public. Making political statements to the press is not listed as one of them (as I stated, unless he has prior approval from Public Affairs and I seriously doubt he did). Under this regulation he can be punished by the UCMJ even in the Guard (active or inactive). If he is 100% completely seperated from the Army then he must be officially Retired in order to wear the uniform in public (I doubt he is retired).
dddave on September 15, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Yes, but… he’s not subject to UCMJ.
Being on active status isn’t sufficient. He must be federalized.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 10:47 PM
dddave, please read these two articles: 1 2
I think you’ll like them. Also, if you haven’t read it before, I think you’ll find their blog excellent and well worth reading.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Thanks Major.
So we are left with a civilian who is wearing a US Army uniform and being introduced as the “poser boy of the NY National Guard” giving a political statement.
Sounds like impersonation to me, but I am not a lawyer.
bnelson44 on September 15, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Title 32 USCA covers some aspects of National Guard activity, but there is also state law that regulates each of their militias. However, as this guy is no longer part of the Armed Forces – Guard, Reserve or Active.
What he got was what the law allows – bar to re-enlistment or administrative seperation from the Guard. He acted the fool, and suffered, what he probably considered no real consequences.
As for what can be done now – that partly depends on how one holds oneself out – you want to wear what scraps remain of your Class A’s and act the fool – not much. You try to claim you are part of the Armed Forces (and are not) and an earlier commenter pointed out a statute that deals with that case. We have statutes in IL that deal with such as well.
This Zamudio fellow is just another dirtball, striking a pose. He’s not really doing anything that cannot be pointed out as a good reason for his no longer being a part of the Armed Forces.
Christoph – I think the reason some people are starting to clash with you is purely tone related.
major john on September 15, 2007 at 10:57 PM
That and being called an ass and being invited to ’shove it.’
baldilocks on September 15, 2007 at 11:01 PM
A point I made earlier and a very good one. Something I also have no knowledge about.
So you’re quite sure he’s no longer in the National Guard in any capacity?
In that case, then surely he should not be allowed to throw on his uniform and wander about?
I don’t know. Maybe our countries are very much different. In Canada, of all places, that would be a crime.
Undoubtedly, because my other positive qualities are beyond dispute.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 11:03 PM
The two go together, do they not?
;-)
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Cristoph
Thanks for the links. I agree it sounds like a quandry. IMHO opinion if he puts on the US ARMY uniform in public he is representing the U.S. Army (guardsman or not). I do believe they will find a way to reprimand/punish him for his “error in judgement”. I would “defend” his position on the war and the military (till my dying breath} as his right to free speech no matter how much I personally disagree with it. I simply believe it should have been done in civilian attire.
dddave on September 15, 2007 at 11:05 PM
I agree that’s how they things should be. If you haven’t already done so, please at least read the first comment under the first link (1).
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 11:07 PM
10 USC, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 45, Sections 771 and 772 might bear on this too.
major john on September 15, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Yes, that’s what armylawyer thought, major john, but he wasn’t sure. If he’s not and you’re not, I’m not.
I think it’s an important point someone in the National Guard or U.S. Army should figure out in record time.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 11:10 PM
If Mr. Zamuido isn’t in the AKO Whitepages, it is 99.99% sure he isn’t in the Army in any capacity.
If he is simply prattling on about politics, and he is not selling anything and trying to endorse it as a military servicemember, representing himself as a current member of the Armed Forces to make some sort of political hay – then he’s just another part of the majesty (or motley) of Amendment I to the United States Constitution.
major john on September 15, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Well, yours would be one of the few countries in the world where a person can just put on a complete military uniform at will to do what they want. I’m not sure that would be a good thing.
I wonder if ex-cops should have the privilege…?
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 11:14 PM
In short, I’m inclined to agree with dddave.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 11:15 PM
major john
Good references! I hope someone in the military legal system takes this whole Samudio incident to heart. The military needs to put an end to any “future embarassments” by personnel in uniform (active duty, reserve, guard, inactive, retired or seperated).
dddave on September 15, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Yes, dddave, but major john believes they (retired, seperated) should be allowed to do it. I don’t. Not in uniform.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Well Christoph, we are a fairly exceptional place.
But, you cannot put on a military uniform and do anything – if you note what I had previously said, there are plenty of ways to get in trouble doing such. This guy avoided them by; 1) no longer being in the service; 2) sticking to a rather lame political message; 3) not claiming current membership.
This is nothing compared to the craptacular stuff John Kerry pulled in the 1970s – and all it got him was the good wishes and votes of the
Massholes, er, citizenry of the Commonwealth of Massachusettsmajor john on September 15, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Christoph – you have misrepresented what I have said – retired is very different – you are still bound by many of the same strictures as the currently serving. Zamudio just finished or, more likely, got seperated. Please don;t put words in my mouth.
major john on September 15, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Also, Christoph, don’t try mind reading – you have no idea what I believe people should be allowed to do. I have only spoken of what they are allowed to do.
major john on September 15, 2007 at 11:23 PM
I understand the distinction. I think that it brings discredit on the Armed Forces for a uniformed person to lecture four star generals and POTUS in the uniform not to mention tell the world not to join the National Guard, his job while in the Guard for goodness sakes, until you have a new POTUS.
I don’t believe anyone in uniform should be allowed to do such. You do. We disagree.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 11:24 PM
dddave – if your state does not have an appropriate statute on the books, please contact your rep. and senator.
major john on September 15, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Thanks for the correction. Good to know. What do you believe they should be allowed to do in this instance?
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Christoph
I was always taught as a young Airman that while we were defending the right to free speech we were the only U.S. citizens that didn’t have any (when in uniform). One of the ultimate ironies, but I think it is a valid one and for good reasons.
dddave on September 15, 2007 at 11:25 PM
I would prefer that the uniform be restircted to that which AR 670-1 prescribes. I think the uniforms of the various Armed Forces are, to strain an analogy, the “intellectual property” of the US (or the militas of the various States).
If Federal law won’t result, it is up to each State to cover the gap with their own laws – as the uniform of their own militia is in their balliwick.
I wouldn’t make the penalty too severe, but give it enough bite to matter.
major john on September 15, 2007 at 11:29 PM
major john
Great suggestion and I plan on making some inquiries/suggestions about this subject to the Air National Guard Bureau and State Representatives.
dddave on September 15, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Guard Bureau may be preaching to the choir. Are you a member of NGAUS? Maybe they are lobbying on something…
major john on September 15, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Correction: It’s the Natinal Guard Bureau and I have a contact at the Lesson’s Learned office (Joint Doctrine).
dddave on September 15, 2007 at 11:37 PM
major john,
In the 10 USC Section 771 and 772 examples were given in which the code was violated. One jurisdiction declined to prosecute; in the other, more serious example, the perp did some time.
Also, I’m wondering whether the guy slips through this loophole:
baldilocks on September 15, 2007 at 11:38 PM
I agree with both of you on this one.
Silly question — has anyone actually checked to see if NY already has such a law?
dddave:
I was taught that too yet, perhaps because my country has no equivalent to your national guard and are reservists are always federal too, I’m sure we have laws to enforce it in the event it became necessary.
I know our training makes a big deal of it.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Good research.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 11:42 PM
NGB then , Mind you LTG Blum is busy these days, you know… :)
major john on September 15, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »