Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!

Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

UK Students Told To Write, "Allah Is God" | Main | Raid In Connection With FISA Leak Investigation; Target Seems (Surprise!) Big Fan of the DNC
August 06, 2007

Interview With Censored Soldier; Question For Stolz: If You're So Strict On The Rules, Why Didn't You Call Foul On A Soldier Using His Uniform To Attend (And By Implication *Support*) The YearlyKos Political Gathering?

Rick Moran of Rightwing Nut House interviews him.

More Kos spinning -- apparently now we're chickenhawks for coming to the defense of a sergeant threatened with punishment.

Here's my question for Kos and Jon Stolz:

Assuming that the below-cited DoD policy is the operative rule concerning attending a political rally in uniform, why were the Kossacks willing to let this sergeant appear at YearlyKos at all? If, as I read it, the prohibition seems to be on mere attendance of a political event in uniform, lest the uniform suggest official military endorsement of it.

Yet the YearlyKos people did not cry foul when a uniformed sergeant was walking around their event. Only when he wanted to ask a question did Stolz threaten to have him punished by his superior officers.

Was Stolz content to have the sergeant lend the uniform -- and the suggestion of military approval of YearlyKos's aggressively anti-war message -- but only balked when the sergeant actually wanted to ask a question which could challenge him?

In other words, was Stolz happy to see this rule, if it is a "rule," broken so long as it was being broken to the benefit of the YearlyKos and the anti-war cause generally, but only decided to become strict about the rule when there appeared a chance that uniform might be used to undermine him?

Should an officer enforce rules selectively, permitting the wearing of a uniform when that uniform can be construed as supporting his own political position, and then seeking punishment when the uniform in question could be construed as undermining his political position?

I don't know. I think, however, Stolz should be asked why he didn't threaten to sic the MPs on the sergeant simply for lending his uniform to the YearlyKos cause. He didn't seem to mind "my uniform" (as he called it) being used in that manner.

DoD policy. There may be additional policies; I don't know jackdoodle about this stuff.

It is DoD policy that:

3.1. The wearing of the uniform by members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of Reserve components) is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:

3.1.1. At any meeting or demonstration that is a function of, or sponsored by an organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons that the Attorney General of the United States has designated, under Executive Order 10450 as amended (reference (c)), as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.

3.1.2. During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.

3.1.3. Except when authorized by the approval authorities in subparagraph 4.1.1., when participating in activities such as unofficial public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration, which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.

3.1.4. When wearing of the uniform may tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.

Stolz seems to be pitching his bitch on 3.1.3. Why didn't he complain earlier based on 3.1.2?

What parts of the UCMJ or DoD policy might prohibit an officer from selectively punishing enlisted men based upon their politics, I wonder?

Kos and Stolz seem to be pressing for the rule that uniforms can be worn at anti-war rallies -- clearly a use of the uniform for political speech -- but that, somehow, it is a violation of the rules for a soldier to re-state that which is being officially reported by his generals.

In other words, they seem to believe political speech in uniform is just jake when that speech is directly contrary to the official military position and in fact in service of undermining that position. When the speech affirms the official military position, a grave breach has occurred.

That seems a strange position to take, no?

digg this
posted by Ace at 11:58 AM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
SH (no more socks): "She will be "resigned" within the week. Dr. Jill ..."

Helena Handbasket: "#HangKimCheeto ..."

Hatari somewhere on Ventura Highway: " Verges are known by dozens of other names such as ..."

anachronda: "394 [i]Speaking of flying aircraft, this noisy bas ..."

BruceWayne: "Anyone here ever had haggis? Posted by: Bulgaroct ..."

...: "Mitt saying he "couldn't disrespect someone more" ..."

Axeman: "Joe doesn't like slopes. It's too much to expe ..."

RedMindBlueState[/i][/b][/s][/u]: "The Others have been summoned. ..."

Inane Drone: "None of the Secret Service ladies can parallel par ..."

Soothsayer: " [i]Most importantly, he has embraced the New Rig ..."

rickb223 All conspiracy theories and spoiler alerts are on the table[/s][/b][/i][/u]: "She won't resign. She's impervious to shame, havin ..."

Helena Handbasket: ">>> 404 @elonmusk · 6m This is the final s ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64