US Military Issues Warning to Ron Paul Supporters

So much for freedom of speech, pursuing happiness, and all that jazz. It's time for freedom to do what you're told, and that means not rocking the boat. Apparently TPTB are really worried about Paul if they are having this kind of impact on the military. We already know the troops donate overwhelimgly to Paul's campaign.





As Adam Kokesh mentions, this is supposed to be protected speech, even for active duty personel. So how can they do this exactly, and what will be the punishment for disobeying?

The explaination is found in the email (see below):

As a reminder, active duty personnel are prohibited by DoD Directive 1344.10
paragraph 4.1.2.10 from marching in a partisan political parade regardless
of whether they are in uniform or civilian clothes

—–Original Message—–
From: Weger, Joel A CIV OGC, Ethics [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:17
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ETHICS] Partisan Political March

Importance: High

It has come to our attention that a partisan political march targeting
military personnel is being organized for February 20, 2012. See link
below:

www.facebook.com...

As a reminder, active duty personnel are prohibited by DoD Directive 1344.10
paragraph 4.1.2.10 from marching in a partisan political parade regardless
of whether they are in uniform or civilian clothes. Reservists not on
active duty and retirees may not march in uniform pursuant to paragraph
4.1.4. Reservists not on active duty and retirees may march in civilian
clothes provided that they do not otherwise act in a manner that could
reasonably give rise to the inference or appearance of official sponsorship,
approval, or endorsement.

The directive is a lawful general regulation. Violations of paragraphs 4.1.
through 4.5. of the Directive by persons subject to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice are punishable under Article 92, “Failure to Obey Order or
Regulation.”

In addition, DODI 1334.01, paragraph 3.1.2 prohibits the wearing of the
uniform by members of the armed forces (including retired members and
members of reserve components) during or in connection with political
activities.

You may wish to advise your command regarding this particular event because
of the apparent solicitation of active duty personnel.

Joel A. Weger
Senior Attorney
Department of the Navy
Office of the Assistant General Counsel (Ethics)
703.614.XXXX

reply to post by v1rtu0s0
Bull-dookey.
I'm stationed in Germany.
I've received a warning not to visit Wurm or Dresden this week end (protests about the bombing in '45) but nothing about Paul.

reply to post by beezzer


There is a link to a facebook group in the email that has almost 20 thousand invited personel. The email specifically points this out. Unless you think it's fabricated of course. Maybe it didn't get sent to you?

The military as well as the GOP dont want to see the good doctor elected....there goes all those shiny medals and quick promos to the officers, as well as getting their tickets stamped as having led men in battle (an officer is a dog without this chain of commands....)one has o keep getting those glowing fitness reports etc....
So the higher ups want to see the war or any other war(it doesnt matter which one for their purposes)they just need one so that the officers can order some men in combat successfully.....
Some soldiers consider never having to fight a failure to their profession...id call this a successful carreer wouldnt you?
RonPaul wants a friendlier asmaller deadlier military...not a bad idea but it will shrink the number of generals required to lead it now wont it?

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
reply to post by beezzer

 

There is a link to a facebook group in the email that has almost 20 thousand invited personel. The email specifically points this out. Unless you think it's fabricated of course. Maybe it didn't get sent to you?

I get all alerts on my AKO and my AMEDD account.

Not a whisper about this.

Again, bull shmootems.

Unless I'm out of the loop!

reply to post by beezzer


Well no offense, but maybe you're not in the "in-club."

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
reply to post by beezzer

 

Well no offense, but maybe you're not in the "in-club."

*sob^
*weep*

The same sort of stuff was put out when Obama ran as well. Usually something like this would just be enforced at the company level, it is not new. Would you really want to see uniformed troops at political rallies? It sounds great on paper but could be easily abused. I don't agree with the civilian attire part, but again the military is trying to prevent a news story about dissent in the ranks with the current commander-in-chief as well as if something of a riot or violent protest they wouldn't want the exposure. It sucks but its important that elections are not a focal point of the military, too much room for abuse.

So the military expects Ron Paul supporters to follow the same rules as others supporters. That is compeletly unfair if Ron Paul does not need votes to win then surely his supporters should not have follow the rules. Am I the only one completely sick of this guy and how gets a free pass for every thing?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

Bull-dookey.
I'm stationed in Germany.
I've received a warning not to visit Wurm or Dresden this week end (protests about the bombing in '45) but nothing about Paul.

Would they even send such warnings to paid shills?

Curious.

So lets recap: soldiers are allowed to be openly gay but not allowed to exercise their first amendment right. Yep sounds about right for amerika.

Originally posted by filosophia
So lets recap: soldiers are allowed to be openly gay but not allowed to exercise their first amendment right. Yep sounds about right for amerika.

How pathetic you compare one to the other. Thats like saying so soldiers are allowed to be openly black. If you ever served in the military you would know you give up your rights and your possibly your life to protect the lives and rights of others. When the military gets involved in politics it tends to lead to a little things called coups, maybe we do not want those in America. Although you seem keen on them.

I wonder if any American revolutionary thought: "if only we could defeat the British, THEN we could have a country where soldiers are not allowed to voice openly who they want sending them off to war."

reply to post by MrSpad


its not too hard to be openly black, your skin color sort of gives it away!

Read about General Smedly Butler if you want to learn about American coups.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by MrSpad

 

its not too hard to be openly black, your skin color sort of gives it away!

Yes. Then you see how foolish your statement was.

MARTIAL LAW

Martial Law would NOT be announced to hundreds of millions of Americans and billions across the globe simultaneously via Main Stream Media outlets. This would in fact have the total opposite effects of what martial law exists for, and be highly detrimental to the goals of martial law, and it's purpose. And, in my opinion, their are some issues that are seemingly under the jurisdiction of the military, and subjugated to martial law. For instance, "martial law" was never declared by it's name publicly the days after 9-11, even though ALL the air space over the continental United States (CONUS) were under martial law.

Definition of Martial Law from Merriam-Websters (emphasis and underline by me):

Definition of MARTIAL LAW
1: the law applied in occupied territory by the military authority of the occupying power


2: the law administered by military forces that is invoked by a government in an emergency when the civilian law enforcement agencies are unable to maintain public order and safety
www.merriam-webster.com...

Originally posted by MrSpad

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by MrSpad

 

its not too hard to be openly black, your skin color sort of gives it away!

Yes. Then you see how foolish your statement was.

No I don't because YOUR statement makes no sense. Skin color is somehow the same as homosexuality?

Free speech = first amendment right
Gay rights in military = less than 1 year old law
skin color = skin color

at the very least if you can be openly gay in the military you should be able to openly support a presidential candidate.

reply to post by beezzer


[size=36]★





Well played.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


You do know that this has been a long standing policy that predates the current love-affair of Ron Paul correct? That this isn't a new issue. Leave to the Paulistas to twist something, turn around and then complain that the media is twisting something, and then whine and moan.

Ron Paul has only one thing to fear; his ignorant masses that blindly follow his way.

Originally posted by filosophia
So lets recap: soldiers are allowed to be openly gay but not allowed to exercise their first amendment right. Yep sounds about right for amerika.

Show me where they are being denied their First Amendment rights that they haven't voluntarily allowed certain restrictions upon themselves?

EDIT TO ADD:

Actually, I will help you out.

- When I served I never once heard the military question my political ideology; yet I was vocal about it.
- When I served I volunteered to be a voting assistance representative to encourage personnel to be engaged in exercising their First Amendment Rights.
- I was never punished for what I said, even if it vaguely fell under DoD Directive 1344.10 -- Military personnel are also human beings.

But you are right. I obviously don't know how to exercise my First Amendment rights.