US Military Issues Warning to Ron Paul Supporters

The US congress first issued the Articles Of War in 1806 directed to both land and naval forces of the United States. It was superseded by the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) in 1951:

Military Justice

Article 92 specifically states:

Any person subject to this chapter who— (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation; (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Uniform Code of Military Justice

So what is the order they would be violating?

That would be Department Of Defense Directive 1344.10, Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces

Here is a link, you can read through the entire directive if you want:

DoD Directive 1344.10

Directives from the DoD are updated and can be modified all the time. While I was in the US Navy from 1984 to 1995, this directive existed in an earlier form, but the rules for military personnel participating in political campaigning were the same then as now:

You may not wear your uniform at any political campaign. Doing so sends a statement that the uniform you are wearing is representing that branch of the military and makes a statement of that branch which you are NOT authorized to do.

This was drilled into our heads guys. When you wear the uniform, you ARE representing that branch of service and the military in general. It is a symbol, and a highly visible symbol. If someone wears their uniform to a function like this, most non-military types assume that the military must be backing someone or something.

You may not speak on behalf of the military. You can't go to a rally in your civvies and start saying things like: Well the Navy supports -Ron Paul, Mitt, Obama, Snoopy, Charlie Brown, insert name here-. Because it would also look like the military is endorsing that person.

If you read the directive, it is quite clear on what military personnel can or can not do, and with good reason.

Imagine if you worked for a company and that company had a baseball cap with their company logo on it. You then go and speak at a political rally, which is video taped and later seen by the owners of the company you work for.
You could end up loosing your job, especially if that company felt or thought you were there and representing them, when you were NOT authorized to do so.

The basic idea is to keep the US military OUT of politics. Civilians need to think for themselves, and not endorse someone because they believe the military is backing someone or a political group.
All service members are encouraged to vote, even with absentee ballots when deployed outside of CONUS. On every ship I served on, and every land based command, we always had someone who's job (other than their main duties) was to help make sure people at that command were registered to vote, and were able to go vote. For who ever they desired to vote for.

OH, BTW - newspapers like the Navy Times, Army Times, etc, are not official publications of those military branches.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


Yet you served under Bush? I mean if you were serving under a good president before leaving due to Obama it might mean something, but really I think you just bought into the bull.

It's threads like this that make Ronny followers look like such crybabies and people wonder why Ronny is'nt ever going to win the nomination.

reply to post by eriktheawful


No one is saying the military officially supports ron paul, we know that, furthest from it, but he does have the most support from active military because they dont want war. If the public is so dumb they will believe anything a uniformed soldier says as the official military opinion, then we are already lost as a nation.

So its democracy for all, unless you are a soldier. And dont say 'well they signed up' , everyone is tricked and pressured into registering for the draft when they are 18.

Our 'democracy' is not a democracy if a group is not allowed to have a voice.

Does Ron Paul have any chance of winning, seriously? Not a trolling question. I just don't see how he can win.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

No one is saying the military officially supports ron paul, we know that, furthest from it, but he does have the most support from active military because they dont want war. If the public is so dumb they will believe anything a uniformed soldier says as the official military opinion, then we are already lost as a nation.

So its democracy for all, unless you are a soldier. And dont say 'well they signed up' , everyone is tricked and pressured into registering for the draft when they are 18.

Our 'democracy' is not a democracy if a group is not allowed to have a voice.

edit on 18-2-2012 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

You would be very surprised then at the amount of people who see a uniform (military or otherwise), and suddenly assume things. It's shocking, but it is there.

No one is saying that once you join any branch of the military, you suddenly are not allowed to have a political opinion. Please show me in that DoD document where it says that, verbatim please. You can't, because it doesn't.

And no. The military of the US is NOT ALLOWED to have a political voice. It's a tool and department of the US Federal Government. It is required to be a neutral entity where politics are concerned.
Why? Because if the military as a whole is allowed to start stumping for a political group, you are going to have problems. BIG problems.

How many other nations have you read about or seen, who's leaders are in power because the military are backing them up? Do you honestly want the military to have the power to decide which political group should be in power?

Individuals should have a voice, yes. And the directive from the DoD is not denying individuals in the military from having a voice. It's instead, asking them to act responsibly, that while on active duty, and especially in uniform, you represent the military, whether you realize it or not.
That directive is to help make sure that the military as a GROUP does NOT act in a partisan way, because our military MUST remain neutral, and follow the orders of the Commander In Chief (the president), no mater what political party he or she is from, because it's suppose to be the people of our country that decides that, not the military as a group (individuals in the military being people too).

I would really dread the day that the Joint Chiefs decide that they want someone elected, and post tanks and men at voting stations........

While the system we have might also be a joke (via other threads here on ATS), at least you don't have someone in uniform with a gun pointed at your head telling you who to vote for.


ETA: ........for now anyways.........things are changing.....

Obama 2012... it's gonna be death of the monkeys and ninja's of paris!

But, I think that Paul will cause a Holocaust that will vaporize us all.

I would only be alarmed if they were telling them not to vote, or who to vote for.

Originally posted by openminded2011
Does Ron Paul have any chance of winning, seriously? Not a trolling question. I just don't see how he can win.

edit on 18-2-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)

Says the msm and GOP who both hate him. Both have been caught multiple times blatantly deceiving and rigging straw polls.

So in that sense will he win? Probably not when the game is rigged against him.

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
BTW, this is not a new policy. I believe it's been around for quite a while. Think this typically comes out a few times during election years. Probably just getting more notice this time around bc everything is so crazy and people are more emotional. In past years, its the type of email most would just delete right away.

You are correct that the policy is reminded from time to time, but trust me there is nothing more emotional about this year than any other year. Human's are so shortsighted.

It is an election year, and just as it was during election years when I served, we were reminded of standing orders.

But the narrative needs to be served. This was directed at Ron Paul supporters and if they step out of line and vote for him they will be silenced. Yep, that makes perfectly good sense to the delusional RP supporters.

Fair enough.

Not all grunts support Paul. Thus the military cannot be seen to be supporting the candidate in question.

Moreover, if you enlist and sign your name to follow the credo of a particular institution, then you should honour your contract. Otherwise, discharge yourself and proceed to 'protest'.

Only thing I have read about was the top brass telling troops not to march / be present at any Ron Paul rallies.

I support Ron Paul 100%...all the way...aggressively.

And I think Ron Paul would agree with me that active military personnel in uniform should
not be present at political events.There is a potential for intimidation or forceful coercion.

In this instance (the march on Washington by the enlisted and veteran Ron Paul supporters)
the military support for Ron Paul would be mostly harmless...

But, in the instance of uniformed military personnel standing in support of a sitting president, it
could be a road to tyranny.

You need the foresight of the founding father's to see why this is just a bad idea.

Active and veteran military personnel in civilian clothes and conducting themselves
accordingly, however, is completely different, and should have no regulation, AT ALL!

Remember, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and I do not want to
envision a "future" political rally where uniformed soldiers are present in-mass
in support of a sitting president.

I hopefully think most of you can see the point.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


I'm former military and know that you cannot participate in something like that in uniform.

reply to post by Ixtab

It don't matter whats in this thread,Paul will lose because of a corrupt GOP.He is to honest ,just as a family member of mine was too honest to work for the police

Originally posted by MrSpad

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.

Uh, what rights? Far as I know our rights keep getting taken from us. You do know the idea of war is all a fabrication? A mind control if you will. They put ego's before honesty.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
reply to post by beezzer

 

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

*sob^
*weep*

I LOVE YOU Beezzer! I've been wanting to tell you that for awhile.
I love seeing your cute bunny face, your often witty replies and your political and moral stance. Mostly though you look like my moms corgi that died last year that shared your name and looked a lot like you. I miss him and pretend its him when I see you in here.

On topic: sounds unconstitutional to not allow a soldier participate in a parade or rally when they are not on duty. I know several military people, never heard of such a thing. I'm going to ask.

Reply to post by ownbestenemy

Well said!

The Peace President? Lol!

How long before a RP supporter comes in to compare him to JESUS??


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

When did King George come back to life?
Disgusting! people are allowed to have opinions and rights in this country!! I guess the M.I.C can't have their wars stopped! to profitable eh?

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by Gseven
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

Nothing new. And it's not directed solely at Ron Paul supporters. This has ALWAYS been the case.

It is not the military's place to endorse politicians....period.

The email references a march on feb 20, there is only one march going on feb 20, and that is one for Ron Paul, so this email alludes to ron paul supporters specifically.

As for this always being the case, please respond to this post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

why could the army times publish a survey of bush support with clear partisan political support?

edit on 18-2-2012 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

www.nytimes.com...

"The important thing in this is there was no intent to mislead people about the size of the audience," said Mark McKinnon, Mr. Bush's chief media adviser. "They were real soldiers, they were really there, there was no editorial intent here."

They were REAL soldiers.

No, I understand what you're saying, and it may in fact be directed at Ron Paul supporters on this particular occasion, (albeit in a nice, indirect way, because let's face it....the military pulls no punches with it's own, so this is a soft reminder), but they are not continually singled out. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but that doesn't mean I think it's OK for military personnel to break the rules because they happen to be doing it for a guy I support. This has already happened a few times with Ron Paul's campaign, in which a military member has shown support in uniform. I have been very outspoken about this. The rules apply to EVERYONE, and they are there for a reason!