The Commander in Chief can openly endorse a political party, shouldn't we be able to also?
Every day I drive on post and see a Soldier in uniform driving with a political party sticker on their car that says "Obama-Biden", or"#$%@ Libtards" "NRA for Life" or one of Calvin urinating on some other cause. The problem with this, is that technically, as Soldiers we are forbidden from openly endorsing polical parties, causes and groups and attending rallies in uniform. Apparently, displaying it on your POV while driving in uniform is acceptable, but attening a walk for cancer, political party convention, pride march etc. is forbidden. Where do we draw the line? I see the POTUS as being a servicemember, his uniform being a custom taylored suit, paid for by the american taxpayer, just as my fatigues are. Do you agree that is it okay that our Commander in Chief openly endorses a political party, but we cannot? Thoughts and opinions?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/04/army-soldier-rallying-for-paul-violated-military-ban-on-political-activity/
Army...
Office of the President (POTUS)
Politics
The concept behind service members not publicly affiliating with any one political party loosely ties in with posse comitatus. Basically, the armed forces is not a political army. We do not fight for the democratic party, the republican party, or any other party. That is the inevitable conclusion to politicizing the military.
For a service member to openly and publicly endorse a political side gives the perception that their service endorses that particular political party, which leads to the perception that the military supports one political party over another. History gives us many precedents for how this generally turns out...
CPT Wolfer,
I would absolutely hope so. I do my darndest to uphold those standards as well. Should all Soldiers be ordered to remove political bumperstickers from their car?
You said "Saying all Americans should be held to the same standard make sense when you are talking about laws that apply to everyone". I believe all government officials should indeed be held accountable and to the same sets of laws. Especially the leadership.
I see the president as a part of my CoC, wearing a "Uniform" (be it a custom taylored suit paid for by taxpayers) and not held to the same standards as the body. If hypocrisy is spelled any better any other way, I would love to see it. Great Discussion.
So I have always been pretty politically active, even when I was in the service, but that also translated into a healthy respect for certain boundaries.
I find the concept that "all government officials" should be held to ALL the same standards incredibly dangerous. For instance the military has certain physical fitness standards which make sense for the military but doesn't necessarily make sense for politicians or other government officials serving in capacities with which military physical fitness standards would be effectively irrelevant to their jobs.
This may seem like a side issue but it is not given the way you worded your statement "I believe all government officials should indeed be held accountable and to the same sets of laws. Especially the leadership."
It is certainly your right to "see it" anyway you want, but you will need to accept the logical implications associated with "seeing it" that way. There are certain regulations which govern the military due to the nature of our government service which do not make as much if any sense for other departments and vice verse...for instance the EPA has not been issued F15s yet to my knowledge, nor been required to live by regulations associated with that type of service because it is irrelevant to their function. (note I am not advocating for the EPA to get F15s! ;)
On the other hand their are universal rules which apply to government service that due not apply to elected officials, and for very good reason. This has to due with both constitutional law as well as the nature of these various positions. Elected officials are SUPPOSED to engage in official debates over policy as an essential function of their position. Service men and women are to carry out policy in accordance with constitutional and UCMJ law. To suggest that the people who create the laws be held to the same official political restrictions as those who are charged with carrying them out is to misunderstand the very nature of the differences between the positions.
This is not to say that service men and women cannot advocate for a particular policy, merely that we are not permitted to do so in a official capacity because the nature of our jobs requires no such advocacy and is in fact potentially detrimental good order and the purpose for which the military exists.
And just so you know I haven't dodged the question...no... political bumper stickers are not a violation of this principle as your POV has no official capacity or function within the government.
just my .02
The reasons for restricting servicemembers' political activity, especially while acting with the authority of their office, are many and significant.
The subordination of the Army to civil authority was quite deliberate.
Not trolling. I have a hard time accepting the hypocrisy of having a Leader, no matter how they got there, held to different standards than the body being led. Same thing with General Sinclair getting a slap on the wrist when had it been an average Soldier, they probably would be serving 10+ years.
"The Congress shall have Power
...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States
respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of
training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
The president does not have complete authority over the uniformed services. He can't unilaterally determine troop strength. He is just the commander in chief.
I have served under 3 presidents from 2 political parties. My oath, sworn 4 times, is to the constitution.
We the taxpayers are getting played by both sides, both of which are more than eager to liberate us from our money as they beg for donations on top of what they already get paid in taxes -- just to make sure the right people win! Be sure you get your refreshments before the game. As for what to drink, you know the drill; it's just like a Russian election in the sense that it doesn't matter who you vote for because the same folks own both teams. So you know you're getting Kool-Aid. The question becomes Red Kool-Aid or Blue Kool-Aid? And it really doesn't matter which you pick because it's basically the same sugar water, just dressed up to look different, and it's not good for you.
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google