Soldier Censored at Kos Convention

**Logan13** · 08-04-2007, 02:42 PM

There is a video at the website below.
Soldier Censored at Kos Convention
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/08/sold...kos_conven.php

Fireworks broke out at a Friday morning session of the second day of the YearlyKos Convention titled “The Military and Progressives: Are They Really That Different?”. An as yet unidentified uniformed soldier attempted to address the panel on the subject of the “Surge”. He was unceremoniously escorted out by panelist Jon Soltz.
The soldier’s words were either suppressed or inaudible on the convention’s own video. They can be heard hear on this exclusive PJM Video by Andrew Marcus, who also interviews the soldier and tries to interview Soltz.

**Red Ketchup** · 08-04-2007, 04:55 PM

I think it's reprehensible that they muzzle him like that... I believe everyone is entitled to voice their opinions.

But on the other hand they did learn from the best... or has everyone already forgotten the last campaign when the current presidents people had protesters and folks voicing/displaying different opinions forcibly removed from the rallies by the SS and local police? In some cases they were moved to the "protesters area" halfway across town, in others they were detained and later released without charges...

Limiting free speech is a slippery slippery slope... and its always reprehensible...

Red

**Tock** · 08-05-2007, 07:14 PM

Here are the Navy regulations that preclude military folks from appearing at such events in uniform (I'm sure the other branches have similar regulations):

(about 3/4 down the page)
http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/.../chapter_1.htm

(1) Members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of reserve components). Wearing of uniforms is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:

(a) Any meeting or demonstration which is a function of, or sponsored by an organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons which the Attorney General of the United States has designated, pursuant to Executive Order 10450 as amended, 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 by unconstitutional means.

(b) During or in connection with political activities, private employment or commercial interest, that imply official sponsorship of the activity or interest.

(c) When participating in activities such as public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration which implies the service supports the principles of the demonstration or activity. This rule may be waived by the service.

(d) When wearing of the uniform would discredit Armed Forces.

(e) When specifically prohibited by regulations of the department concerned.

----------------------------

If the fellow wanted to make his point while out of uniform, I'm sure there would not have been any problem.

**Logan13** · 08-06-2007, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

Here are the Navy regulations that preclude military folks from appearing at such events in uniform (I'm sure the other branches have similar regulations):

(about 3/4 down the page)
http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/.../chapter_1.htm

(1) Members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of reserve components). Wearing of uniforms is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:

(a) Any meeting or demonstration which is a function of, or sponsored by an organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons which the Attorney General of the United States has designated, pursuant to Executive Order 10450 as amended, 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 by unconstitutional means.

(b) During or in connection with political activities, private employment or commercial interest, that imply official sponsorship of the activity or interest.

(c) When participating in activities such as public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration which implies the service supports the principles of the demonstration or activity. This rule may be waived by the service.

(d) When wearing of the uniform would discredit Armed Forces.

(e) When specifically prohibited by regulations of the department concerned.

----------------------------

If the fellow wanted to make his point while out of uniform, I'm sure there would not have been any problem.

So you agree that the DAILYKOS is anti-military?

**Tock** · 08-06-2007, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Logan13

So you agree that the DAILYKOS is anti-military?

I have no idea what DAILYKOS is.

However, I do know that the military discourages both officers and enlisted folks from speaking on issues in uniform. If they had a public forum, and if that military guy was about to speak on an issue, then if they shushed him up, they did him a big favor. And they did the American people a favor, because of the problems that arise when military people attempt to use their uniforms to give their public opinions extra weight. It's a practice that really needs to be discouraged -- I'd say the official military policy on this issue is 100% spot-on.

Whoever those Pajamas-blog people are, all they did was use this event to bash liberals, when the liberals were doing nothing but acting in the best interest of the nation, and in the best interest of the soldier.

RA · 08-06-2007, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

I have no idea what DAILYKOS is.

However, I do know that the military discourages both officers and enlisted folks from speaking on issues in uniform. If they had a public forum, and if that military guy was about to speak on an issue, then if they shushed him up, they did him a big favor. And they did the American people a favor, because of the problems that arise when military people attempt to use their uniforms to give their public opinions extra weight. It's a practice that really needs to be discouraged -- I'd say the official military policy on this issue is 100% spot-on.

Whoever those Pajamas-blog people are, all they did was use this event to bash liberals, when the liberals were doing nothing but acting in the best interest of the nation, and in the best interest of the soldier.

Liberals only act in the best interest of themselves.

Having said that I agree that he shouldnt be doing public speaking if hes still active.

**Logan13** · 08-06-2007, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

I have no idea what DAILYKOS is.

Whoever those Pajamas-blog people are, all they did was use this event to bash liberals, when the liberals were doing nothing but acting in the best interest of the nation, and in the best interest of the soldier.

You definitely must not know what dailykos is........

**Tock** · 08-06-2007, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

You definitely must not know what dailykos is........

Regardless, I'm sure that you'll agree that if that soldier was in his military uniform, that he shouldn't have been offering his opinion about the war, yes?
And you'll agree that the people you cited in the first post of this thread are barking about nothing of any consequence, yes?

**Logan13** · 08-07-2007, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

Regardless, I'm sure that you'll agree that if that soldier was in his military uniform, that he shouldn't have been offering his opinion about the war, yes?
And you'll agree that the people you cited in the first post of this thread are barking about nothing of any consequence, yes?

The soldier was speaking on behalf of the Armed Services. The title of the event was "The Military and Progressives: Are They Really That Different?" It is not against the military code to speak in a possitive light of the military. When the soldier started to speak, and it was not to the liking of the DailyKOS organizers, he was silenced and escorted off stage. You are truely blind. Fact is, they did not want to hear what he had to say, even though he was invited to speak about it. You can try to spin this, and use every excuse you can try to muster for this organization, but it does not change what the facts are. Silly boy.

**gixxerboy1** · 08-07-2007, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

Regardless, I'm sure that you'll agree that if that soldier was in his military uniform, that he shouldn't have been offering his opinion about the war, yes?
And you'll agree that the people you cited in the first post of this thread are barking about nothing of any consequence, yes?

I don't agree. I do think the military personals opinion is more important then other peoples.

RA · 08-07-2007, 01:39 PM

If you have active military doing political speeches it sets a very bad precedent. What if we had Generals giving speeches on policy...there are reasons we have a civilian control over the military.

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

I don't agree. I do think the military personals opinion is more important then other peoples.

**gixxerboy1** · 08-07-2007, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by roidattack

If you have active military doing political speeches it sets a very bad precedent. What if we had Generals giving speeches on policy...there are reasons we have a civilian control over the military.

I would rather hear a military member give their first hand opinion on what needs to be done or what they need. Over some one else's interpretation of a report they read.

RA · 08-07-2007, 02:43 PM

But do you see my point? Eventually it could lead to the military having a major influence on policy decisions.

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

I would rather hear a military member give their first hand opinion on what needs to be done or what they need. Over some one else's interpretation of a report they read.

RA · 08-07-2007, 02:51 PM

It would be great for Republicans because the vast majority of the armed forces are Reps. But I still dont think its a good idea. Policy is set by the President and Congress, not the military. They are there to take orders.

**gixxerboy1** · 08-07-2007, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by roidattack

But do you see my point? Eventually it could lead to the military having a major influence on policy decisions.

you don't think military personal should have an influence on policy that effect's them?

We have lobbiest in the private sector to influence policy

RA · 08-08-2007, 06:31 AM

Apparently you dont see the point Im trying to make. Let me just add that its bad in any society when the military is in control of the govt.

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

you don't think military personal should have an influence on policy that effect's them?

We have lobbiest in the private sector to influence policy

**gixxerboy1** · 08-08-2007, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by roidattack

Apparently you dont see the point Im trying to make. Let me just add that its bad in any society when the military is in control of the govt.

I agree with that. But i think the military should be able to voice their opinions

**Tock** · 08-08-2007, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

you don't think military personal should have an influence on policy that effect's them?

The way the system is supposed to work, the military is 100% subject to civilian control. The President tells them to jump, and they say "How high?" To the extent that the military is allowed to talk back and argue is the extent that they get to make their own decisions, and then we'll have a situation like in other countries where the military eventually got to the point where they ran the whole show.

But should the military have an influence on policy? Of course. They have people who feed the President (and the executive branch of the gov't) lots and lots and lots of information, they tell the policy wonks what's going on, what they want, what they need, what the consequences will be to any particular action, etc., and that's a good -- and necessary thing. I'm all for that. Of course, the current President doesn't pay much attention to their wisdom -- if he had, we wouldn't be fighting in Iraq today.

The guys doing the grunt work -- the MP's and tank drivers and soldiers in the field -- they can write to the President and their US Senator and their Congressman and their parents and whoever else they like, to let them know what's going on. But one thing we can't have is a soldier publicly refusing to obey a lawful order. Or commanders publicly denouncing the Commander In Chief.
We can't allow soldiers the right to speak openly in favor of the President but deny them the right to speak openly against his actions, so the thing to do is tell them to keep their opinons to themselves while in uniform. But when they're out of uniform, sure, they get to march in protests or support groups. I see no problem with them speaking for or against anything, so long as they are not in uniform and don't identify themselves as members of the military. And once they are no longer in the military, well, they get to speak openly about their past experiences, but they don't get to do it in uniform.

That about sums it up . . . in principle, military folks should tell their stories to the folks in the Pentagon and to their elected officials, not the news media.