Does * breaks the law every time he uses the troops as a backdrop.

[MelissaB]

To make a long story short, I met someone currently in the military at the vigil we had for the 2,000+ troops who died in Iraq. During the conversation he said that * is breaking the law every time he uses the troops as a backdrop. I received his permission today to use the information from an email in a post at DU.

... Sections of the Hatch Act Amendments specifically state that, "Political Activities On Duty Prohibited. The law prohibits employees from engaging in political activity (1) while on duty; (2) in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an employee or officeholder of the U.S. government or any agency or instrumentality thereof; (3) while wearing a uniform or official insignia identifying their office or position; or (4) using any vehicle owned or leased by the U.S. government or any agency or instrumentality thereof. The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs report accompanying the legislation states that "politics on the job, including the wearing of political buttons, is prohibited.""

Furthermore, military personnel are governed by internal directives that mirror the Hatch Amendment. One of these directives is DoD Directive 1344.10, "Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty," June 15, 1990.

The directive is explicit:

"1. General rules. DoD Directive 1334.1, Wearing of the Uniform, May 17, 2004, paragraph 3.1, reads in as follows:
3. POLICY
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:
3.1.2. During or in connection with the furtherance of political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn."

Sincerely,

XXX

Somebody please tell this asshole to find another stage without our military.

Edited to make the title a statement becasue it seems not to be black and white.

[goju]

1. Its that whole Commander in Chief thing n/t

[maximovich]

2. no it's not

it's called silver spoon in the ass hubris.

[goju]

4. No, I think you mistook what I meant

He IS the commander in chief, which is the head of the military. It cant be considered political if they attend, in uniform. Hence, the CiC reference.

Get it?

[MelissaB]

5. So these political speeches he is giving are not considered political?

[goju]

11. Well you have to read the whole directive

Hes commander in chief, so he gets to call the shots regardless. But specifically they can appear in uniform at any time, any place. What they cannot do is applaud, boo, or otherwise state an opinion... while in uniform.

3.1.3. Except when authorized by competent Service authority, when participating in activities such as public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration (including those pertaining to civil rights), which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.

[MelissaB]

14. Are the speeches he gives considered public? Can "we" get in?

Most of his speeches aren't public.

Thanks for the directive above.

[NYC Liberal]

27. It would fall under "rallies."

Nonetheless, this is about soldiers going off on their own and participating in political marches, rallies, demos, etc. It obviously doesn't mean when they are at a speech which they are ordered to attend by a CiC.

[maximovich]

6. Hubris

His campaigning should have ended in 2004, actually, 2000. He's using the soldiers for politics.

[Canuckistanian]

3. Technically, they're not engaging in political activities

They're ordered to stand in a certain place at a certain time.
Then Bunnypants strides in and makes a speech right in front of them.

There's nothing they can do about it. Even if a soldier is passionately anti-Bus* and hates his guts and would rather be standing naked in front of a blast furnace, he still has to stand there.

And he has to applaud on cue.

[indepat]

7. If he has to applaud on cue, has to applaud wildly partisan statements,

that's political activities IMHO.

[texpatriot2004]

9. I agree. They are used as props. They can't protest. n.t

[maximovich]

10. Thank You (nt)

[Imagevision]

8. Most disgusting to further use the troops for his own gain...!

Stay what course??!! -- Johnson said the same thing about staying the course in Viet Nam -- Then even he resigned!

[JanusAscending]

23. Johnson resigned??

I was under the impression that he "just" chose not to run for re-election!!! I lived through this era. Sure you've got your facts right?:wow:

[NYC Liberal]

12. First, the Hatch Act specifies government employees, not the military.

Second, that D.O.D. directive, as someone mentions, makes an exception "when authorized by competent Service authority."

Now, yes Bush is "incompetent" in the sense that he doesn't know what the hell he's doing, but he's still the legal commander of the military, and thus can waive these restrictions.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. George Bush Breaks the Law Every Time He Impersonates A President!!!!!

:)

[Xithras]

15. Interesting legal catch 22 there.

Technically, Bush isn't violating the act, the soldiers are. The soldiers have two problems however. First, soldiers are exempt from civilian law while on duty on any military base or foreign deployment. In those situations, their conduct is governed by the UCMJ. This was an exemption created by Congress itself, and can only be overridden if it can be shown that the soldiers behavior ALSO amounted to a dereliction of duty (i.e. a soldier who walks away from his post and rapes a woman in a nearby home may be turned over for civilian prosecution. A soldier who rapes a woman on base, OTOH, will only be tried by the military.)

The Hatch Act is civilian law, and doesn't apply to on-base soldiers carrying out their orders in a military setting. It would ONLY apply to soldiers who wore their uniforms to OFF-BASE political activities that they themselves supported in their own free time.

On top of that, you have the problem that any soldier refusing an order to participate would find himself in a world of shit. Refusing an order is a serious offense in the military and can land a soldier in jail for a very long time. Unlike civilian courts, you don't get hotshot civil rights lawyers and media coverage when you object to this kind of thing in the military. You just get quietly shuffled off into a cell for a couple of years.

Recruiters never tell you about all that, do they?

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. No matter what, it is still a blatant abuse of power

but so is most everything else Bush does.

Remember one of the Clinton impeachment charges was that he abused his power by trying to get Monica a job in NYC. I think Bush has done much worse then just trying to get someone a job.

[hack89]

18. Clinton did exactly the same thing...

all presidents have used the military as a political prop - Bush is no better or worse in this regard.

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. You're kidding?

Bush can only appear before a military audience at this point. Clinton has never been afraid to appear before real audiences and answer real questions.

[hack89]

20. I was addressing the comment..

about appearing with the troops being an abuse of power. Bush not being able to appear before real audiences is irrelevant to my post.

[upi402]

24. I probably missed Clinton's Airplane Flyer Guy dress-up photo op.

They are all filmed by media shaking hands and speaking to troops.

But * use of troops goes to staged media events, campaign showing for TV ads, and uses troops as cover to keep idiots loyal and allow * to loot the treasury.

[MelissaB]

17. Oops! My edit should have been a question.

That's what I get for posting in a hurry. :blush:

[MelissaB]

21. Link to the DOD directive signed by Wolfowitz

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf2/d13341p.pdf

[DeepModem Mom]

22. I think Bush crossed the line yesterday in Alaska...

when he criticized his political opposition in specific terms, with the result that our troops cheered, whether they wanted to to not, when Bush took on Rockefeller (Dem., West Virginia), Reid (Dem., Nevada), and Levin (Dem., Michigan). I know he has used troops as backdrop and support before, but I think that speech was different, and I think it warrants study and investigation.

[BikeWriter]

25. I agree with your point.

[rmgustaf]

26. Is this a high crime or misdemeanor? ;) n/t

[Sabriel]

28. It's not a backdrop...it's a "blackdrop."

I'm trying to coin a new term for the blatant and politicized use of people of color to make yourself look racially sensitive and popular.

Notice soldiers of color tend to be on the right side of the screen. I'm sure there'a visual/psychological reason for that exact placement.