GOP Erred in Naming SEALs at Convention

Printable View

09-07-2008
oblong

GOP Erred in Naming SEALs at Convention

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,6461849.story

Quote:

The appearance by the active duty military members troubled some at the Pentagon because of rules against active duty personnel participating in political activities.

On Wednesday, Navy officials said they had given permission for the SEALs to attend the convention on the condition that the Republican National Committee neither showcase them in the media nor publicly recognize them.

After Swindle clearly identified the two in his remarks, Republican officials initially told the Navy that the retired lieutenant general had ad-libbed. A Times article Thursday, quoting Navy officials, reported that conclusion.

I don't get it. If I really wanted to protect my anonymity, the last place I'd go is a place with hundreds of reporters and dozens of cameras to take part in an event watched by millions of people.
09-07-2008
Ron Humphrey

OK here's where I gotta draw the line

Quote:

Originally Posted by oblong

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,6461849.story

I don't get it. If I really wanted to protect my anonymity, the last place I'd go is a place with hundreds of reporters and dozens of cameras to take part in an event watched by millions of people.

The military needs to be viewed as impartial (OK), but if so set a reasonable rank structure for who can or can't go anywhere. I think anywhere any of them go there should be recognition of them all. And that shouldn't be percieved as either endorsement of or against any particular party. Its just going to a darn convention. The military on the other hand is just trying to do the right thing.

But its the media and/or politically oriented groups which will make this into more than it needs to be.:mad:

Someone please tell me how in the world it sounds like the rules for those who fight to retain our freedoms is they cant attend any political function at all for fear someone might actually say their name. Setting ROE is cool lets just make sure they don't take away the very thing these guys represent and fight for in the first place.

Personally I think its quite well known why the concern is there and so its understandable there would be attempts to address it, but honestly most of those who have created the situation aren't in the service any more so they really don't have to listen:(
09-07-2008
Entropy

Personally, I think they should not have been there in the first place. Conventions are, ultimately, internal affairs of the political party even though they have become national media events. We're not supposed to attend political rallys in uniform - a convention is the biggest kind of rally of them all. Bad idea, IMO.
09-07-2008
Tom Odom

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entropy

Personally, I think they should not have been there in the first place. Conventions are, ultimately, internal affairs of the political party even though they have become national media events. We're not supposed to attend political rallys in uniform - a convention is the biggest kind of rally of them all. Bad idea, IMO.

Agreed. Conventions are by definition 100 percent political.
09-08-2008
rjbedner

The military members did nothing wrong

This issue is being directed at the wrong party. The service members were present for the right reason, support the family that paid the ultimate price. This positive example of how we take care of our own is the story that the american people need to read about. The sailors got permission and remained a part of the audience. Regardless of how they were presented, the fact is, that family deserves to be surrounded by the men that their loved one served with and made the ultimate sacrafice. The US Navy did the right thing by approving the men to be alongside the family and in my eyes put the family first. What a novel idea.

Ryan Bedner
09-08-2008
sullygoarmy

While I agree that having fellow servicemembers be along side the family of the fallen, a political convention is not the place to do this. I understand they were requested by the sister of the fallen SEAL, but I do not agree with letting active duty members attend the convention. We in the military have to be very careful regarding the fine line we tread when it comes to demonstrating support for any political party. While we highly encourage our soldiers to take advantage of the freedom they fight to protect: the right to vote, our leadership continues to spread the gospel that military members must stay apolitical...especially during election years.
09-08-2008
jkm_101_fso

Good intent, bad execution

I don't fault the Navy, Monsoor's family or his fellow SEALs for attending the event to show support and honor an American hero. I believe the intentions were good.

Ethically, I believe that active duty servicemembers should try and remain non-partisan and apolitical.

I don't believe the GOP's intention was to use Monsoor's story for political gain, but it could certainly appear that way.

The truth is that the media generally ignores our nation's heroes, in regards to what they choose to report in regards to War. Jump on Lexis or any search engine and type in "Abu Ghraib" or "Haditha"...see the results. Then type in Michael Monsoor, Paul Smith or Ross McGinnis. Results for news stories are much lower. I say kudos to the GOP for trying to recognize these heroes on a national televised event. Unfortunately, the perception will be that they are trying to use them for political gain.

There is no easy answer here. I'm glad heroes like Monsoor get the accolades, respect and honor that they deserve, I just wish it wasn't at a political convention.
09-08-2008
Ken White

Have to agree with jkm_101_fs0 and rjbedner

Much ado about nothing, I think. Yeah, it was a political convention but it was done by the Navy at the request of Monsoor's family. What are they supposed to do, say 'No' to a MOH winner's family? They'd have been criticized for that. The Navy properly asked they not be publicly recognized and Swindle apparently elected to disregard that. Oblong got it wrong, the GOP didn't ID the SEALs; Swindle just blew it and he should've known better.

All the ire should be directed at him.
09-08-2008
jkm_101_fso

Rules regarding military/politics/partisanship

On the same note, I saw a few folks IN UNIFORM at the convention. Not sure if these were retirees, reserve component or Active duty folks. Some of them did not appear to be retirees. The one that stood out was a younger-looking SFC in Dress Blues, seated in one of the state areas.

Are there any rules or regulations prohibiting the military (particularly active duty) from taking part in partisan/political events? I haven't heard of any regulations specifically, but just always understood that it wasn't ethical to do so. I am aware there are state reps, senators that serve in the NG, AR, etc. I guess it would be different for them since they are not active.

Any regulations would probably prohibit servicemembers from participating in uniform, representing the Armed Services in support of a polictical party, I'd assume. Can anyone cite any regs specifically? Just curious.
09-08-2008
Cavguy
This is for FEDERAL Employees. Will post DOD Directive 1344.10 which clearly outlines MILITARY permissable activity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavguy

Below are the primary guidelines that active Federal employees need to follow when working or volunteering on a political campaign for federal office. This list is not all-inclusive, and questions regarding the legality of the application of any event or policy should be properly researched or investigated beforehand. This list does not encompass all that is or is not allowed per the regulation.

Active Federal employees may:

Be a candidate in a non-partisan political election (that is, an election where the candidate is not running as a member of a political party; examples include city council and school board elections)
Register and vote as they choose
Assist in Voter Registration Drives
Express opinions about candidates and issues
Attend fundraisers and contribute money to political organizations and campaigns
Volunteer on a campaign
Recruit volunteers for a political campaign
Participate in activities such as phone banking and precinct walking
Display bumper stickers, lawn signs, and other campaign paraphernalia
Raise money for their union's political action committee from other union members
Volunteer, run for, and hold an office in a local or state political party

Active Federal employees may not:

Be a candidate in a political election in which any candidate represents a political party
Raise money for a partisan political campaign
Allow their names to be used in any fundraising appeal on behalf of a partisan political campaign
Participate in a phone bank that is engaged in fundraising for a partisan campaign
Raise money for their union's political action committee from persons other than their fellow union members
09-08-2008
Cavguy

For Military Members, DOD Directive 1344.10 governs and is very specific.

Too big to cut and paste, so link here.
09-08-2008
wm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso

On the same note, I saw a few folks IN UNIFORM at the convention. Not sure if these were retirees, reserve component or Active duty folks. Some of them did not appear to be retirees. The one that stood out was a younger-looking SFC in Dress Blues, seated in one of the state areas.

Are there any rules or regulations prohibiting the military (particularly active duty) from taking part in partisan/political events? I haven't heard of any regulations specifically, but just always understood that it wasn't ethical to do so. I am aware there are state reps, senators that serve in the NG, AR, etc. I guess it would be different for them since they are not active.

Any regulations would probably prohibit servicemembers from participating in uniform, representing the Armed Services in support of a polictical party, I'd assume. Can anyone cite any regs specifically? Just curious.

Here's an excerpt from the last version of AR 670-1 that I know of., emphasis added

Quote:

Originally Posted by AR 670–1, 3 February 2005

Paragraph 1-10:
j. Wearing Army uniforms is prohibited in the following situations:
(1) In connection with the furtherance of any political or commercial interests, or when engaged in off-duty civilian
employment.
(2) When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except
as authorized by competent authority.
(3) When attending any meeting or event that is a function of, or is sponsored by, an extremist organization.
(4) When wearing the uniform would bring discredit upon the Army.
(5) When specifically prohibited by Army regulations.
09-08-2008
jkm_101_fso

Exactly what I was looking for

Thanks Niel and WM. So apparently, some of what was going on at the convention was in violation of regs.
09-08-2008
Ken White

Unless they were retired or discharged

or National Guard folks not on Federal Active Duty, possibly so...

My suspicion would be that most would fall in those exempted categories (legally exempt by still very bad practice, IMO) and there may have been one or or a very few serving Federal troopies who made a bad decision.
09-08-2008
wm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso

Thanks Niel and WM. So apparently, some of what was going on at the convention was in violation of regs.

Be very careful about how much tar you try to spread with that brush. As Ken notes, lots of folks are not covered by the AR or the DOD Directive. Many states have militias and such which are not covered yet have uniforms that look very much like their Federal counterparts' uniforms. For some dress uniforms, a telltale sign is whether they are wearing US or a State's digraph on their lapels. When it comes to retirees/dischargees, target ID is much less easy.
09-08-2008
jkm_101_fso

How could this be controlled?

You are probably right, Ken. Although, I suppose it's plausible that an Active Duty member took leave and went to the RNC, on his own dime and wore his uniform while there. I doubt anyone called him on it, especially in that venue. Not sure there would be anything that could be done, if an active duty servicemember chose to do this. Unless his Chain of Command saw him on TV in uniform at the convention. I guess they could choose to reprimand him for regulation violations.

This could lead to another discussion, probably not one we want to get into, about the perpetuation in the military of the Republican Party as the "Pro-Military Party".

Consider this: Active Duty Servicemember attends RNC in uniform and his chain of command finds out and reprimands him for violating regulations. Servicemember claims that he is supporting the political party (and the candidate) that are the most "pro-military" (in his opinion). He doesn't understand how that is wrong, even though he obviously violated regulations by attending the event in uniform, among other things. To him, he was supporting his profession by attending the RNC and thus supporting the Republican Party and John McCain, the man he feels should be his next Commander-in-Chief.

I've always been aware of this cultural stigma and have seen military folks chide each other on their respective political affiliations. (guys who will actually admit they are Democrats) I've talked to a lot of folks that survived (or didn't) the Reduction in Force in the 90s that are pretty bitter towards the Dems, citing how "good" we have it now under a Republican Administration. I'm sure they are referring to general support of the DoD; but also specifically to the DoD budget, in regards to pay, benefits and money for training.

Not sure what I would do if I was in said servicemember's Chain of Command.
I'm certainly non-partisan and apolitical; just thinking about what I would do if one of my Soldiers had been in this situation.:confused:
09-08-2008
jkm_101_fso

Good point, Wm

Quote:

Originally Posted by wm

Many states have militias and such which are not covered yet have uniforms that look very much like their Federal counterparts' uniforms.

I did not know this.

Quote:

For some dress uniforms, a telltale sign is whether they are wearing US or a State's digraph on their lapels. When it comes to retirees/dischargees, target ID is much less easy.

True, lending further confusion to my previous post.
09-08-2008
selil

When I was a cop I worked for a non-partisan judge for about 18 months. An ancient in local politics the judge would during elections have a long string of party sycophants trailing into his chambers. I watched as his singular wit rebuked one after another of these party weasels. Both sides, and back again they got rebuked.

The judge told me one day over coffee that when you wield the Constitution like a sword taking sides is the most dishonorable thing you can do. I can't imagine that those who actually wield that sword and enact the will of a civilian government can feel any different.

I think the road of a partisan military is a dark and scary path.
09-08-2008
jkm_101_fso

Quote:

Originally Posted by selil

I think the road of a partisan military is a dark and scary path.

I couldn't agree with you more.
09-08-2008
Stan

You're good at standing out,

But can you blend in ?

I've attended countless receptions overseas and abroad in 23 years of active service, but where and when I wore my Blues was always common sense to me.

The press and political parties took advantage of an opportunity that should have never been made available to them. If we think those folks are slick, wait til you get a taste of foreign Bravo Sierra at its best!

Ignorance of the regs is no excuse to anyone above the grade of E-1.