PDA

View Full Version : Interesting exchange at YearlyKos... soldier challenges panel on war...


jAZ
08-05-2007, 02:20 AM
If you read about this on PajamasMedia.com... You would have been told that "Soldier Censored at Kos Convention".

But if you watch the video, you'll see that he was warned by the moderator (apparently a soldier himself) not to speak politically while wearing his uniform. The soldier went ahead and spoke anyway.

First he complimented all of the people there as being good people and not a bunch of crazies. He then read a quote, made a few statements (not really asking a question of the panel) and issued a challenge about the number of Iraqi casualties.

He was then warned again about doing this while dressed in uniform and breaking the law while doing so.

He was asked to meet with the moderator in a back room and then came back out to be interviewed.

Full Video (sorry, no embedding):
http://www.motionbox.com/video/player/1f9fd0bf181ce192


I found this interesting for a few reasons...

First because the soldier seems like a sincere, reasonable guy.

Second, because PajamasMedia completely lies about him being "censored at Kos Convention". If you watch their own video linked above, you'll see that he was given a full opportunity to speak, even in violation of the law, while obviously offending the moderator and after being warned of the consequences. They might not have taken him up on his challenge, let him dominate the session, or even responded to his statements... they absolutely let him make the statements.

Third, because he was so complementary of the attendees at the event, seeking to publicly dispel the attacks on attendees of the Convention that exist in the RW media.

Finally, because he seemed to knowingly take this action (I want to be careful to not say it was a "stunt"... I don't think it was) knowing it was illegal and that he is putting himself in personal jepordy.

I personally don't see the benefit of wearing the uniform. I think he makes the same points without the uniform, and he actually gets a shot at engaging the panel/audience on the merit of his statements. He gets to defend the Iraqi people (his justification for his actions) without putting his career in jeapordy. Just seems like an unnecessarily bad idea.

Anyway, I thought this was interesting and a little something for everyone here.

wazu
08-05-2007, 08:57 AM
I personally don't see the benefit of wearing the uniform.

If he had been out of uniform, would you be talking about it?

Adept Havelock
08-05-2007, 10:02 AM
If he had been out of uniform, would you be talking about it?


Well, Pajamas Media and the blogosphere probably wouldn't. ;)

StcChief
08-05-2007, 10:05 AM
I like his put up shut up attitude.

jAZ
08-05-2007, 10:40 AM
If he had been out of uniform, would you be talking about it?
I really don't think his actions were a stunt. The suggestion that maybe he wore the uniform for the purpose of making his moment viral... in my mind, such an intention would be a stunt.

My guess is that he felt he needed the gravitas of his uniform to give his POV the impact he wanted. And that doing so was a very bad judgement.

jAZ
08-05-2007, 10:41 AM
It's unbelievable to me that Pajamas Media would lie in their reporting of the event like they did.

You might not respect the politics of someone like Josh Marshall and TPM Media, but you really have to respect how they go about their business.

jAZ
08-05-2007, 10:44 AM
I like his put up shut up attitude.
I think he would have gotten a lot further in the disucssion (something he seemed to want to do) by attending out of uniform... and going about it by making his statement and somehow putting it in the form of a question.

a1na2
08-05-2007, 03:22 PM
Looks hokie to me. I think he is an actor playing a role.

banyon
08-05-2007, 03:24 PM
he is from Va Tech?

jAZ
08-05-2007, 04:11 PM
Looks hokie to me. I think he is an actor playing a role.
I'd be really disappointed if this was all a fake Pajamas Media stunt to make the Yearly Kos organizers look bad.

a1na2
08-05-2007, 04:21 PM
I'd be really disappointed if this was all a fake Pajamas Media stunt to make the Yearly Kos organizers look bad.

The "Soldier" admitted that he was no longer in the Army. If he had never been in the Army was representing the Army falsely he could be in trouble. If he had been in the Army and now a civilian he does have a right to wear the uniform under special circumstances but making political statements is not one of the special circumstances.

As far as the two groups go, I don't care who is who, I still think the guy is a fake that was brought in only for publicity for one side or the other.

jAZ
08-05-2007, 05:08 PM
The "Soldier" admitted that he was no longer in the Army. If he had never been in the Army was representing the Army falsely he could be in trouble. If he had been in the Army and now a civilian he does have a right to wear the uniform under special circumstances but making political statements is not one of the special circumstances.

As far as the two groups go, I don't care who is who, I still think the guy is a fake that was brought in only for publicity for one side or the other.
He said he is in the reserves, but not on active duty currently.

a1na2
08-05-2007, 06:26 PM
He said he is in the reserves, but not on active duty currently.

He said that he got off active duty, I never heard a comment that he was in the reserves. The AD comment was at 6:45. Put up the reserve statement time. I've gone through it twice and haven't heard it.

jAZ
08-05-2007, 07:42 PM
He said that he got off active duty, I never heard a comment that he was in the reserves. The AD comment was at 6:45. Put up the reserve statement time. I've gone through it twice and haven't heard it.
I can't get the video to load. So given your deliberate review, I'll trust you are right. Might be what I thought he was saying, rather than what he said exactly.

Saggysack
08-05-2007, 11:21 PM
He said he is in the reserves, but not on active duty currently.

I heard the same when I listened to it.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 03:03 AM
I heard the same when I listened to it.

Then why didn't you post the time? It runs at the bottom of the video.

What heard is that he was released from active duty "last year".

Saggysack
08-06-2007, 03:26 AM
Then why didn't you post the time? It runs at the bottom of the video.

What heard is that he was released from active duty "last year".

Because I am not going to watch it a 2nd time just for you. You have a problem hearing what the man said, it's not my problem.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 05:53 AM
Because I am not going to watch it a 2nd time just for you. You have a problem hearing what the man said, it's not my problem.

My guess is that you heard what you wanted to hear. I went through it more than once and heard that he was no longer on active duty. Your problem is not being able or willing to validate your claim.

Saggysack
08-06-2007, 07:30 AM
My guess is that you heard what you wanted to hear. I went through it more than once and heard that he was no longer on active duty. Your problem is not being able or willing to validate your claim.


Oh look everyone, Tom is playing dumb.

6:35-6:38

A man admits when he is wrong. Will you though?

jAZ
08-06-2007, 10:08 AM
I offered to trust Tom out of good will... I'd hope he'd be willing to equally humble here.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 05:36 PM
I offered to trust Tom out of good will... I'd hope he'd be willing to equally humble here.

I did hear it this time through. My question would regard his status as a reserve. Drilling reserve or IRR (Individual Ready Reserve - not drilling and not required to be drilling.)

If he is indeed a drilling reservist he could be in some serious trouble, even in an IRR status he could be facing charges due to being in uniform and representing the US Army. For starters the General Article could be used:

934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, ll conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

I'm still searching the rest of the UCMJ and the US Code for the violation that he may have committed. I'll get back to you later when I have found the specific article.

Edit: Active Duty participation defined. Still searching for the reserve component.

Taco John
08-06-2007, 06:23 PM
Only the hardest of the hardcore are paying any attention to any of this anyway.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 06:30 PM
Only the hardest of the hardcore are paying any attention to any of this anyway.

Then, by all means, go away.

Adept Havelock
08-06-2007, 06:30 PM
Only the hardest of the hardcore are paying any attention to any of this anyway.

I had no idea Ron Jeremy was a policy wonk.

noa
08-06-2007, 10:27 PM
If he is indeed a drilling reservist he could be in some serious trouble, even in an IRR status he could be facing charges due to being in uniform and representing the US Army.

Couldn't he be in trouble no matter what his current status is? I have no idea, but that was my impression when the guy threatened him with dishonorable discharge.

patteeu
08-06-2007, 10:46 PM
Based on the video, I had a hard time understanding what the sergeant's point was other than that he was saying that the surge had resulted in fewer Iraqi casualties. Does anyone know if he was contradicting something someone at the Kos convention said or was it completely out of the blue?

ClevelandBronco
08-06-2007, 10:56 PM
Okay, I watched the video. I didn't hear any political statements from the man in uniform. Is mentioning the war and the surge necessarily political?

Saggysack
08-07-2007, 04:44 AM
Okay, I watched the video. I didn't hear any political statements from the man in uniform. Is mentioning the war and the surge necessarily political?



DODD 1344.10

E3.3.3 Participate in partisan political management, campaigns or conventions(except as a spectator while not in uniform) or make public speeches in the course thereof.

a1na2
08-07-2007, 04:56 AM
Couldn't he be in trouble no matter what his current status is? I have no idea, but that was my impression when the guy threatened him with dishonorable discharge.

That is where the wording of the DoDD is not fully clear. If you, as a former military person, was wearing his uniform and participating I don't know if they could come after you. There is a consensus with a group of active and reserve people that even in an IRR status the guy would be considered to have violated the directive by wearing the uniform while under contract and participating.

It would be interesting to see what the outcome would be. The guy that threatened him with a DD might not have all of the facts. That's only one of the things that could happen should the Army decide to take it further. Why didn't the retired General on the panel say anything?