1) At about 16:30, someone on the panel talks specifically about the regs against making political remarks while in uniform, and at about 20:00 he talks about not denigrating the Iraqis, mentions Anbar as a good example of how the military ought to gradually pull out, and cautions against pulling out immediately. Someone else criticizes liberal dislike of the military. This is not extremist antiwar rhetoric.

2) The antiwar bloggers usually love it when a soldier breaks ranks to "speak truth to power." For example. And this. After all, if you didn't serve in the military and have an opinion on the war, you're a chickenhawk. And if you are currently serving in the military you have no right to speak because of military regs. Unless you are against the war. So I guess the only people who get to express opinions about the war are vets.

And they point to examples of prowar politicians doing it. So people on all sides of this war are pronouncing on serving military appearing at political events in uniform, and pointing fingers at each other.

[ UPDATE: Also here. ]

3) The soldier did get to speak as much as many people in a Q&A on the floor get to speak. Usually they get cut off by the moderator after a few minutes, and admonished not to make a speech. (Like in this video, at 14:45 and also 32:30.) And the panel was over. (I know the panel was ignoring this guy and calling on other speakers, but . . . the panel was over.)

4) Will this soldier be reprimanded by his superiors? We will wait and see. Is John Stolz - a retired vet - his superior? Does John Stolz, as a veteran, have the right to order this soldier to shut up and escort him out of the hall? Can any veteran admonish any serving military? The soldier is a grownup, he knew what he was doing. How about if Stolz said something like, "I think everyone here should know you are breaking Army rules, but go ahead, it's your funeral."

Wes Clarke makes some follow-up remarks on the incident, at about 43:45, and admits that morale is strong among soldiers in Iraq and that many of them believe in what they are doing.

5) The soldier is in the reserves - does that make a difference in the rules about speaking at a political event in uniform?

6) I approve of his sentiments, and I am glad someone is defending the Iraqi people.

UPDATE: Seargeant David D. Aguina returns to Yearly Kos the next day. The guy has guts.

“If I’m in violation of AR670-1 which is the regulation he brought up, then he’s in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 88 which says no commissioned officer can criticize a government official.”

Aguina also pointed out that Stolz violated the code of behavior between a commissioned and non commissioned officer. “Article 91,” he said, forbids a commissioned officer from criticizing a non commissioned officer, and behaving in the “condescending” manner in which he was treated. “People in that audience didn’t have to see an American soldier be as rude and disrespectful toward another American soldier.”

. . . . Aguina believes that the “netroots” – Soltz in particular, had used the uniform issue as an excuse to muddy the waters regarding what he had to say.

“They disagree with me because of my message, but they used the technicality of the uniform to try and influence something. And believe me, John Soltz? I am not done with him yet. I was up all night researching the USMCJ finding all the things he did wrong. He lost his professional standard when he couldn’t control himself on stage.”

That was the part that jumped out at me - I'm glad he is emphasizing it. It also seems to be the aspect of this whole incident which so pisses off the milbloggers I am reading. It sounds like they all knew officious officers like Stoltz, he's a type they identify right away.

UPDATE: I persued the comment threads on one of the posts at Daily Kos about the incident, and - whatever you think of the Kossack position on these issues or the tone of the dairist - I got the feeling from the accumulated anecdotes that Sgt. Aguina wasn't doing himself or his cause any good.

For the record, here’s what happened from the beginning—starting on Thursday night:

Shortly before Howard Dean delivered his keynote speech on Thursday, over a thousand YearlyKos attendees had gathered in the main ballroom. They were standing in line for dinner, mingling, working on laptops, or looking for friends they’d never met in person. I was a part of this crowd. Also among us was General Wesley Clark. He was dressed casually—walking with two staffers—while he engaged attendees on everything from foreign policy to whether or not they were having a good time.

Suddenly, into the ballroom marched an Army sergeant. And this sergeant was on a mission. You could tell, because he was wearing his Class A green Army uniform. eing an Army officer myself, I notice this kind of stuff immediately. My first thought was, "WTF is this guy doing? Has he lost his mind?" The thing is, every soldier knows that you don’t take part in politics while you’re in your uniform. It’s not only highly inappropriate—it’s also illegal.

he sergeant immediately zeroed in on General Clark and engaged him in a conversation. Eventually, I noticed Clark pull the soldier aside and move away from the rest of the crowd. I could see that the General was getting agitated. I later learned that the soldier had been lecturing him, telling him that the U.S. military should stay in Iraq and that General Clark should support the President’s policies.

Clark is said to have told the sergeant that, while he respected the sergeant’s opinion, political activism while in uniform was both inappropriate and illegal—and to do it at the much-publicized YearlyKos Convention would put the soldier in an unnecessary and precarious legal position. He told the sergeant firmly but politely that it would be in the soldier’s best interest to leave. And that was the end of it until the next day.

After General Clark’s keynote speech the next morning, we began our panel. Not surprisingly (to me, at least) the sergeant returned in his uniform. At this point, the guy was clearly a convention troll. Nevertheless, he sat quietly through the introductions, and then took his place in the line at the microphone, ready to make his case.

By the time the sergeant approached the microphone, though, the time for the panel had already run out. Jon Soltz, acting as the moderator, made the decision that, given the time constraints and the fact that we felt certain the sergeant was about to start a fresh debate (and break the law), he would draw the panel to a close.

This would have happened, had a number of well-meaning Kossacks not spoken up and urged Jon to take the soldier’s question. It was pretty apparent that they wanted to give the soldier a chance to ask a question because they thought he was sympathetic to the Kos cause. Jon allowed to soldier to speak, but not before issuing him a very stern warning—the same warning he had received the previous night from General Clark about political debate, the uniform, and the law. . . .

Then the comments: First some condescending speculation about Aguina's mental health and how he was a tool of the heartless warmongers, and debate among civilians and vets whether Aguina had broken regulations (still murky and open to interpretation, from what I can see) then finally someone pushes back:

Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:18:09

Disobeyed Soltz's fucking order??Are you kidding? Soltz had less right to give an order then this disturbed kid had to show up in uniform. This whole episode makes me unbelievably pissed off. I love everything AR has written....except this. The kid was disturbed, maybe was in violation of some minor UCMJ regs....and Soltz was a jackass, attempting to rely on his reserve status to give orders. He flew off the handle, tried to order the press around, and showed himself to be just the kind of officier I can't fucking stand. . . .

Then some speculation whether Aguina had been sent in by Michelle Malkin, whether he paid to get in, how the right wing blogs were making him a hero. Then someone points out that Markos himself had defended appearing in uniform to promote his cause. Speculation was Aguina maybe impersonating a soldier. Then, no, he's real. (I'm not going to link to every comment from now on - you can skim them yourself to get the flow.)

I saw the pro-war dude at the Coffee with the Troops breakfast, where he recapped what happened at the previous panel. Can i just say - the guy is a douche. I think it's good to reach out to the other side and engage in civil discourse BUT he was very selfish in taking up quite a bit of time in the breakfast and his point was really a poor one.

He wanted to prove that the surge decreased the # of Iraqi civilian casualties. You know what? Iraq can take care of Iraq, or a coalition of nations who aren't after Iraq's oil can take care of Iraq. We need to take care of America. What about the number of our kids dying? Is that going down? What about the number of our kids being taken out of school, or the number of children being raised with fathers or mothers who are in Iraq, or the number of divorces or PTSD cases or amputations as a result of the war?

I saw him there, too at the Iraq Veterans Against the War coffee meeting this morning. That same sleezy camera guy (you're all saying that was Pajamas Media?) was there. Thing is he was not wearing his uniform (he was wearing a suit) and the IVAW, which is a more left wing org than votevets.org, let him speak.

My feelings are that a) this was an ambush, BUT b) I still feel sorry for the guy. He may be associated with right wing organizations, but he does not seem to be doing well. I hope that Votevets.org or another veteran organization can help him get the help he needs.

I was also there at the Military progressives forum, and it struck me as a military matter -- that the guy was breaking the rules and Jon Stolz was doing what needed to be done. Honestly, at first I thought he was a lefty against the war, then thought he was for the war, that's how bizarre his speech sounded to me. I don't know why the Right Wing Blogs think this is a way to go after the Kos convention. It's too damned sad to use for a political attack.

Gen. Wes Clark took him aside the night before and carefully explained to him the Regs, the impact on him [the Sgt.] to violate them, and did so after listening to what the Sgt. had to say.

I cannot believe Wes Clark as General could possibly act with such kindness and compassion. Listening to the Sgt. carefully, I would guess that he never experienced direct combat. If he had, he would have acted differently.

I also don't think he was a plant. Karl Rove would have made sure that he had B's and C's [badge and credentials] before sending him in. I can imagine Malkin urging him on, providing him with her personal guarentee of protection [yeah, tell another lie to a GI - so what?], and using this whole event for the next two months until the results of the surge are known.

Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 10:35:12 AM PDT

I wasn't there at the initial incident but my boyfriend (retired marine) was. He ended up walking the guy out of the convention center and talking to him for a while, and he came and sat with us during the presidential forum. I think he was planning on getting up and saying something at the end but K (the boyfriend) sort of distracted him.

Anyway, I just want to put in there that the guy is a total mess. He may be doing inappropriate, disruptive things, but he's pretty clearly someone who needs help. He had a binder full of articles each in a plastic sleeve and lots of indexed, handwritten notes that he was constantly flipping through and showing us, which in my experience is a big sign of someone a little unbalanced -- the need to use all these papers to somehow prove his point or to validate him. K said that the guy was falling apart when they were walking together and kept thanking him over and over for just listening to him.

For the record, he said he was a democrat, and came with his mother because he wanted her to be able to see what YearlyKos was all about, but she couldn't get in beacause she wasn't registered (he was and had his lanyard in a pocket).

I don't think any of this necessarily adds up to much, but he's a real guy (who was nice, outside of these incidents) with some real problems, not the least of which is that thanks to publicity surrounding this will most likely face court martial or something.

So you know -- all the good things. Compassion and care and understanding for what this war is doing to some of the people who have to fight it.

He's sitting at my table right now, I'm at the blogger's brunch. He's here, NOT in uniform. He hasn't tried to disrupt or anything yet. I heard that he came to the IVAW breakfast and talked, trying to interrupt repeatedly. The IVAW let him talk. Right now Gina is talking to him, and he seems to be giving her his lecture. He has a folder full of articles with him.

Update
I managed to find Gina Cooper. She talked to him. He seemed very polite and he came across, from what I could hear, as very concerned about the Iraqi people. He and Gina hugged at the end and he told her that he would defend the dKos community. I don't know if he is sincere, but I think everyone was more than respectul of him.

He was very gracious... when I spoke with him during check-in for YK. He was thanked for his service, and he then thanked us for what we were doing (at the convention). He appeared to have genuine respect for Kossacks, even if he had an issue regarding the military that he didn't quite present in the most effective way.

Felt sorry for the guy I agree with the posters above who expressed the opinion that this guy seems troubled, and deserves help. He started by saying that he would hear no criticism of the people attending the convention. Sounds to me like he was motivated to come by hearing right-wing propaganda, but that once he was there, he realized that the attendees were good people (if misguided, in his opinion), not the rabid evildoers as depicted in the rightwing blogs. That shows that perhaps his heart is in the right place; he is just misinformed or misguided or deeply troubled.

The media guys filming the confrontation were way out of line to intrude on what was trying to be a private conversation. Filming the public parts of the event was one thing, but continuing to try to film when being asked to step away was not at all appropriate.

And as a final note, if it's true that the guy had not paid for admission to the conference he never should have been allowed in the room and certainly should not have been allowed to speak. Usually when meetings are held in convention centers, there are security people checking badges at the entrance. Certainly it would be prudent to do that in the future.

That troll showed up again this morning He was at the "Coffee With The Troops" event this morning upstairs in the Hyatt at 9:30. He was allowed to talk for five minutes, this time not in uniform and began to read the events of his last tirade from typed notes.

It was agitating to be in there during this because the hosts were graciously letting him talk but he was lying through his teeth, playing the victim card while saying that numbers of Iraqi casualties are falling since the surge began. Of course he forgot to mention that those numbers are being misreported or not at all because they do not want the truth to be made public.

He left quickly after he was cut off and avoided me and the information I was more than ready to share with him that I wrote above.

Pajama man tried to ambush our artkos chapbook group...one of our members handled the little "interview" beautifully, giving him nothing to go on. He spent like ten minutes trying to convince us pajamas wasn't right-wing. Then in the interview he made it sound like we were anti-capitalist because we weren't trying to make money on the chapbook (no literary magazine makes money, even Paris Review...it's not exactly ipods we're selling). Then as he left, he looked at me and said, "see, I'm not a wingnut, right?" and I smiled and nodded, out of pity. Poor fellow.

Not "illegal"
The SGT is a Reservist, and unless someone can show that he was in an IDT status (as he said he was not on Active Duty), the UCMJ does not apply to him.

So even if the assertions made that the event was "political" (and you ought to consider the tax and campaign finace implications of that before positing it), and/or that the statements of the Soldier were "political" (and they were not), there's still no violation of law, because teh ctonrolling authorities don't apply.

That said, AR 670-1, that governs wear and appearance of the Army uniform, section 30 says that Reservists not in an IDT status or on active duty (and some other kinds of occassions) are not authorized to wear the uniform.

(Gray area--One of those other occassions is attendance of a conference or meeting "of a military character"--given the panel tpoic there's room to argue but it's slim.)

So. The SGT was wrong. But no laws were broken. It doesnt' surprise me that Rakkasan doesn't know this, as the Reserve Components are generally something of a mystery to our brothers in the Active Component.

What happens? Well, there being no punitive measure, neither a Court Martial nor an Article 15 (non-Judicial punnishment) can be applied. There are two possibilites, a corrective Counselling Statement, or a Letter of Reprimand (or both).

The SGT displayed poor judgment. As an NCO, judgment is what he's being paid for, so correction is definitely required. If I were his 1SG (and in teh interst of disclusure, I'm an E-5 just like the SGT under discussion), he'd need to acknowledge this breech of judgment and how that applies to his normal scope of duties. Probably something appropriate like having to conduct training for junior enlistment on the subject of when wear of the uniform is appropriate. And as his uniform, as far as Ican tell fromteh video, appears to be impeccable, he can teach on that as well.

Letter of reprimand? I don't think so. It's just not that big a deal. If he were to do something similar in the future, perhaps that's a logical next step. As well as opening himself up to an acutal punitive charge, disobeying an order, by violating the terms of the formal counselling.

Now, there are a lot of comments floating out here that display a gross ignorance of the military. Unless you gang up on me to troll rate me into oblivion I'll be happy to stick around here and answer questions on the miltiary.

Some examples: I'm a 13 year Soldier and I'm "only" and E-5. In addition I enlisted as an E-4, so I've only been promoted once. Does this indicate that I'm a dirtbag or hav ebeen reduced in rank? Nope. Neither is true. I'm just a Guardsman, and rank doesn't come all that easy--there has to be a slot in my MOS (which is low density and doesn't help) and the next higher grade, so being promotable doesn't mean I can be promoted. The comments to this effect concerning teh other SGT are just plain off base.

COL Ollie North wore his uniform to testify before COngress because he was 1) on active duty) and 2) testifying before Congress or at a Court Martial are come of the "other occassions" I alluded to earlier. Which also excuses SEN Kerry of wearing his uniform, (though not of wearing it improperly).

As a final point, not even a trained mental health genius can diagnose PTSD from a few minutes of video.

Since you aren't an attorney, I trust the officer There was a recent case where a soldier whose enlistment was up wore his uniform (without insignias of any kind) to a protest of the war. He received an offical reprimand and there was a move to change his discharge from honorable to a less than honorable one. I don't know how that came out, but 13 years in the military or not, you may not be an expert on this matter.

For the record, I have never served, so you are probably going to dismiss this, but your opinion stands alone, and I am inclined to credit the opinion of the Captain over yours.

Besides, the Sargent's obvious republican worship will probably cause him to avoid any serious punishment, as the military is lousy with Kool Aid drinkers.

by Unionman on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:06:39 PM PDT

[ Parent ]
I'm not going to comment on the CPT's behavior (2+ / 0-)
...It wouldn't be conducive to further discussion here.

Suffice to say, that, like the SGT, I agree in his intent if not his conduct.

The SGT was wrong. The CPT said so.

I saw no evidence of "republican worship," so I can't speak to that.

I am not a lawyer, nor an expert. I am however an NCO. I'm required to beable to competently counsel other Soldiers on such matters. I do a lot of extra study on such things, and I've attended phase 1 of the Basic NCO Course very recently where the topic is covered. Quite possible that the other SGT has not yet attended this class.

In addition, we all get annual briefings on these things, though they are "death by powerpoint" scenarios and only attendence, not participation is mandatory.

As to the incident you cite, that was a Marine. They have different regulations than the Army does and as a direct result of that, no Marines are allowed to wear their utilities except on post. In addition, he was within a few months of his ETS (end term of serivce) date. He only removed the US Marines tape from the unform and some otehr cosmetic alterations in an attempt (albeit still in violation of regs--assuming the marines have a similar one) to change the character of his garb making it not a "uniform." The move was to change teh character of the discharge from the initial "general" to "less than honorable" and it was successful. As a final point, the Marines are a LOT more sticky about their uniforms than we in the Army are.

Serious punishment will be avoided inthis case, because "punishment" is unauthorized as no punitive measuers were violated. Only some form of administrative action can be taken and I laid out those possibilities.

If you want to look this stuff up, the laws on the uniform are 10 USC 771 and 772. Note that these are not in the punitive articles. You should look here to see how those are applied, at 10 USC 802.
You can also find the uniform regs by searching for "AR 670-1". Look for section 30 which covers Reserve Components. There is no need to take my word for it.

by RTO Trainer on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:25:20 PM PDT

What intent of his do you "agree" with?

To lie about the "success" of the escalation?

We are living in an interminable succession of absurdities imposed by the myopic logic of short-term thinking. Jacques Cousteau

by supak on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 02:09:31 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
You'll have to satisfy me that (0 / 0)
the surge has been unsuccessful.

Ignoring that, then I guess the answer to the question, is yes.

by RTO Trainer on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 02:26:39 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Define success? (2+ / 0-)
Less violence? Less dead Americans? Political accomplishments?
It fails on those three counts, at least.

by skohayes on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 02:32:09 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I gotta go to the grocery store (1+ / 0-)
...jackbooted thugs still gotta eat. :)

I'll talk about point three when I come back. But you ought to go look at the numbers at ICcasualties.org decline in the miliraty death rate the last three months.

Feb and Mar, Civilian caulaties were approaching 3000 each month and the next 4, averaging about half that.

Looks like less in both cases to me.

by RTO Trainer on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 03:22:36 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Political accomplishments.... (1+ / 0-)
This kind of a peeve of mine.

We have put ourselve in the position to demand major political accomplishment at the same time when our own Congress seems to not be able to make much progress on big issues either. But that's relatively minor.

Another problem is that we are demanding that a sovereign nation perform certain political acts to keep us happy. That smacks more of political puppetry and imperialism (actual imperialism in fact, not the popularly invoked bugbear) than anything anyone has accused anyone else of so far.

But the big issue is tha we are demanding these things be done in such an intensely prescribed timeframe. It takes 20 years to build a country; establish a government, assert its authority and legitimacy, provide for civil justice and a military establishment to protect it.

Or at least its not been done faster anywhere else.

In our own nation's example 1774 to 1794. We went through three governments, three rebellions, a native insurgency, surrounded on all sides by strong nationist competitors who wanted us to fail and actively meddled in our affiars, and exposed and dealt with a handfull of traitors. Until the suppression of the Whisky Rebellion and the Battle of Fallen Timbers, none of that had completely come to pass.

But we insist that Iraq accomplish in months what took us months to do.

I think the biggest problem we face in dealing with this is unreasonable expectations.

by RTO Trainer on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 06:16:16 PM PDT

. . . . GEN Clark is not in the SGTs chain of command. He can't issue an "order" to the SGT any more then CPT Soltz could.

(I'll give you the run down on the difference between general military authority and command authority if you like, but it's long.)

He can make an on the spot correction. If the SGT was relying on not being subject to the UCMJ though he may have decided he could safely disregard the correction.

It's shaky ground, but still not a violation of law.

by RTO Trainer on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:44:02 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Respect, sir (2+ / 0-)
The Sargent approached the General to lecture him on Iraq. The General advised the Sargent that he cannot attend a political event (which YKos was) in his uniform.

The following day, when the Sargent appear again in full dress, attempted to disrupt the votevets panel, on camera, he admits to breaking the rules when questioned by the media.

by neonplaq on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 02:09:26 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
The General (0 / 0)
, yes even the General may not be fully versed in the relationship of the Reserve Components ot the UCMJ. Our AC superiors in the former 7th Infantry Division were shocked (3 star General included) to find that we were only subject to UCMJ when in IDT status.

The SGT may have been relying on his knowledge of that, but I'm also engaging in mind reading here, so for what that's worth.

If the standard is resonable doubt, though there it is. Gotta know more before an absolute condemnation can be issued.

by RTO Trainer on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 02:21:22 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Intent is 9 / 10ths of law (3+ / 0-)
The Sargent freely admits to violently the rules thus he was not acting upon or relying upon any alternative interpretations of the rules. He believed he was committing a violation. While civilian law may be different, I do believe under military law, if you knowingly and admit to committing an infraction you believe to be illegal, you are still guilty of a crime against your oath and honor. It flows through character and honor. If you trespass on the honor of your duty, you are guilty of an offense against the military.

by neonplaq on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 02:42:10 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Not an alternative interpretaion. (0 / 0)
It's a different application under the law as written.

Active Component folks know the Active Component rules. And often don't knw the Reserve rules because they usually only deal with us in teh context of us being on Active Duty.

Want to really blow your mind? As a Guardsman, I'm not even subject to UCMJ while in IDT status, only on active duty. On a normal drill period, I'm subject to the Oklahoma Code of Military Justice.

This isn't an alternative. It's how it is.

And an infration agains "oath and honor" still isn't a puntive matter. No matter how badly you'd like to see the guy prosecuted, there's no grounds. Not given what is presently known.

by RTO Trainer on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 02:53:52 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
General Clark is retired in any case. (1+ / 0-)
And, cannot assume command responsibilities unless restored to active duty. Besides, the sergeant is not on active duty at the moment, so the Captain couldn't really order him to leave- and did not attempt to do so. They merely pointed out that it was against regulations to wear the uniform at that time. Which was not news to the Sergeant, because he knew he was breaking the rules and chose to do so. But, we agree on that, if you say he won't face severe punishment for the infraction, then its OK by me.

But, uniform or not, he had no business at Yearly Kos, which is a gathering of progressive bloggers and politicos- not shell-shocked pro-Bush vets. In effect, he is a Troll. And, he has no more right to question Clark than Bill Stark had to question Macca Allen when he was roughed up and arrested last year.

His argument is false anyway. Just because the American casualties is less than it was a few months ago is not evidence that the "Surge" is successful. It is high summer and hotter than Hell over there and everything slows down. I have read that civilian and military casualties in July 2007 are greater than July 2006, although the civilian casualties vary based on whatever set of lies the administration favors at the moment. I see no real evidence that the Surge has succeeded, and the deteriorating political situation has even Sec. Gates throwing up his hands.
The Sergeant doesn't look quite right in the head to me.

by Unionman on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:25:28 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
HE thought he was breaking the rules (5+ / 0-)
And defended himself by saying it is OK to break the rules if you have good intentions (as opposed to breaking the rules to harm Iraqis as in Abu Gharib)

I am not an expert on military rules, but I wonder how everyone there including the soldier himself could think he is breaking the rules and be wrong.

01-20-09: THE END OF AN ERROR

by kimoconnor on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:28:25 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I didn't say he din't break the rules. (2+ / 0-)
In fact I keep saying, "he was wrong."

Am I correct in assuming that you do not find civil disobedience to be a valid means of demonstration? It's not well received in military circles, but I'd have thought it would be received differently here.

by RTO Trainer on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:35:12 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Not in Full Dress Uniform. nt (2+ / 0-)
by neonplaq on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:42:06 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I agree (1+ / 0-)
But you still can't administer punishment wehre there is no violation of the law. That would be a violation itself.

I suppose that if we absolutely had to make an example of the young SGT, we could make the tenuous argument that knowingly engaging in civil disobedience (and that would have to be proven) he was endangering "good order nd discipline."

But that gives the SGT no opportunity to reform and we're more about improving Soldiers than destroying them. Don't think it's worth it. YMMV.

by RTO Trainer on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:51:58 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
So everyone is wrong on the rules (5+ / 0-)
and you are right?

I think I will wait for more info on this.

And I do not want to go after the guy, I have no idea what his situation is or why he did this. But it was not the first time:

David Aguina, a soldier who has completed a tour of duty in Iraq, appeared at Chandler Park in military dress to support the war, and politely told anyone who would listen of the four peace activists captured in Iraq in November 2005.

"You know what the terrorists thought of them?" Aguina said. "They tortured one of them to death ... What the terrorists did to that guy just shows what the terrorists think of all these people right here. They would do the same thing to any of them."

LINK

Very few comments like this and the guy gets put down:

Stop worshipping the military. The subtext to this irrelevant episode is the fascistic military worship that has been fostered and perpetuated by right-wing propagandists and their allies in the corporate media since the 9/11/01 attacks. Why should the opinions of some fuckwit in military uniform be given more respect or weight than those of any other person? If the man broke the rules, then he should be called before a court martial, but that's a matter for the military. He should have been allowed to speak, and his ridiculous postering should have been given the respect it deserved. In other words, he should have been dismissed as an idiot. The tone of fear and defensiveness in this diary is pathetic. If the so-called "left" in this country continues to quake with fear every time some jackass in uniform says "boo" we might as well surrender now . . . .

I think Sgt Aguina was not effective because the prevailing sentiment seems to be this:

Yes, he was a little wingnutty but he believed in something so strongly that he decided to take a big risk with his career, and on some level, you've got to love a guy like that. We should have more passionate folks like him. You've got to love a guy who still has a heart for the Iraqi people, even though 60% of them approve of him being attacked. Most of all, you have to love that the Sargent himself admitted, "these are good people, they are not freaks."

So he pulled a really dumb publicity stunt. On some level, I like this guy.