Yesterday on the Rachael Maddow Show she encouraged people to go out and personally thank a veteran who served his/her country. I'm very proud of our veterans and the service they do for us. My family has many members who have served in peacetime and war. They/we are sons and daughters of immigrants and are fiercely proud of this country. Today I'm honoring Scott Olsen who has served in two wars as a US Marine. The first is Iraq. The second here at home in the war waged on the middle class by the corporate elite. He suffered his greatest battle wounds here at home. I would suggest that President Obama quickly award him the purple heart. Thank you Scott Olsen. I hope you recover full use of speech that you lost when you were shot in the head with a tear gas canister and have to undergo brain surgery. You fought for Constitution overseas and here at home. God bless you!
They have that right as they 1) fought for them and 2) are US citizens, but I find it distasteful to use the uniform in such a way as they do not speak for the entire military.
OK. Fair enough. But surely they can identify themselves as a member of the US armed forces in some way? Maybe a logo badge designed specifically for OWS for veterans?
Always thank Veterans for their service but this guy deserves no sympathy. He and the others defied a lawful police order to leave and had days to do so. There was nothing righteous or honorable about that decision.
Same reason I couldn't wear my vest when I was working at the theater when i was walking around town, you can do whatever you want during your free time, as long as your not representing who you work for while doing it.
I'm amazed there are two poll respondents that think a verteran can't wear thier uniform to any gosh darned thing they please.
Well, Mr. Goldwater, I am one of those respondents and I happen to be a Vet exercising my opinion. IMO, by them wearing the uniform they a representative of that organization and their opinion is theirs not that organization. If they want to protest, let them protest in their own clothing.
This is Chapter 5- Section 3 of AR 600-20 Army Command Policy. I know the guy is a Marine but each branch of the armed forces has an identical regulation for that branch (not familiar with marine regulations any current or former marine will probably know it.) I remember this specifically cause I had to give a class on it when I was in. As a private citizen he has every right to attend ,but definitely not in uniform. 5-3. Political activities a. Obligations as a citizen. Soldiers are expected to carry out their obligations as citizens. However, while on active duty, soldiers (including full-time National Guard) are prohibited in certain cases from becoming a candidate for or holding civil office and engaging in partisan political activities. The following principles apply: (1) Soldiers may- (a) Register, vote, and express their personal opinion on political candidates and is-sues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces. (b) Contribute money to a political party or political committee favoring a particular candidate or slate of candidates. (These contributions are subject to the limitations of sections 603, 606, 607, title 18, United States Code.) (c) Attend partisan or nonpartisan political meetings or rallies, except as prohibited by this chapter. (d) Campaign with regard to referenda, constitutional amendments, approval of municipal ordinances, or issues of similar character, except as prohibited by this chapter. (e) Campaign in elections where none of the candidates represents a political party. (2) Soldiers may not- (a) Use their official authority or influence to interfere with an election, affect the course of its outcome, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others. (b) Be a candidate and hold civil office, except under the conditions set forth in this chapter. (c) Take part in the management or conduct of partisan political campaigns or conventions. This includes fund-raising activities or giving political advice to particular campaigns or candidates. (d) Make financial contributions to a political candidate, or authorized committee of a candidate, when the candidate is the employer or employing authority of the contributor. b. Examples of activities. To help apply the foregoing general provisions to factual situations, appendix B gives examples of permissible and prohibited political activities. These guidelines do not supersede other Army policies based on DoD Directive 1325.6 dealing with dissident and protest activities among members of the Army, but are used in conjunction with them. c. Federal statutes. Appendix C contains excerpts from several Federal statutes prohibiting certain types of political activities by members of the Armed Forces. d. Participation in political meetings or rallies, picket lines, and public demonstrations. Taking part in partisan or nonpartisan political meetings or rallies, picket lines, or any other public demonstrations may imply Army sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or meeting is conducted. Unless sanctioned by competent authority, soldiers will be prohibited from taking part- (1) During the hours they are required to be present for duty. (2) When they are in uniform, on a military reservation, or in a foreign country. (3) When their activities constitute a breach of law and order. (4) When violence is reasonably likely to result. e. Candidacy for elective office. (1) A soldier may not campaign as a partisan candidate for nomination or as a partisan nominee for civil office. However, when circumstances justify, the installation commander may permit the soldier to file such evidence of nomination or candidacy for nominations as may be required by law. This permission may not authorize activity prohibited by this chapter while on active duty. (2) A soldier may not be a nonpartisan candidate for any civil office requiring full-time service while serving an initial tour of extended active duty. This provision will al-so apply to tours of extended active duty resulting from schooling, or other training wholly or partly at the expense of the Government. f. Prohibition against election or appointment to civil office. (1) Regular officers on the active duty list may not hold or exercise by election or appointment the functions of a civil office, except as otherwise provided by law. (See l0 USC 973.) (2) Officers on the active list of an RC and enlisted personnel may be retired, discharged, or released to inactive duty, as appropriate, if they are- (a) Elected as a partisan candidate to any civil office or as a nonpartisan candidate to a civil office requiring full-time service. (b) Appointed to a civil office requiring full-time service. Soldiers on initial extended active duty and funded schooling will not be released. In selected cases, the Secretary of the Army may release Reservists from their active duty obligations and permit them to accept the civil office to which elected. (3) No member of the Armed Forces may be assigned or detailed to perform du-ties in the legislative or judicial branches of the U.S. Government, except under a scholarship, fellowship, grant, or internship, or except to perform duties for a specific duration on a specific project, as a member of the staff of a court, or of a committee of the Congress. In order to do this, the member must first agree to incur an active duty Service obligation commencing from the termination of the assignment or detail and lasting equal to the assignment or detail, or to the obligation prescribed in applicable Service regulations, whichever is greater. These obligations may be waived by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (FM&P). (DOD Directive 1000.7 prescribes the specifics for this action.)
Yes, if they peacefully demonstrate in a lawful manner, and no if they break the law along with the Marxist scumbags. _
I voted for and not in uniform as an ex-Army soldier. What's wrong with them wearing a US Army hat, 1st CAV DIV hat or one of the many USS ship caps I see people wear all the time. No problem with that. I have so many pro-US and pro-military T-shirts, that I could literally go two weeks without wearing the same one twice. Show you patriotism but respect the uniform.
I agree, if they as private citizens wish to do so, fine, go out and do so. But don't don the uniform to do so. You are neither empowered, nor have the right, too speak for the entirety of the U.S. military. A large part of which vehemently disagrees with, and does not support the ows babies. Errr I mean protesters.
I definitely thank him for his Armed Forces service...not sure where he went wrong after that, when he threw in with the aimless mob and threw out respect for the law. I dont thank him for that.
I put no in your poll but I believe, as a veteran with an honorable discharge, we do have first amendment rights like anyone. My problem is with the way the question was written. I think the Occupy movement is anti-American. BTW, Olsen did not recieve an honorable discharge from the military: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=8429306 http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=8429308
Anti american? When American's have grievances and are being actively oppressed beyond hubris and tolerance by despots and tyrants they have an OBLIGATION to rise up. Read this from the Declaration of Independence:
I'll say it again. If you defy a police order to move even after they give you days to do so you deserve no sympathy when you are forced to move. And here, a lovely example of the far left homosexual advocacy groups exploiting a famous military picture where 10s of thousands of brave Marines lost their lives for their country. See Liberals, this is why conservatives say you have no morals when your side does things like this just to further an agenda. I wonder how long it will be before the Flea Party exploits the same image for their political agenda and further spit on the soldiers who lost their lives in the real picture.
I didn't realize Wall Street was the government. They are protesting private citizens not the government.
Let me get this straight... Those Marines died protecting American freedom, and a group of Americans using an image that is associated with freedom to express their own message regarding equality is just... no good? Huh???? Oh! Maybe because it's the homosexuals doing it? And you don't like homosexuals?
Just to clarify, Olsen was not "shot" with a canister, CS canisters are thrown, and it has yet to be determined who threw it.
Pretty sure the police were the ones dispensing the tear gas and not the protestors. Fair to say? And whoever threw it really wasn't just lobbing it from the look of the gash and the magnitude of the brain injury. Interesting to note was that when police were aware that there was a civilian down with an injury and as people rushed to his aid, they threw ANOTHER tear gas canister to remove first responders from the injured marine. Like they wanted to make sure he died? Can't think of any other reason why they'd want to tear gas people trying to help him..
