Posted on 01/05/2012 7:44:29 AM PST by SLB
An Afghanistan war veteran is in trouble for giving a political speech while in uniform at a caucus night rally with Ron Paul on Tuesday in Iowa.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Army Reserve told TPM on Wednesday that Cpl. Jesse Thorsen may have violated military policy when he wore his fatigues on stage and praised the Texas congressman’s presidential bid.
Thorsen’s commander is now looking into the speech and will figure out what to do next, said the spokeswoman, Maj. Angel Wallace.
The Des Moines-based soldier served in Afghanistan but hasn’t been on active duty since October, Wallace said. However, he still serves a weekend a month and two weeks a year as a reservist and may be deployed to Afghanistan again in about a year.
Thorsen seemed awestruck to stand alongside the Republican candidate on Tuesday, telling the crowd it was “like meeting a rock star.” He praised Paul’s anti-war stance.
“His foreign policy is, by far, hands down, better than any candidate’s out there. And I’m sure you all know that,” the reservist said. “We don’t need to be picking fights overseas and I think everybody else knows that, too.”
The crowd cheered, but observers who know military law cringed.
“He’s got a problem on his hands and certainly he should have known better,” said Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School. “All kinds of lights and buzzers should have gone off.”
Had Thorsen been on active duty, he could have faced up to two years in military prison and a dishonorable discharge, Fidell said. But even off active duty, he may still be facing punishment.
Fidell said Paul’s campaign should have known better, too. That night’s third-place finish “must have been better than they expected,” Fidell said, because “they allowed their better judgement to get away from them.”
Paul’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Meanwhile, the military distanced itself from the speech.
“His beliefs and speech in no way reflect the views of the Army Reserve,” Wallace said. “This soldier stands alone.”
AR 27-10 (Page 108)
Chapter 20-2b
“The ARNG Soldiers are not subject to the UCMJ while in State service under 32 USC (Title 32).”
http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r27_10.pdf
This guy should be Court Martialed. Period. I would hope the board would find him guilty and penalize him to the fullest.
He violated a DOD directive, a Standing Order, and his Oath. His action makes a Uniformed Service Member a political target and possible candidate for every politician to use and abuse.
Exactly...that is what I said in my post. NG members are not going to be subject to the UCMJ while in Title 32. Only in Title 10. When you are on Title 10 orders, those orders have a specific statement in there stating who the UMCJ authority is. For instance, when I was a traditional guardsman and did some Title 10 duty in Central America back in the early 90's, my orders read (I still have them): "You will be attached to the 24th Wing for the administration of military justice and other administrative actions requiring the approval by a courts-martial convening authority." The 24th Wing was at Howard AFB, Panama. I wasn't assigned to the 24th Wing...I was working with the Army...but they were the UCMJ authority.
However, each state has its OWN UCMJ. Here in Texas, the Texas UCMJ covers soldiers and airmen while they are on Title 32 status.
This SECDEF memo may supersede AR 27-10. Not sure?
UCMJ Jurisdiction Over DoD Civilian Employees, DoD Contractor Personnel, and Other Persons Serving With or Accompanying the Armed Forces Overseas During Declared War and in Contingency Operations
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/DTM-08-009.pdf
He's not NG, he's Reserve. That's Federal.
I could be wrong, however I believe that he does not have “status” and therefore he is not subject to the UCMJ.
20–2. Policy
a. United States Army Reserve Soldiers will be subject to the UCMJ whenever they are in a 10 USC (Title 10) duty status. Examples of such duty status are active duty (AD); active duty for training (ADT); annual training (AT); active guard reserve (AGR) duty; inactive duty training (IDT). Inactive duty training normally consists of weekend drills by troop program units, but may also include any training authorized by appropriate authority. All USAR Soldiers are subject to the provisions of the UCMJ from the date scheduled to report to AD, ADT, AT, or IDT until the date the Soldier is released from that status. For examples of IDT, see AR 140–1.
b. All ARNG Soldiers will be subject to the UCMJ when in Federal service as Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) under 10 USC, and when otherwise called into Federal service. The ARNG Soldiers are not subject to the UCMJ while in State service under 32 USC (Title 32).
c. Reserve component commanders must be in a Title 10 duty status (see subpara a, above) whenever they take action such as offering or imposing nonjudicial punishment, preferral or referral of court-martial charges, conducting open hearings under UCMJ, Art. 15, or vacating suspended sentences under UCMJ, Art. 15. However, RC commanders may forward charges (under RCM 401c(2)(A)), initiate, or forward requests for involuntary active duty (under RCM 707c(8)), or act on UCMJ, Art. 15 appeals (under chap 3, section VI) anytime, even when not in a Title 10 duty status.
d. Costs associated with disciplining USAR Soldiers will normally be paid from Reserve Personnel, Army, appropriations. However, costs associated with disciplining USAR Soldiers, when involuntarily ordered to active duty or involuntarily extended on AD by an active Army Commander,will be paid from military personnel , Army appropriations.
All accounts so far are that he was active reserves.
Hey, look up unauthorized wear regs. I just saw where he would subject to UCMJ if not authorized to wear uniform.
The title of the article at TPMMuckraker
“Army Reservist In Hot Water Over Ron Paul Speech”
is incorrect in how it portrays the issue,
and would have been corrected [by a good editor]
with the addition of three words: “While In Uniform”.
It is entirely the “While In Uniform” point and not the content of the speech that got the soldier in “hot water”.
We had a young man in (what used to be called) BDU’s who came with his wife and beautiful little red headed daughter, at the precinct I attended as surrogate speaker for Governor Perry. He didn’t speak, but introduced himself to the (more stereotypical) Ron Paul surrogate speaker as a very enthusiastic supporter of Paul.
I wondered about him because of the uniform and because he had a prominent tattoo visible on his neck. I didn’t say anything, however — other than to add a passionate description about the Governor’s volunteering in 1972 and his risk at that time of being deployed to Viet Nam.
Found this in the Army reg on uniforms:
Army Regulation 670–1 Uniforms and Insignia
Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia
1–10. When the wear of the Army uniform is required or prohibited
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.
/////
30–7. When wear of the uniform is prohibited
The wear of the Army uniform by ARNG, USAR, retired, separated, and civilian personnel is prohibited under the circumstances listed in paragraph 1–10j.
http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf
Thanks. That’ll get him if the others don’t. lol
I’m an AF Reservist and I watched this live on CNN and posted my disgust in the live thread. I couldn’t believe this moron would be that stupid. I think some wall-to-wall counseling is in order per FM 22-102.
Please review and tell me if you concur.
http://www.squad-leader.com/fm22_102.htm
(Sorry if someone already beat me to it. Didn’t get a chance to read all the posts)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.