Transcript: Weekly Democratic Radio Address (I think that this is against the UCMJ...)

AP ^ | Saturday, May 01, 2004 | Paul Rieckhoff

[Truth Table]

Good morning. My name is Paul Rieckhoff. I am addressing you this morning as a US citizen and veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I served with the US Army in Iraq for 10 months, concluding in February, 2004.

I'm giving this address because I have an agenda, and my agenda is this: I want my fellow soldiers to come home safely, and I want a better future for the people of Iraq. I also want people to know the truth.

[Truth Table]

I give this guy about 3 duty days...

Do's and Don'ts Here's what an active duty military person can/cannot do:

Can: Register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces. Military members who reside outside of their state of legal residence (whether assigned to a different state, or overseas) may vote by absentee ballot. See the Federal Voting Assistance Program Web site for complete details.

Cannot: Use contemptuous words against the officeholders described in 10 U.S.C. 888 (10 U.S.C. 888 lists the following officeholders: President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which the military member is on duty).

It's interesting to note at this point that Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for commissioned officers to use contemptuous words against the above officeholders. Commissioned officers who violate this provision can be court-martialed for a direct violation of Article 88. But, what about enlisted members and warrant officers?

DOD Directive 1344.10 - POLITICAL ACTIVITIES BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES ON ACTIVE DUTY, extend these same requirements to all individuals on active duty. Active duty enlisted members and warrant officers who violate these provisions can be charged under Article 92 of the UCMJ, Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation.

So, what about retired members? Well, DOD Directive 1344.10 only applies to active duty, so retired enlisted and warrant officers can pretty much say anything they want concerning the above office-holders. However, Article 2 of the UCMJ specifically states that retired members are subject to the provisions of the UCMJ. Does that mean that retired commissioned officers are prohibited from using contemptious words against the above officeholders? Technically, yes. A retired commissioned officer who utters contemptuous words against the President or other designated officeholders is technically in violation of Article 88. However, DOD Directive 1352.1 - MANAGEMENT AND MOBILIZATION OF REGULAR AND RESERVE RETIRED MILITARY MEMBERS, prohibits recalling a retired military member to actively duty solely for the purpose of subjecting them to court-martial jurisdiction. Therefore, unless that retired commissioned officer was recalled to active duty for other purposes, it would not be possible to subject them to court-martial for a violation of Article 88.

Page 2 Can: Promote and encourage other military members to exercise their voting franchise, if such promotion does not constitute an attempt to influence or interfere with the outcome of an election. Cannot: Use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others.

Can: Make monetary contributions to a political organization, party, or committee favoring a particular candidate or slate of candidates, subject to monetary limitations under federal law.

Cannot: Make campaign contributions to another member of the Armed Forces or an employee of the Federal Government.

Cannot: Make campaign contributions to a partisan political candidate.

Cannot: Solicit or receive a campaign contribution from another member of the Armed Forces or from a civilian officer or employee of the United States for promoting a political objective or cause.

Cannot: Solicit or otherwise engage in fundraising activities in Federal offices or facilities, including military reservations, for a partisan political cause or candidate.

Can: Sign a petition for specific legislative action or a petition to place a candidate's name on an official election ballot, if the signing does not obligate the member to engage in partisan political activity and is done as a private citizen and not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

Can: Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing the member's personal views on public issues or political candidates, if such action is not part of an organized letter-writing campaign or concerted solicitation of votes for or against a political party or partisan political cause or candidate.

Cannot: Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party or candidate.

Can: Join a political club and attend its meetings when not in uniform.

Cannot: Serve in any official capacity or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club.

Cannot: Speak before a partisan political gathering of any kind for promoting a partisan political party or candidate.

Cannot: Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate of a partisan political party or candidate.

Cannot: Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political group or distribute partisan political literature.

Cannot: Sell tickets for, or otherwise actively promote, political dinners and other such fund-raising events.

Can: Attend political meetings or rallies as a spectator when not in uniform.

Cannot: Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed Forces.

Cannot: March or ride in a partisan political parade.

Can: Serve as an election official, if such service is not as a representative of a partisan political party, does not interfere with military duties, is performed while out of uniform, and has the prior approval of the Secretary concerned or the Secretary's designee.

Cannot: Participate in partisan political management or campaigns, or make public speeches in the course thereof. Cannot: Perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political committee during a campaign or on an Election Day.

Cannot: Participate in any organized effort to provide voters with transportation to the polls if the effort is organized by, or associated with, a partisan political party or candidate.

Can: Display a political sticker on the member's private vehicle.

Cannot: Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a bumper sticker) on the top or side of a private vehicle.

Cannot: Campaign as a nominee, or as a candidate for nomination, for civil office, except as authorized directly below.

Can: As long as they are not serving on EAD (Extended Active Duty, which equals 270 days) , enlisted members and Reserve officers may hold partisan or nonpartisan civil office if such office is held in a private capacity and does not interfere with the performance of military duties. Additionally, enlisted members on EAD may seek and hold nonpartisan civil office as a notary public or member of a school board, neighborhood planning commission, or similar local agency, as long as such office is held in a private capacity and does not interfere with the performance of military duties. Officers on active duty may seek and hold nonpartisan civil office on an independent school board that is located exclusively on a military reservation.

Note: A member elected or appointed to a prohibited civil office may request retirement and shall be retired if eligible for retirement. If such member does not request or is not eligible for retirement, the member shall be discharged or released from AD, as determined by the Secretary concerned.

[68skylark]

If this LT is not on active duty now, I don't think it's a clear violation of the UCMJ.

I don't know why anyone cares what the Democratic radio response is anyway -- if they're trying to convince swing voters that Pres. Bush doesn't care about the troops then they're just wasting their effort. No one is going to believe it.

It's a stupid argument -- if that's the best argument they've got then they're in much worse trouble than I realized.

[Grut]

If he has Democratic Congresscritters willing to defend him, the 'pubbies, either in Congress or the administration, will cave. Besides, I think that if a military member is convinced that military policy is wrong, he ought to tell us. Who else can do it?

[SandRat]

So, what about retired members? Well, DOD Directive 1344.10 only applies to active duty, so retired enlisted and warrant officers can pretty much say anything they want concerning the above office-holders. However, Article 2 of the UCMJ specifically states that retired members are subject to the provisions of the UCMJ. Does that mean that retired commissioned officers are prohibited from using contemptious words against the above officeholders? Technically, yes. A retired commissioned officer who utters contemptuous words against the President or other designated officeholders is technically in violation of Article 88. However, DOD Directive 1352.1 - MANAGEMENT AND MOBILIZATION OF REGULAR AND RESERVE RETIRED MILITARY MEMBERS, prohibits recalling a retired military member to actively duty solely for the purpose of subjecting them to court-martial jurisdiction. Therefore, unless that retired commissioned officer was recalled to active duty for other purposes, it would not be possible to subject them to court-martial for a violation of Article 88.

and the offending conduct would have to take place after recall to active duty. Post ex facto mate post ex facto.

As to the LT he's possibly in trouble if he is still on active duty especially since the media and the DEMs went to great lengths to make sure we all knew he was an LT.

[knarf]

I'd sure like to agree with you there, sky ... but I'm afraid the socialists will continue to find and parade before the American people these 'loophole' types of statements. The kind that you can't pin down to a charge.

I'm sure the best the socialists have to offer went over all of the rule and reg before alowing this scumbag to be broadcast.

Michael Savage is right ... there is an Enemy Within.

[Truth Table]

I disagree. This is not about "swaying swing voters" it is about this:

"Cannot: Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate of a partisan political party or candidate."

"Our troops can accomplish it. We can build a stable Iraq, but we need some help. The soldiers I served with are men and women of extraordinary courage and incredible capability. But it's time we had leadership in Washington to match that courage and match that capability."

This is about an officer who stepped over the line.

[Truth Table]

This guy used comptempteous language to the CIC and advocated change of leadership. He needs to be held accountable for his actions. Period.

[anonymous_user]

Who does this guy think he is? John Kerry?

[Truth Table]

He made the comments as a officer in the Army, he used his rank. The military courts are not like civilan courts (for good reasons).

If he smokes dope when he is not on active duty, he can be held accountable under the UCMJ if his unit goes on drill and he gets a positive on the wiz quiz.

[Truth Table]

....Also, I think that Expost fatcto means making up a law to fit a crime (so to speak) and THEN holding someone accountalbe to that law. It does not apply here at all.

[68skylark]

I believe this guy isn't on active duty now, so you've got no legal case against him.

Get used to it -- Democrats will probably continue to find people who served in Iraq, who are now longer on active duty now, and who are willing to criticize the administration. There have been nearly a half-million people serving in the Middle East so far -- obvioulsy out of all that number, a few are willing to be critical. I don't think it's admirable for these people to trash the administration, but once they're off active duty they have free speech rights the same as other civilians.

[SandRat]

Yet the real question that will have to answered is: Was he still on active federal service? If the answer is yes he will face an Art 32 hearing and to determine if the matter should proceed to Courts Martial. If the Art 32 hearing results are for a Courts Martial, since he is a Commissioned officer it must be a General Courts Martial the highest level. At that point a good attorney would advise him to plead guilty and go for offering matters of extenuation and mitigation in the hopes of only getting the boot and minimal time at Leavenworth.

Other than that he well could be burnt toast for opening up his dumb Butter BAR mouth (even if he is a first Looie now).

[SpyGuy]

There is nothing to indicate that he is still active. In fact he says "I served with the US Army" (note the use of past tense). So it's possible that he has already been discharged.

As for his statement, while I agree with you that his timing is wrong, there seems to be a great deal of truth in what he's saying. The DemocRats are trying to compare this war to Vietnam. As far as the mission goes, nothing is farther from the truth. But as for the political restraints on our military forces, I'm afraid there is a great deal of truth.

I realize that it was President Clinton who disbanded our military forces to such a low level that we did not have enough men and materiel to sustain the types of operations we've been conducting in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I realize that the partisans in Congress and the media have been doing everything in their power to undermine our efforts. But ultimately, it is the Commander in Chief who bears responsibility for our military. I believe that President Bush, in an effort to appear "compassionate" and to cater to the polls and his opponents, has restrained our fighting forces from doing their job effectively and with minimal loss of American lives. The Rules of Engagement in Iraq today are as absurd now as they were back in Vietnam.

[Truth Table]

The UCMJ is not suspended because of duty status. He still falls under the UCMJ because if he did not, there would be no reason in law to be able to activate a gaurd or reserve unit. If one goes AWOL, he are not picked up by the FBI, or INTERPOL.

He is accountable for his actions.

[SandRat]

In the most literal sense you are correct, however, if the offense was committed at a time when the courts had no lawful jurisdiction on the individual and the individual was not obligated to abide by the provisions of the law then the same concept applies. You can't try an offense for breaking "your law" when the offender was not within your jurisdiction.

[Truth Table]

He is an 0-4. He is subject to recall, and thus the UCMJ. Unless he retired, (and I don't think he did), I think that he go to the ADC pronto.

Any JAG officers reading this? I'd love to have your input...

[SandRat]

The next question that needs answering: "Is the speaker still a member of the National Guard attending drills every month?" If so then that could make for an interesting investigation and the boy could still end up in dire straights.

[Truth Table]

He is on fox news now. If he is subject to the UCMJ, he is in BIG trouble from what I can see.

[Truth Table]

True, but my contention is that the military member does not leave the Jursidiction just because he is his tour of duty is up. If he is subject to recall under the UCMJ, he is subject to the UCMJ.

[FairOpinion]

They said he is a veteran, so presumably he left the service.

Did you catch it, when he said he talked with Kerry prior to the radio address?

He came across as a real Dem attack dog.