Paul Supporter Likely Violated Military Conduct Code

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/6600627607/sizes/m/in/photostream/">Gage Skidmore</a>/Flickr


Following a third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, Ron Paul held a boisterous rally, featuring a speech from Army Corporal Jesse Thorsen. Thorsen, who was in uniform, voiced impassioned support for Paul’s non-interventionist views. “We don’t need to be picking fights overseas,” he said, and pledged to help “make sure this man is the next president of the United States.”

It was an understandable sentiment from a soldier who said he had served in the military for 10 years, which included tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the appearance likely violated the protocols for service members included in Defense Department Directive 1344.10, which states explicitly that they are not to participate in political rallies as anything more than spectators. And if they do attend a political function, they’re not supposed to do so in uniform.

Active-duty service members can “register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces,” the directive states. It also stipulates:

4.1.2. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:

4.1.2.1. Participate in partisan political fundraising activities (except as permitted in subparagraph 4.1.1.7.), rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof), management of campaigns, or debates, either on one’s own behalf or on that of another, without respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement. Participation includes more than mere attendance as a spectator.

And it says that service-members shall not:

4.1.2.5. Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

4.1.2.6. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

“My immediate reaction, upon watching Congressman Paul’s event, was that the soldier in question was in flagrant violation of department of defense regulations,” said Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School. “Lord knows there are people in the military, as in the rest of American society, who have very strong feelings about who is elected president. But the tradition is the military stays out of partisan politics.”

The issue wasn’t necessarily showing up in uniform; it was speaking out at a partisan political gathering. “If he was on active duty, it wouldn’t matter if he was wearing a Santa Claus costume or his birthday suit,” said Fidell. “Wearing the uniform only makes it worse.”

Thorsen could be formally reprimanded for doing so, with a court-martial or an administrative discharge, though Fidell didn’t seem to think that was very likely. More likely, he could get “chewed out” by a superior. Even if Thorsen volunteered, the Paul camp should have taken this into account before inviting him on stage last night. (The Paul campaign did not respond to a request for comment. We’ll update the post if they do.)

UPDATE: The Washington Post talked to a spokesperson for the Army Reserve command who told the paper that as of October, Thorsen was not on active duty. They are determining whether he violated any rules by speaking at the rally.

Adam Serwer contributed reporting for this post.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate