The U.S. Army Reserve is conducting an investigation into the fact that Lt. Col. Ray Meija testified on behalf of Sen. Delph’s anti-immigration bill while wearing a uniform. I first read about this particular controversy at Advance Indiana. This information sheet does not appear to allow much wiggle room as to the fact that engaging in political activity while in uniform is prohibited:
Wearing Army uniforms is never allowed when engaged in political activity, whether or not the person is on duty, and regardless of his or her status.
And that’s quite reasonable. We give our soldiers a whole lot of respect, naturally. But respect for the duties they perform and the services they provide probably shouldn’t be automatically transferred to the political opinions they hold. Such a rule concerning uniforms helps maintain the distinction. In fact, that’s probably why Sen. Delph and Lt. Col. Meija thought the uniform would be helpful — it conveys the credibility of the U.S. military to the personal cause of Sen. Delph and Lt. Col. Meija. Whatever the merits of Sen. Delph’s immigration proposal, folks shouldn’t mistake it as having the approval of our armed forces.
And, let’s not overlook the huge, overwhelming, unavoidable irony of this situation. Per the article:
Mejia wore his uniform at the press conference, which could be a violation of military rules. . . .
[Said Delph] “If we had to do it over again, we would do the same thing. And if there are military consequences, we both will accept them.”
Delph has been talking up and down about the sanctity RULE OF LAW. Apparently you have to break the rule of law to save it.
We rarely, if ever, had these types of problems before Bush got in. Now, every election cycle there’s someone wearing the uniform campaigning for some political cause or candidate. Predominantly republican, it seems.
The rules on the matter are clear, and prohibit such activity. For exactly the reasons you stated.
Hey, can we hold actors to this? They can’t talk politics while wearing…uh… clothes? (sorry, feeling irreverent)
The hypocrisy of the sanctimonious never ceases to amaze me. If Delph’s comment in the aftermath that he would do it all over again doesn’t result in double the punishment, I will be surprised.