UNBELIEVABLE!

[RayThom]

Our Commander-in-Grief is at it again.

I wonder if our Service men and women are required to wear these silly patches under threat of court martial? I can't imagine them being approved and adopted by the Pentagon.

[Burning Petard]

On the right sleeve? That is supposed to be reserved for display of things directly related to combat. Hidden message?

snailgate.

[ex-khobar Andy]

That picture of Trump with the pointing finger does somewhat remind me of Lord Kitchener:



Kitchener, for all his faults, was a genuine war here. He was blown up by a German mine on his way to Russia in 1916. No omens there, of course.

[Bicycle Bill]

I'd find some way to 'accidentally' spill or smear something — lubricating oil, grease, paint, anything — on it at my earliest opportunity.

-"BB"-

[ex-khobar Andy]

One of you ex-military guys can tell me: clearly it's bad taste at best; but is it in fact illegal to add an adornment of this (or any) type to one's uniform? If I wanted to wear a Mickey Mouse shoulder patch, could I?

[ex-khobar Andy]

There's a good piece in The Atlantic about this which apparently was part of the USS John S. McCain thing in which we have in another thread. It concludes:

The saddest part of this presidency is not the behavior of the commander in chief of the armed forces. Everyone knew what he is and how he was likely to behave from well before he won the presidency. The saddest part is what he reveals about individuals in high places, and institutions that we once thought relatively free from moral rot. What this episode shows is that the black fungus of fear, and ambition, and servility is more pervasive than might have been imagined. It stains uniforms even as it has stained business suits. The president has merely brought it to the surface.

I might extend that 'saddest part' to include those who continue to support him. We've always known that turds like Trump exist. We've always known that some small percentage of the population (sycophants, opportunists, turds-in-training) would hang onto his coattails and hope to benefit thereby. But we never imagined that they might be somewhere close to half of the voting population.

[Big RR]

Andy--my recollection is that you cannot wear your own patches or decorations on your uniform (but I would think the CIC could overrule that, as could their commanding offcer). Also, I remember being told that military members may not wear things showing or otherwise advertising their political positions while on duty.

[Burning Petard]

Andy, there is a reason is it called a uniform.

But it is all subject to modification. I was assigned to the Eleventh combat Engineer Group out of Thompkins Barracks, Schwetzigen Germany. We all wore red-and-white enamel metal squares with the number '11' in the middle, on our shoulder epaulets with the class A uniform. Everybody in the unit (included three combat engineer companies and two combat engineer battalions, and Hq company) wore them. BUT we were also told that they were not officially approved by what ever authority approved such things, so outside the Seventh Army command, we might be directed to remove them. I never heard anything about such a thing actually happening.

snailgate.

[Lord Jim]

When I first read the OP, I naturally assumed that this was a made up story, and when I did a search I fully expected to find a link to The Onion or some similar type satirical publication...(Especially given the cartoon image that's supposed to be Trump...it makes him look like some kind of chiseled macho-man; not the pasty, puffy dough-ass that he actually is...)

Imagine my dismay...

Here's some info about the legality of unofficial patches from a CNN piece on this sad story. It appears that some unofficial patches are OK, but this one probably not so much:

Military personnel often wear unofficial unit patches, sometimes imbued with humorous images, as part of an effort to build unit cohesion and morale.

However, service members are prohibited from exhibiting political messages while in uniform.

Unit commanders are usually responsible for ensuring that the unofficial patches do not violate military regulations.

Department of Defense guidelines say that "active duty personnel may not engage in partisan political activities and all military personnel should avoid the inference that their political activities imply or appear to imply DoD sponsorship, approval, or endorsement of a political candidate, campaign, or cause."

"Navy leadership is aware of the incident and reviewing to ensure the patch doesn't violate DoD policy or uniform regulations," US Navy spokesperson Lt. Sam Boyle told CNN. [My guess would be that they will determine that they didn't violate the regulations, even though they clearly did]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics ... index.html

[Guinevere]

I've been hoping one of the stories would actually cite to this "regulation" they are all referencing. So far, none have, and I haven't had time to dig for it myself -- but I want to read the actual language.

PS - that Atlantic piece is ON POINT.

[Scooter]

DoDD 1344.10 - Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces. It doesn't specifically prohibit wearing the equivalent of a campaign button on one's uniform, but I'm guessing it wouldn't fly.

[BoSoxGal]

I realize it’s a stretch, but shit like this only adds to my existing concerns that we can’t count on the military to have the Constitution’s back when Trump really goes off his rocker. I assume that’s the very reason military members aren’t supposed to mix politics with the uniform, so citizens will believe they’ll be served regardless of their party affiliation.

[Joe Guy]

[Guinevere]

DoDD 1344.10 - Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces. It doesn't specifically prohibit wearing the equivalent of a campaign button on one's uniform, but I'm guessing it wouldn't fly.

That's the armed forces version of the Hatch Act (which regulates political activity by federal employees). It's not specific to uniforms, but it does reference the DoD uniform instruction, DODI 1334.01, linked here: https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docu ... 33401p.pdf

It applies to:

the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of
the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational
entities in the Department of Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as the “DoD Components”).

It is DoD policy that:

3.1. The wearing of the uniform by members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and
members of Reserve components) is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:

3.1.1. At any meeting or demonstration that is a function of, or sponsored by an organization,
association, movement, group, or combination of persons that the Attorney General of the United States
has designated, under Executive Order 10450 as amended (reference (c)), as totalitarian, fascist,
communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of
acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as
seeking to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.

3.1.2. During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or
commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.

3.1.3. Except when authorized by the approval authorities in subparagraph 4.1.1., when
participating in activities such as unofficial public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or
any public demonstration, which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration
or activity is conducted.

3.1.4. When wearing of the uniform may tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.

3.1.5. When specifically prohibited by regulations of the Department concerned.

Prohibited on two (and arguably three ) prongs of the regulation.