Army's new tattoo policy

[esmith]

Then i should just trust what you say ... just because.

Yes, because I am a 20 year veteran of the military and very familiar with how the military goes about writing Uniform Regulations.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, because I am a 20 year veteran of the military and very familiar with how the military goes about writing Uniform Regulations.

How familiar are you with the opinion of your society on this specific topic?
If you can't substantiate it, i will not accept it.
This is what we were talking about, isn't it?

 

[averageJOE]

I strongly disagree with this. In a free and democratic society, ANY government action or limitation on freedom must be justified unless there's a very compelling reason (e.g. national security) not to make the justification public.

You seem to be under the impression that the Army must conform to specific individuals upon enlistment?

 

[averageJOE]

How familiar are you with the opinion of your society on this specific topic?
If you can't substantiate it, i will not accept it.
This is what we were talking about, isn't it?

What would you think if you saw an Army soldier walking around with his hands in his pockets?

 

[Koldo]

What would you think if you saw an Army soldier walking around with his hands in his pockets?

That it is cold.

 

[averageJOE]

That it is cold.

I take it that you wouldn't think anything of it? Nothing wrong?

 

[Koldo]

I take it that you wouldn't think anything of it? Nothing wrong?

No. Nothing wrong.

 

[esmith]

What would you think if you saw an Army soldier walking around with his hands in his pockets?

I take it that you wouldn't think anything of it? Nothing wrong?

No. Nothing wrong.

I do not know if it is the same now in the Navy and USMC but if we smoked we could only have carry a pack of cigarets in our sock. FYI Kodo, at that time nothing could be carried in what you would call a shirt as per uniform regulations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A no beard policy put forth by a business or company that made it clear that prior to accepting a position with said entity that the grooming standards had a no beard policy would run afoul of the law in what manner?

It would screen out people who wore beards out of religious obligation, and therefore violate the Ontario Human Rights Code's prohibition on religious discrimination.

Also, recent case law here has clarified that "creed" (also protected under the Code) refers to any deeply held personal philosophy, not just religious beliefs... so if - for whatever reason - a person's beard was a matter of conscience that he felt very strongly about, then it could violate the Code to make him shave it off even if it wasn't a matter of religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You seem to be under the impression that the Army must conform to specific individuals upon enlistment?

No, I'm under the impression that if a government isn't required to justify its actions - whether it's standards for enlistment or the route for a new highway - then freedom and democracy suffer.

 

[Aquitaine]

What would you think if you saw an Army soldier walking around with his hands in his pockets?

To be honest, I don't think people on the receiving end of the US military (Iraqis, Afghans, for example) and the rest of the world's citizens really care about whether or not US troops are putting their hands in their pockets.

I'm pretty sure you can imagine yourself the real concerns people have regarding the world's most powerful military, and how it's members behave themselves.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if troops are picking their noses and putting their hands in their pockets, farting and burping - especially when there are so many real concerns regarding the activities of soldiers.

 

[esmith]

I'm pretty sure you can imagine yourself the real concerns people have regarding the world's most powerful military, and how it's members behave themselves.

Would you care to elaborate on that statement with say examples?

 

[Aquitaine]

Would you care to elaborate on that statement with say examples?

OK then. Off the top of my head, I'll use the example already mentioned in this thread: the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Now, to the average non-American, what do you think is perceived as far worse, and more a threat to the "image" of the US Military (and by extension, the US Government) overseas:

1. The Abu Ghraib prison abuses, or...
2. US Military personnel with their hands in their pockets?

 

[averageJOE]

No, I'm under the impression that if a government isn't required to justify its actions - whether it's standards for enlistment or the route for a new highway - then freedom and democracy suffer.

Maybe you can clarify. Because that's what I read when you said:

And there are positions that never get deployed overseas... which means that the standards of some other country or culture don't need to be applied to every single recruit.

Also, the military is not a democracy. One thing everyone must give up upon entering the military, or in the case of the discussion, the Army, is the notion of democracy.

 

[averageJOE]

No. Nothing wrong.

Exactly. To you, or anyone outside of the Army, a soldier with his hands in his pockets means nothing. However, within the Army it's a direct violation of AR 670-1 under Uniform Appearance and Fit: (3) While in uniform, personnel will not place their hands in their pockets, except momentarily to place or retrieve
objects. It's something I've been corrected on many times, and I've corrected other soldiers on. One of the regulation that's the most violated is soldiers walking and talking on cell phones.

Point being, when regulations are put in place we have no choice but to conform. And there is no reason given for why soldiers can't have their hands in their pockets other than...because it's against regulation.

Now, all the Army is saying is that if you want or have a tattoo it has to be within regulation.

 

[averageJOE]

To be honest, I don't think people on the receiving end of the US military (Iraqis, Afghans, for example) and the rest of the world's citizens really care about whether or not US troops are putting their hands in their pockets.

I'm pretty sure you can imagine yourself the real concerns people have regarding the world's most powerful military, and how it's members behave themselves.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if troops are picking their noses and putting their hands in their pockets, farting and burping - especially when there are so many real concerns regarding the activities of soldiers.

It's already been covered that this has absolutely nothing to do with how the Army is viewed by citizens of other countries. If you want to argue the politics of war fine, start a thread. Otherwise this can be chalked up as a red herring.

 

[Koldo]

Exactly. To you, or anyone outside of the Army, a soldier with his hands in his pockets means nothing. However, within the Army it's a direct violation of AR 670-1 under Uniform Appearance and Fit: (3) While in uniform, personnel will not place their hands in their pockets, except momentarily to place or retrieve
objects. It's something I've been corrected on many times, and I've corrected other soldiers on. One of the regulation that's the most violated is soldiers walking and talking on cell phones.

Point being, when regulations are put in place we have no choice but to conform. And there is no reason given for why soldiers can't have their hands in their pockets other than...because it's against regulation.

Now, all the Army is saying is that if you want or have a tattoo it has to be within regulation.

The army doesn't have to offer a justification to a soldier. However, it does have to offer a justification to the president when required. Which in turn has to offer a justification to the citizens when required.

In a democracy ( and in a republic ), all power emanates from people.

 

[Slapstick]

It's already been covered that this has absolutely nothing to do with how the Army is viewed by citizens of other countries. If you want to argue the politics of war fine, start a thread. Otherwise this can be chalked up as a red herring.

Not only is it a red herring, but what does someone that isn't an American citizen doing debating a topic about the American military? Other than say, the American Military is the most powerful military in the world. Something we already know, and its not like our government or military uses its power for world domination. If it did the entire world would be United and under the flag of America already.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe you can clarify. Because that's what I read when you said:

I'm not sure what you read there, but in THAT post, I was addressing an issue that was brought up earlier in the thread: that tattoos are taboo in some cultures, so soldiers with visible tattoos who are deployed to those sorts of places could inadvertently offend the locals.

Also, the military is not a democracy. One thing everyone must give up upon entering the military, or in the case of the discussion, the Army, is the notion of democracy.

I'm not talking about justifying military decisions to the recruits themselves; I'm talking about the military - as an arm of the government - justifying itself to The people of the country. IMO, a free society demands that the government be held to account for itself and for why it does what it does on ANY issue unless there is a very compelling reason to withhold the justification from the people of the country. No national secrets would be compromised by the Army providing the justification for its policy on tattoos, so it would be contrary to the principles of freedom and democracy for the Army to withhold this... of to implement the policy without a proper justification. There are worse infringements of freedom I the world, but it's a very dangerous road to go down when a country decides that its military doesn't need to be accountable to the people of that nation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not only is it a red herring, but what does someone that isn't an American citizen doing debating a topic about the American military? Other than say, the American Military is the most powerful military in the world. Something we already know, and its not like our government or military uses its power for world domination. If it did the entire world would be United and under the flag of America already.

FYI: there are plenty of citizens of other countries in the US military. There's still a law on the books that allows foreigners who serve in the American armed forces to be granted US citizenship once they complete their term of service. Apparently, the policy isn't always put into force, but the government could choose to do it again tomorrow with no change in the law.