About two years ago, Gen. Mark Welsh made a remark during one of his many base visits that made me think, incorrectly, that he understood something important about public agency leadership. He said (paraphrasing) that the Air Force should listen to its critics, because they’re not always wrong.
Had he followed his own advice more often, his legacy would be dramatically more favorable. For example, had he followed his own advice in April of this year after a civilian was violently and unlawfully removed from a retirement ceremony at which he was an invited guest, the Air Force could have avoided what is mushrooming into a massive public relations crisis hinging on the hot-button issue of religious expression.
When the story of Oscar Rodriguez being battered and expelled from MSgt. Chuck Roberson’s retirement ceremony first broke (here at JQP), it wasn’t a story about religious expression. It was a story raising questions about whether a commander (Lt. Col. Michael Sovitsky) had issued an unlawful order to his NCOs, whether those NCOs had wrongly carried out that order rather than appropriately stiffen their spines, and what the chain of command would do address an obvious wrong.
Here at JQP, we covered the story extensively, interviewing both Roberson and Rodriguez for separate articles and providing several layers of analysis. We also prodded the Air Force for a response, and got stonewalled and slow-rolled when we weren’t being fed intelligence-insulting non-answers by publicists happily carrying out misdirection and misrepresentation on behalf of the local chain of command, “led” by Col. Raymond Kozak.
We pushed because we felt Rodriguez was owed an apology and Sovitsky and his thugs should be held accountable. Major media dabbled in the story but didn’t wade fully into it, notwithstanding solid coverage by a few select outlets.
As a result of the Air Force double-dealing and dishonesty, claiming to have conducted an internal investigation but refusing to discuss the results with Rodriguez or hold anyone to account, he decided his sole path to a remedy ran through the court system. He secured representation.
When his representatives studied the fact pattern, they quickly recognized the Air Force’s vulnerability to a public relations scandal. As we first reported here, Rodriguez was removed from the ceremony because the chain of command didn’t want him to perform a special recital during the folding of Roberson’s retirement flag – a recital containing religious references that some commanders have misinterpreted as a violation of Air Force Instructions (AFIs). If we trained and educated better commanders, they’d have understood from the outset that when it comes to certain kinds of protected expression, Air Force red tape can’t override the black letter of the Constitution. As I wrote back on April 6th:
“Such an instruction likely carries no legal force, creating as it does an unwarranted limitation upon the freedom of service members to draw whatever meaning they desire from the Old Glory and to express that meaning publicly — themselves or through someone else — so long as it creates no threat to good order and discipline. The Air Force need not control the content of flag folding ceremonies to maintain good order and discipline, so no interest weighty enough to justify a limitation on free speech exists here.
But even if the AFI were strictly constitutional, it wouldn’t apply in these circumstances because the flag folding occurred outside the “ceremonial” part of the retirement event in question. The formal part of an airman’s retirement terminates after the retirement order has been published by the officiating officer and any final decoration has been presented (which had all occurred before what we see in the video). What follows after is considered an informal tribute, and is not regulated.”
Rodriguez’s lawyers astutely got big media interested in what would certainly be a hot-button element of the story, and the issue swiftly appeared in national outlets. Oscar appeared on national television to talk about it. The story went viral again, but this time with a national audience. High profile members of Congress reportedly began asking the service to explain itself earlier this week.
The Air Force responded to this geyser of negative attention with three visible steps in roughly the opposite direction it had been traveling on this story.
First, it cut the local Travis chain of command (and its publicists) out of the issue competely, lifting it to headquarters level for handling.
Second, a new investigation was initiated by the Secretary of the Air Force Inspector General (IG) office. As a side note, this is problematic. The IG isn’t supposed to investigate criminal cases, and the evidence already available to the public shows prima facie criminal acts.
Third, and most significantly, the Air Force has made public statements confirming that airmen are perfectly welcome to include religious references in retirement ceremonies if they so choose.
This latter statement confirms a number of things. It tells us that there was no need for a 60-day investigation to determine what happened. Video shows NCOs mobbing Rodriguez and removing him forcibly from the ceremony, and the Air Force now admits they had no legal justification to do so. Second, it confirms that the idiotic AFI attempting to outlaw religious references during flag folding ceremonies is a wasteful nullity. This also incidentally proves that the service sometimes signs into legal effect rules that lack a legal basis, fostering chaotic situations like this one.
The substance of the statement is best digested via the latest press release from Oscar’s legal team, provided via email to JQP on Thursday:
Two days after First Liberty sent a demand letter to the Air Force on behalf of their client Oscar Rodriguez, Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James ordered the Air Force Inspector General to review the Air Force’s actions against Mr. Rodriguez.
During a retirement ceremony held in April at Travis Air Force base, multiple uniformed Airmen assaulted Oscar Rodriguez, a thirty-three year Air Force veteran, and forcibly dragged him away for giving a speech that included the word “God.” Read more about the case and watch a video of the incident at FirstLiberty.org/Rodriguez
“We view the Pentagon’s action today as a positive first step towards not only acknowledging that religious scripts may be used at retirement ceremonies, but also ensuring these kinds of situations are not repeated,” Mike Berry, Director of Military Affairs for First Liberty Institute, says.
In a letter sent to the Air Force on June 20, First Liberty Institute attorneys asked the Air Force to acknowledge that religious scripts may be used in retirement ceremonies, to send a written apology to Mr. Rodriguez, and to hold all responsible parties accountable for the assault on Mr. Rodriguez.
On Wednesday, multiple media outlets reported that the Air Force acknowledged that religious scripts may be used in flag folding ceremonies.
“Air Force personnel may use a flag folding ceremony script that is religious for retirement ceremonies,” the Air Force said in a statement. “Since retirement ceremonies are personal in nature, the script preference for a flag folding ceremony is at the discretion of the individual being honored and represents the member’s views, not those of the Air Force. The Air Force places the highest value of the rights of its personnel in matters of religion and facilitates the free exercise of religion by its members.”
Just like that, Air Force “sells out” one of its own instructions. Not because it’s the right thing to do, but because of the publicity pain level.
Of the many sicknesses plaguing today’s Air Force, the subjugation of principle to publicity is among the most pernicious. In this instance, the service chose to actively ignore an issue that could have been easily addressed and remediated … right up until it triggered unfavorable media attention. At that point, Big Blue sprung into action and promised to get things right. But it should never have progressed to this point.
If principle were our guiding light, this entire wave of publicity would almost certainly have never occurred. Mr. Rodriguez would have been given and apology for the way he was treated, and the thugs involved in this debacle would have been reprimanded and sent back to work with a fresh lesson tucked under their wings.
But none of that happened. And it didn’t happen because the Air Force refuses to listen to its critics, even when they’re plainly trying to help.
So here’s some more advice: apologize to the victim, punish the offenders, explain to everyone what’s been learnt as a result of the situation, and strike down the AFI that helped provide the foundation for this conflict. Do these things transparently and swiftly … not because you want to avoid more bad publicity, but because they’re the right things to do.
All rights reserved. The content of this webpage may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written consent of Bright Mountain Media, Inc. which may be contacted at [email protected], ticker BMTM.
USAF “leadership” wouldn’t have removed an Islamic terrorist from the ceremony, but protected him/her. That’s a FACT!
You are fucking retarded.
I’m here to tell you Hap47 is telling you about something that started as an executive order…….there are very crazy things being handed by the insane liberal leadership chain that has replaced real soldiers and airmen.
I’m pretty sure an identified terrorist would be removed from the ceremony.
don’t bet on it……the Air Force is a far cry from soldiers and sailors.
Let us hope the AF finally does the right thing here. What a shame it has come to this, but the AF brought it upon themselves.
Maybe the Air Force should implement a “How not to step on your dick” training program for Majors and above, with mandatory refresher training whenever they get the urge to stomp on their Johnson again.
Excited to see all the new and interesting flag folding ceremonies and interpretations people from other religions come up with. I’m sure the flag represents different things to Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, etc. What’s the JQP article going to be called following a retirement ceremony with someone chanting Allahu Akbar over Ol’ Glory?
Always interesting to see someone like their own comment
Not sure how that happened. First time I’ve commented on here.
Apparently its coming to a ceremony near you because we only enlist trash now. All the good men are retiring.
We only enlist trash now because you read about this incident and that was your conclusion? Some really good Airmen are joining the USAF these days. Pretty dangerous to generalize don’t you think?
I am not so sure…it is quite obvious that the Sr. Enlisted who carried out this unlawful eviction were trash….are they old AF or new AF?
I have no problem with someone chanting God is Great in Arabic because we’re talking a retirement ceremony and after the order to retire is read and usually a decoration, the rest should be about them and what they want it to be. Ive met many US military Muslims who are patriots and dont believe the AF or our country should be subject to Sharia law. Ive met several coalition partners who do however and that is the real litmus test (ie forcing beliefs on others which this situation WASNT because secular progressives forget the back half of the 1st Amendment is “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”).
Like many AF rules, the AFI was a knee jerk leadership response to the religious script being used for a non retirement/official function, so rather than dealing with the issue with existing guidance, we as usual come up with another rule (its a problem in almost every area…usually to idiot proof things rather just making an example out of the idiot). Lt Col Sovitsky showed poor judgment, violated the trust of command and should either resign or commit seppuku (in the event that he follows Bushido).
“Free exercise thereof…”
This is covered in the Free Exercise Clause. Basically it says “beliefs” are sacrosanct and the government can’t infringe on any of your beliefs. But, the “actions” those beliefs lead to… Can and will absolutely be limited. This is why it’s illegal to sacrifice humans in the United States and illegal to splash acid in children’s faces and a million other arcane religious beliefs.
A federal institution like the military should absolutely be kept as secular as possible when it comes to the public and joint aspects of service. If we are in a formation, nobody is stopping you from silently praying or “believing” whatever the hell you want. But, when that formation gets subjected to an individual forcing prayer or some other religious nonsense onto it — regardless if you think they have that right or not — it becomes an issue.
You’ll get no argument from me that the Lt Col was at fault here as well as the minions who followed his unlawful order to remove Rodriguez. But, I’ll stop short in calling this a blatant and pointed effort to silent free speech until more facts are known. Until then — it’s speculation in my opinion.
Differentiate between the issues here.
One, possible religious aspects of a retirement ceremony and the pertinent AFI… a distinct issue. But this issue never occurred as Rodriquez was physically removed before whatever he might have said was said.
Two, the unlawful actions by NCOs. Rodriquez had not violated any AFI or applicable laws prior to his physical removal, and people of all faiths (or lack thereof) should be disturbed. It’s absolutely astounding the USAF has not properly addressed this situation, and crazy to even talk about “possible” religious speech when it never even occurred!
“Facts”? Prima facie. A civilian was assaulted by uniformed members, and those uniformed members have not been held accountable for unlawful actions.
I agree with you that his removal was unnecessary and likely illegal. I don’t think anyone would argue that at this point. I do hope we learn more facts from the military members’ perspective soon. The investigation is over so the NDA they likely signed isn’t valid anymore. They should speak up. But, the NCO’s will obviously just say they were “following orders.” Still.. Maybe they have some insight into “why” that order was given.
As far as the religiou stuff is concerned.. I was getting off topic, but my points are still valid–however irrelevant they may be.
I think it’s also worth pointing out that Rodriguez isn’t “just a civilian.” He’s a retired military member receiving a pension and is still subject to the UCMJ in some capacity for what that’s worth.
“He’s a retired military member receiving a pension and is still subject to the UCMJ in some capacity for what that’s worth.”
Wrong, he is a civilian with a lawful discharge and 1st Amendment guaranteed rights to free speech and religious liberty. In no way was he obligated to perform as ordered by Lt. Col. Soitstimeformetoretire.
He’s not a mere civilian if he retired and is receiving a pension. He is still very much subject to the UCMJ according to Article 2. That doesn’t change the fact that it appears he was wronged, but it certainly is something to keep in mind until all the facts are known.
Are you familiar with the term “discharged”…..Particularly the part of the definition which states:
27. Law.
an acquittal or exoneration.
an annulment, as of a court order.
*the freeing of one held under legal process.*
^He is NOT subject to the UCMJ.^
I’ve received the majority of my information on this story from JQP. Nowhere in that reporting have I seen him referred to as anything other than retired. If that is to be believed then he’s likely receiving a pension as well. Article 2 of the UCMJ is pretty clear about who is subject to it.
You’re the first person I’ve seen say Rodriguez was discharged. A discharge is notably different than being allowed to retire which I’m sure you know. This begs the question why all outlets are reporting that he’s a “retired” SMSgt…
He is retired he was not discharged I wish people who post here would get the facts straight
They cross the line when they dictate what I can or can’t do in something that is about my own ceremony at the culmination of my career. I retired a very crusty MSgt once and the first thing he did was crack open a bottle of Jameson…and to that I say “good for him”
The illustrative point is the culture of PC Overreach….and the Groupthink involved where no one questioned an unlawful and frankly stupid order.
Still in denial about the fact that LTC Sovitsky committed a criminal act when he ordered a civilian to be assaulted. This is the modern military. This is why every opportunity I get I tell people do not let your Christian sons and daughters join the US Military. You are not welcome there. Jesus is not welcome there. They will persecute you, pass you by for promotions and you will likely be run out of the service at some point. Do not give to dogs what is sacred.
This has got to be the most absurd thing I’ve ever read. Do you have any clue what the metrics look like for Christians — Not just AF-wide, but the DoD as a whole. Don’t confuse not always getting your way for being persecuted. The two are not at all interchangeable. Secularizing the ‘public’ aspects of any federal agency should be compulsory. That’s actually how it was before the Red Scare of the 50’s. Ever heard of Y Pluribus Unum? That was our motto before Christianity aligned with the government to unite us against those godless commies.
The bigger issue is to get AF leadership to the point where they no longer crap their pants the moment the Shakedown Artist Mikey Weinstein’s phone number shows up on their Caller ID. The other factor here is that both the AFI and the piss poor excuse for a leadership that is Sovitsky (interesting that you brought up Godless Red Commies) is that they are fuelex by the scourge of Political Correctness (which even though some think is a recent problem actually started with the Clinton Administration). Another one would only make PC even worse
why is everything “absurd”, socialist?
Username checks out. I hope this is a novelty account to troll on, banana man.
I was at chucks retirement when all this went down I video taped the assault on Oscar it was a discrase to the flag and to chucks retirement. There has been a lot of positive feedback on this and most of the negative has come from the squadron we were in and those involved. And for whatever reason all the trolls that were involved in the assault
Have been going on with every day life thinking nothing can happen to them because they were in uniform. My personal feeling on all this those involved need to be removed from the Air Force this is not how we run our military assaulting civilians or anyone for that matter and thinking it’s ok to get away with it. Both chuck his family and Oscar get a public apology from the Air Force. I have been ask if this had been anyone else and these guys weren’t your friends would you have done it. And my response has and always will be yes I don’t care who it is it was the right thing to do. And it’s all about integrity you either have it or you don’t.
If you were there and seem to have more firsthand knowledge of the events, I’d like to hear your thoughts on a few issues that have only been speculated on so far;
1) In your opinion, was the commanders objection to the ceremony rooted in overzealous adherence to the secular “AFI version” or was it more about excluding SMSgt Rodriguez for personal reasons?
2) To what extent had the retiree and the commander discussed the reading beforehand?
For my personal edification I am trying to understand how a Lt Col, entrusted with running a Sqn, is capable of such poor judgement……
One problem I see is this: If the NCOs had “stiffened their spines” and NOT removed Rodriguez, they would have been immediately subject to Article 92 action (and maybe Article 94, if they conferred about it first). Now, that’s all well and good, and in a perfect world they would be secure in the rightness of their cause and be spared any negative consequences. But as you know, this is FAR from a perfect world. It’s all well and good to say “don’t obey unlawful orders,” and it’s great when those orders are PATENTLY unlawful (genocide, murder, perjury, whatever). But when you’re ordered to “just get that guy outta here, Sergeant, will ya?”, it’s not so clear-cut. Even if the NCOs had looked at each other and said, “Is this legal? Should we do this?” you know damn well what would have happened. Like Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre, after those two NCOs played out their Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus roles, it wouldn’t have taken long for a Robert Bork to step up and do Sovitsky’s bidding.
Disobeying an unlawful order places the burden of proof on the junior to prove it was unlawful, not on the senior to prove it was lawful. The military assumes that its commanders will only issue lawful orders–as you have so often pointed out.
Yes, they should have refused. And now, having failed to do that, they should be punished. But these guys were put in an impossible position, and it truly does “suck to be them.”
The Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) makes it an “absolute defense” if the order was unlawful. Yes, the burden of proof is upon the one that disobeyed the order. But, for members to rise to the level of senior NCO and not grasp that the Bill of Rights outranks any Air Force “Instruction” is a sad statement. My guess is that those NCOs that shoved Rodriguez out of the room had other motivations than enforcing the squadron commander’s order. (As much as I agree with most of the reporter’s statements and comments, though, there was no “battery” involved. Nobody punched Rodriguez or struck him with an object. They did “assault” him, but the assault was not “consummated by battery”.)
One needn’t be struck with an object or punched to be a victim of the tort of battery. Yes, criminal law requires different elements, but battery under civil law consists purely of unwanted touching. To recover damages, he would need to demonstrate an injury, but it needn’t be purely physical.
Yeah, agree. Nobody has the right to put their hands on anyone without their permission.
I’ve stated in other posts on this subject that I too agree that the AF made a mistake on this one–they should have allowed Oscar to speak. But–one big thing is bothering me to no end–why is Mr. Rodriquez demanding punishment for the NCOs that escorted (drug) him out of the retirement ceremony? It seems as though the biggest issue about that day is being reviewed and probably solved with a change to the AFI. I see so many posts focused on “how we did it in the old days” as compared to how the newest generation of leadership is failing. How would this situation be handled if it happened 25 or 30 years ago? Would an old, hard working, crusty and straight talking SNCO have filed assault charges against his brethren? I attended an advanced rescue course when I was still active duty. It was very physically demanding and mentally exhausting. The instructors who taught the course seemed like maniacs to me–and everyone else for that matter. During one particular incident–one of the instructors popped me and one of my teammates in the face for making what the instructor considered a “fatal error.” Granted–in hindsight it was actually a very minor oversight on the part of my teammate–no big deal. However–another instructor saw what happened and reported it up the chain. We were called in to the CCs office and asked if we wanted to pursue charges against the instructor. I was shocked–I thought the idea of filing assault charges against that dude was preposterous–even though he was a prick. I honestly can’t envision a scenario where I would file charges against another AF member–certainly not for what happened to Mr. Rodriquez. Yes–technically what happened to him was an assault and maybe battery–who knows. But–those dudes had no intent on causing him any harm–and I can’t imagine that Mr. Rodriquez suffered any actual injuries. The AFI is going to be updated to prevent this from happening in the future (hopefully)–so why drag this out by going after these guys–do they deserve to end their careers or possibly even end up arrested and charged? My two cents…I just hope he settles for a much deserved apology and moves on down the road–let by-gones be by-gones.
Then they should feel free to tell everything they know and roll over on Lt. Col. Shoveitinme.
10 pts Gryffindor
Am I missing something? What is the AF flip flopping about? Didn’t think an investigative report or anything had been issued by folks at Travis.
“… not because you want to avoid more bad publicity, but because they’re the right things to do.”
Well put! Bravo!