Every time there is an anti-war rally, march, die-in, puke-in etc. you can find several protesters dressed in official military uniforms. The ones in uniform usually claim to have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. While some are truly vets, others are obvious posers (i.e. Jesse Macbeth). The uniforms are typically defaced with IVAW slogans or logos done in black marker. The tops are unbuttoned to show off the latest protest t-shirt. Medals and ribbons are usually in plentiful supply as a sign of "real service".
Two of the members of IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War), Adam Kokesh and Liam Madden are facing hearings by the Marine Corps for their protest attire. But if you read David Montgomery’s article, Antiwar to the Corps, in the Washington Post, you would think that the Marines were attempting to silence an anti-war voice. Not only did Montgomery miss the entire reason for the hearings, but he overlooked a few facts in his reporting.
Montgomery gave the background of the case...
In a case that raises questions about free speech, the Marines have launched investigations of three inactive reservists for wearing their uniforms during antiwar protests and allegedly making statements characterized as "disrespectful" or "disloyal."
Upon learning he was being investigated for wearing his uniform during the mock patrol, Kokesh wrote an e-mail to the investigating officer, Maj. John Whyte
Kokesh was notified by Major John Whyte via email of the investigation in March 2007. Major Whyte stated that he was reminding a “fellow Marine” of his obligations and duties, specifically the wearing of all or part of his uniform while engaged in political demonstrations or activities. Kokesh displayed his machismo and responded with extreme disrespect. He told Major Whyte to perform an act that is physically impossible then proceeded to sign the email "Adam Kokesh, PFC (Proud F*#@ing Civilian). There were no “alleged” statements as Montgomery implied. Kokesh was so proud of his response that he posted his response on his blog and at the IVAW website.
While Kokesh may have been honorably discharged from active duty, he was turned down for his requested second tour of duty in Iraq. Kokesh admits that he received Non Judicial Punishment and was reduced to the rank of Corporal for purchasing a pistol from an Iraqi policeman and bringing it home as a souvenir. He even wrote about the episode in his reply to Major Whyte.
Montgomery explained why Kokesh is free to wear and say whatever he wants at protests…
But, counters Lebowitz, unlike other types of reservists who have specific paid duties, Individual Ready Reservists are not paid, have no weekend drill requirements and no chain of command. Therefore, he argues, they are civilians, unless summoned back to duty. And if they are civilians, they can say pretty much what they want.
According to Maj. Whyte’s original email, Kokesh is considered active with the Reserves until June 18, 2007. While on an anti-war tour in Germany earlier this month, Kokesh wrote about using his military ID to get on the US Base to spread some anti-war venom…
When we got to the gate, the guard said that I couldn’t bring Jeff on with me because I was not registered in their system, even though I had a valid military ID. Jeff busted out the perfect story, “We’re backpacking around Europe, and we just wanted to come on base to use the PX. I just need to get some toiletries. See, I used to be in the Army too, but my ID is expired.” The guard suggested Jeff give me a list and wait for me. So I carried on alone.
As John said over at This Ain’t Hell…
He had a valid military ID card - he hadn’t been discharged, he’s subject to the UCMJ. Case closed.
Montgomery reported that Kokesh had no plans to curb his antiwar work, despite the consequences. That was quite obvious this weekend when Kokesh participated in another episode of IVAW Street Theater in NYC while wearing his military uniform.
If you want to read more, you can go to GI Special over at the Iraqi "Resistance" (in normal people's words - insurgent) website, Al Basrah. I encourage everyone to read through the entire GI Special Newsletter - Dishonorable Scum in Command edition. While reading GI Special, remember that members of IVAW are editors and contributors for this poison.
This is not about free speech or stifling dissent. It is about breaking the rules of the military that you signed up for. It's time for the military to start cracking down on these guys. If you want the benefits of the military, you gotta abide by the rules. Being a rock star with the anti-war crowd doesn't give you a free pass.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Free Speech
June 1, 2007 - 06:37 ET by allanfI have some bad news for United States Marines. Your free speech rights are limited when you put on the uniform of a United States Marine. Once the uniform goes on, a Marine, even a Marine reservist assumes the responsibilities of a Marine.
He can protest all he wants, but not as a uniformed and scraggly representative of the United States Marine Corps. Very few uniformed organizations including police forces would tolerate that behavior.
I recall a beer delivery guy
June 1, 2007 - 11:56 ET by stratmanI recall a beer delivery guy was fired for drinking a competitor's beer in public. Wasn't he wearing the company shirt when it happened, or, only that everyone knew whom he worked for that caused all the ruckus?
Same thing happened to the Pe
June 4, 2007 - 14:44 ET by BeowulfSame thing happened to the Pepsi guy who got fired when he tested positive for Coke... ;-)~
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
June 1, 2007 - 06:37 ET by allanf
What rules are you talking ab
June 1, 2007 - 07:23 ET by ding7777What rules are you talking about? The ones that the Bush White House doesn't follow? This is from Robert Novak's February 9th 2006 column...
You don't know the law or w
June 1, 2007 - 07:32 ET by BenderYou don't know the law or what you are talking about.
Active duty military are lawfully allowed to speak about their experiences. This is a America. President Clinton did the same during his administration. Also, Adam Kokesh is free to express his political and alternative lifestyle wishes as well.
However, it would be a different situation if those active duty military violated the UCMJ and were insubordinate to a superior officer as Adam Kokesh was.
Bender - Adam Kokesk is not o
June 1, 2007 - 08:16 ET by ding7777Bender - Adam Kokesk is not on active duty - he is Individual Ready Revserve.
Kokesh was not representing the military at the protest - he wore no name tag or other military insignia on his camos.
You need to look at he UCMJ.
June 1, 2007 - 08:52 ET by ricklailYou need to look at he UCMJ. See how it defines Kokesh. He is not allowed to do that. Period.
A bonafided and certified member of the beer guzzling, NASCAR watching middle class.
You mean to tell us that Ding
June 1, 2007 - 09:03 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou mean to tell us that Ding posted on a topic he knows nothing/very little about? Shocking.
Rog,Almost a shocking as if
June 1, 2007 - 09:08 ET by MightyMouthRog,
Almost a shocking as if Ding were somehow suddenly "speechless".
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
1) Uniform designed specifi
June 1, 2007 - 12:08 ET by stratman1) Uniform designed specifically for the Marines.
2) Uniform manufactured specifically for the Marines.
3) Uniform dispensed by the Marines.
I'd say that the uniform, patches or not, was owned by and a representation of the Marines.
Another way to put it, let's say you're married. Take the makeup off your wife, the fancy clothes off, and even her hair off. What will you have left? Your wife.
The uniform identifies you as military to most reasonable people. (Isn't there a law which criminalizes the wearing of military clothing by non-military personnel?) The patches and assorted accoutrements are your identify within the military.
NO. IIRC, the law only crim
June 2, 2007 - 09:37 ET by NL207NO. IIRC, the law only criminalizes the false representation of yourself as a member of the military regardless of any uniform. Many states also have laws about fraud that indirectly prohibit giving a false military record if the intent was to derive some financial benefit. These laws are the same ones that make it a crime to practice medicine, law, etc without the appropriate credentials or to impersonate someone else for gain.
That is because most of us th
June 1, 2007 - 12:31 ET by Airforce_5_OThat is because most of us that HAVE BEEN in the military know what we are talking about.
That's what makes Dingy even
June 2, 2007 - 08:54 ET by Roger the ShrubberThat's what makes Dingy even more funny (stupid, not ha-ha). Anyone who frequents this website as often as Dingy does should know better than to try to quote military information he/she/it read from Media Matters/HuffyPo/DU/Kos/etc and try to pass it off here as truth, since we are blessed with so many vets among our numbers.
Would I, a humble shrubber, dare go to a five-star restaurant and tell the head chef how to prepare a meal? No, because I am not stupid.
They have a few vets, or at l
June 2, 2007 - 09:32 ET by NL207They have a few vets, or at least people who claim to be vets on MMFA.
On thing that will happen to you over there if you post ANYTHING that has to do with the military and is a conservative viewpoint is this: you will immediately be confronted with the chickenhawk argument. If it turns out, as is often the case with conservatives from NB, the conservative poster is a veteran themselves, he can be expect to be cross-examined by these resident liberal veterans over there for autheniticity.
This behavor by these posturing libs I find repulsive. They gate any conservative argument on Iraq this way. If you don't pass both tests, you are simply shouted down. I asked them if it was necessary to be a veteran to have an opinion. The answer was hypocrisy, "Well, no, but ...." They are so intellectually bankrupt thay can't carry on a debate without this advantage. They are always totally chargrinned when such posters are revealed as veterans. As much as I piss these morons off, Bassndude and the combat vets here would really annoy them. These liberals clowns actually believe that most combat veterans are libs. They believe the "conversion" is a result of combat experience and that real war makes men into their kind of moron. I'd say it was just the opposite. Those that have seen what monsters the enemy really are come away more convinced of the righteousnes of opposing the enemy.
ding...when you seperate from
June 1, 2007 - 12:15 ET by bassndudeding...when you seperate from the military services, and you have not completed you obligation of military service, you sign a paper that tells you you are part of the IRR and are subject to recall, AND you are still subject to the UCMJ and are to conduct yourself as such.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Ding...You ignorant LibHe is
June 1, 2007 - 12:29 ET by Airforce_5_ODing...You ignorant Lib
He is still subject to punishment under UCMJ subject to his no longer possession of an ID card in which he can be called back to duty.
He disrespects his uniform AND a commissioned Officer AND he failed to obey a WRITTEN LAWFUL ORDER OR REGULATION by doing so.
Bye bye honorable discharge.
Wave...There it goes...Boo Hoo
Airforce_5_0 - He was in po
June 1, 2007 - 14:08 ET by ding7777Airforce_5_0 - He was in possesion of his military id card, he was in camos without a name tag or military insignia (commonly referred to as civilian clothes), and he blew-off an email spammer who "threatened" to "investigate" him.
Read below Ding...Sorry dude
June 1, 2007 - 14:14 ET by Airforce_5_ORead below Ding...Sorry dude he is going to loose this one. They are Not civillian clothes.
He recieved an email "Notifying" him he was under investigation.
Good Bye Honorable Discharge.
More evidence that you don'
June 1, 2007 - 18:05 ET by Bender@ding7777
More evidence that you don't know what you are talking about or that you ever served in the US military.
Here's a clue for you.
Notice that the BDU's have velcro where your rank and unit patches would go?
By your logic, when a soldier, airman, or marine removes those velcro patches he/she magically transforms into a civilian or their uniform into 'civies'?
Hell no.
This misguided Marine was wearing his issued BDU's without a name tag. The uniform was still his government issued uniform - it makes no difference if his name tag or rank was displayed or not. He was representing the USMC and had been warned not to do it. When called on it, he disrespected the USMC further by being insubordinate.
You may think this is cool. But real men don't take this lightly.
Frankly, I would have had more respect for him if he had the balls to show his name on his uniform instead of hiding it like some creep.
Ding, dosent matter if his na
June 2, 2007 - 09:45 ET by bassndudeDing, dosent matter if his name was shown or not. If you do not have your Discharge, and have only seperation papers, ETS, you are a member of the military, and as long as you are a member of the military, you are subject to the UCMJ. Sounds to me like this guy is stupid and dosent know what he signed when seperated or what it meant. If thats the case, he need to go to prison so he can get his education.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Ding you really are a dope.
June 2, 2007 - 10:45 ET by MightyMouthDing you really are a dope. It doesn't matter if the guy was in his birthday suit, he is still a GI. That means "Government Issue" for you dumbass civilians that don't understand that solidiers can give their heart to Jesus ,but Uncle Sam still owns your ass!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Chapter 11 intellect
June 1, 2007 - 07:44 ET by UnsaneDo you have any ideas or suggestions of your own concerning policies, or do you just live to b*#!h and moan about others without suggesting what should be done differently?
Of course not. Must suck to be intellectually bankrupt...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
As long as those Military mem
June 1, 2007 - 07:58 ET by OldSailor88As long as those Military members are giving public talks about their experiences in the war and they are not at a political rally, they are not doing anything wrong. Members of all branches of Service are allowed to speak in public about their Service. We do it all the time in schools, retirement homes, VFW Posts, etc. Recruiters make their living doing it. What Kokesh is doing is a direct and blatant violation of DOD Directive 1325.6 and the UCMJ, and as that he was still an active duty Military member should be punished with extreme prejudice.
Dod Policy
June 1, 2007 - 08:30 ET by allanfDing
John Linya points out in his excellent blog post that members of the Individual Ready Reserve fall under the Uniform Code of Military Jusice. The UCMJ allows Kokesh can be recalled to active duty for court martial. Linay sites chapter and verse of the statutes.
He also quotes from DoD Directive 1334.1 (.pdf)
This case has nothing to do with free speech.
CASE CLOSED
allanf - without the name tag
June 1, 2007 - 10:29 ET by ding7777allanf - without the name tag/miltary insignia the camos are civilian clothes.
Wrong!!!!!He was issued said
June 1, 2007 - 12:37 ET by Airforce_5_OWrong!!!!!
He was issued said uniform for the performance of his duties and therefore they are still governed for proper wearing under, and this is going to throw you, REGULATION.
Once the uniform is no longer serviceable it must be rendered as such.
They were using their uniform to show they were in the service and brought shame and disrespect to the service.
lol- funny to watch ding7777 scramble for an edge
June 1, 2007 - 18:18 ET by SportPoliticslol- funny to watch ding7777 scramble for an edge. roflmao
ahahhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
If I was in charge, I would
June 1, 2007 - 07:27 ET by BenderIf I was in charge, I would immediately recall Adam Kokesh back to active duty and then bring him before the mast for insubordination and other assorted violations of the UCMJ.
Adam Kokesh is free to say and believe whatever he wishes, this is America.
However, Adam Kokesh DOES NOT have the legal right to be insubordinate to superior officers and violated the UCMJ with time left on his military contract.
A few months in the brig will be an excellent solution.
One of the first things new t
June 1, 2007 - 07:39 ET by BeowulfOne of the first things new troops are told on entering the military (all branches) is that some of their "rights" are curtailed when donning the uniform. It is long-standing, fully explained, and necessary. Discipline cannot be maintained if every troop is permitted to "protest" anything they don't like, but in general, our military members actually can take part in peaceful protests, just not in uniform. No one can honestly say that seeing a soldier or marine in uniform, waving an anti-war sign, doesn't intimate military support of the protest. Or any issue. The uniform signifies the military, therefore someone wearing the uniform must represent the military on that issue. It really is pretty simple. And as I said, all military members have this fully explained up front, so none can plead ignorance.
And this Kokesh is obviously a bit of a moron anyway. First he claims to have been discharged and therefore a civilian, in which case, he would be free to disrespect the uniform if he so chose (look at Kerry in the 70s). But, he goes on to state that he still had a valid military ID card, which means he was not discharged, but rather was still subject to military requirements and restrictions. Either he was never discharged and subject to USMC regulations, or he illegally had a military ID, which is a federal offense. Either way, he loses.
But since he is obviously a loser anyway, he's just doing what he's supposed to - losing.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Attn. current Military NB posters
June 1, 2007 - 08:09 ET by sarcasmoI need some help on this one from the military members here at NB. I am fully aware that taking a pistol or any other weapon home (unlike in past wars...) is strictly forbidden these days, so it's easy to believe doing so resulted in a reduction in rank, but would such a (minor, IMO) offense -- if already punished -- actually be enough to prevent a second requested tour in a dangerous place like Iraq, when maybe the guy was just trying to redeem himself? What I'm saying is, might something else be going-on that we don't know about in this case? Sure seems that way to me, but I'm the first to say I'd be the last to know, so I seek your experience and wisdom. Thanks in advance.
JMR
That sounds like it was the s
June 1, 2007 - 08:19 ET by nnptcgradThat sounds like it was the straw that broke the donkey's back to be honest. I'd love to see his record and get an idea of whether or not there were other UCMJ violations. Like you I can't quite see that as being the only violation during his tour of service. Most people who get demoted (speaking of the navy-the service I have knowledge of) are repetetive problem makers, with a number of counselings etc., before they make it to demotion. The only thing that I heard of for instantaneous loss of rank was sexual harrassment.So if he had a bunch of write-ups in the past, they may've just wanted to get rid of his ass.
Mother nature is a bitch - Ninth Corollary of Murphy's Law
First off, he's extremely luc
June 1, 2007 - 10:17 ET by BeowulfFirst off, he's extremely lucky all he received was non-judicial punishment (known as an Article 15). I know for a fact that this issue is addressed in theater by what is known as a "General Order", which are briefed repetitively to every one deployed there. There was a huge problem with "souvenir" weapons after Desert Storm, so it became, and remains, a huge no-no. Again, an action for which Kokesh has no excuse (and if he was reduced to corporal, that means he was a sergeant or higher, and definitely knew better). Even you, sarc, admitting to little knowledge of the military, know this is forbidden. He would have absolutely no excuse.
And there are many reasons why he would be denied another tour in theater, and even more as a reservist.
Marines, as do Army troops, generally deploy as a unit. If his unit wasn't deploying, then he wouldn't deploy.
He would have to be reactivated, which involves complicated active duty time calculations, to redeploy.
With his spouting off to this Major Whyte, this shows me he probably already had issues with authority, and even with being a Marine. NCOs, especially Marine NCOs, do not suddenly go off on senior officers all at once.
This whole thing looks to me like a worthless military member, disgruntled and with a record of disciplinary problems, is out looking for a pity party.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Thanks to both for your rep
June 1, 2007 - 10:31 ET by sarcasmoThanks to both for your replies. I'm interested in knowing what the "huge problem" with souvenir weapons from earlier wars was (aside from fully-auto NFA1934 issues of legality, so let's assume purchased semi rifles & pistols that would otherwise be legal in the USA only for this question, with no full auto or grenades, etc.). US soldiers have traditionally carried their and their enemies' weapons home until recent wars, and people like me don't see a huge problem with it. In fact, we think it's a good thing for ex-soldiers to have guns they took home. Saying this is not to defend any of the other actions of this guy or this guy himself, I'm trying here to focus on a relatively-new policy I'm both ignorant-of and disagree-with, so any help/insight from people like you who know something is very much appreciated. Thanks.
JMR
The huge problem was indeed f
June 1, 2007 - 11:01 ET by BeowulfThe huge problem was indeed fully automatic weapons sarc. It got so bad that I remember an Air Force C-130 that got grounded in Kuwait because the military authorities got a tip that that particular crew had been bringing captured weapons back to the US. The plane was torn apart and a huge cache of full auto Iraqi weapons was found (literally hundreds) hidden throughout the aircraft. So, as is the norm for most military fixes to such problems, all souvenir weapons taking was prohibited.
I agree that, historically, G.I.s were permitted to retain souvenir weapons. They were shot at with those weapons. They killed or captured those shooting at them. They deserve to keep something as a souvenir.
But with the "problems" with guns in the US, the potential for getting carried away (as in the C-130 crew), and the legitimate proscription against full auto weapons, it's not surprising that such a ban came into being.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Now we'll need to agree to
June 1, 2007 - 11:13 ET by sarcasmoNow we'll need to agree to disagree, again. I fail to see how the slowly-expanding big government proscription -- first via deliberately-prohibitive taxes the Supreme Court was stupid to ever-allow and then later by the 1986 "FOPA" -- of full auto weapons ownership by citizen-units was either Constitutionally legitimate or (and here's the tricky part) actually useful against real crime -- the kind with victims. And that goes double for sound suppressors (AKA "silencers" -- IMO the only civilized way to shoot) and it goes triple for beautiful rape-prevention devices like the classic Ithaca Auto & Burglar 20GA shotgun. I wish people on the left would understand that self-defense rights are a "feminist" issue, because it seems so-obvious to me, and I wish folks on the right were more-unyielding on the Second Amendment in reality, like the media wants to paint them despite decades of compromise. Oh well.
JMR
I see no need to "agree
June 4, 2007 - 14:56 ET by BeowulfI see no need to "agree to disagree". I was explaining the proscription and the reasons behind it - not agreeing with it. I would have loved to have been able to bring back some of the toys from the desert (Soviet Dragonov for one and quite a few HK 91s and FN-FALs)...
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
When I signed up for the
June 1, 2007 - 12:00 ET by doubledown552When I signed up for the Marine Corps' Officer Candidate School, my "recruiter" went over all the information I needed to know. When I got to OCS, we were given a book of the "laws" of a Marine Corps Officer. Bottom line, you LOSE your RIGHTS when you sign on the line. You are no longer a civilian and are expected to act professional and in the best interest of the Corps and America. I know this is the land of the free and all, but when you put on the uniform you have an obligation. Breaking that obligation should be severely punished. You (at least I did) go into the military knowing what it's about. Especially if you go in DURING a war, chances are good you're going into battle. Don't come home and cry about it when you knew you were going. This kind of behavior is detrimental to every serviceman fighting; it lowers moral and costs more lives.
doubledown - A hand salute to you--
June 1, 2007 - 12:04 ET by misterbilldoubledown - A hand salute to you--I cannot see where anyone who accepts and swears the oath of allegiance could have any probems understanding what you said. I was in the Navy, but Semper Fi!
I second this opinion. W
June 1, 2007 - 14:38 ET by Buzz CarterI second this opinion. Whe you sign on the dotted line and take that oath before the flag, you leave the democratic republic of the United States (please do not let this become a debate about the type of government this nation has or should have--not the time or place for that) and enter the totalitarian control of the United States Military. You don't get to vote on your leadership--theoretically, they are chosen for their merits as a leader, and their experience. But the simple fact remains, that you VOLUNTARILY give up your rights to a lot of things when you put on the uniform.
“War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is
controlled violence, for a purpose. But…it’s never a soldier’s
business to decide when or where or how—or why—he fights; that belongs…to other people…”
Robin Boyd...Thank you so muc
June 1, 2007 - 12:09 ET by bigtimerRobin Boyd...
Thank you so much for posting this.
I posted about this very thing about three or four days ago with a link, curious to see what other military members past and present thought with their opinions, didn't get much response, glad to see them here today...along with regular citizens like me.
For me this is outrageous and I hope he (Kokesh) loses his status...I wished the msm would find just a little time to report some of these stories just once in awhile instead of their constant non-important ad nauseam dribble.
Great work...thanks.
A NUMBER OF THINGS.the marine
June 1, 2007 - 12:38 ET by PKA NUMBER OF THINGS.
the marines don't like to go to work with someone that they don't trust. this guy may not have had enough SEMPER in his Semper Fi.
loosing rank in the non commissioned world is pretty simple.
the commanding officer can do a little sleeve stripping at mast on monday morning after an overnight in the Tia Juana jail. (used to be that the guys did not consider a man to be a marine unless he had had at least one night in the crowbar hotel. )
they can give this guy mast for being "out of uniform" this covers a multitude of things like having a hat on that does not have his name stenciled in it, wearing the wrong ribbons on the blouse, not being in the "uniform of the day" in that particular naval district at that particular time, wearing a green blouse over blue pants. the list is endless.
to the marines reenlistment is a privlege. if a guy is a bit 5150 then he dosen't get the call.
c