Marine veteran faces hearing on discharge status for wearing uniform at protest rally

Marine veteran faces hearing on discharge status for wearing uniform at protest rally

www.signonsandiego.com

8:13 a.m. May 31, 2007

KANSAS CITY, Mo. – An Iraq war veteran could lose his honorable discharge status after being photographed wearing fatigues at an anti-war protest.
Marine Cpl. Adam Kokesh and other veterans marked the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq in March by wearing their uniforms – with military insignia removed – and roaming around the nation's capital on a mock patrol.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.dailymail.com
newsbloggers.aol.com
www.kfvs12.com

I couldn't find this story carried on any of the major news networks - I checked nbc news, abc news, cnn, fox news, the chicago tribune, and the ap / reuters website.

Here comes the beginning of the dissmal of our 1st amendment rights. I can't believe something like this is happening. This Marine has EARNED the right to protest, and now he's being "punished" for it for excersing his right to free speech!?

As a Veteran and Active duty military I am SHOCKED that some officer has the balls to try and take away this Marines earned Honorable Discharge and infringe on his earned rights of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.

This is most distburing to me. If they get away with this, and ruin this Marines opportunities in life (for those that don't know, an Other Than Honorable / Dishonorable Discharge is the same discharge that drug users get when they get kicked out of the Military, and it ruins your career opportunities. You can't even get hired at McDonalds with a Dishonorable.)
If they do this, I think it marks the beginning of the active strategy to start actively stripping our freedoms and rights.

Scary.

www.signonsandiego.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 31-5-2007 by zeeon]

www.nlgmltf.org...

DoD Directive 1325.6 says it is DoD policy to preserve military members' "right of expression … to the maximum extent possible, consistent with good order and discipline and the national security." Then it puts limits on that right. Members of the military may attend demonstrations. But only in the United States. Only off base. Only off duty. And only out of uniform. Free speech may be forbidden if it "constitute[s] a breach of law and order." It is also forbidden "when violence is likely to result." Peaceful demonstrations are not a problem. Violent ones are. Members who do not want to risk court-martial, should stay away from demonstrations they think are likely to become violent.

This pretty much sums it up! Sounds like grounds for a dishonorable discharge to me.

LOL

If you had bothered to read the entire article, you wouldn't have posted that.

In response - he isn't active duty - and that directive applies to active duty military only. What, pray tell, is the difference between a discharged servicemember who wears a blank uniform protesting, and a normal civilian wearing a uniform bought a surplus store protesting?

Don't bother answering, because I'll answer it for you - NOTHING.
So what right does the DOD / Military have to discredit his name (because thats what changing your discharge status is) for excerising his RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH?

For that matter - lets change John Kerry's discharge status too for stomping on his medals during an anti-war protest!


[edit on 31-5-2007 by zeeon]

We need more soldiers to come forward and start protesting also the war and this nations government stupidity.

If more soldiers come forward this will become a public opinion media circus and with the bad rep that Bushes war is having this could be the pushing needed to stop the madness in Iraq.

I agree - the DOD are shooting themselves in the foot right now. If they think that changing this marines discharge status is a good thing, they are sorely mistaken.

I hope more come forward. As earlier poster so noted, I, as active duty, am forbidden to protest in uniform. Honorable Discharged ones, however, can - and imo should.

The government does have a case because he is still on Individual Ready Reserve. When you sign up for the military you sign up for 8 years, you may serve 3-4 years on active duty, but the remainer of the time you are still under obligation to be called back at any time.

www.signonsandiego.com...

Kokesh is part of the Individual Ready Reserve, a segment of the reserves that consists mainly of those who have left active duty but still have time remaining on their eight-year military obligations.

His attorney, Mike Lebowitz, said Kokesh's IRR status ends June 18. He said at least three other veterans have been investigated because of their involvement at demonstrations.

Other terms of being on IRR is staying in shape, meeting weight restrictions, and basically being a respectable citizen.

The discharge could be changed from "honorable" to "less than honorable", not "dishonorable".

Got to agree with the government on this one. Ignorance is no excuse.




[edit on 31-5-2007 by RRconservative]

[edit on 31-5-2007 by RRconservative]

Exactly and the man served his country already.

This is a very touchy subject right now with the uncomming elections and the public opinio on this war.

He is very upset and I bet that he is not going to let the military or the government do him easily without him raising hell.

If I go out and protest the war should I loose my benefits and pension?
What if I wear my old uniform? Change my discharge from honorable to other than honorable take back my purple heart maybe?

DOD needs to worry about other stuff than this.

my view from the nest

Originally posted by RRconservative
The government does have a case because he is still on Individual Ready Reserve. When you sign up for the military you sign up for 8 years, you may serve 3-4 years on active duty, but the remainer of the time you are still under obligation to be called back at any time......

As I understand it, the IRR is the same as inactive reserves. I also understand that yes, you do sign up for 8 years total (4 active, 4 inactive) however, in the Navy, there are no "rules" for standards, etc. It is inactive. And, when you have your discharge, your discharged. The last time they called the inactive reserves to duty was vietnam right before the draft, and even then I'm not 100% positive on that. I am assuming this is the case for Marines, seeings how the Marines are a department of the Navy.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
If I go out and protest the war should I loose my benefits and pension?
What if I wear my old uniform? Change my discharge from honorable to other than honorable take back my purple heart maybe?

DOD needs to worry about other stuff than this.

my view from the nest

Your saying that they have better things to worry about then messing with this guys political views and agenda(s)? If so I completely agree. I think their getting their priorites severely fubard.

Originally posted by zeeon
[Your saying that they have better things to worry about then messing with this guys political views and agenda(s)? If so I completely agree. I think their getting their priorites severely fubard.

Exactly what I am saying.

He risked his life fighting to protect freedom of speech, and now he's being punished for it.

Truly ridiculous what's happening these days.

8 years of Military obligation...What part of obligation doesn't he understand? The obligation does not end after getting a discharge. His own lawyer understands this, why doesn't he?

I served 3 years of Active Duty in the Army. I got discharged from the Army on July 24, 1990. Sadamm Hussein invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Technically I was discharged, but I was still on IRR until July 24, 1995. I just knew I was going to be re-activated, and was prepared for it. The call never came, but I was ready and willing to go. During the 5 years I was inactive, I was subject to drug-testing, Physical Training Testing, and weight standards. I was never called in for that, but undersood that if I failed any of them, my discharge could have been changed.

An obligation means something. This guy did not live up to his obligations, and should be punished for it.

If he would have protested without his old uniform he would have been alright.

Some people might not understand it, but a current military uniform represents the military, whether that former marine is in the reserves or not. That uniform represents the military he served in. Puting on a U.S. military uniform implies that you are representing your country's military, and military personnel cannot protest in uniform.

He was in the military, he should have known this.

According to the UCMJ

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:
...............
(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
....................

www.constitution.org...


[edit on 31-5-2007 by Muaddib]

So if I put on my uniform and go protest in favor of the war will I get a letter from the DOD?

Somehow I think not.

I have to disagree with you guys here - wether or not he was under "obligations" in the IRR (which, according to about.com and other sources, is equal to the inactive reserves, and the inactive reserves do not drill, are not required to maintain active duty standards, and do not recieve pay checks from the military, that is ACTIVE Reserves, or the fleet reserves)

Secondly - yes the former Marine had a uniform on - but it had no marking insignia, no name tape, no identification, etc.

None of you guys who claim this guy broke the rules have mentioned this. Why not? I'll bet that you all know there is no difference between this guy wearing a blank uniform, and some civilian who never served in the military wearing the VERY SAME blank fatigues.

IF the Marine had his name, his rank/insignia and his command patch on his uniform (which is REQUIRED for Active Reserve & Active Duty) I would whole heartdly agree with you guys. But in this instance, I do not, and can not.

This is the DOD fighting any significant form of resistance against their agenda. How does it reflect on them because of this Marines actions? Negatively for sure! That was THE POINT. As far as I'm concerned (and you can keep quoting the UCMJ to me - it won't matter as I'm well aware of what's inside it ) this is the DOD trying to squash bad publicity, and damn well could be a precursor to restrictions to our own fundamentally basic rights of free speech.

To add - because of the fact that he didn't have any insignia or name tape/command patch, he was infact - out of uniform. I find it interesting, despite that fact, that they are still pursuing this.

[edit on 31-5-2007 by zeeon]

A Navy pilot (officer) cannot be in public wearing their flight suit acording to regs as well. I served many pilots to go meals in their flight suits when I was in Jacksonville. Closest base was 3 miles away. Golden Eagle pilots are always seen in their flight suits, but may have an exection to the regs as an elite group. Bush gave his "Mission Accomplished" speech in a flight suit. Not sure on the regs as it was on a flight deck...but that might constitute public appearamce.

Military law is often very inflexable and for very good reasons. However, without all proper insigna it is not technically a uniform, it would be out of uniform. He might have a case. Even a missing or not buttoned button is grounds for a charge of out of uniform and carries specific rules of punishment.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
A Navy pilot (officer) cannot be in public wearing their flight suit acording to regs as well. I served many pilots to go meals in their flight suits when I was in Jacksonville. Closest base was 3 miles away. Golden Eagle pilots are always seen in their flight suits, but may have an exection to the regs as an elite group. Bush gave his "Mission Accomplished" speech in a flight suit. Not sure on the regs as it was on a flight deck...but that might constitute public appearamce.

Military law is often very inflexable and for very good reasons. However, without all proper insigna it is not technically a uniform, it would be out of uniform. He might have a case. Even a missing or not buttoned button is grounds for a charge of out of uniform and carries specific rules of punishment.

lol - I just mentioned that in my post above at the same time you were writing that. I agree with you, I think it's interesting that he was infact, out of uniform.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
A Navy pilot (officer) cannot be in public wearing their flight suit acording to regs as well.

The same goes for Aircrew personnel.

If it is true that he didn't have his name tag and insignias, then he has a case that he was out of uniform.