Conffederate
Confederate

June 05, 2007

A Step Too Far?

I disagree with Adam Kokesh of Iraq Veterans Against the War, but I think I disagree with the Marine Corps decision to punish him even more:

A military panel recommended that an Iraq war veteran who wore his uniform during an anti-war protest should lose his honorable discharge status, brushing away his claims that he was exercising his right to free speech.

Marine Cpl. Adam Kokesh, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, argued that since he removed his name tag and military emblems from his uniform, he did nothing wrong by participating in the March protest in Washington, D.C.

After a daylong hearing Monday, a three-person Marine board recommended he receive a general discharge under honorable conditions, one step below an honorable discharge. It would let Kokesh keep all of his benefits.

Kokesh had already been discharged from active duty and is a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, completing his eight-year military obligations on June 18.

I'm sure that the Marine board knows far better whether or not Kokesh's decision to wear his MARPAT fatigues was technical violation, but as Kokesh did not wear his name tape or other identifying military insignia, I think they're pushing it when they decided to recommend removing the honorable discharge status he'd previously received.

I suspect if he was on active duty and reported without wearing his name tape and identifying rank and unit insignia, that he would be likely be judged "out of uniform." It therefore seems that a double standard may be in place here.

I'd be very interested in the opinions of any active-duty or veteran Marines on this. I don't agree with his politics, but that does not mean he should be held to a different standard, if indeed he is.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at June 5, 2007 08:32 AM
Comments

You are wrong. His uniform had the globe and anchor signifying the Marine Corps. Name tag and unit does not matter.

Posted by: dan in michigan at June 5, 2007 08:55 AM

Does this mean that we give up our free speech whenever we wear our old field jackets?

Sweet Jebus, I see grunt wannabes every day schlepping around Cary in camo. Is it just veterans who give up their rights forever?

Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 5, 2007 09:13 AM

I am a veteran marine and ended my active duty back in '04, my end of active service is this October, I went to Iraq, the whole 9.

The "MARPAT" cammies he wore have the Eagle Globe and Anchor sewn in to the chest pocket. Not to mention there are very small Eagle Globe and Anchors mixed in with the pattern on the entire uniform.

Marine corps regulations do not allow him to wear his uniform at that type of event.

Posted by: Bodacious at June 5, 2007 09:26 AM

Does this mean that we give up our free speech whenever we wear our old field jackets?

Sweet Jebus, I see grunt wannabes every day schlepping around Cary in camo. Is it just veterans who give up their rights forever?

Not forever, only until your contract is completed.

Posted by: Bodacious at June 5, 2007 09:30 AM

Bodacious,

First, welcome home and thanks.

I have no doubt that you're right about regulations, but I wonder if he'd have received the same treatment if he'd been to a pro-Bush rally.

Call me a cynic, but I doubt it.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 5, 2007 09:33 AM

Thanks

I wore my old style cammies to a counter-protest once and no one said anything. But then again I live in a releatively small town and no one who cared probably never saw me.

I would be willing to bet you are correct though, however if somone was brought up on chrages for wearing a uniform while attending a pro war/bush rally I would support the charges.

Posted by: Bodacious at June 5, 2007 10:17 AM

Maybe y'all missed this at RedState yesterday:

http://www.redstate.com/stories/blogosphere/yes_markos_you_can_be_prosecuted_for_it

Sorry for the URL. First time posting here, not sure if links are allowed.

Posted by: GISAP at June 5, 2007 11:11 AM

I give up.

http://tinyurl.com/2g7l5v

Posted by: GISAP at June 5, 2007 11:14 AM

Mr. Terrenoire- if he'd been at a pro-Bush rally, he would have probably been told to go home or change clothes.

Inactive Ready Reserve is under all the same regulations as active duty. He was not exercising his right to free speech because he was not speaking for himself-- by wearing that uniform while a member of the military, he was speaking FOR THE MILITARY.

The fact that he responded to a military investigation by cursing at the investigator, in text, shows that he's a moron. The fact that he also emailed obscenity to an even HIGHER officer who would oversee the investigation shows that he's trying to make a statement-- although, beyond "I am an idiot", I'm not sure what that would be.

My bet would be that he's yet another person who signed the paperwork for the IRR without even bothering to realize he's still in the military, legally speaking.
If I was these folks, I'd run a drug test. I give a 50% chance that he's been smoking pot. (Why do I say this? Because the sort of folks who will wear a uniform to a protest rally because they think the military can't touch them will usually do other things they couldn't do on active duty, ignoring the papers they signed acknowledging that the rules still apply.)

Posted by: Foxfier at June 5, 2007 11:17 AM

Foxfier and Bodacious,

Thank you for giving me some background. I do appreciate it.

As for FoxFier's point that this guy is most likely an idiot, I would have to agree.

But if being an idiot was grounds for a general discharge then ... oh forget it, the joke's too easy and you can probably guess where I was going.

To be honest, I'd support an Article 15, but taking away an honorable discharge seems a bit harsh for being an idiot.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 5, 2007 11:58 AM

*chuckles* Yeah, I do see where the joke is going. *does NOT argue*

He was a Marine, so he signed the same papers I did when he got out. Technically, they should reactivate him, try him and punish him in that route. (They have enough to nail him very, very hard if the email information is true-- which I believe it is.)

That could go all the way to a couple of *years* in jail. I think they're taking this route to be politic. No matter how justified they would be, it would be spun as "Sent to jail for protesting war," not "sent to jail for violation of regulations, not cooperating, conduct unbecoming" and a dozen other things.
A Marine usually can't cuss out a high ranking officer for doing his job and walk away from it.

Posted by: Foxfier at June 5, 2007 12:14 PM