Another dishonest article from the ever dishonest AP. This one is about some poor EX-Marine who is now protesting the war with 14 other nimrods at a Iraq Veterans Against The War protest and was photographed wearing Marine Corps fatigues during a protest. Because of this the Marines are talking about yanking his honorable discharge and changing it to dishonorable:
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (June 1) – 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 April by wearing their uniforms – with military insignia removed – and roaming around the nation’s capital on a mock patrol.
After Kokesh was identified in a photo cutline in The Washington Post, a superior officer sent him a letter saying he might have violated a rule prohibiting troops from wearing uniforms without authorization.
Kokesh, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, responded with an obscenity.
Now, a military panel has been scheduled to meet with Kokesh on Monday to decide whether his discharge status should be changed from "honorable" to "other than honorable."
"This is clearly a case of selective prosecution and intimidation of veterans who speak out against the war," Kokesh said. "To suggest that while as a veteran you don’t have freedom of speech is absurd."
Wow….that really sucks huh? I mean once he is out he should be able to wear them right?
Problem is that he is not really out. Of course the AP neglects to note this until the 6th paragraph in:
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.
I signed up for the same thing, as does pretty much everyone. Four years active, four years inactive. During those four years inactive you are still owned by the Marines buddy. Now, if your out of sight…out of mind right? But this guy choose to demonstrate in a widely published demonstration (aren’t all ant-war protests? the only ones not widely published are those supporting the troops…funny how that works) and was photographed doing something he isn’t supposed to be doing, mainly with a Marine Corps uniform then why should he not be punished?
So first the AP hides the fact that he still has time due on his obligation to the Marine Corps, then they say that he removed all military insignia. Kokesh said this also:
Kokesh argues that he was not representing the military at the protest in Washington, and he made that clear by removing his name tag and other military insignia from his uniform.
Well lets look at the photo they supplied with the article:
Kokesh is the one on the far left according to the article. Doing a search via Getty Images I looked at all the pictures of the retards as they went about doing a mock patrol:
I came across this one:
Now that guy closest to the camera looks like Kokesh to me. Check out his breast pocket. Click the picture to get full size.
That’s the Eagle, Globe, & Anchor. The Marine Corps emblem on his uniform. Which means he was wearing a Marine Corps uniform while in the inactive reserves. Showing his support for a protest while in official uniform.
What is there to argue about on this one?
But the sad thing here is that 14 EX-Marines get pictures galore taken, gets an article written about them, while 100,000 other Marines who have served and are serving honorably are little noticed.
Thats our AP for ya.
Ran across this directive which covers the wearing of official military uniforms:
1. REISSUANCE AND PURPOSE
This Instruction reissues reference (a) as a DoD Instruction as prescribed by reference (b) and continues to set limitations on wearing of the uniform by members of the Armed Forces. It also continues to establish policy on wearing of the uniform by former members of the Armed Forces.
This Instruction applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities in the Department of Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as the “DoD Components”).
It is DoD policy that:
3.1. The wearing of the uniform by members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of Reserve components) is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:
- 3.1.1. At any meeting or demonstration that is a function of, or sponsored by an organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons that the Attorney General of the United States has designated, under Executive Order 10450 as amended (reference (c)), as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
- 3.1.2. During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.
- 3.1.3. Except when authorized by the approval authorities in subparagraph 4.1.1., when participating in activities such as unofficial public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration, which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.
- 3.1.4. When wearing of the uniform may tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.
- 3.1.5. When specifically prohibited by regulations of the Department concerned.
3.2. Former members of the Armed Forces, unless under another provision of this Instruction or under the terms of Section 772 of title 10, United States Code (reference (d)), who served honorably during a declared or undeclared war and whose most recent service was terminated under honorable conditions may wear the uniform in the highest grade held during such war service only on the following occasions and in the course of travel incident thereto:
- 3.2.1. Military funerals, memorial services, weddings, and inaugurals.
- 3.2.2. Parades on National or State holidays; or other parades or ceremonies of a patriotic character in which any Active or Reserve United States military unit is taking part.
- 3.2.3. Wearing of the uniform or any part thereof at any other time or for any other purposes is prohibited.
- 3.3. Medal of Honor holders may wear the uniform at their pleasure except under the circumstances set forth in paragraph 3.1., above.
The Marine Corps Uniform Regulations also state: (page 203):
11003. SECRETARY OF THE NAVY POLICY PERTAINING TO UNIFORMS
1. Pursuant to subparagraph 11002.1a(5), the Secretary of the Navy has prescribed that:
- a. The exercise of the rights of freedom of speech and assembly does not include the right to borrow the inherent dignity prestige, and traditions represented by uniforms of the naval service to lend weight and significance to privately held convictions on public issues.
- b. Members of the Navy and Marine Corps (including retired members and members of Reserve components) are prohibited from wearing uniforms of the naval service while attending or participating in, or continuing to attend or participate in, a demonstration, assembly, or activity with knowledge that a purpose of such demonstration, assembly, or activity is the furtherance of personal or partisan views on political, social, economic, or religious issues
Found this US Code:
§ 771. Unauthorized wearing prohibited
Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may wear—
- (1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or
- (2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.
Also, US Code 772 lays out when people can wear the uniform. Even has a section for actors but the applicable one here is:
(e) A person not on active duty who served honorably in time of war in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may bear the title, and, when authorized by regulations prescribed by the President, wear the uniform, of the highest grade held by him during that war.
Doubt the President gave him the ok on this one.
So lets say that he is not beholden to the USMJ while in the IRR, he sure is beholden to the above sections I cited.
Now this is interesting. The AP printed a new article and there is a bit more background:
Col. Dave Lapan, a Marine Corps spokesman, said Kokesh is under administrative review because he wore his uniform at a political event, which is prohibited. And, Lapan said, when a senior officer told Kokesh that he violated military regulations, Kokesh used an obscenity and indicated he would not comply with the rules.
"It’s the political activity that is prohibited, not the type of event that it was," Lapan said. "If it had been a pro-war rally, it would still have been a violation."
The panel could recommend an honorable discharge, a general discharge or an other than honorable discharge. Kokesh could not be given a dishonorable discharge, which generally results from a court-martial. The final decision would be made by the commanding general.
A second Marine who was at the same event was also called about the violation, but told the officer he was unaware he was breaking the rules and said he would not do it again, Lapan said. That Marine has not been called to an administrative hearing.
I’m wondering if this is more about his swearing at a officer then anything else now.
And here we have the email exchange between the USMC and this loser:
I know you’re a busy man these days but I was hoping to speak with you about an issue that has presented itself. I have been assigned as Investigating Officer to look into your possible violation(s) of DoDI 1334.01 "Wearing of the Uniform" and MCO P1020.34 "Marine Corps Uniform Regulations". Specifically, you may have violated the law while wearing all or part of your Marine Corps uniform while engaged in political demonstrations or activities.
I know this matter pales in comparison with recent geopolitical events of which you have shown an interest but, nonetheless, I am obligated to investigate this matter and I have a desire to let a fellow Marine know about his obligations and duty. As a member of the Reserve Component, until 18 JUN 2007, the law restricts your wearing of the uniform at certain events.
Please call me or reply to this e-mail acknowledging your understanding of your obligations and responsibilities. Thanks Marine!
Major **** *. *****
You can read the loser’s reply back in it’s entirety here, it’s mostly a long winded email in which he rails against the injustice of his demotion earlier in his career and against this current investigation. The ending is quite telling tho:
So no, I am not replying to your email in order to acknowledge my understanding of my obligations and responsibilities, but rather to ask you to please, kindly, go fuck yourself.
Adam Kokesh, PFC
Proud Fucking Civilian
Jonn Lilyea at This Ain’t Hell has found a post on the loser’s blog that is interesting:
In fact, this from the IVAW website that Kokesh himself wrote just a few weeks ago (dated May 17th) when he infiltrated a military base in Germany to spread his bile;
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.
Emphasis mine. He had a valid military ID card – he hadn’t been discharged, he’s subject to the UCMJ. Case closed.
Valid military ID card in his possession huh…interesting.