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

Kokesh is not on active duty, but he is still in the Reserves and he has a history of violating rules and regulations, having been demoted from Sergeant to Corporal for having brought a firearm home from the war zone.

He's fair game and the panel will make a decision.

He should have chosen other attire.

By the way, Marines don't wear fatigues.

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

He's not being punished for exercising his freedom of speech, he's being investigated for wearing his uniform at a demonstration rally.

Furthermore, he has not yet been honorably discharged. If he had been discharged, there would be no grounds for a case against him.

His character of service is currently honorable, but that might change as a result of his misuse of the uniform.

When you're in the military, you play by different rules than the civilian population. Sometimes, that doesn't seem fair and indeed, I did my share of bitching about it, but when it's all said and done, the system prevails.

He should have known better and he can't claim ignorance, because these regulations are covered quite adequately.


[edit on 2007/5/31 by GradyPhilpott]

Well, if the DoD is worried about a backlash they can hold back his discharge, change his duty status to active, punish (whatever the charge) or even send him into a combat duty for 6 months before discharge. They have lots of options here. Faced with the alternatives he might take the less than honorable discharge just to done with it.

Given his history of losing a rank, he really should have known better. I still think his best defense is to volunteer guilt to a charge of out of uniform and see if they take the bait. Writing his congressman and senators wouldn't hurt either.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
...............
Even a missing or not buttoned button is grounds for a charge of out of uniform and carries specific rules of punishment.

If it is missing a button it is still a military uniform but it is not a proper uniform.

Humm, thinking about this I am not so sure that not having your name tag and insignias immediately makes it "not a uniform." It does make it not a proper uniform.

BTW, was he or was he not already given his discharge? Is he or is he not in the reserves? Some members are saying something, and others say something else.

[edit on 31-5-2007 by Muaddib]

A service member is not discharged until the obligation is met, either by serving the time or there being some other reason to terminate the obligation such punitive, medical, or hardship.

Because he is still in the Reserves, he has been released from active duty, his character of service having been honorable, which would be reflected on his DD214, or an equivalent document.

Even if he were found guilty of the infraction, it does not mean that it would be enough to change the character of his service.

That would be for the panel to decide.

[edit on 2007/5/31 by GradyPhilpott]

Well I saw this story on CNN, so it did make it on the news.

But, nonetheless, what is wrong with wearing a uniform at a rally? What law says you cant? Every citizen is entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of expression under the Constitution, any "law" that takes away those freedoms should not be followed, period. Any man made law that infringes on our god-given rights should not be followed, period.

This man was smart, he saw the frailty of war, he understood what the war is doing and what its all about, and he is speaking out against it. The last thing the military wants people to see is one of their own speaking out against them, thats dangerous, because then it will show people that even the soldiers are starting to revolt against this bloody war.

This has nothing to do with the fact that he broke some silly rule. This has everything to do with making sure that their boys keep their mouths shut, and punishing them when they dont. They are using this whole uniform thing just to demote this man for daring to speak out against an immoral illegal war.

And this isnt the first time the Military has tried to shut their own people up. Many defecting soldiers in the past have been intimidated, threatened, remember Jessica Lynch? Members of her squad were found DEAD because they refused to tell the militarys official lie of what happened to Jessica.

This is discusting, our military has become a cesspool of corruption. All of government, all the corporations, all the banks have become cesspools of corruption, what makes you think the military hasnt?

[edit on 1-6-2007 by LightWorker13]

Originally posted by LightWorker13
...what is wrong with wearing a uniform at a rally? What law says you cant?

Service members are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

As has been mentioned before, this has nothing to do with silencing anyone. Had he worn civilian attire to the demonstration, nothing would have occurred regarding his military status.

ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

www.constitution.org...

11002. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVES PERTAINING TO UNIFORMS

1. Implementing 10 U.S.C. 772, the President, by Executive Order 10554 of 18 August 1954, delegated to the Secretary of Defense the authority to prescribe regulations under which persons may wear the uniform. The following excerpts from DoD Directive 1334.1 of 11 August 1969 outline these regulations:

a. Members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of reserve components). The wearing of the uniform is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:

(1) At any meeting or demonstration which is a function of, or sponsored by an organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons which the Attorney General of the United States has designated, pursuant to E.O. 10450, as amended 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.

(2) During or in connection with the furtherance of political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest could be drawn.

(3) Except when authorized by competent Service authority, when participating in activities such as public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration (including those pertaining to civil rights), which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.

(4) When wearing of the uniform would tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.

(5) When specifically prohibited by regulations of the department concerned. /2m6lkr

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 except:

(1) In connection with official duties or as otherwise authorized in advance by competent authority; or

(2) Incident to attendance at or participation in a bona fide religious service or observance.

/2m6lkr

Missing a button is an error in proper presentation, like a dirt spot, or untied shoes.

However, missing nametags and insignia seems to be entirely distinct.

It is specifically the insignia that identify this piece of clothing as
indeed a legal U.S. military uniform, and specifically the nametag which
identifies the person wearing that uniform as being so, and in the military.

Without those, it really isn't a U.S. military uniform in any significant sense.

Those indeed would be the key distinguishing marks making clothing distinct
from a military uniform. The person went out of his way to avoid using those
with the obvious and clear intent to distinguish his clothing from a clear specific
US uniform and the implication of endorsement of policy. It wasn't inattention
it was specific attention to avoid the problem the US has a legitimate
interest in suppressing. Nonetheless the US is still going after this guy which
is evidence that it is on account of his political activities and the uniform is a convenient excuse.

This is such an assault on freedom in this country, is this what America has come to?

The man himself said this is a clear attempt to punish because he dared speak out against the war, how can you defend the military? Do you people know whats happening? How much your military lies and deceives, its incredible!

Remember Jessica Lynch, thats all I gotta say, she didnt even question the war, she just refused to tell a lie for the military, her squad partners refused to back up the lie they had planned, so they got killed.

Like one of her friends, he was sitting in his backyard flipping burgers... eyewitness's say a man in a quote "black uniform" pulls up to the fence, and with absolute precision, just boom boom two shots right to the head, at about 20 yards distance. I mean absolute precision, just boom boom, and the man drops dead in front of his family. This really happened.

Either that or theyll get pulled over by people they thought were cops, and they literally would be drowned in a puddle, one of them was found near a fence on the road, and the military said he was "hit by a truck".

I mean your military would drown their own soldiers in a puddle, shoot em in the head, just for threatening to blow the official lie they set up to bolster up their image, its so ridiculous, its so evil! Your military leaders, dont give a damn about their soldiers.

Its like on George Noory, I heard last night on the radio, they had a man on who worked in the government for Reagan, and he was passionately ranting about how they still had missing soldiers in Vietnam, the Vietnamese wanted to sell them back, and the government said no, leave them there, who cares about them. Theyve been there for 25 years still counting, and no one is doing anything about it, no ones talking about it, nothing. The military even lies, they say they have no PoWs in Vietnam. Its all so corrupt.

I wouldnt trust your military to tell me the time, much less save my country from terrorists. Personally, my life has already been threatened by people in your military for daring to speak the facts to them, so I know how corrupt they are, trust me. Wake up.


[edit on 1-6-2007 by LightWorker13]

Originally posted by LightWorker13
This is such an assault on freedom in this country, is this what America has come to?

The man himself said this is a clear attempt to punish because he dared speak out against the war, how can you defend the military? Do you people know whats happening? How much your military lies and deceives, its incredible!

The "man' obviously has no clear concept of what he did wrong in regards to the UCMJ. And yes ... Had he commited a civil act that, in some way, impeded his ability to be called up if the IRR was called up, in Military terms he could be tried, or courtmartialed for that, as well.

It is apparent that most do not realize that wearing of a military uniform by non-military personnel can be viewed and dealt with as illegal. Think of it, if nothing else, as the Texas Wirecutter law. That particular law states thata if an official police person should search your car, and find something that can be considerred a wire cutter, then you could, theoretically, be held on suspicion of cattle rustling. And so it goes.

And in an aside, apropos of very little, military code justice has always been much harder, and is often at logger's heads with civil law.

It is not a matter of what this country is coming to. It is a matter of a boob being hoisted by his own petard, stupidity and general lack of understanding and discipline, and not having the good graces to admit that he is a screw up and then manning up to his punishment.

Remember Jessica Lynch, thats all I gotta say, she didnt even question the war, she just refused to tell a lie for the military, her squad partners refused to back up the lie they had planned, so they got killed.

Like one of her friends, he was sitting in his backyard flipping burgers... eyewitness's say a man in a quote "black uniform" pulls up to the fence, and with absolute precision, just boom boom two shots right to the head, at about 20 yards distance. I mean absolute precision, just boom boom, and the man drops dead in front of his family. This really happened.

I guess I'd like to see some validation of "This really happened". Methinks someone has been hitting the funny weed just a bit hard. However, having said that, I will say I have been wrong before, and so, the request for validation. This sounds incredibly like the war tales that vets often tell, starting off with ... "Now. This is no S**t"!

Either that or theyll get pulled over by people they thought were cops, and they literally would be drowned in a puddle, one of them was found near a fence on the road, and the military said he was "hit by a truck".

On the other hand, this poor fellah may have, in fact, been hit by a truck.

I think there tends to be a stretch of the incredulity muscles, from my perspective without any available evidence. I do so await evidence.

I mean your military would drown their own soldiers in a puddle, shoot em in the head, just for threatening to blow the official lie they set up to bolster up their image, its so ridiculous, its so evil! Your military leaders, dont give a damn about their soldiers.

Having been wrong before, I will temper my comment here, but without proof of any of the alledged government initiated violence, I think the quoted part just above, could have ended with, "it's so ridiculous".

Its like on George Noory, I heard last night on the radio, they had a man on who worked in the government for Reagan, and he was passionately ranting about how they still had missing soldiers in Vietnam, the Vietnamese wanted to sell them back, and the government said no, leave them there, who cares about them. Theyve been there for 25 years still counting, and no one is doing anything about it, no ones talking about it, nothing. The military even lies, they say they have no PoWs in Vietnam. Its all so corrupt.

Evidence? Proof? Validation by someone other than George Noory. @@:

I wouldnt trust your military to tell me the time, much less save my country from terrorists. Personally, my life has already been threatened by people in your military for daring to speak the facts to them, so I know how corrupt they are, trust me. Wake up.

Ummm ... Yeah .... (to borrow a quote from the movie "Office Space".

I have to ask here, Are you Iraqi? I guess I would be interested in hearing how the American Military has become so corrupt that they will chase around and threaten someone who is spending a great deal of time publishing on the internet.

I happen to have the privilege of having worked with and trained a number of people in the American Military, and not only have I not found them particularly corrupt, I think I am beginning to take personal exception to your unsubstantiated accusations and silly emotional diatribes. Methinks you may have been hitting the DC Comics a bit hard. No personal offense intended or implied, but your arguments appear to lack substance and evidence of thought.



[edit on 1-6-2007 by sigung86]

This case seems pretty clear, and has been explained by quite a few people (so there's no need for me to restate it).

He seems to be in violation, especially since he was still under contract.

Pretty simple. No grand corruption or conspiracy about it.

Is it a bit extreme? Sure, but I doubt they will give him a dishonorable discharge for it.

Have him push papers on active duty for 6 months, then return his honorable discharge. Punished and all sides got something good out of it.

the OP article link,
tells me that Cpl. Kokesh received a letter from a superior offcer
concerning Kokesh being filmed in his military garb...
Kokesh responded with an obscenity to the officer,
~it seems Kokesh desired a confrontation~
and the military has been active in granting his wish,
he, Cpl. Kokesh is now an official scapegoat, by his own making...

the military justice system will prosecute him as an example for others,
he may get a Undesirable or General Under Honorable discharge
if those two types still exist.
his Honorable discharge is "provisional",
in that his honorable separation from active duty,
must be followed by
some years of active reserve or else be followed by 6 years of inactive reserve as the alternative....
most everyone is put in the inactive category because of hardships.
(this was the case when the 2 year draft was active)

if Kokesh wouldn't have made a case out of a superior officer calling attention to his ill advised stunt, it all might have went away quietly...

15 minutes of fame syndrome finds another victim.
~in hind sight, the mock 'squad' the WashingtonPost covered,
would have done well to wear cowboy boots or even use face cameoflage
to do their street theater in...
that way avoiding a charge of improper uniform and such.

tough luck Kokesh,
i do hope you come out ok with your self inflicted problem

Okay, well - you guys are wrong.

Military Status of Reservists: United States v. Phillips

Until Phillips, determining subject matter jurisdiction over reservists' misconduct was somewhat simple: If a reservist was not on active duty status or inactive duty training at the time of the offense, the military did not have subject matter jurisdiction. (15) The basis for this rule is Article 2, UCMJ, which provides a list of all persons subject to the UCMJ. Article 2(a)(1) and Article 2(a)(3) specifically address jurisdiction over reservists:

(1) Members of a regular component of the
armed forces, including ... other persons lawfully
called or ordered into, or to duty in or
for training in, the armed forces, from the
dates when they are required by the of the
call or order to obey it....

(3) Members of a reserve component while
on inactive duty training.... (16)
Article 2(a)(1) and Article 2(a)(3), therefore, apply to reservists serving on active duty (AD), active duty training (ADT), annual training (AT) and inactive-duty training. (17)

Findlaw Article

This article is about an Airforce officers on inactive reserves who ate pot brownies before she thought was on active duty. The Jist of the article is to prove that on 11 July she traveled under orders, which made her official acting under active orders, and thus recalled to active duty - which a court martial ruled.

I am using this aritcle to convey the FACT that this honorably discharged Marine is being unjustly accused and prosecuted by the DOD. He was neither inactive duty training (which is fleet reserves), nor any of the other status's. The DOD has no jurisidction over his actions (because if they did, they would not be talking about changing his discharge status, they would be talking about court martial, which, by the way, they are not!).

The DOD are reaching for anything they can to make this guy an example.

I love how you guys just quote UCMJ without finding any precedence to back up UCMJ "laws". Just so you guys know, there isn't any precedence for this - and the DOD obviously has no jurisidction in this. The only thing they can do - they ARE TRYING TO DO, which is destroy the credibility of this former Marine.

.... waiting for rubuttals.....

military law is crazy man...definately they follow a different set of rules. you're gov property so while to a civilian i can see the law or rule as being total BS, thats the way it is in the military. i had a brother in the marines at 29 palms, another brother in the coast guard in jersey, and another in the navy now.
the ones from the marines and the guard both got a discharge

the one from the coastguard got it cause check this out.

a member of his group or crew or whatever it is called, was toking up...my brother knew about it and didn't say anything. they ended up dishonerably discharging the dude that was toking and honerably discharging my bro....but see, my bro had got in trouble before...i forget why but he was busted down a rank and a pay grade.....so, he was 'in trouble' before....
the service just don't mess around...on one side i say damn, cut them some slack, they're only human. the other side of me says right or wrong, weather i agree with where the gov sends them or not, these guys are put in serious situations and there is NO room for error. no room for someone that thinks they make the rules no matter how silly the rule may be..

simple solution....don't join the service......when this cat gets discharged, if he does, he can then protest all he wants....he should be happy about that...


did anyone think that maybe this guy knew what would happen and orchestrated this as a way to get out of service without really doing anything 'bad'.....you know, lets brake a 'silly' rule, not a real one

Originally posted by zeeon
As a Veteran and Active duty military I am SHOCKED ...

Which are you? A veteran or active duty?

Why are you so 'shocked'?? If you really are in the military you know that you are not allowed to wear your uniform off base or at political rallys like that.

This guy is inactive reserves .. and he has a record of misconduct. While in inactive reserves he is STILL IN the military and is subject to UCMJ.

Originally posted by LightWorker13
what is wrong with wearing a uniform at a rally?

It was already explained to you. Did you bother to read the posts?

this isnt the first time the Military has tried to shut their own people up.

He isn't being punished for attending a rally. He's being punished for attending IN UNIFORM .. which is something that he knew he shouldn't do and is a law that he agreed to abide by when he entered the military.

Originally posted by LightWorker13
The man himself said this is a clear attempt to punish because he dared speak out against the war,

Of course the idiot will say that. He just got himself into trouble for breaking the law. Laws that he agreed to abide by when he VOLUNTARILY entered the military. He's twisting in the wind trying to come up with something to get himself off the hook. It's pathetic, really.

how can you defend the military?

How can you point your finger at the military when CLEARLY the guy who wore his uniform to the rally is in the wrong?

How much your military lies and deceives, blah blah your military blah blah ....

(I added the blah blah instead of the original post)

Geee .. no anti-american-military bias there, eh? :shk: No matter how obviously wrong this guy is you'll sit there bringing up a load of stuff that has no bearinng on this discussion. Red herrings.

FACT - the guy KNEW THE RULES when he signed up.
FACT - the guy DID NOT FOLLOW the rules.
FACT - the guy is still in the military - just is 'inactive'.
FACT - the guy still has to follow the rules (that he agreed to) while he's inactive.
FACT - the guy was never denied his right to protest.
FACT - the guy is trying to deflect blame.
FACT - the guy deserves to be investigated and, if found guilty, punished.

Originally posted by zeeon
I love how you guys just quote UCMJ without finding any precedence to back up UCMJ "laws".

UCMJ laws are just that .. LAWS. They are laws that people agree to abide by when they volunteer for the military. No 'precedence' is needed. This isn't a civilian court of law ....



[edit on 6/1/2007 by FlyersFan]

Ok FlyersFan,

Lets talk.

First off - You can be a veteran AND active duty military. I've served in two major operations and a war, and I'm still active duty. For someone who claims to know so much about the military, I would think you'd know that.

Secondly, my problem is with the military / DOD having issues with this former Marine. I obey my directives and orders - as much as I wish I could participiate in ralleys / protests, I can't - atleast not in uniform. The DOD Is infringing on this mans rights - and I, as a VETERAN and ACTIVE DUTY take offense to this, and won't stand for it.

When you quoted me saying what is wrong with wearing a uniform in a ralley - You mis-quoted me, and took my words out of context. What is wrong with a civlian wearing a uniform in a protest is what I asked.

Your argument has no water dear FlyersFan - the simple fact of the matter is that the military / DOD is pissed that one of their own protested in uniform against the war. SIMPLE AS THAT.

IF he was breaking UCMJ he would be COURT MARTIALED. He is NOT being Court Martialed - do you not see this? THEY CANT court martial him because he's inactive reserves. YOU CAN DO DRUGS on inactive reserves and there is nothing, NOTHING they can do about it.

The only reason their even pushing this discharge change is because he was spotted as being a former marine! OPEN YOUR EYES.

FACT - the guy is still in the military - just is 'inactive'

I love how you just sluff off this FACT - which is a BIG PART of what this entire conversation is about! And you just fluff it off as - well inactive/active it's all the same thing to me! Ignorant.

FACT - the guy still has to follow the rules (that he agreed to) while he's inactive.

WRONG, infact he does not! That is THE POINT of being inactive ! Holy christ I can't believe you don't "get" that.
Read the findlaw article. Educate yourself.

He broke the rules. He knew what he was doing. He did it anyway.

The State has a valid case against him, and would be justified to take action.

However, during a time when recruitment numbers are unstable, reenlistment is dropping, and a favorable image of the military is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain... pursuit of this matter would be a bad idea.

The guy is off IRR in a few weeks. They should just drop it before it becomes more of a circus than it already is.

Although I probably shouldn't be surprised by most of the posters on this thread, I really am.

I have provided you with proof that the DOD doesn't have legal jurisidction over this former Marine (on the basis that he is inactive reserves).

Yet almost everyone on this thread would condemn this man for protesting something MOST of you also feel strongly against. This is hyprocrasy at it's finest.

Disregarding the fact that if he is indeed on an inactive reserve (which, I'm 99% sure he is), you would still condemn him for protesting a war, which most, if not all of you also protest!

So what is it? Do most of you feel so strongly against the american armed forces that you would condemn anyone of us at the first given chance?
From the majority of posts I've seen on this thread, I would assume it's a pretty fair chance.

This Marine put his life on the line, as do all other Marines, to provide us with the liberties and freedoms that we have today. One of them, this man, even feels the same way most of you do about the war - yet I haven't seen much sympathy for him. Why not? Hate the War, Hate the Military. That is the sentiment I'm getting from the majority of posters here.

There was even one poster who accused another one of being anti-military, and in the same post attacked me, a veteran and active duty servicemember.

I'm seriously surprised that most of you (especially those who did a 10 second lookup on google, posted a part of a UCMJ that they most likely don't even understand, then recieved 5 star rating for their post!) wouldn't (and don't) take the time to do some real research for this obvious injustice.

I guess it goes to show how little the majority of posters on this board care.

Well... you're right about one thing: I don't care.

It's been all over the news and the radio here in Kansas City. Multiple lawyers and military "experts" have commented on the radio, and I agree with the majority of their conclusions. Those conclusions being that removing the insignia from his uniform was insufficient as he was still IRR.

Whether or not that is correct will not be decided here, in this thread.

If the State goes ahead with this issue, which again I think is a very bad idea, the courts will decide.

My father, a retired Naval officer with a top secret security clearance, wore his dress whites to protests against the war in Vietnam along with thousands of other military personnel.

This action against this Marine is absurd and anti-American.

Anyone who wants to deprive veterans, of all people, of their right to free expression deserves a bullet in the face.

"Support the troops" my behind - rightwingers only "support the troops" when they're regurgitating propaganda. Should a soldier try to speak the truth, they're the first to turn on him.

[edit on 6/1/07 by xmotex]