Iraq war vets punished for free speech.
Iraq war vets punished for free speech.
“As some returning Iraq veterans join anti-war protests, free speech advocates say disciplinary cases against three outspoken former Marines could stifle dissent by those who may know the most about conditions in Iraq.” The cases involve members of the Individual Ready Reserve, “a group most servicemembers enter after active duty. Unlike regular reservists, they receive no pay and are not required to drill or attend annual training.”
UPDATE: While veterans speaking out against the war are being punished, Lt. Gen. William Boykin — who infamously described the war on terrorism as a battle between a “Christian nation” (the United States) and “Satan,” and claimed that Muslims worship an “idol” — was promoted to lead the U.S. special operations command.
UPDATE II: The military has threatened to remove the honorable discharge status of Marine Cpl. Adam Kokesh, after he appeared in an anti-war protest in uniform.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Rules are rules.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:49 amIt’s Vietnam all over again… But worse.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:52 amJake sez:
…unless you’re a member of the Chimpy administration, apparently…
June 1st, 2007 at 11:54 am#1 ~ Yeah, ok. Whatever. Calvinball anyone?
June 1st, 2007 at 11:55 amBush hates the troops and uses them as cannon fodder. If they dare to object, then he wants them sent to GITMO.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:56 amRules are rules.
Comment by Jake
For you, of course.
Thinking people understand that sometimes the rules must be broken.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:56 amRead Kokesh’s reply to Major Whyte:
http://www.ivaw.org/node/639
Then read his reply to Captain Sibert and Brigadier General Moore:
http://kokesh.blogspot.com/2007/05/press-release-adam-kokesh-rejects.html
Good on him for telling them to stick it.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:57 amWell, this IS America. What made them think they actually had the right to free speech?
June 1st, 2007 at 11:58 amRules are rules.
So, guys on IRR are restrained even more than members of the National Guard? I know some anti-war folks who say they have never been in trouble for protesting so long as they don’t do it while they’re doing their monthly training.
IRR guys are basically inactive reserve, which is about as far as you can get out of the service without being discharged. And you’re telling me despite the fact they don’t train and don’t even do a once-a-month bit they have to act like their still on active duty?
I think you need to get more air – the lack of oxygen is burning out your brain.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:00 pmThe comparison to Boykin doesn’t hold since as far as I know he’s still active duty. A comparison would be to take a look at these pictures and ask yourselves if anyone of the people in uniform who show up for a counter-protest are in the IRR and whether they will be charged with anything.
My hunch is they won’t be.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:04 pmAnd as far as I’ve always known, members of the IRR can be recalled to active duty status under U.S.C. Title X Chapter 1005, but the are not subject to the UCMJ.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:06 pmO.K., which one is it then: “Rules are rules” or “rules are made to be broken”? You guys decide which one works for you today, and then I will present my argument re: Bush.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:06 pmI love TP, but this may be an example of irresponsible reporting. The one guy was in uniform (albeit with insignia removed) and that is against the rules. If he had worn jeans and a t-shirt that said “Iraq Vet against the War” woudl he be in any trouble? I don’t know for sure, but I think not. We need the full story, all the facts. Otherwise, we are behaving like the readily inflamed right wingnuts that O’Reilly and Limbaugh love to inflame.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:13 pmwhat a generic, blind obedient statement “Rules are rules”. Don’t question them. Another blanket bullsh!t statement is “Rules are made to be broken.
Neither are fit for the discussion. There used to be pathways for soldiers who feel the orders given were unjust/illegal.
It’s not one or the other. It’s a question if the orders given are just, true to the mission and properly supported thru the chain of command.
The lack of consistency in the supporting of the orders thru the chain of command has led soldiers to question the rationale.
They are still enlisting for those who want to back up their bs by strapping on the boots and falling in line with whatever is the rationale for staying in Iraq this week.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:16 pmO.K., which one is it then: “Rules are rules†or “rules are made to be broken� You guys decide which one works for you today, and then I will present my argument re: Bush.
Comment by Jake
Black & white thinking, Jake, as per usual. SOME rules need to be broken, because they are unjust rules.
Don’t bother with your stupid arguments, because I’m on your “Ignore List.”
June 1st, 2007 at 12:20 pmDoingNuance, if you’re caught smoking post while you are in the IRR you are not brought back to the military, charged with drug use, and re-discharged. The same thing goes for violating military uniform regulations while you’re in the IRR.
A friend of mine and Army judge read this story and said Marine Corps lawyers went to a different law school than him. This is purely political payback.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:24 pmGood grief, guys. This isn’t about breaking the rules or the need to break the rules. The rules don’t apply in their case, so they can’t be broken.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:26 pmYes, rules are rules.
Rule #1: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:40 pmWelcome to Germany 1933, ladies and gents.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:53 pmThis is setting another low. This administration is disgraceful beyond. No shame. None.
Citizend better re read the Declaration and the Constitution and get ready to defend…congress apparently isn’t.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:55 pmWhat has gone unmentioned is that the UCMJ and the Army Field Manual specifically state that military personnel have not only a right but a duty and an obligation to speak out against what one considers to be an illegal order. It would also be instructive for Jake to see the 2006 documentary Sir! No Sir!, which focused on the GI Resistance that took place during the Vietnam War on military bases both at home and abroad, so that he might acknowledge that military personnel have indeed said NO to an illegal and immoral war in the past that was initiated by the United States. The hope is that more members of the military will decide to emulate the examples of Lt. Watada and Camilo Mejia and others of the IVAW [Iraq Veterans Against the War] by telling the military and the government that they will no longer participate in the illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:59 pmThis is BULLSHIT- ACLU, where are you?
June 1st, 2007 at 12:59 pmKokesh intentionally removed his nametag, rank insignia, and the U.S.M.C. tag prior to the protest – which means to me that he was not “in uniform”. I think he lawyers are going to argue this. Given that he had a full beard I don’t think anyone would mistake him for someone on active duty. I was in the I.R.R. after active duty for two years – you don’t have to do a damn thing and I don’t think I could have fit into my uniform after 6 months.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:47 pmAnd as far as I’ve always known, members of the IRR can be recalled to active duty status under U.S.C. Title X Chapter 1005, but the are not subject to the UCMJ.
Comment by Lesly — June 1, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
Exactally. If you are in IRR status the UCMJ does not apply. But if you are still a “drilling reservist” the UCMJ applies to you 24/7, even when not drilling.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:55 pmThe comparison to Boykin doesn’t hold since as far as I know he’s still active duty. A comparison would be to take a look at these pictures and ask yourselves if anyone of the people in uniform who show up for a counter-protest are in the IRR and whether they will be charged with anything.
My hunch is they won’t be.
Comment by Lesly — June 1, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
Where, in these pictures, do you see anyone in uniform?
June 1st, 2007 at 1:58 pmRules are rules.
Tools are tools.
I’m a tool.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:00 pmThere are some paper-pushing, code-mongering generals that I dearly hate. The few idiot Marine officers attacking the honorable Adam Kokesh should be de-commissioned immediately. Good of them do be doing their jobs by seeking to put down somebody who does their dirty work.
Note to bum officers/generals: Adam Kokesh’s discharge is 100% HONORABLE, his rank is SERGEANT, regardless of whatever you stroke on your cute stationary device.
BUMS.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:08 pmThe Boykin link is irrelevant: it refers to a 2003 Daily Telegraph story.
Boykin is, thank God, about to retire (see
June 1st, 2007 at 10:39 pmthis usenet post for details of his insane career.