Anti-war Iraq veteran re-drafted, dis-honorably discharged

[quote=“Vay”][quote=“TC”]Vay -
SOP is the guy was marked as a “Class 4 - Ineligible for reenlistment” due to his bringing back the pistol from Iraq. A pistol is a weapon. A weapon is a controlled item according to the military. Your Grandfathers nazi jacket is completely irrelevant to this situation - but thanks for trying to change the context. [/quote]
You sure do fling accusations real easy man. I wasn’t trying to “change the context”. How many frickin’ military guys take souvenirs from combat? My grandfather’s JACKET was just an example of one of those. The fact that “regulations” differentiate between my case and yours doesn’t make a shite bit of difference. You think guys who risk their frickin’ necks care a whole hell of lot about regulations like the one you’re quoting??? You ever see “Band of Brothers”? (Given your bent, I can imagine you have.) Remember the guy who wanted SO BAD to get a Luger? Was he a jerkwad?[/quote]Tsk tsk tsk…such hostiity!
Re:'Band of Brothers - I’ve probably watched some of it, it focused on a group I’m familiar with…I do not remember the “Luger” incident. “Given your bent” - WTF is that supposed to mean? You are them one mentioning the show…wise up.
War trophies are nothing new…guys diss-assembled and shipped home weapons fron VN…nothing new. But Kokus(sp?) was caught doing this. It may be strange to you, but the military takes its rules quite seriously. If all this guy got was an Art 15 and reduction in rank for this, frankly he got off light. Given the climate, he could have easily been looking at a year or so in a Navy brig for this…along with a DD.
AGAIN VAY…the “jerkwad” comment was in regards to his acting as a stupid tool while wearing his BDU’s. Nice try again on context change.

[quote=“Vay”][quote="tainancowboy]As to his background - it is very relevant to his actions as a tool for the IVAW group. He is just another tool used to preach class division and ‘class/political separation’…kinda like You Vay when you consistently refer to anyone dis-agreeing with you or calling you on your tabloid headlines as from the eeevvviiillll “Right.”

[quote=“Vay”]Oh yeah, TC, anyone who hates the way the ideals of our country have been RUN INTO THE GROUND over the last eight years is “a tool”. Hilarious. No chance the guy like, has strong convictions or anything. Nah. We’re all just closet commies waiting for the chance to pull out a Che poster, put on some reggae and smoke up while we conduct a druidic ritual as we un-knowing work the will of our evil puppet-masters until they do us in like the “useful idiots” that Russian guy you posted about described.

As for “evil rightists”, mmm, well, yes I do think Rove, Cheney, Rupert Murdoch, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson are “evil” as I would define it. Bush blah blah bah…SSDD…"

ANYWAY, as for you, no, I don’t get the sense that you’re “evil” per se – just
blindly loyal and hence readily succeptible to misguidance.[/quote]You’re a real piece of work there Vay…a real piece of work kid.

[quote=“Vay”][quote]Oh, and Vay…where did you get the ‘Dishonorable Discharge’ attribute from? Everything I’ve read so far looks towards a ‘General Discharge’ (less than Honorable) downgrade for this guys actions.
Poetic license, eh?[/quote][quote=“Vay”]Oh, Jesus God, you caught me. Well, sorry, but the quote I posted from the blog at the beginning of this thread does say “dishonorable discharge”. The actual news article I linked to below the blog says “less than honorable discharge”. Pardon the hell out of me for not knowing they were distinct. (I must be a mindless marionette of the Ivory Tower Elite, who, as asserted by another Forumosan, lacks critical reading skills to boot! Or are you going to go the route you usually do and call me a liar again?)[/quote]DId I actually do that? Quite unlike me to do something like that…can you show me the actual quote where I called you a “liar”? Its always good to check the validity of the sources you quote…especially when you’re going to use them in such an aggressive manner. Oh, and a simple…“Sorry…my bad” would have been a perfectly acceptable apology. It is a rather technical detail that someone with little to no experience with the military system probably would not be aware of.

And do please knock-of the ‘VICTIM’ crap Vay…I offered the clarification of discharge status as a POI for the article…not trying to make points against you.[quote=“Vay”]However, far as I can see, you are still just carefully dancing around the primary issue here: we have a SOLDIER (not a butt-ugly tie-dye-wearing mother with an annoying voice) who FOUGHT in IRAQ, and he’s outspoken against the war.[/quote]I [i]have mentioned a possible "freedom of speech issue’…or do you just not care to acknowledge that fact?[quote=“Vay”]Bringing up his class background and his “souvenir” are exactly what you guys do EVERY time there’s someone who might bring the public’s attention to the fact that there are BRAVE, SELF-SACRIFICING PATRIOTS (not self-centered spoiled counter-culture elitists) who are opposed to what’s been happening in this country. When someone like this shows up - someone who puts another rent in the spell you guys have had the people under - your first question is All right, what have we GOT on this guy? How very Karl Rove of you.[/quote]“…you guys do…”…getting a bit paranoid there Vay? Seeing things in your peripheral vision? Hearing clicks on your telephone?

[quote=“Vay”]The question is not CAN the military do what they did - obviously the can - the question is SHOULD they. It’s America, for Chrisssake![/quote][/quote][/quote]No Vay…the question here is what the rule of law says. So you don’t like the law? Tuff noogies…it still applies.
This case is not an easy one and it remains to be seen what the outcome will be. Will he be covered and prosecuted under the UCMJ? At this point probably so.
Will he have his discharge status changed to General (less than honorable status)" I don’t know. I personally think he’s just a dumb schmuck who got caught up in something and didn’t stop to think of the consequences of his actions. It happens. Should he be stigmatized for the rest of his life for this bit of stupidness…IMO…no, he should not.
Should there be a penalty imposed on him for his actions…Yeah…there should. I ain’t Solomon and am not sitting on his tribunal…so its not in my pay grade to decide what to do to him.

Try taking the dramatics and BS out of your responses and look at this in a sincere manner. It better for your liver.

Hiding Behind Free Speech

And no, he didn’t remove his name tag - its embroidered on…and here is what his uniform looked like:
civiliangunner.com/MARPAT/im … go_jpg.jpg

Oh, and Vay…I’m from the USA…we say ‘shit’…not that other word that sounds like a lady sneezing. Where you from?

[quote=“jdsmith”]

[quote]
My view is simple – I don’t care whether this guy is pro-war or anti-war, but he shouldn’t be penalized for expressing his viewpoint or, excessively, for the pistol.[/quote]

Agree with the first part, but the weapons charge is serious, and the military is within their rights to reclassify his discharge because of it. That his loud mouth drew this attention to him when he already had a weapons charge against him sort of shows me how bright this guy is.[/quote]

Ah, so if he was already “dealt with” once before for the weapons issue … and if he’s being dealt with again for it merely because he spoke up, then when we get down to brass tacks it’s all about punishing him for speaking up and not really for the weapon issue. If you agree with me that he “should not be penalized for expressing his viewpoint,” then that’s the end of it. In my viewpoint, our vets don’t sacrifice their right to speak out as citizens on all matters of public discourse just for having served. Would he be punished if he spoke out as “pro war”? I don’t think so – and so the issue is not even whether he’s being punished for “speaking out”, it’s because he’s speaking out in a way that they don’t like. And if they have to re-induct him just to toss him out again, it looks like they’re extending the long arm of the law into the citizenry to tell civilians what they can and cannot say.

Not downplaying the rules, but I think that the history is clear that these are rules that have not been “serious” for very long within our society. And the desire to bring back these souvenirs stems from an essentially wholesome desire to describe the war one has fought to family and someday descendants as something that can be a source of family pride. Trench art, captured weapons and flags, etc. Go to the Australian War Memorial museum in Canberra and there are some extraordinary stories of the soldiers’ personal connection to the items they captured or which saved their lives – nearly all other war museums are sterile in comparison.

I’m glad we can agree that his crimes are not comparable to those of the guards at Abu Ghraib. Their keepsakes incriminated them for much more heinous crimes, but some people were quick to downplay what was going on there – i.e., like Rush Limbaugh telling his millions of minions how it was some innocent horseplay … or members of the 101st Keyboardists getting more upset that the photos had gotten out more than being upset that we had abused people in the first place.

But if in the GOP mainstream view the Abu Ghraib abuses were just like “fraternity pranks” and “hazing”, then just what sort of piffery is this situation? Us financially challenged Dems never had the resources to belong to hoity-toity collegiate clubs where people rammed glowsticks up each other’s asses like Rush assumes, so I can’t answer that one. However I think that even in more non-partisan days our American homes always had examples of “trench art” and a few things taken from the battlefield.

I don’t know if the UCMJ has a thing about double jeopardy.

Either way you bite it, it’s a bitter pill. No one would have know about this guy if he hadn’t been targetted.

TC wrote:
[quote]
Will he have his discharge status changed to General (less than honorable status)" I don’t know. I personally think he’s just a dumb schmuck who got caught up in something and didn’t stop to think of the consequences of his actions. It happens. Should he be stigmatized for the rest of his life for this bit of stupidness…IMO…no, he should not. [/quote]
I agree with both parts TC.

This guy is now a target OF the USMC and a target FOR the antiwar groups. It’s not like he had anything new to say.

The whole saga is just pathetic. Makes all parties, particularly the military and the pro-Iraq cabal, look stupid.

BroonAntiwar

I don’t know if it’s safe to say that ALL listeners of Rush L. (if that’s what you mean by the GOP mainstream) agree that AG was “just” hazing. I think many people didn’t see naked pyramid stacks were “torture” at a time when guys were getting their heads sawed off. And nobody does torture like the Iraqis anyway; AG is probably scoffed at by insurgents and civillians alike. Ask their soccer team what torture is like.

I don’t know if it’s safe to say that ALL listeners of Rush L. (if that’s what you mean by the GOP mainstream) agree that AG was “just” hazing.[/quote]

Did anybody condemn him for it? Did his listeners decrease by one iota? Or was his characterization picked up by other shows preaching to the GOP choir?

[quote]HANNITY: What is it?

ROBINSON: I’ve seen – I’ve seen worse than this at – frat hazing is worse than this.

HANNITY: So in other words, this is not a big deal? What should the punishment be if these guys in fact are found guilty of whatever is going on over there, whatever is going on?

ROBINSON: Well, it’s not torture. If it was, they’d be accused of torture. They’re accused of maltreatment. I’m not making excuses for them.[/quote]

The abuses by Americans on Iraqis at Abu Ghraib were bad enough. Following is a partial list:

  1. Urinating on detainees
  2. Jumping on detainee’s leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly
  3. Continuing by pounding detainee’s wounded leg with collapsible metal baton
  4. Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
  5. Sodomization of detainees with a baton
  6. Tying ropes to the detainees’ legs or penises and dragging them across the floor.
  7. Rape of at least one teenage Iraqi girl by guards; sexual abuse of others
  8. Killing detainees – such as Manadel al-Jamadi

Again, we Dems just don’t get invited into the exclusive sorts of university clubs that apparently the hoity-toity Republicans are getting into. What seems like a routine day of “frat hazing” to the GOP plutocrats comes off as sick torture to us. Call me a frickin’ bleeding heart for not condoning what happened at Abu Ghraib like the Rush Limbaughs and other stalwarts of this world, but I consider myself American first.

Question remains: do you want to have US soldiers compare in the same league as terrorist beheaders, Iraqi torture squads or the Saddam regime or do you prefer them to aspire to be way, way out of league there and plain incomparable on that issue - not just on scope but even on mere principle?

One may of course try to turn this around and label to question your comparison as “just another lame attempt of moral relativism”. Fact remains though: it’s been you who just came up with the above comparison. You of course are free to do so. What I wonder is why you think you had to aim THAT low?

Good Grief, one would hope to part a path amongst the slinging of partisan epithets… :neutral:
To even bring this up, one sordid case history, as somehow representative of anything other than a dumbass reservist who got caught.
So what?
What exact bearing does this have on current military events in Iraq? Other than fitting an obviously carved prism into an equally obviously positioned slot?

Frankly, we should try to keep sociology out of some of the more realistic approaches to social science. It’s too easily chopped up into matters of dialectix…

Question remains: do you want to have US soldiers compare in the same league as terrorist beheaders, Iraqi torture squads or the Saddam regime or do you prefer them to aspire to be way, way out of league there and plain incomparable on that issue - not just on scope but even on mere principle?

One may of course try to turn this around and label to question your comparison as “just another lame attempt of moral relativism”. Fact remains though: it’s been you who just came up with the above comparison. You of course are free to do so. What I wonder is why you think you had to aim THAT low?[/quote]

Question one: yes. Why shouldn’t the US soldiers be compared to the terrorists? That’s who they are fighting. I don’t see the terrorists building schools and dropping off medical supplies. Let’s do a Pepsi Challenge.

Question two: I did not bring up AG. I responded to it. I don’t feel it is a fair comparrison at all.

Gman wrote
[quote]
What exact bearing does this have on current military events in Iraq?[/quote]
Nothing at all. I don’t believe this situation “fits” into any larger picture.

Off the cuff I’d say because they are leagues apart. But if you have a different oppinion and think they DO compare … up to you of course.

Off the cuff I’d say because they are leagues apart. But if you have a different oppinion and think they DO compare … up to you of course.[/quote]

And of course you yourself have even the minute of a fathom of any adequate means to compare the two uncomparables?
Having served…
…how long was it?
On either side?

Rest unto ye armchair, for it is ye throne…

Off the cuff I’d say because they are leagues apart. But if you have a different oppinion and think they DO compare … up to you of course.[/quote]
I don’t think it takes much imagination or creativity to compare the two groups. If you say they are not comparable, then you seem to be suggesting that one side is far above the other, so much so that a “fair” comparison cannot be made.

War is a great equalizer. There is little moral high ground in combat, and the good guys don’t win because they are in the right. I have always felt and have written here many times that the US should fight on the same level as its enemies, higher or lower. Why kill a mouse with lion when a cat will do the job better, faster and cheaper?

Interesting idea there JD, but if they’re having difficulty getting troops to enlist now, how is offering a suicide vest going to help?

HG

That’s it. You’ve got it exactly. If this guy was in uniform and supporting the war, we would not be having this conversation as he would have probably been promoted back to sergeant or in the least nothing negative would have happened to him. It’s pure naivety to suppose the military’s actions in this case are anything but revenge for his being anti-war. Or does anyone on here really believe the same thing would have happened if he had been at a pro-war rally in uniform?

Interesting idea there JD, but if they’re having difficulty getting troops to enlist now, how is offering a suicide vest going to help?

HG[/quote]

exactly,and it’s funny to see a pro-war like JD coming out with a theory that implies that if the war had been fought with a much lesser military might,it would have probably been wrapped up by now :unamused:

No enlistment problems reported by any of the services.
More on the T:

[quote]Marine panel recommends less-severe discharge for corporal
by DAVE HELLING, The Kansas City Star

A three-member board of the Marine Corps Mobilization Command has recommended an immediate discharge under general conditions for Cpl. Adam Kokesh.

The recommendation is less severe than the “other than honorable” discharge sought by Corps officials against Kokesh, who was accused of disrespecting an officer and wearing a uniform to an Iraq War protest.

The recommendation now goes to the commanding general of the command for a final decision, expected within the next two weeks.

The Marine Corps contended Kokesh, 25, might have violated a rule prohibiting troops from wearing uniforms without authorization during the protest rally in March. Kokesh was honorably discharged after a combat tour in Iraq, but he remains part of the Individual Ready Reserve, whose members have left active duty but still have time remaining on their eight-year military obligations. His service is due to end June 18.

Marine Capt. Jeremy Seibert, who presented the case for the Marines, said the Corps was seeking to remove Kokesh from the Marines two weeks early and determine his discharge status because of “order violations.” He said the case has nothing to do with free speech.

But Kokesh’s attorney, Lt. Jeremy Melaragno, disagreed.

“It has everything to do with freedom of speech,” he told the board that heard the case. “Ask yourself, would we be here if he was advocating for the Bush administration?”

The defense attorneys also said Kokesh was not subject to military rules during the protest because he was not on active duty.

They said the protest was a theatrical performance, which meant wearing a uniform was not a violation of military rules. The military considered it a political event, at which personnel are not allowed to wear their uniforms without authorization.
kansascity.com/news/breaking … 35349.html[/quote]
I suspect there will be more articles on this soon.

The military was segregated for quite some time. And seeing how racism hasn’t really faded in America, could there be a bit of truth in his remark? Just asking.

Interesting idea there JD, but if they’re having difficulty getting troops to enlist now, how is offering a suicide vest going to help?

HG[/quote]

exactly,and it’s funny to see a pro-war like JD coming out with a theory that implies that if the war had been fought with a much lesser military might,it would have probably been wrapped up by now :unamused:[/quote]
Either you think too much or read too little. Did I say fight with lesser military might? Or did I say fight at their level? It’s a vicious war. I have suggested being vicious right back at them.

And I am not “pro-war.” I hate war. But I am pro-winning a war that my country is engaged in.

Right or wrong, and whatever it takes one presumes.

HG

Right. The level of racism is the same in the US as it was 50 years ago. And proof of this is black people and other minorities occupying positions of power throughout the US.