Defending the Truth

A military panel recommended that an Iraq war veteran who wore his uniform during an anti-war demonstration 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 he did nothing wrong by participating in the March protest in Washington, D.C., because he removed his name tag and military emblems from his uniform, making it clear he was not representing the military.

His attorneys argued the demonstration was "street theater," exempting it from rules barring troops from wearing uniforms at protest activities.

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.

"What that means is he is not dishonorable, and he's only kind of honorable, so in effect, the board picked the safe route," said Kokesh's attorney, Mike Lebowitz.

"This is a nonpunitive discharge," said Col. Patrick McCarthy, chief of staff for the mobilization command. "The most stringent discharge that could have been received is other than honorable, and the board chose to raise that up to a general discharge."

After the hearing, Kokesh criticized the panel for not taking a stronger stand on the issue. He said he might appeal the board's ruling.

"I do not think it was in the Marine Corps spirit to take the easy road or to not take a stand," said Kokesh, who is from Santa Fe, N.M., but is living in Washington. "In the words of Dante, the hottest layers of hell are reserved for those who in times of moral crisis maintain their neutrality, and I think that's what happened here today."

After Kokesh, 25, participated in the March protest, he was identified in a photo caption 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 had already received an honorable discharge from active duty before he participated in the demonstration, but he remains a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, which consists mainly of those who have left active duty but still have time remaining on their eight-year military obligations. His service is due to end June 18.

An investigating officer had recommended that the board immediately discharge Kokesh under other-than-honorable conditions, the toughest such penalty it could impose.

The Marines' first witness, Maj. John R. Whyte, testified that he wrote Kokesh an e-mail informing him that the Marines were investigating the possible uniform violation. Kokesh responded with a note that included an obscenity.

Brig. Gen. Darrell L. Moore, one of two officers who received an e-mail from Kokesh that contained an obscenity, will likely be the person who will decide whether to go along with the board's recommendation.

During closing arguments at the hearing, Marine Capt. Jeremy Sibert said military personnel can be punished if their civilian behavior "directly affects the performance of military duties and is service-related."

Outside the hearing Monday, several people stood in front of a bus painted with anti-war slogans, such as "Bring Them Home Now," "Not One More!" and "What Noble Cause?" Two other veterans who received letters because of their protest activities traveled to Kansas City for the hearing.
ABC News: Vet Faces Court After Uniformed Protest

He shouldn't have worn his freakin' uniform.

I understand that opinion.

But do you think he should have his "honorable" status on his discharge taken away because of what essentially boils down to a freedom of speech?

You can't post one post on here without thinking about "gay people".

This had nothing to do about being gay.

When you JOIN THE MILITARY, you lose a lot of your rights that regular civilians have.
It has nothing to do with "putting on the uniform".

And the point here is whether or not THIS free speech loss is over the top, or acceptable.

Just because you "lose some of your free speech rights" doesn't mean that any restriction should not be questioned.


Do you have any evidence this guy is gay?
Or are you just SOOOO fixated on gays, wanting to talk to them every hour of your waking day, that you feel it necessary to throw "gay" in on every subject matter, even when it's not relevant?

Have you ever been in the military?

Yes.
I served five years in the Navy.

While I see some purpose in the rule, I think the punishment is a little over the top.

There are other ways to punish him. The method they are talking about in this article is too permanent, and IMO too extreme.

Would any other military guy who did something similar, but was not up for discharge, have had his punishment put on hold until he was discharged so that the same punishment would be meted out?

The reason I asked is because anybody in the military should truly understand what it means to put on the uniform. I think his punishment was appropriate. When you do something like that it hurts the men and women still serving and tarnishs America's image even more.

In case you want to know, I was in the Navy for 8 years as a surface warfare officer.

I understand the reasons behind it, but taking away the guy's honorable discharge after fighting in Bush's occupation, illegally, in a nation that wants us to leave will only backfire on this administration...one has nothing to do with the other...the guy is out of the service....he did his time...let charges fall where they may but to dishonor his service in war is wrong...on all levels.