posted on June 2, 2007 06:19:46 AM new
By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The nation's largest combat veterans group on Friday urged the military to "exercise a little common sense" and call off its investigation of a group of Iraq war veterans who wore their uniforms during anti-war protests.
"Trying to hush up and punish fellow Americans for exercising the same democratic right we're trying to instill in Iraq is not what we're all about," said Gary Kurpius, national commander of the 2.4 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars.
"Someone in the Marine Corps needs to exercise a little common sense and put an end to this matter before it turns into a circus," Kurpius said.
Marine Cpl. Adam Kokesh had already received an honorable discharge from active duty before he was photographed in March wearing fatigues — with military insignia removed — during a mock patrol with other veterans protesting the Iraq war.
A military panel in Kansas City, Mo., will hold a hearing Monday to decide whether he should be should be discharged from service and, if so, with what type of discharge.
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.
Kurpius said the possibility of receiving a less than honorable discharge from service could threaten educational and other benefits Kokesh is eligible to receive from the
Department of Veterans Affairs. The action might also prevent Kokesh from future employment opportunities that require a security clearance, Kurpius said.
"We all know that people give up some individual rights when they join the military," Kurpius said. "But these Marines went to war, did their duty, and were honorably discharged from the active roles. I may disagree with their message, but I will always defend their right to say it."
Kokesh received his honorable discharge after one combat tour in Iraq, but he remains part of the Individual Ready Reserve, a pool of former active duty service members in unpaid, non-drill status.
Kokesh's attorney, Michael Lebowitz, has called the investigation an effort to stifle critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy.
posted on June 2, 2007 08:34:32 AM new
"""""which is prohibited"
Enough said.""""
Yup, for a Fascist who doesn't appreciate what our troops have done. For an uptight dried up old "tsk"er who thinks that issue was time well spent by our military.
""The nation's largest combat veterans group on Friday URGED THE MILITARY TO "EXERCISE A LITTLE COMMON SENSE " ""
posted on June 2, 2007 01:46:15 PM new
like it says "prohibited". And no, you do not have the same "rights" as a civilian until your obligation is ended.
And if you want to constantly use the term "fascist" from the Soros ready book of quotes, research what it means so it's not so embarrassing.
posted on June 2, 2007 02:22:31 PM new
DUHsquirrel, I have many times posted the fourteen points of Fascism, I know exactly what the term means and linduh's posts indicate a distinct bent for Fascism.
posted on June 2, 2007 05:33:29 PM new
Under the color of the uniform military personnel are subject to the UCMJ, which is a law unto itself. One doesnt have the same rights as a civilian.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on June 3, 2007 04:20:30 PM new "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."
I understand that, I already knew that.
I posted it because for several years a few on this board (including a woman who has never served) have chosen to represent and speak for the troops like they are all of a one-thought-mind, whereas as I have always said they are individuals, each having their own experience in war, and each one with their own thoughts and feelings about it.
This incident is just another example of that. And they have the support of the nation's largest combat veteran's group which means more to me than a few uninformed people on a chat board.
"Trying to hush up and punish fellow Americans for exercising the same democratic right we're trying to instill in Iraq is not what we're all about," said Gary Kurpius, national commander of the 2.4 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars.
posted on June 3, 2007 09:49:33 PM new
The POINT IS...he served his country and the military would be best served taking care of IMPORTANT problems in it's ranks....of which there are many AND THEY are serious.!
posted on June 4, 2007 12:08:32 AM new
I will repeat what I said for the reading impaired, concerning the 'prohibited' rule.
I understand that, I already knew that.
IOW, I am able to comprehend the rule.
And YOU HAVE?
Bear, the difference is that I don't speak for the troops but one aging clown here has chosen to be spokesman for the majority of them for years without their consent and without serving alongside them and with obviously very limited knowledge of what they are facing each day or what they really think.
How ridiculous and dumb of her to believe that just because the rules say the troops should hush up, she could actually designate herself the power to be mouthpiece for most of them, especially when she is unable to even comprehend the most simplified writings on a small chat board.
posted on June 4, 2007 07:55:07 AM new
No one here has said they speak for or support our enemies. You apparently are speaking for them too. Freely protesting governmental policy is the backbone of democracy. You, on the other hand, have said numerous times that you speak for the majority of the troops. How on earth did you manage to find out what the majority thinks and how did they communicate that to you? Did they elect you their spokesperson?
posted on June 4, 2007 08:44:29 AM new
CC I have already addressed the topic issue. HAVE YOU? Nope, it looks like you'd rather join in with kiara here and make it all about Linda instead.
Here was my previous answer....Linda_K posted on June 2, 2007 07:50:20 AM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"which is prohibited"
posted on June 4, 2007 08:48:32 AM newNo, kiara, you speak for and support our enemies.
Never have I spoke for the terrorists or insurgents. Nor do I support them. Once again Linda_K has me mixed up with the other invisible people that talk to her constantly in her head as she makes her mental descent known.
Linda_K posted on June 2, 2007 07:50:20 AM
Enough said.
Guess not, two days later she still can't stop yakking about it.
posted on June 4, 2007 09:32:04 AM new
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC I have already addressed the topic issue. HAVE YOU? Nope, it looks like you'd rather join in with kiara here and make it all about Linda instead"
Nice dodging, Linda. When faced with what you post in black and white--change the subject. I'll post what I want and address what I wish to address. Only Linda thinks it is all about Linda.
Enough said