Printer Friendly Page
UPDATE: VFW STANDS BY PROTESTING MARINE NOW
RECOMMENDED FOR GENERAL DISCHARGE --
National Commander takes heat from members.
Marine will not lose benefits.
Background here...
http://vawatchdog.org/07/nf07
/nfJUN07/nf060207-1.htm
The VFW National Commander has been taking some
heat from his members about the official stance on the Marine who
protested in uniform. The Commander explains.
That is followed by a news story about the
recommendation for a general discharge for the protesting Marine.
First story here...
http://www.vfw.org/index
.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=4086
Story below:
-------------------------
VFW Emphasizes Official Position on Kokesh
Situation
WASHINGTON, June 3, 2007--Much is being made of our news release [VFW to
Corps: Don’t Stifle Freedom of Speech] last Friday on protecting the
free speech rights of demonstrators against the war in Iraq as
partnering with Mr. Adam Kokesh in his argument against the Marine Corps
leadership and as the VFW now supporting the anti-war movement. Neither
premise is correct.
Our release and my statements were simply espousing what we felt was a
stretching of the regulations by the Marine Corps concerning Mr.
Kokesh’s partial wearing of military camouflage clothing as a
retaliatory measure. By doing so, it is our belief that it is a form of
first amendment rights suppression. We see little difference between
what Mr. Kokesh was doing than that of individuals though while in coats
and ties, are leaders of a pack of retired generals (including Marines)
appearing regularly on Sunday talk shows strongly condemning the war in
Iraq. Retired military certainly have at least an equal status under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice as does individuals in the Individual
Ready Reserve, as Mr. Kokesh is presently classified.
Our position cannot extend to a support of Mr. Kokesh’s overall actions,
particularly his correlating vehement attacks on the leadership of the
Marine Corps. We believe those actions to be repugnant and rather
sophomoric. The Marine Corps has the right, indeed obligation, to
investigate whether Mr. Kokesh used inappropriate and disrespectful
language in written correspondence to the leadership’s inquiries and, if
the allegation proves true, to commence pertinent disciplinary
proceedings on that issue.
Friday’s news release also must not be interpreted as supporting any
facet or organization of the anti-war movement. The VFW’s position on
the War on Terrorism has been clear and continues to be unwavering – we
believe you cannot support our troops without supporting their mission.
This is unequivocally outlined in our national resolution 406 [listed
below]
Gary L. Kurpius
VFW Commander-in-Chief
Resolution No. 406: SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ
WHEREAS, we support the Commander-in-Chief in his efforts to prosecute
the global war on terrorism: and
WHEREAS, the war in Iraq is part of that effort; and
WHEREAS, the war in Iraq is considered the centerpiece and front line in
the war of terror; and
WHEREAS, United States armed forces should remain in Iraq in sufficient
numbers until Iraqi forces can provide security for their nation; and
WHEREAS, a strategy to announce a withdrawal date or rigid timetable
will be exploited by the insurgency, giving them a timetable to execute
patience and intensify their efforts after U.S. military forces leave;
and
WHEREAS, if U.S. military forces withdraw from Iraq before victory is
achieved, that nation state will become a haven for terrorist activity,
which likely includes planning and carrying out attacks against America,
its allies and citizens at home and abroad; and
WHEREAS, it is critical that the U.S. succeed in Iraq, which will result
in stability and security in the region; and
WHEREAS, U.S. armed forces and coalition partners are making significant
progress in defeating the Iraq insurgency, rebuilding the Iraq
infrastructure (i.e., schools, hospitals, water, sewerage and power
generating facilities, etc.), and are greatly appreciated by the Iraqi
people; now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States,
that we support the Commander-in-Chief and the brave men and women
fighting the war in Iraq, as a matter of security for the American
people, until victory is achieved, defined as Iraqi forces being solely
capable of securing their nation.
-------------------------
Second story here...
http://www.kansas.com/wir
eupdates/story/87936.html
Story below:
-------------------------
Discharge suggested for anti-war Marine
By HEATHER HOLLINGSWORTH
Associated Press Writer
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - 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.
-------------------------
Larry Scott --
