Skip to main content

View Diary: Marines investigates Iraq vet for wearing cammos at protest (286 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually... I'm not kidding you... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharoney, Blue Generalist, llbear

    The laws are written, many become outdated, but, they can (and have been) trotted back out to selectively enforce persecuting people.  This military law is no different.

    Read here

    The US Department of Justice has admitted that the 1961 Wire Act which it uses to prosecute executives of online gambling companies is "dated". The Department insists, though, that the law is sufficient for the prosecution of gambling executives.

    Not to mention there are just stupid laws still on the books that are never charged... but that doesn't mean that they CAN'T be charged.

    read here

    SECTION 16-15-50. Seduction under promise of marriage.

    So... you promise to marry a woman to get laid... then blow her off... her daddy is a cop and suddenly, you are arrested.  Silly?  To everyone but YOU who are charged under an old law.

    People are confusing that there are statutes still on the books that CAN be enforced (though it is stupid to do so), and that this administration IS DOING IT.

    Just because it "hasn't been done" in the past does not mean that the door for it "to be done" isn't there.

    •  You're missing the point (0+ / 0-)

      1)it is NOT against any regulations to wear a uniform without insignia to/in a political event. 2) They have NO AUTHORITY over him after he is discharged unless or until he is reactivated. They are attempting to punish a civilian for excercising his right to free speech who has broken no laws and is not subject to military regulations. It is simple intimidation and an abuse of the UCMJ.

      •  Read below... (0+ / 0-)


        The laws are clear, the text of the laws, to include the regulations that are formed with authority under federal law is clear...

        Title 10 is NOT a military regulation or part of the UCMJ... it is a FEDERAL LAW...

        The UCMJ is established BY federal law.

        •  Doesnt matter (0+ / 0-)

          The ucmj of course doesnt apply to civilians. Any civilian. The buffoons who run the military justice system can make any reg they want.

          And the state cannot regulate speech. And how you address, particularly when that dress is a form of political expression, is beyond the power of the state. That is very clearly, explicitly stated over and over and over within the constitution. Not only does the constituton specifically forbid the state from doing so but the constitution also specifically confined the state to the duties and powers specifically noted within it.

          The only possible rationale the joke of an attorney the UCMJ has is that he is on inactive reserve. But to prosecute any rational judge would say that first he had to be reactivated and that then he had to commit the supposed "crime" afterwards.

          This is a joke and the problem with revisionist fools who want the constitution to be "a living document" because they dont want to bother with the silly rules and democracy involved in changing it.

          "All you have to do to qualify for human rights is to be human" An 11yo Girl.

          by cdreid on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:06:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then you are not reading... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            so let me highlight for you...

            Implementing 10 U.S.C. 772, the President, by Executive Order 10554 of 18 August 1954, delegated to the Secretary of Defense the authority to prescribe regulations under which persons may wear the uniform. The following excerpts from DoD Directive 1334.1 of 11 August 1969 outline these regulations:

            Now... let me explain this to you...

            "Implementing Title 10" - that is FEDERAL LAW under which the AUTHORITY to regulate the wear of the uniform is ESTABLISHED...

            Sec. 771. Unauthorized wearing prohibited

               Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may wear -

                  (1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or

                  (2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.

            "NO PERSON" - that means EVERY PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES...

            As for no authority to regulate speech...

            1. Pursuant to subparagraph 11002.1a(5), the Secretary of the Navy has prescribed that:

              a. The exercise of the rights of freedom of speech and assembly does not include the right to borrow the inherent dignity, prestige, and traditions represented by uniforms of the naval service to lend weight and significance to privately held convictions on public issues.

            Just because you don't BELIEVE it applies, or worse refuse to believe, doesn't mean it doesn't...

            THAT said... does it mean a JUDGE will actually allow the case to be adjudicated?  No.  Does it mean that it is right for the US Attorney to pursue the case?  No.

            But denying the legal authority found in the statutes themselves is unrealistic.

            •  Um (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Neon Mama

              not to be man but you dont seem to understand our system of government.

              The president of the united states can declare tomorrow that the wearing of the color purple is illegal.

              The congress can then pass legislation which he signs outlawing the color purple.

              Every state in the union can then pass legislation making the color purple illegal statewide as well as federally.

              The ucmj can be amended to declare purple illegal.

              It doesnt matter

              According to the Constitution of the United States of america, the governing document of us law and governance, all of those laws and regulations are irrelevant. The state does not have the power to do so. Thus any use of state power to enforce those illegal regulations is against the law. And the state can be penalised for it.

              The state does not have absolute power. This is not a feudal tyranny much as some wish it was.

              "All you have to do to qualify for human rights is to be human" An 11yo Girl.

              by cdreid on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:43:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't understand our system of gov't???? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mhw, llbear

                You have just stated the exact reason we have the Supreme Court (to decide the constitutionality of any law passed) and Judicial Branch of government as you totally leave OUT the fact that the laws are passed, and only when CHALLENGED and decided upon by our system of government (the Judicial Branch) are they actually deemed "illegal" (and in the case of the Supreme Court - unconstitutional).

                Take the case of Lawrence v. Texas or any other case where a law was enforced UNTIL it was deemed to be unconstitutional, ie, illegal.

                But I don't understand our system of government?

                •  You just spent (0+ / 0-)

                  many many paragraphs explaining to the world why a presidential order and ucmj regulations were the law and ex-soldiers must beware committing felonies...

                  and then admit that those laws are irrelevant after repeatedly having that explained.

                  Youre posts 'warn' that ex soldiers must beware! Because they're breaking the law! Well the point  here is they are NOT breaking the law. IT is the state itself which is breaking the law. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

                  "All you have to do to qualify for human rights is to be human" An 11yo Girl.

                  by cdreid on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:55:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  What I don't understand is. . . . (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Even if the UCMJ is established under federal law, the law only applies to members of the military. As far as I can tell, once somebody has received an honorable discharge, he is no longer subject to those regulations. How the Marine Corps can try to give him a dishonorable discharge (after he's already been discharged) for something he's done after the discharge is utterly incomprehensible--at least to me.

              •  you know... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sharoney, lone1c, llbear

                All I can say... is they CAN... it is selective enforcement of a law for purely political purposes... and it is wrong.

                They have even gone to the extent that they are thinking of downgrading his discharge based on an action after that discharge, which by federal law they CAN do... because he is still on IRR (which means he is still serving his Selective Service committment).

                They are thinking of discharging for service TOTALLY (meaning no more service committment) and downgrading his discharge.  Which, yes, they CAN do... and it is shitty.

                But... believe what you want... others are.

                •  Unfortunately, I can believe this (0+ / 0-)

                  It does sound very much like the sort of thing that's responsible for "snafu" and "fubar" entering the English language.

                  However, while they can do this--you'd think that this would be the sort of dumb-ass "shoot first, ask questions later" kind of action that will make them look even stupider.

                  They're having a hard enough time meeting recruiting targets as it is--is going after veterans the way to help their image?

            •  true, perhaps another example would help (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Neon Mama

              it is against federal law to wear a US military uniform in the movies without DoD permission and support (special thanks will be given to DoD in the credits).

              Films (usually very bad or considered "anti-military in nature") that cannot get DoD permission usually get around the law by rearranging ribbons and medals, wrong insignia, or insigia sewn upside down, of a variant thereof, and then the uniform representation is officially "out of uniform" (i.e. wrong).  Usually, most people would not notice so it still gets the point across.

              Now since he removed his insignia, if I understand correctly that was the case, and only wearing a camo field blouse, then I don't understand how they can prosecute him for being "in uniform", i.e. in full military uniform complying to uniform regulations.

              Reeks of a witchhunt to me.

              Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment. - I. Kant

              by Jeffersonian Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:09:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Doesn't this mean that uniforms and (0+ / 0-)

              their component parts should not be allowed to be sold in surplus stores?

              History will not forgive us if we do not try and convict the neocoms for their crimes, every last one of them...

              by Jesterfox on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:59:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That is correct since the regulation/law (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                states "similar items"...

                But, the military isn't going to enforce that.  It would be totally unenforceable.

                However, the "FU" is in there to SELECTIVELY ENFORCE.

                This is my point, has been my point... it isn't that it isn't "against the law", it is being SELECTIVELY ENFORCED.

      •  That is exactly the point. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Marine corps is ijn ro a rude Monday when VFW & VFP join in the groups supporting Adam. I'm so impressed with VFW fro coming out to bring the Marines corps back in line with reality.

        Stop and think about what you can do to help.

        by gordonsoderberg on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 04:59:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Keeping same-sex couples from marrying (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neon Mama

      in Massachusetts because that would violate a nearly century-old law that was intended (but never used) to prevent biracial couples from marrying.

      January 20. 2009 cannot come soon enough.

      by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:07:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site