Okay, i must preface the following by saying it was an assignment for a class i'm currently taking to write a persuasive paper on this specific topic. There are some harsh accusations i've made. but i had to make a point. Tell me what you really think. I'm pretty proud of it.

We don’t accept applications, only commitments

Anyone doing something they have agreed not to do should expect some kind of punishment. When a child says words his mother has instructed him not to ever repeat, the child can expect whatever punishment his parents have promised. Even if they have not told him exactly what punishment will match that crime, he should expect something for his disobedience. The same theory applies to members of the Armed Forces who decide to wear their uniforms when not on active duty or during other specifically authorized times.

As stated very plainly in the US Marine Corps Uniform Regulations, “members of the Armed Forces, including retired members and members of reserve components, are prohibited from participating in activities in speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration, except when authorized by competent service authority.” (United States 2007) The uniform regulations also state the uniform is “not to be worn at any time that the uniform would tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.” (United States 2007)

In 2007 Marine Corporal Adam Kokesh took part in an anti-war rally, wearing his uniform. He was not on active duty when he participated in the rally, but he was in what is known as the IRR or the Individual Ready Reserve, which consists of people who have been discharged but are not finished serving their contractual obligation they made so they are allowed to serve in the IRR. Members of the IRR do not get deployed and do not have to report for duty, and do not get paid. However, they are still considered to be members of the military. They still have a military ID card, still have access to a military base, and can still enjoy many other benefits of being in the military. Kokesh was sent a letter from the military advising him that he violated military rules. He responded to the letter with a long reply ending in an obscenity directed to the superior that called him out on his violation. (USA Today 2007)

The first amendment does grant people a certain freedom of speech. However, this freedom is not limitless. In Gitlow V. New York, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Gitlow was causing a danger to society with the things he was saying and the information he was distributing. (Schmidt et al. 2007) In the case of Adam Kokesh, a Corporal in the United States Marine Corps who participated in a protest wearing pieces of his uniform, the military might see Kokesh as a danger to the integrity of the military. (USA Today 2007) With the military as a whole saying one thing, and one of their officers saying another, this could easily bring discredit to the military. It’s not so much that the military is trying to stifle one man’s free speech; they’re merely trying to keep order. The purpose of a uniform is to distinguish one person from another as a member or representative of a specific group, in this case the US Marine Corps. Members of the military have to answer to more than just civilian law; they have chosen also to answer to the law of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Does the United States Supreme Court even have jurisdiction where the United States Military is concerned? There have been cases such as Parker V. Levy where the US Supreme Court upholds the military’s decisions. Justice Rehnquist even noted that “questions involving the application of military customs were best determined by military officers who are more competent judges than the courts of common law” (Carr 1998). Also, in the case of Orloff V. Willoughby, “the court expressly adopted a hands-off approach to the military, stating the military constitutes a specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian.” (Carr 1998). In Brown V. Glines the Supreme Court held that “the interest in maintaining the respect for duty and discipline so vital to military effectiveness” and allowed the military to “restrict speech no more than is reasonably necessary to protect such interest.” (Carr 1988) It seems to me that the speech restrictions placed on military personnel are in place not to undermine the Constitution, but to protect the order and discipline necessary in an organization such as the military. How might a soldier serving in Iraq respond to one of their corporals protesting the war they are fighting? That would be dangerous to morale and ultimately to the lives of current soldiers.

The 6th article of the constitution grants national supremacy to the rights inherent in the constitution above any other institution. However, since no one is forced into the military (anymore), this does not seem to be much of an argument. The United States Military is not compulsory. Individuals join the military on their own volition. When someone does join the military, they fundamentally agree to do what they’re told and agree to face the consequences when they do not.

Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice states “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President… shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” (UCMJ 2007) The UCMJ also makes lying, being drunk, and being a coward, punishable offences. These actions are not by any means illegal to regular civilians. However, being a member of the military holds you to a higher standard and thus holds these as punishable offenses.
Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice says “any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” (UCMJ 2007) This is effectively a blanket rule to punish those who do anything the military doesn’t like, which may sound unfair at times, but it is still part of what a cadet agrees to when they sign on the dotted line.

Many people are critical of the military’s quickness to punish soldiers for using uniforms to get attention at anti-war rallies, but often allow high ranking officers to participate as backdrops for GOP campaign rallies, and for even the president himself. In 2004, Brad Knickerbocker noted that the war in Iraq was being run as a political campaign, “for public relations and rhetorical purposes”. (Knickerbocker 2004) This is covered under the statement in section 11002 of the Uniform regulations that declares “except when authorized by competent Service authority”. (United States 2007) As long as an officer or other person in authority has given permission, then it’s acceptable. It may not be fair, but the constitution does not grant fairness. “The military has no choice if the president chooses to use it as a backdrop, he is the Commander-in-Chief.” (Knickerbocker 2004)

The argument could be made that once a person is no longer in active duty then they are free of the contract made upon entry. However, this is also is covered in the uniform regulations in which section 11002 indicates “members of the armed forces (including retired members and members of reserve components)” (United States 2007). So in a way, the motto adopted by the United States Marine Corps, “Semper Fi” or “always faithful” is more than just a motto, it’s more like an agreement to abide by their code of conduct “always”. There is a billboard on a stretch of Nolensville Road in Nashville to back up this statement. The Billboard is a marketing ad for the Marines and it says “we don’t accept applications, only commitments”

Ultimately, the uniform does not belong to the soldier; it is always the property of the military. Soldiers, even veteran soldiers, are only allowed to wear the uniform as indicated such as during military funerals, memorial services, and weddings. The Uniform regulations state “wearing the uniform or any part thereof at any other time, for any purpose is prohibited.” (United States 2007) Wearing a uniform from any entity, makes you look like a representative of that entity. The regulations that the military has set forth regarding the proper use of their uniforms are to ensure the uniforms are exclusively used to promote the military’s objectives and not the whim or personal vendetta of an individual.

Once a person is discharged, the military gives you a discharge status, ranging from dishonorable, to honorable. A person’s discharge status from the military is very significant to their future. For example, to collect any support from the Montgomery G.I. Bill (an educational benefit), you can not have anything but an honorable discharge. Once you are given this discharge status, it is not set in stone. If you are given a General discharge, you can appeal it to receive an honorable discharge. In the same way, once you are given an honorable discharge, if the military decides you have acted unfavorably, they can downgrade your status to “other than honorable” or worse making it difficult to gain post-service employment.

The military has many policies in place to protect their effectiveness. However, it is hard to imagine that they would enforce every strict policy they have whenever they could. For example, it is a policy among Coca-Cola Employees that they are prohibited from drinking a competitor’s product while on the clock. Coke probably doesn’t have surveillance on their employees every moment they are working. However, if a Coke truck driver happens to be caught drinking a Pepsi on a delivery somewhere, that driver will probably be at least suspended, if not fired. The key is not to be reckless enough to be caught in the act. Likewise, if a person makes a rude gesture to a police officer, that action is not necessarily punishable by law. However, chances are good that if that officer witnesses the rude gesture, he will follow you and within a mile of pursuing you, will probably find at least one thing to write you a citation for. The person that makes the same gesture toward an officer where that officer can’t see it is much less likely to be followed. There are probably lots of veterans who wear their uniform at unsanctioned events. The ones that the military punishes are the ones that are photographed and make national headlines.

I do not believe it is a matter of personal freedoms being violated, in as much as they agreed to pretty much do whatever the military tells them to do or not do as the case may be. Being a member of the United States military in many ways is a lot like any other job, and in one major way very different. If a person goes to work anywhere and then refuses to do what they’re told, or does something they’re told not to do, that person is probably going to be fired. If what they did breaks the law, they could go to jail. It’s not a matter of their freedoms being violated, it’s just business. The biggest and in this case most significant difference in being a civilian and an officer in the armed forces is that you are not only held to the rulings of the United States Supreme Court, but also the rulings of the military court. The military has to protect its interests as it continuously asks men and women to put their life on the line. If a commissioned officer, as in the Kokesh case, does something that could undermine the authority of the officers in general and thus put soldiers in danger, the military has an obligation to correct the situation and protect its soldiers. For them, authority, discipline and morale are all just business.

Bibliography

Bender, Bryan. "Veterans Take on New Battle: Run for Office." Boston Globe 27 Nov. 2005. 24 July 2007 .

Carr, Captain John A. "Free Speech in the Military Community: Striking a Balance Between Personal Rights and Military Necessity." The Air Force Law Review 45 (1998): 303-368. Military and Intelligence Database. 27 July 2007.

"Discharge Suggested for Anti-War Marine." USA Today 4 June 2007. 22 July 2007 .

Knickerbocker, Brad. "Military's Officer Corps: Too Political." The Christian Science Monitor 28 May 2004. 24 July 2007 .

Schmidt, Steffen W., Mack C. Shelley, and Barbara A. Bardes. American Government and Politics Today. 2007-2008 ed. Thomson/Wadsworth, 2007.

Stolberg, Sheryl G. "Looking to Elections, Bush and Democrats Spar on National Security." New York Times 6 Sept. 2006. 24 July 2007 .

"Uniform Code of Military Justice." The Unitied States Military. 22 July 2007 .

United States. Marine Corps. Marine Corps Uniform Regulations. 22 July 2007 .

United States. US Marine Corps. Marine Corps Uniform Regulations. 22 July 2007 .

"VFW Urges Military to Back Off of Activists." Los Angeles Times 2 June 2007. 25 July 2007 .