61. In your picture, with the 3 other Young Turks, at the top left of this blog site, your resemblance to Sean Hannity is uncanny ;)

Just thought you might want to know that.

Best,
Brian
www.freewebs.com/theonepercenter

Brian at 9:47AM on Jun 1st 2007

62. #59 Harley, I'm sorry but your comments make as much sense as being in Iraq. So as far as you are concern when someone does not agree with your way of thinking, or uses their RIGHT as AMERICANS to speak out against something they do not believe in. They are either LIBERALS, UN-AMERICAN, COMMUNIST, (this one is one of my favorites, by the way... like the the hell does it mean!!!)NOT CHRISTIANS (another good one...) WHATEVER!! Who would know better than this guy or any of our troops what's going on with this DISGUSTING WAR!!! In my opinion he does not only have a right to express himself, he also has a responsability to inform, Since the Clown, that you probable voted for does not have tha balls to tell us the truth!!! I support his right to protest!! I support all our troops and I want them OUT OF THIS WAR, OUT OF IRAQ!!!!!!

THIS LIBERAL LOVES THIS COUNTRY, SUPPORTS THE TROOPS, HATES THIS WAR, WILL NEVER SUPPORT BUSH AND HIS LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND ALL THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM GIVIN THE "ENEMY MORE POWER" AS YOUR IDIOT DECIDER WILL HAVE YOU BELIEVE.

Patty at 1:01PM on Jun 1st 2007

63. A quick note on #59...

Military service is actually mandatory in Turkey...

JK at 6:03PM on Jun 1st 2007

64. Here it is.... accurately! Current stuff on the books.


89. Article 134— (Indecent language)
Introduction. “Obscene” was removed from the title because
it is synonymous with “indecent.” See paragraph 90c and Analysis.
“Insulting” was removed from the title based on United States
v. Prince, 14 M.J. 654 (A.C.M.R. 1982); United States v. Linyear,
3 M.J. 1027 (N.C.M.R. 1977).
Gender-neutral language has been used in this paragraph, as
well as throughout this Manual. This will eliminate any question
about the intended scope of certain offenses, such as indecent
language, which may have been raised by the use of the masculine
pronoun in MCM, 1969 (Rev.). It is, however, consistent
with the construction given to the former Manual. See e.g., United
States v. Respess, 7 M.J. 566 (A.C.M.R. 1979). See generally 1
U.S.C. §§ (“unless the context indicates otherwise … words importing
the masculine gender include the feminine as well ….”).
c. Explanation. This paragraph is new and is based on United
States v. Knowles, 15 U.S.C.M.A. 404, 35 C.M.R. 376 (1965);
United States v. Wainwright, 42 C.M.R. 997 (A.F.C.M.R. 1970).
For a general discussion of this offense, see United States v.
Linyear supra.
1986 Amendment: “Provoking speeches and gestures” was
added as a lesser included offense. United States v. Linyear, 3
M.J. 1027 (N.M.C.M.R. 1977).
1995 Amendment: The second sentence is new. It incorporates
a test for “indecent language” adopted by the Court of Military
Appeals in United States v. French, 31 M.J. 57, 60 (C.M.A.
1990). The term “tends reasonably” is substituted for the term
“calculated to” to avoid the misinterpretation that indecent language
is a specific intent offense.
e . M a x i m u m p u n i s h m e n t . T h e m a x i m u m p u n i s h m e n t i n c a s e s
other than communication to a child under the age of 16 has been
reduced. It now parallels that for indecent exposure.


Article 89—Disrespect toward a superior
commissioned officer
a. Text.
“Any person subject to this chapter who behaves
with disrespect toward his superior commissioned
o f f i c e r s h a l l b e p u n i s h e d a s a c o u r t - m a r t i a l m a y
direct.”
b. Elements.
(1) That the accused did or omitted certain acts or
used certain language to or concerning a certain
commissioned officer;
(2) That such behavior or language was directed
toward that officer;
(3) That the officer toward whom the acts, omissions,
or words were directed was the superior commissioned
officer of the accused;
(4) That the accused then knew that the commissioned
officer toward whom the acts, omissions, or
w o r d s w e r e d i r e c t e d w a s t h e a c c u s e d ’ s s u p e r i o r
commissioned officer; and
(5) That, under the circumstances, the behavior or
l a n g u a g e w a s d i s r e s p e c t f u l t o t h a t c o m m i s s i o n e d
officer.
c. Explanation.
(1) Superior commissioned officer.
(a) Accused and victim in same armed force. If
the accused and the victim are in the same armed
force, the victim is a “superior commissioned officer”
of the accused when either superior in rank or
command to the accused; however, the victim is not
a “superior commissioned officer” of the accused if
the victim is inferior in command, even though superior
in rank.
( b ) A c c u s e d a n d v i c t i m i n d i f f e r e n t a r m e d
forces. If the accused and the victim are in different
a r m e d f o r c e s , t h e v i c t i m i s a “ s u p e r i o r c o m m i s -
sioned officer” of the accused when the victim is a
commissioned officer and superior in the chain of
command over the accused or when the victim, not a
medical officer or a chaplain, is senior in grade to
the accused and both are detained by a hostile entity
so that recourse to the normal chain of command is
IV-17
¶13.c.(1)(b)
prevented. The victim is not a “superior commissioned
officer” of the accused merely because the
victim is superior in grade to the accused.
(c) Execution of office. It is not necessary that
the “superior commissioned officer” be in the execut
i o n o f o f f i c e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i s r e s p e c t f u l
behavior.
(2) Knowledge. If the accused did not know that
the person against whom the acts or words were
directed was the accused’s superior commissioned
officer, the accused may not be convicted of a violation
of this article. Knowledge may be proved by
circumstantial evidence.
( 3 ) D i s r e s p e c t . D i s r e s p e c t f u l b e h a v i o r i s t h a t
which detracts from the respect due the authority
and person of a superior commissioned officer. It
may consist of acts or language, however expressed,
and it is immaterial whether they refer to the superior
as an officer or as a private individual. Disr
e s p e c t b y w o r d s m a y b e c o n v e y e d b y a b u s i v e
epithets or other contemptuous or denunciatory language.
Truth is no defense. Disrespect by acts includes
neglecting the customary salute, or showing a
m a r k e d d i s d a i n , i n d i f f e r e n c e , i n s o l e n c e , i m p e r t i -
nence, undue familiarity, or other rudeness in the
presence of the superior officer.
(4) Presence. It is not essential that the disrespectful
behavior be in the presence of the superior,
but ordinarily one should not be held accountable
under this article for what was said or done in a
purely private conversation.
(5) Special defense—unprotected victim. A superior
commissioned officer whose conduct in relation
to the accused under all the circumstances departs
substantially from the required standards appropriate
to that officer’s rank or position under similar circumstances
loses the protection of this article. That
accused may not be convicted of being disrespectful
to the officer who has so lost the entitlement to
respect protected by Article 89.
d. Lesser included offenses.
(1) Article 117—provoking speeches or gestures
(2) Article 80—attempts
e . M a x i m u m p u n i s h m e n t . B a d - c o n d u c t d i s c h a r g e ,
forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement
for 1 year.

larry at 10:18PM on Jun 1st 2007

65. thanks for the detail Larry.

Anyone who has served in the armed forces of the U.S. should know the rules -ignorance of the law and the regulations regarding wearing of uniforms is not an excuse.

It matters not if that person is on active duty or not, active reserve, ready reserve, or whatever, the rules still apply. These rules, the enforcement, and the designated punishments all are covered under the UCMJ (that's Uniform Code of Military Justice for all you non-military types out there).
The UCMJ has been repeatedly challenged over the decades and has been repeatedly held legal and constitutional by the Supreme Court. The Court has recognized and will continue to recognize the uniquesness of the military as an institution and that it may have an indeed must have its own justice standards.

Edward Skinner at 11:17PM on Jun 1st 2007

66. It's also illegal to have sex in any position other than missionary or get a bj because it's considered sodomy... but it happens.

Along the lines of rules and "it happens", if someone sleeps with your wife, obvisouly it's against the rules, but it can't be proven unless there is actual proof of penetration... go figure.

JK at 12:52PM on Jun 2nd 2007

67. If the military gets a "do-over" on this guys discharge status - then the rest of us get a "do-over" on the presidential election!!!!!!!!!!!

Beth at 7:56PM on Jun 2nd 2007

68. I'm an Air Force Veteran. Your issued a few uniforms in basic training. Anything else that is needed over the years, you personally pay for. I easily spent $600.00 or more when I was in.

His uniform is his personal property as with any other soldier. You don't turn them in when you separate. They are yours to do with as you please. I still have my dress uniform hanging in my closet. Many veterans that I know simply tossed their uniforms in the trash.

What I find amusing about all of this is that despite the rules on the proper wearing of the uniform--the rules are regularly broken and ignored.

It's not being ignored in this case because he was at an anti-war rally. Soldiers attend functions and wear their uniforms. You routinely see them in attendance at political events. They are regularly used as props by politicians.

Veterans are seen on television and in parades wearing their uniforms despite the fact that they have been likely separated from the military for decades. No one is going after these people or none that I've ever heard of.

This is vengeful and hypocritical. Seems like a big waste of time from where I'm sitting. This marine did his part and served in Iraq, now that he objects to this crazy war--everyone is out to get him.

How big of everyone to attack him.

It's so easy to attack and vilify everyone else. The blame and failure in Iraq belongs with President Bush and his bumbling administration.


Had he attended a pro-war rally in uniform, we would likely not be having this discussion.

Soldiers are speaking out more and more against this war. If you don't see that, your not reading enough news.

Diane at 1:01AM on Jun 5th 2007

69. What a bunch of sniveling is going on here. Snivel snivel.

don't you boys and girls believe in due process? Where's the ACLU to ride to this fellow's rescue?

skipsailing at 12:41PM on Jun 5th 2007