On those “special rights”
Flagwaver and Ben send us a link to an article about a a military court which has found that Marine Sgt. Matthew W. Simmons, a baritone horn player in the Washington DIstrict, was found suitable for continued military service even though he appeared in a gay porn movie in his Marine uniform.
In some of the clips, he was shown wearing his Marine dress blue coat, complete with decorations and rank insignia; others showed him wearing a Marine physical training jacket. At one point he mentioned on-camera that he was a Marine, and still shots from the videos were used for online advertising, McClatchy reported.
[…]
He pleaded guilty to charges of misusing his uniform, but in its ruling the court set aside part of those convictions: Because Simmons never wore the complete uniform, there was no “visual evidence” for the general public of his government authority, and even though he identified himself as a Marine, he didn’t say they supported his behavior.
Now, lets’ look at the story of Michelle Manhart, an Air Force staff sergeant who posed nude for Playboy magazine in 2007;
Senior Airman Michelle Manhart (born 1976) is a former United States Air Force Military Training Instructor based at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, holding the rank of Staff Sergeant. In January 2007 she was relieved of duty and placed under investigation for posing nude in Playboy magazine.She has since been demoted to Senior Airman, a move which caused her to resign from the Air Force.
Manhart should have participated in gay sex and maybe she would have been excused for appearing nude.
Category: Military issues
Okay, anyone here who said that teh gheys wouldn’t be getting special treatment, come on up here and take your lumps.
He pleaded guilty to misusing the uniform. He pleaded guilty! And the military court set the charge aside. Amazing stuff.
Here’s a link to a 2004 article that, in retrospect, tells us, in large part, how we got to this point.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1147428/posts
The Marines used to have a saying…”No man left behind.” Now theirs is ” We never leave our buddies behind.”
What’s next? Marines having sex with animals? How about Brazillion fart porn? How about Marines having sex with dead enemy combatants? I’m sure Obama would love to have those type people destroying our military. Is there no shame? No dignity?
This Muslim in the white house is destroying our military from within and he knows it.
Oh, we’re all “special.” Some are just more “special” than others.
At the time of my retirement we were not supposed to even wear parts of our utility uniforms for hunting and such, even after retirement. But porn films? WTF, over??
Can she take it back to the court…I would try if I were her…once again…we knew the double standard was going to come into play.
I don’t mind if you take pictures for your significant other. I don’t mind if she’d posed AFTER/BEFORE her service.
UCMJ can and DOES control your “personal” life. While you’re in you DO not do anything that might denigrate the uniform. If you and your wife are swingers. . . guess what, you CAN’T do that while you’re in. Do officers, and JAG especially forget that there is a very good reason for that?
@6: That standard doesn’t seem to apply to a certain demographic now; does it?
Manhart shouldn’t have been prosecuted either. I’ll withhold judgement on the cries of ‘special rights’ until a case similar to Manhart’s comes up again. Two cases under different Administrations and Commands does not make the precedent.
CI; I don’t recall the UCMJ changing with administrations or between commands or branches. That’s why all military falls under the UCMJ; otherwise why have it?
The UCMJ doesn’t change, but the charges brought against Manhart and Simmons contain a wide latitude for judgement.
It’s precisely that discretion that is at issue. Who gets charged, who gets convicted, and who gets what sentence is now to be differentiated by whether the unlawful activity is homosexual in nature and, perhaps, whether the actor is homosexual. Civilian hate laws are not “special” either. They apply to all races and ethnic groups equally. But is there a special group that is virtually immune from prosecution for engaging in a hate crime? You bet.
“That standard doesn’t seem to apply to a certain demographic now; does it?” Bingo… Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, some are just more equal now.
I just find it rather off that the Air Force said, “such actions do not meet standards of integrity” when it came to Manhart’s case. What fucking Twilight Zone episode did I step into when the Marines had lower standards of integrity than the Air Force???
It’s politically correct bullshit like this that really pisses me off. I mean, I saw that issue of Playboy and I thought two things. First, why couldn’t any of my Drill Sergeants have looked like that and “abused their position of authority” with me. Second, that the shots were tastefully done and not crude in any way. (I took a few university classes in photography and have seen far worse shots from the Quaker university art department.
Now this Marine comes out of the closet, saying that he performed Sodomy with males during DADT, and he get’s his little limp wrist slapped by some fucking JAG officer who probably had the Administration doing the same thing to them with policies.
Manhart never wore her full uniform in the shots. I think the most she wore was her Class A jacket and her Mean Green (well, blue) and she had her ass handed to her. She posed nude, which is not against the UCMJ, except maybe of course the wear of the uniform or some minor moral policies (it’s been a while since I’ve read the entire thing). This Marine performed homosexual acts, at least one form of sodomy, wear of the uniform, and moral…
It’s Blue Falcon’s like that guy that are going to pull the honor and integrity of all the armed services down, just because they want to flaunt that they are gay.
Military Court: Closed Door Meeting
“Well, waddaya think?”
“Damn prosecutor put us in a bind.”
“So did the gay idiot when he pleaded guilty.”
“We better think of somethin’ or it’s our butts. POTUS is out making speeches in support of the queers–um, gays. Sorry. And I’m not about to kill my career over this.”
“I got it! We’ll unilaterally toss the charge and get him on conduct unbecoming.”
“Brilliant!”
Steve, you mean: “Never leave our buddy’s behind”.
So Simmon’s command requested that NCIS conduct an investigation on the charges, which they did. The U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that one of the charges was not solid enough to warrant trial, but Simmons would still be sentenced under the remaining charges.
And this is evidence of some grand conspiracy to let gays get off scot-free?
Please….
Methinks you doth protest too much, CI.
He got off (no pun intended) on the flimsiest of technicalities, that although he was wearing his dress blue jacket, because he wasn’t wearing his COMPLETE uniform (and let’s face it–how many people do in ANY kind of porno?) he’s not guilty? Seriously?
I can tell you that were I wearing uniform items even now, I’d rightly have a giant shit taken on me. But if someone does it with a dick in their mouth, well, shit–that’s cool, right?
A partial uniform in that context would be considered costume. Did Manhart pose in partial or full uniform?
IDing himself as a Marine in that context is certainly a violation he should be punished for.
What punishment did he receive, after all facts were considered?
@NHSparky – Really? I’M protesting too much? I didn’t pen the original OP bemoaning ‘special rights’; which I might add, left out the fact that Simmons is still getting charged. He is not being charged under one allegation….still being charged under the rest.
I wore a PT t-shirt around the house last night. Was I guilty of conduct unbecoming? I think it’s probably the right coa to charge Simmons, but because he used articles of uniform in a commercial venture, while serving on active duty…..not because he’s gay.
Manhart wore partial uniform. I’m just wondering why, after all of the “crash-and-burns” this guy did, why he is still able to wear his uniform and blow his horn?
Article 125 of the UCMJ:
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.
Punishment:
(4) Other cases. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.
I remember quite a few years ago Playboy(I think) did a photo shoot of 2 WAVES on a yacht in dock, nude from the waist down, showing fur, and all they got was a wrist slap. They were both wearing their Navy tops(sort of- I guess they forgot where the buttons were).
When I was AD, just this side of the Civil War, we didn’t mix men and women on the flightline. This was especially true in SAC compliments of Gen Curtis Lemay. I posted this on an AF forum on another website including that I agreed. I knew for a fact that there would be some hanky panky going on-lots of hiding places on bombers- and some little female called me to task for agreeing with Lemays decision. She acted like I was a dinosaur.
After seeing her picture in her profile I concluded that she was glad DADT was dropped.
Here’s the decision of the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, issued 27 September. Simmons’ numerous acts of sodomy are characterized as “performances” by the court. Perhaps he’ll be nominated for an Oscar.
http://www.jag.navy.mil/courts/documents/archive/2011/201100044.pdf
He was charged, and pled guilty, there’s no “getting charged”. He appealed the results after his plea. So, he even acknowledged that he’d committed the offenses he was charged with, he just didn’t like the results.
I think AirCav’s scenario in #14 is probably as close to the truth in this matter as we’ll ever see.
A few years back, there was a Marine Corporal who garnered quite a bit of attention at Columbia University. His sin: being conservative. Turned out prior to joining the Corps and turning his life around, he, too, was a actor in gay porn.
He’s no longer in the Corps, even though his ‘performances’ were before enlistment.
In the case of Sgt Simmons, this is a case of obvious politically-motivated interference with UCMJ due process.
Homosexuals to the head of line. Heterosexuals take in the behind.
@23 – “there’s no “getting charged””….you’re right, I should have said “sentenced”.
“So, he even acknowledged that he’d committed the offenses he was charged with, he just didn’t like the results.”
Wow…what a rarity in the judicial process!
Which brings us back to that which we objected in the first place – the admission of wrong doing was set aside along with the film of wrong doing. The court simply dismissed the evidence. Yeah, that’s pretty “special” considering that the only difference between this case and any other that has been tried in a military court is the fact that this was homosexual porn.
Is the military community supposed to conclude that from now on any and all acts disrespecting the uniform should go untried or that only those involving homosexual acts should go untried?
The bottom line is that there is no ‘uniform’ standard in regards to what constitutes conduct disrespecting the uniform. It ultimately rests on the individual command and the SJA/JAG presiding.
This will obviously smell like part of the ‘conspiracy of the gays’ by anyone waiting impatiently for just such an occasion. But regardless of the Judges motives, this does not constitute a precedent that any rational person would stake a position on, especially when it pertained to an issue they supported.
Remember guys, CI is not a liberal.
@28 – “Remember guys, CI is not a liberal.”
Exactly. I value individual rights and liberties above group-think. Conservative values.
@CI: No, you don’t. You’re the biggest internet liar I’ve ever met in my life. You don’t fool me.
You’re making excuses for the clear double standard here. “Well it happened in two different administrations…blah, blah, blah.”
That’s not the variable here and you know it.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I wasn’t comparing the gay porn star with the Air Force chick. At the time I sent the link to TAH, I had never heard of the AF chick. I wasn’t saying “How come the gay guy can do porn with half of his uniform on when the straight chick can’t with half of hers?”
I just know that the uniform is not to be used in certain ways. For political purposes, for example.
And here he is, making doing a porn shoot BEFORE THE REPEAL OF DADT, in (half of) his uniform and he’s going to skate. Because, after all, it was only half of his uniform. In one scene he had on the trousers, in another the jacket to his dress uniform complete with rank insignia.
The court was obviously stretching for a reason not to punish this guy. The excuse that he was only wearing half of his uniform doesn’t pass the laugh test. Tell me, what kind of porn shoot would it be if he were fully clothed?
I wonder if I could have gotten off with such an infraction. I don’t usually do porn, but let’s say I wore my uniform to a partisan political function, then tried to use the excuse that I had left my tie at home or something equally lame.
And on top of that HE PLED GUILTY!
He is being handled with kiddy gloves. Expect to see the uniform degraded in more gay porn shoots in the near future. This has set the precedent.
In the history of the military, I know of no instance in which a service member has been permitted to do porn, of any variety, while wearing any part of his uniform.
Not until two weeks after the repeal of DADT. And in that case it involved porn of the homosexual variety.
Just a coincidence. And because I find this odd fact to be a little distressing, I obviously hate individual rights.
Hey CI, check your Constitution. There is no “right” to pose nude. There’s certainly no right for service members to pose nude with their uniforms on. They’re government employees.
This is NOT a personal liberty issue. If he had wanted to do that shit I could have remained a civilian.
@Ben – “This is NOT a personal liberty issue. If he had wanted to do that shit I could have remained a civilian.”
Of course not…but the larger issue, where we appear to have opposing positions, is.
“Hey CI, check your Constitution. There is no “right” to pose nude. There’s certainly no right for service members to pose nude with their uniforms on. They’re government employees.”
I realize that you think you’re clever, but as I stated above – ” I think it’s probably the right coa to charge Simmons, but because he used articles of uniform in a commercial venture, while serving on active duty…..not because he’s gay.
Wonderful, CI–BUT HE GOT OFF BECAUSE HE’S A HOMOSEXUAL.
Not because it was too different administrations. You’d make a Philadelphia lawyer.
And if individual rights were never really at issue here, why then did you defend your so-called conservatism by insisting that your concern was individual rights?
I still can’t believe that you think he was charged because “he was gay”.
This is a question of conduct. As are all sexual questions.
@34 – “I still can’t believe that you think he was charged because “he was gay”.”
I don’t. Never stated such. My comment was in response opinion based armchair verdicts like “BUT HE GOT OFF BECAUSE HE’S A HOMOSEXUAL”.
Ok CI you are actually wrong on one part. The regs regarding “costumes” are pretty clear that if you’re an actor in a film the uniform has to have at least one element wrong (badges on the wrong side etc) HOWEVER you can not be an SM either active or reserve and wear part or all of a uniform as a “costume”. Further UCMJ makes it pretty clear you can not get involved in anything that is “politically charged”. Doesn’t matter if your gay and proud of it you CAN NOT WEAR YOUR UNIFORM IN THAT CAPACITY! No gay pride parades, no porn, no political rallies and you certainly can’t chain yourself to the whitehouse fence.
You forget one major fact CI, as an SM YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS, at least not as civilians understand them. There are a lot of complex regs to explain that but… The end result is the same.
@36 – “Ok CI you are actually wrong on one part.”
What part am I wrong on? That individual commands and military judges have a wide degree of latitude when it comes to charges such as these…..or where I agreed that sentencing was an appropriate coa?
Where I seem to differ with the group here, is whether this verdict is a case of a military judge ruling as he did, based on the sexual orientation of the indicted. I’m not as willing to make the leap of faith based on preconceived notions as some are.
The reasoning employed by the appellate court in rendering its decision in Simmons is, to be extremely kind, strained. First, the court states that it CANNOT say with certainty that “uniform” and “uniform items” are interchangeable terms. Duh. Of course they’re not. One of the canons of statutory construction is to use the plain meaning of terms absent definitions in the applicable statute. Were this not the case, every single word in a statute would be arguable. Applying this canon, it is clear that the terms are not interchangeable. A uniform includes uniform items and uniform items comprise a uniform. If one is missing a uniform item from one’s uniform, it does not follow that he is not wearing a uniform. Why did the court go here at all? In order to permit it to conclude that because Simmons was missing an item from his uniform, he was not wearing a complete uniform; ergo, no member of the public who viewed the gay porn video would conclude that he was acting in his capacity as a government employee. This came after the court allowed that, “At most, the appellant revealed a status as an active-duty Marine.” Second, after playing its uniform/no uniform game, the appellate court constructed one of the more bizarre comparisons that you will ever read. It wrote: “Just as the appellant’s being involved in an accident on liberty with a privately owned vehicle would not create liability on the Marine Corps under the Federal Tort Claims Act, neither does his saying that he was a Marine permit any conclusion that he was acting in an ‘official capacity’ when he appeared in the videos.” To begin with, invoking the Tort Claims Act is beyond comprehension. The Tort Claims Act is the orange. Simmons’ situaThe reasoning employed by the appellate court in rendering its decision in Simmons is, to be extremely kind, strained. First, the court states that it cannot say with certainty that “uniform” and “uniform items” are interchangeable terms. Duh. Of course they’re not. One of the canons of statutory construction is to use the plain meaning… Read more »
How do I edit that? What a mess. I apologize.
CI, the point I’m trying to make here is that the old “half a uniform” excuse is lame as hell. It sounds as if whoever was hearing his case was searching, stretching, yearning for an excuse to let this guy off.
And the best thing they could come up with was that he was only wearing half a uniform. Funny how the old half a uniform defense didn’t exist until two weeks after the repeal of DADT.
The guy involved didn’t even make the defense himself. He pled guilty for crying out loud!
Nobody in their right mind believes that he was let off so easily because he was only wearing half his uniform. Porn shoots aren’t usually done fully clothed, you know.
The only person who might believe such malarky would be someone who is so invested in the “gays just want equality” meme that he must find an excuse to avoid confronting the real issues at hand in this case. That’s where I see you. You’re stretching almost as much as the court in this case. And you sound like a damned lawyer, making ridiculous arguments with a straight face.
That’s kind of a hobby of yours, isn’t it?
“That individual commands and military judges have a wide degree of latitude when it comes to charges such as these”
Yeah, you just outed yourself. You’re a liberal.
Nobody knows you’re a dog on the internet.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Internet_dog.jpg
@40 – Although it would simply be easier to take a predisposed point of view and run with it, I choose to evaluate actions on their merit, not on the basis of my own personal morals.
Unsubstantiated comments such as “BUT HE GOT OFF BECAUSE HE’S A HOMOSEXUAL” and ““gays just want equality” meme” and the reliance on political labeling merely illustrate that you aren’t terribly interested in facts or reason…you just want your ideological position reinforced.
I don’t for a moment discount the possibility that the judge in this case may have dismissed the one charge due to the sexual orientation of Simmons. But no facts bear that out.
2-17AirCav makes an eloquent case for opposing the ruling, but I’m not sure it encompasses the entire range of instances where parts of uniforms may be worn, and whether or not that constitutes a person acting in an official capacity as a service member. It’s food for though at any rate, and I respect a reasoned position.
“Yeah, you just outed yourself. You’re a liberal.”
Heh….ok. Ben, you’re a liberal because you engage in knee jerk group think.
So now what? Are you as unimpressed as I am at your weak reliance on labeling someone who doesn’t agree with you?
As I said above, I respect a reasoned position. Your’s is chaff.
@2-17AirCav – I appreciate your post, and I’m still digesting it. Let me test your position for a moment: if I wear an Army PT shirt and black watchcap while committing armed robbery, am I acting in an official capacity, or creating liability for the Army?
All right guys, just for shits and giggles, I’m going to argue like CI. Here goes: I’m a conservative don’t you know. That’s why I care deeply about the individual rights of this Marine. Not that he has an individual right to do porn, to do gay porn, or to do porn with uniform on. I freely admit that. But I’m still concerned with his individual rights, which as we’ve already established, aren’t actually threatened in this case. Because those are my conservative values. Furthemore, his doing gay porn in uniform is kind of like me lounging around my living room in a PT shirt after dinner. Wait, did I say that he was in uniform? No, he was in HALF A UNIFORM. The judge in this case decided that wearing the coat of his dress uniform was no big deal because it wasn’t a full uniform. And I agree with him. I’ve never heard this explanation in my entire life and I know that other people have been punished for wearing half the uniform in porn shoots before, but those were the Bush years. There have been big changes in uniform guidelines since 2007. Obviously, there is no reason to believe that he was let off because of his “sexual orientation”. It could have happened to anybody. Anybody except some hot air force chick who wasn’t really breaking any rules. We know she wasn’t breaking any rules because a)posing nude is not against the UCMJ, unlike sodomy which was until two weeks ago, and b) SHE WAS ONLY WEARING HALF A UNIFORM. Now, will you please stop trying to label me? It’s so lazy of you to call me a liberal. I don’t use labels, I’m above that. Except in comment number 29, when I implied that I’m a conservative. So I’ll use labels, but you don’t dispute them. And as a proud conservative I absolutely always stick up for the homosexuals, even when they’re receiving apparent special treatment. I defend their special treatment by, of course, claiming that there’s nothing special about it. They get treated just like… Read more »
>>this does not constitute a precedent that any rational person would stake a position on,
Except the next time somebody uses the uniform wrongly… This case will be the EXACT precedent they use to get out of trouble.
>>That individual commands and military judges have a wide degree of latitude when it comes to charges such as these
You do realize that when a judgement goes this far off the reservation; the judge is usually making the law to fit his own political, personal bias.
For years judges have used affirmative action to make up for the “unfair” treatment of minorities, and in their words to even the playing field. You can’t tell me that some of these anti-DADT rulings aren’t to “help level the playing field” for the poor oppressed minority.
The entertainment value of watching Ben make a fool of himself is worth a price of admission. It’s guilty enjoyment to watch the flailing about. But he thinks he’s clever….so much like a special needs child….I’m just going to nod and smile at his antics.
@Melle – I previously haven’t discounted the possibility that the judge in this case used personal bias. What I’ve pointed out is that there isn’t any evidence of that. All we have is speculation and conjecture. And I don’t have a problem with that being a component of the discussion. Exploring all possible ramifications and connotations is how you test and/or validate your position. As we’ve seen recently, not everyone is capable of that.
I would pose to you the same theoretical test that I offered 2-17cav.
CI: Your hypothetical at least makes more sense than the court’s car accident hypo. I would have responded sooner but I’m painting a stairway and I’m still red faced over the mess I posted earlier.
Q: “If I wear an Army PT shirt and black watch cap while committing armed robbery, am I acting in an official capacity, or creating liability for the Army?”
A: First, wearing the clothing is insufficient. You must also be a soldier when you do that. Assuming that’s the case, with regard to the liability part, there would be no agency relationship (respondeat superior), so there would be no liability. You would be acting outside the scope of your employment, to be sure. Legalities aside, as a practical matter, no reasonable member of the public would think that you were representing the government in your official capacity as a soldier.
Now, let’s look at Simmons. In a gay porn video featuring him committing sodomy with other men, he did wear his Marine uniform and he did identify himself as an active duty Marine. The forum wasn’t closed but, instead, was a video to be distributed publicly. The question then is: Could a reasonable person viewing the video conclude that Simmons was appearing in his official capacity as a US Marine? I answer yes.
@48 – “A: First, wearing the clothing is insufficient. You must also be a soldier when you do that.”
Sorry I didn’t specify, but yes, my theoretical test is based upon active military service to make the conditions as similar as possible.
“Could a reasonable person viewing the video conclude that Simmons was appearing in his official capacity as a US Marine?”
I appreciate the thoughtful answer, but I’m still left wondering how a reasonable person could conclude that Simmon’s ‘acting’ was part of his official capacity as a Marine? What dynamics exist in the porn industry that are parallel enough to military service to so confuse a person?
I could add an addendum to the previous test case and say that the Solider committing armed robbery in some semblance and pieces of a military uniform, and acknowledged the fact that he was actively serving…..would a reasonable person still fail to make a distinction?
There were two parts to your question. The second part went to liability. If you mean liability in the legal sense (tort damages), I cannot improve on my earlier answer regarding agency. If you mean liability in a non-legal sense, then the government (Marine Corps) is the victim because it has been discredited through Simmons’ acts. As for the dynamics, they matter: The isolated instance of an active-duty military member in complete or partial uniform is to be contrasted with a publicly distributed video of a Marine in uniform who says un the video that he is an active-duty Marine. As I said in cmt 48, I conclude that a viewer could come away thinking that Simmons’ acts have the approval or endorsement of the government. Now, back to painting and, in an hour,Ravens v. Jets.