My Take On The Jailed Army Rapper, Marc Hall. [ Casey J Porter ]
I thought I would weigh in on the jailed Army rapper Marc Hall (a.k.a. Marc Watercus) since there are a few similarities between my former situation and his. For those of you who do not know Marc Watercus wrote a hip-hop song titled “Stop-Loss” in a reply to being Stop-Lossed himself. The song, which after repeat listening I found to be constructed pretty good, even if hardcore hip-hop may not be your thing. Before you read on, for a better context, I suggest you listen to the song which can be found on several anti-war websites such as www.IVAW.org .
Did you listen? Good. After reviewing several sites and stories on his case I could help but weight in on this. This includes regular media coverage as well as the conservative blog site www.ThisAintHell.us (TAH), Dahr Jamal’s article on www.TruthOut.org, and mainstream media outlets.
I understand how he feels. I can’t help but say it,: I get his rage. I understand why he said the things that he said. He threatened people of a certain rank and higher in his song with killing them, as you heard. He mailed a copy of his song to his chain of command, and possibly his biggest error, he sent a copy to the Pentagon. According to Watercus his Company level leadership, a Captain and a First Sergeant, sat him down and they talked about it. They were going to send him to mental health and that seemed to be the end of it. What I am a bit fuzzy on is if this happened before or after they knew he sent it to the Pentagon. However, the Company level command made their call. But as always in the Army someone gets “butt-hurt” (Army Term) and things got worse for him. He was jailed and charged with the good ol’ Army blanket of disrupting “Good Order and Discipline and inciting threats.”
Good order and discipline is the blanket the Army likes to throw down right off the bat. A Captain in my unit wrote a reply to Richard Whitaker’s brilliant article titled “Stop The Loss” featuring Hart “Jesus Walks” Viges, as well as Ronn “The Donn” Cantu and myself. He sited my films as disrupting “Good order and discipline”. The same applies to both: Show me were this song caused that disruption? Did it enact a scene of violence? Did Soldiers throw down their gear and refuse to do their jobs? The answer is no, so get off of that kick. As far as a threat goes, it was indirect. Do I think it was wise to say those things, and mail it off to the Pentagon? No, that was a stupid move. One also has to factor in the recent shootings at Ft. Hood. Once again, bad timing to say such things.
Then you have the “He signed a contract!” crowd running their collective fingers online. Listen, he said he would not deploy, however he was not given the chance to deploy or go AWOL because he was already jailed by then. Yes, like myself, he did sign a contract, but just because he is speaking out against a policy he feels is wrong, does not mean that he is breaking his contract. Some people seem all to eager to hand over their brains and their balls to the Army without a second thought. You can still be great Soldier without doing that. You also do not give up all of your rights like many think you do. However, if you are going to call out someone for violating his or her contract you better do it at every level. If a Senior NCO breaks the rules, or an Officer, call them out. If we break international law to start a war, or companies that trashed our economy, got a bailout, then wasted that money on retreats, you better be screaming about that too.
I also fully understand the lyric were he talks about those high-ranking people thinking they are better than him. If you don’t re-up, you are considered a lesser person in the eyes of lifers. To be fair though, there is a clear difference between a career Soldier and a Lifer. A career Soldier can think Army, but still adapt to change and think outside the box. They re-up because they want to. A lifer stays in because they can’t think without the Army doing it for them and the re-up because they can’t do anything else. Lifers are also the worst leaders. I’ve spoken about this before, but it demands repeating: These dual wars have drained the Army of quality leadership and the Army has to promote what’s left. So people, who may not have normally moved up, are moving up. Abuse your Soldiers? No problem! Piss hot on multiple drug tests? No problem! Know nothing about your job? No problem! This is the type of leadership that plagued my second deployment to Iraq. Not all were like that, but I have witnessed a sharp drop. So yeah, I get his anger. More Soldiers feel the way Watercus does more than I think people want to fess up to. You are also in the business of killing in the Army, so don’t be shocked that when you screw with people they are going to say things in regards to taking life. I would not have done it in my films, but don’t think for a minute that if someone shot our Battalion Sgt. Major on my last tour I wouldn’t be anything but happy.
Stop-Loss is in your contract. But just because it is there does not make it right. It does drop troop moral and it is widely over used. I’d rather have ten Soldiers that wanted to be their than thirty who didn’t. The Army keeps posting these reports that they are making their re-up numbers, if that was the case, they would not have a need for Stop-Loss. So please, lets cut the bullshit. I had several reasons for going back, the primary one being is I cared about my friends who were being treated as badly as I was and I was not going to leave them hanging.
But lets not let the anti-war movement off the hook. They are jumping all over this like gangbusters and as per their usual, are asking for your money. They are also as one sided as their opposition. While I do not have anything personal against Dahr Jamal, he has been far and honest with me, I was upset to see in his article that he did not at least acknowledge that Marc screwed up in mailing it to the Pentagon. In their eyes, anyone who speaks out against the war, not matter if they’ve never gone, or no matter how vile they might be, is a “hero”. I’ve been called a hero. I’m not sure what one is suppose to feel like, but I’m pretty sure I’m not one. They are also following their closed minded playbook by hooking him up with legal representation from the National Lawyers Guild, a team of hacks who are not respected within the Military legal community or the legal community at large. With lawyers like James Branum, the succeed in getting their clients the max sentences time after time for even the most minor infractions. What the civilian anti-war community doesn’t know is that in almost all of these cases, the activist-lawyers they love screwed those Soldiers, not the Army. It’s simply a case of them not knowing how the Army works, plain and simple. These activist-lawyers put their cause ahead of their clients; they use their clients to promote their agenda. I can draw on myself as proof. I made pissing the Army off into an art form, yet walked away scott-free. So have many others who were opposed to the wars, but ignored the anti-war communities methods and tactics. One of my saving graces was my lawyer, a former Army prosecutor who defends Soldiers all the time. But he does not tell you what you want to hear. My lawyer also didn’t ask for a penny, and if I had been formally charged, I still would not have to pay a thing. My lawyer is currently in the National Guard and he would have to be activated and his expenses covered by the Army per their own rules. You know how many of his clients have gotten the max punishment, even AWOL cases? None. Zero. But when there are people looking to make money, they won’t tell you this. Funny thing is, lawyers like Branum, who is not representing Watercus, but one of his partners in crime, Jim Klaninski is, and yup, they have a legal defense fund they want you to put money into. Both are also members of the International Socialist Organization (ISO). For being Socialists, they sure do love to take donation after donation. Klaminski is also a part of the Military Law Taskforce of which Branum sits on the board.
I think Marc should continue to speak out, but in a different way. Follow the example of non-violent hip-hop groups like Jurassic 5, Flobots, and others. You can speak your mind in the Army; just don’t give the Army a reason to bust you.
No matter if you love or hate what Watercus did, he deserves the absolute best legal representation he can get. So ignore the ISO, IVAW, and all of that. Their record for destroying Soldier’s futures speaks for itself. I will be sending a copy of this posting, and a letter to Marc Wattercus with my lawyers contact info in it. My lawyer will not interfere with a case, but there is nothing stopping me from passing off his contact info for Watercus to use. This guy is going to get stomped on by the Army, and used by the anti-war movement, if someone does not step in and do something. It isn’t my job to save anyone, but I’m not going to just sit back and do nothing.
Best thing about me is, I don’t have an agenda, and I don’t ask for money.
Casey J Porter
Category: Politics
He’s also not in jail for “saying” he would not deploy, he’s in jail for communicating a threat and, as you pointed out, right after the Ft. Hood murders. What else was the Army suposed to do? I’ve mentioned numerous times that I was stop lossed and not because of need but because of 1 E-7. I knew before I deployed for Desert Sheild/Storm that I was probably going to be stop lossed, my ETS was about 1 week before my unit rotated back to the states where I would have been able to ETS, about a month after my initial ETS date….not a big deal. When my Plt. Sgt. decided I could stay another 3 months to load boats I did get angry, and had some choice things to say to him about it…..but it NEVER crossed my mind to threaten him….even just telling him I wanted to kick his ass. You right about one thing, you can speak out against a policy in the Army you don’t like, but you can’t threaten people…period.
No, I clearly understand why he’s in jail. However, if Company level command had already made their decision, it should have been left at that.
Unfortunately, Casey, I am one of those you refer to as ““He signed a contract!” crowd running their collective fingers online”. My point of contention is this: He did, indeed, sign the contract, same as you and I. If we then have, as you want to believe, a military made up of those who would only perform their contractual job when they felt it was proper, we might as well not have a military; right? There is thinking outside the box and then there is not thinking to begin with. If he didn’t think he would be obligated to 8 years, then he was mistaken and shouldn’t have signed up. You complain about lifers that only move up because of attrition; well, what do you think a military made up of those “thinking” individuals, who think outside the box and only do what their conscience, or own interpretation of what is legal and illegal, would look like? It would be far worse than the leadership already in place. Take this scenario: The President orders a division into a zone either for peacekeeping, or to move another invading group out, yet no one at the UN wants to help and actually complains that it shouldn’t happen, so the President does it unilaterally at first. The division chosen is full of a bunch of junior NCOs and enlisted personnel that are “free thinkers” that agree with the UN based on their vast knowledge of international law, and they refuse to do the job they signed up for, claiming that they are not obligated to fulfill said obligation because they feel their vast knowledge and experience in international law warrants they refuse to participate. Would that look like a military, or a gaggle of German troops of today? Where do we draw the line? Marc, you, Old Tanker, etc. aren’t the first to be “stop-lossed” (involuntary extension in my day) and you aren’t the last. You ask why they need stop-loss if the recruiters are hitting their goals? Well, depending on the circumstances and MOS of the troops coming in, along with when… Read more »
I have friends in the Marine Corps…and they always say, once a Marine, always a Marine.
Jonn, I feel the same way about the snakes in the ivaw, and to allow a traitor to the us who became a traitor to the ivaw on to post just seems wrong. If this kid had no integrity before, what makes you think he would have any now. Its something you have or don’t….and that you’re patronizing someone who has none blows me away.
Maybe, Casey, but something similar happened in the case of Hasan, and look where that went. Not exactly the same, as people in his chain of command just ignored things that were right in front of them. Given what happened, no one should be surprised that a walk and talk with this “rapper” wasn’t seen as sufficient. If nothing was on record about the sit-down, there was no action taken. And you did admit that you’re going by what Watercus is saying, is there anything out there contradicting his version? I haven’t read enough about it to know one way or the other.
Ever notice how the only ones who talk about the difference between the lifer and the career Marine/Soldier/etc are wet behind the ears, first enlistment types? Walk fifteen or twenty years in the shoes of a real Marine/Soldier and get back to me on the difference. And I do know what I’m talking about. I remember feeling the same way, using that same definition when I was an a young, ever so salty, LCpl. That was back in the days when I just couldn’t understand why the Marine Corps wouldn’t do things the right (read my)way, and they insisted on letting SSgts and Gunnys tell me what to do. Oh the inhumanity. Grow up! That idiot made an recorded threats. Hopefully some time in Leavenworth will give him some time to reflect on the wisdom of shooting off his mouth.
However, if Company level command had already made their decision, it should have been left at that
Same thing happened with Hasan and it is now viewed as a bad thing….which one is it?
Started to read this, but stopped as I saw that it drones on. Did read the comments and agree with Old Tanker, Old Trooper and Marine 83. Casey, I used to tell my Marines that it’s okay to bitch about the chickenshit amongst each other, but do their fucking job.
Sorry, Casey, but this rather clueless young man made the decision to elevate it up out of the company level chain.
HE sent this song to THE PENTAGON. And once he did that, anything goes.
Company level decisions concerning anything are ALWAYS subject to review and modification by higher-level headquarters. Because HE SENT THIS THREAT TO THOSE HEADQUARTERS, and they acted as they saw fit.
There is no difference between writing and performing this song and then sending it to higher headquartes and sitting down and sending an email to his chain of command up to the flag officer level.
Your caviler disregard for contractual obligation excuses nothing. The issue here isn’t to be defined by your morality; HE VOLUNTEERED AND KNEW WHAT THE RULES WERE WHEN HE SIGNED.
He’s in jail; he could be charged with a great many more allegations than just the one he’s facing now.
I appreciate your position on this matter, but he made some bad choices and is now rightfully going to pay for them.
Yeah, I got a paragraph or five into this whine fest and decided I had better things to do with my time. A dickhead made some threats. He got jacked up for them. Quit trying to justify this punk’s actions, Porter.
Oh, one last thing…you “feel his rage?” You might call it rage and make excuses for it, I call it a temper tantrum, thrown by a child who didn’t get his way.
Getting a lot of replies, which is great. I am not saying he should not go, I understand why he is pissed, but I never said he should not deploy again. Also, I fully acknowledge that mailing it to the Pentagon was stupid.
I also still talk to my first deployments leadership, retired now, and they agree, the Army has run downhill, that was one of the reasons they left.
In the case of Hasan, they under-reacted. in this case, I think they are over-reacting.
I wish I could reply to everyone one on one in detail, but really, I am swamped with work. It’s ok to disagree, as long as things stay respectful.
Good post Casey.
I was wondering if I could repost this in my own blog?
Also it may be a while but I would like to reply to some of the things you bring up. (Got Babysitting duty for a few kids today).
I also agree that the quality of leadership was mediocre at times in the Army. I think part of this is that you are expected to get promoted by spending a certain amount of time in. I think it was a mistake to get rid of the Spec.-5, Spec. -6 ranks and make NCOs out of folks that otherwise are good soldiers, but don’t belong in command of other soldiers. I can think of half dozen E-5’s and 6’s and one E-8 right off the bat that did not belong in front of a formation.
Casey,
As you and I have discussed, I represent service members regularly and do not get paid. It is part of my service to the country since I do not do morning or dirt particularly well.
However, a civilian lawyer (i.e. one who cannot be activated and paid by the government) expecting to be paid for representing a servicemember client does not make them evil. They have expenses and staff to pay too. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the lawyers representing the SEAL3 are getting paid. What makes Branum and his ilk evil and unprofessional, is that they take money for representing clients and then represent their “cause” while throwing their clients under the proverbial bus – that and the fact that they are generally inept.
A lawyer is supposed to know the law and the rules for in any jurisdiction in which they practice. It is clear that Branum and his ilk have no clue about either. Their behaviour in court martial actions is no different than me walking into court in jeans and calling the judge an idiot.
As to this guy – he is getting what he deserves. Idiocy is not a crime generally, but it should be and what this guy did was shear idiocy. I can’t threaten to kill my boss, whether he deserves it or not, and neither can this numbnuts.
As to your statements about “international law” I have only one thing to say that last bastion of liberalism in this country (legal academia) is still pretty split on the subject of “international law” and war so I think you should be real careful on announcing a definitive answer. This country is only bound by treaties it has ratified – not the “international law” liberal hype. Further, no soldier is obliged to follow an unlawful order, but the decision on what is lawful and what is not is a strict liability deal – you get it wrong, you pay the consequences.
This drivel bores me…
Hey gruntjj, if this stuff bores you, why comment?
As for the asshat that got thrown in jail, sounds like he was looking for some attention. Well, he got some. Stupidity should be against the law. In his case, it was.
I couldn’t make it through the whole thing. He communicated a clear threat to the chain of command, no I don’t give a frak about the million different whines for his actions, there is zero justification and BTW the higher HQ can always override the lower. The company commander making a marshmellow decision doesn’t matter if the the battalion cmdr steps in and says different.
I really don’t understand why we’re even talking about this guy.
I’ve said this before, after this moron gets out of the stockade & gets his ham sammich and a roadmap if he gets into an altercation with an E-7 or higher and gets his ass stomped, maced or killed, would that make a self defense plea plausible? Sheesh, the damned fool made a pretty sweeping death threat.
Don’t know about the particulars of his beef but I know that’s no good rap. “Hard core” hip hop? More like lame @zz hip hop. Maybe if he spit the marbles out of his mouth… Method Man he ain’t. The worst thing about current hip hop is the intellectual laziness of so-called “artists” who think threats to authority figures or gang fantasies are all you need for a great song because of the EDGY SOCIAL RELEVANCE. The next worse thing are white middle class liberals falling all over themselves praising it and looking for “street” cred.
Stop-Loss is in your contract. But just because it is there does not make it right. It does drop troop moral and it is widely over used.
I’m a little confused as to how you’re assigning fairly specific moral values to different parts of a single binding contract. I mean…if Stop Loss is not “right”, which part of the contract is? And why?
The fact is that the contract is simply that- an agreement between two parties. It is neither “right” nor “wrong”.