[Vision2020] Active Troops Going Public to Oppose War

[Kai Eiselein, editor]

I asked a question a while ago.....It was "Does anybody here have relatives
serving in Iraq?" I got one reply, from someone who said no, but had a
friend/friends serving there.
It amazes me that many here are so quick to point out the
bad/illegal/negative/protesting things our troops are doing/havedone, but
none have pointed out any of the good they've achieved.
Like or dislike the war, there is no way every soldier or every action there
is negative.
And by the way, my kid brother in law, Pfc. Christopher D. Blair, is serving
in the United Staes Army north of Bagdad. I talk with him on a fairly
regular basis and despite all of the reports to the contrary, there is some
good happening.

The terrorists learned well from the viet cong, you don't need to win
battles to win the war. Win the propaganda battle and the people of the US
will cave in.
The U.S. won the Tet Offensive, but lost the media battle and the war of
public opinion during Kennedy's War.

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]On Behalf Of Tom Hansen
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 1:10 PM
To: Vision 2020
Subject: [Vision2020] Active Troops Going Public to Oppose War


>From the November 6, 2006 edition of the Army Times -

------------------------------------------------------

Active troops going public to oppose war

By Gordon Lubold
Staff writer

A group of active-duty military members is openly questioning the war in
Iraq, saying its public declaration that it's time to bring the troops home
is protected under federal law.

The group, calling itself An Appeal for Redress, claims it has received the
electronic signatures of about 200 active-duty service members who feel it's
time to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq.

One of the people behind the site is Seaman Jonathan Hutto, who believes the
current debate about the war in Iraq includes everyone but the people who
matter the most.

"We've heard many voices, we heard from some politicians, some activists and
pundits. We haven't heard from the men and women who actually serve, and I
think that's a constituency that has to be heard from," he said in a phone
interview Oct. 23.

His personal opinion is that troops should come home over a 12- to 18-month
period, Hutto said. There are "thousands of men and women" who believe that
it's time to end the war, he added.

Although his new site, www.appealforredress.org, had received about 200
names as of Oct. 26, Hutto expects to get far more as media attention grows.


Hutto and others affiliated with the group have already appeared on cable
news programs and in national newspaper articles. Hutto also was one of two
active-duty service members who wrote opinion columns touting their campaign
that were first published in the Oct. 29 issues of Marine Corps Times and
Navy Times.

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism or homeland
security, Hutto said. "There is not a natural connection between what's
taking place in Iraq and what's taking place here," he said.

On his group's Web site, troops are presented with a statement that the site
says is "patriotic and respectful in tone." It reads:

"As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I
respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt
withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq," the
statement says. "Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price.
It is time for the U.S. troops to come home."

If they agree, troops can fill in their names and click on a link to send
the statement to Congress.

Hutto's group is drawing detractors as well as supporters. The effort to
bring troops home prematurely is "shortsighted, foolish and reckless," said
Wade Zirkle, executive director of the Virginia-based Vets For Freedom.

Zirkle is a former Marine lieutenant who left the Corps after he was injured
by a car bomb.

"I think it's shameful that a handful of service members have chosen to put
political activism above their country," he said. "The U.S. military has a
long tradition of being apolitical in times of war and peace. It's that
tradition that separates the U.S. from military dictatorships like Nazi
Germany."

The Hutto group's push to bring the troops home comes less than two weeks
before congressional elections Nov. 7 and at a time when debate on the war
is raging. Most Americans now oppose the war, according to recent polls, and
many Republicans as well as Democrats believe a new strategy in Iraq is
badly needed.

In making its case, the group cites a clause in the Military Whistleblower
Protection Act, Defense Department Directive 7050.6, which affords troops
the right to communicate with a member of Congress.

If a service member runs into problems, the group advises him to get a
lawyer. "If the command tries to retaliate against you for exercising your
free speech rights, get some legal assistance," a statement on the site
says.

A Pentagon spokesman said the group has the right to speak.

"The members of the armed forces are free to communicate with Congress in a
lawful manner that doesn't violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice,"
said Marine Maj. Stewart Upton. "Members of the armed forces who choose to
speak to the press in their private capacity may do so, but must not do so
in uniform, and must make clear they do not speak on behalf of their
military unit, service or the Department of Defense, unless they are
authorized to do so."

But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a former Air Force Reserve judge who has
raised his own concerns about the war, said vocal complaints by active-duty
members represent a "disturbing trend" that threatens to erode military
cohesiveness.

"We've had a long tradition making sure the military doesn't engage in
political debate," he said. "We don't need a Democratic army and a
Republican army."

Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at American University in
Washington and often represents active-duty members in court cases, said
Hutto and the others who are speaking out are in largely uncharted waters.

The UCMJ states that service members can speak out but cannot attack the
"war aims" of a particular effort, Fidell said.

"My reading of this suggests that there is nothing here that attacks the war
aims of the United States," he said.

If the government did find a legal basis upon which to charge service
members who sign the statement on the Web site, officials would then have to
decide if it was worth the political and public-relations risk of going
after service members opposed to the war - even if what they are doing
ultimately is ruled illegal.

"There's a lot of fuzziness in it," Fidell said. "The issue is, will the
government want to make a bunch of martyrs here?"

------------------------------------------------------

Seeya at the polls, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

***************************************************

"Seldom, if ever, has a war ended leaving the victors with such a sense of
uncertainty and fear -- with such a realization that the future is obscure
and that survival is not assured."

- Edward R. Murrow

***************************************************




=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================


__________ NOD32 1.1845 (20061031) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com