Active-Duty Military Members Will Hold a Press Conference Calling For An End to The US Occupation

[babylonsister]

http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1015-10.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 15, 2007
3:33 PM


CONTACT: Congressional Progressive Caucus
Bill Goold at 202-226-4055 or
Erik Leaver, 202-234-9382, [e-mail]



Active-Duty Members of The US Military Will Hold a Press Conference Calling For An End to The US Occupation of Iraq
Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. in the Rayburn Building, 2456 RHOB


WASHINGTON, DC - October 15 – Over 2,000 signatures from active duty, Reserve, and National Guard service members will be presented to Members of Congress asking for an "Appeal for Redress." Their petition states:

“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. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.”

Members of the Appeal will be joined by U.S. Representatives Bob Filner--Chair of the House Veteran's Affairs Committee, Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee – Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, actress Eve Ensler, and author David Cortwright plus additional Members of Congress

"With recent posturing on Iran, the urgency of not repeating the mistakes of Iraq and ending the war becomes all the more important. Congress should listen to those of us who have served and continue to serve in the midst of a civil war," said Seaman Jonathan Hutto, co-founder of the Appeal for Redress. "Over 2,000 brave service men and women have added their voices to the vast majority of America that would like an end to this unwinnable conflict."

###

[Yael]

1. These must be the fake soldiers Rush keeps warning us about.

The prick.

[Black Adder]

63. For sure!!!!!!!!!!

[ashling]

83. Oxy Moron

:)

[roxnev]

68. Phony is the proper word

[dickbearton]

79. No, traitor is the proper word...

Rush is complicit with the traitors and war criminals, Bush
and Chaney among others. Rush is a traitor and a war criminal.

[AuntPatsy]

2. I really think they are brave for doing this, can you imagine the backlash

they can receive behind closed doors? That is true courage good for them.

[MADem]

53. They are brave. It's 'curtains' for their careers. All engines stop.

The ole "failure of selection" from here on out....

Unless there's a massive sea change at the top, in time for them.

Unlikely, that.

Ya rock the boat, ya take the consequences.

That said, as you said, they're BRAVE. That takes some serious guts.

[TheDebbieDee]

72. They are superbrave!

This is tantamount to "walking off the job" for civilians.

Only, in the case of the military, these active duty personnel can be detained and held for disciplinary action!

I would also be interested iin knowing the rank of these military protestors, i.e. are the petition signers NCOs and Officers or lower-ranking PFCs and Specialists that may not have understood the ramifications of their actions.

[dickbearton]

81. The ramification is they are true Americans, true patriots...

standing up for the constitution against the traitor and war
criminal Bush.

[Swamp Rat]

3. 5th rec!

:D :hi:

[Rex]

4. Gush Limphard will have to stamp these all as phony

and his RW herd will love him for it. Dam his black heart, but ya know he will. 2000 brave service members will now be ignored by their bosses. Just watch.

[Sneaky Sailor]

15. They wont be ignored

They will be arrested

[Chulanowa]

76. The way things are going?

Half of them will be "KIA" by the end of November

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

107. And that is a good thing or a bad thing?

[mod mom]

16. If you don't support the faux pResident can you truly be a true American?

:sarcasm:

[dickbearton]

82. Rush and some of his RW herd should be hung as the traitors they are.

as for the treason and war crimes of their bosses, when enough
soldiers stand up for their oath to defend the constitution;
the invasion and occupation will come to a quick end.
Americans who stand up and defend the constitution will demand
the bosses be put on trail.

[blogslut]

5. Good

I will be watching come Wednesday. I sure hope the press conference will be broadcast.

[AntiFascist]

6. K&R !! Support these troops! n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. That folks TAKES GUTS

[Kurovski]

8. Hot dang!

:patriot:

R

[Lugnut]

9. K&R n/t

[robinlynne]

10. Wow, we are going to City Hall tomororow morning where the city of los angeles will

vote on a bill to request immediate withdrawal from Iraq. I will read this letter tomorrow at the City Hall meeting!

Thank-you.

[robinlynne]

11. Remember the vietnam war? We started to win when the soldiers stood up against

the war.

[bdamomma]

104. exactly, and there was also a draft to push everyone in the streets

[datadiva]

12. Oh my God, they are brave.

I hope they stay safe. I wish I had their courage.

[fed-up]

13. k/r thanks to the brave souls speaking out!! nt

[Sneaky Sailor]

14. They are going to be charged

Perticularly if they are stupid enough to do it in uniform...

[Breeze54]

17. They are upholding their oath to defend The Constitution, both foreign and domestic.

That Takes Courage. :patriot:

Kudo's to all of them!

:kick: & Recommended

[berni_mccoy]

26. They really are putting their necks on the line, *literally*

By oath, enlisted members must swear that they will obey the President. So it's not such a simple argument for them. By speaking out, they are technically violating the MCoJ. Here are the oaths for enlistees vs. officers:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

By subsection 3 of the MCoJ, they *could* be found guilty of Sedition if the "fail to do their utmost to prevent sedition".

894. ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;

(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

[Sneaky Sailor]

28. Thanks for the Ref!

:patriot:

[Breeze54]

That oath is for officers and they also swear to defend the Constitution

from Enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Oath of Enlistment

In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

So help me God.

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

In the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

I don't see anything in the oaths that says they swear to blind allegiance to the President.
They swear to obey orders of the president, not to agree to everything he says.

[berni_mccoy]

36. There are two oaths in my post: the first is for enlistees, the second for officers.

Blind allegiance aside, enlistees swear an oath to obey the President's command.

[Sneaky Sailor]

37. lawful orders

only

[Breeze54]

38. They are requesting redress as is their right.

Deal with it.

[berni_mccoy]

39. Redress doesn't go outside the chain of command. They can not publicly question their orders.

Redress has to flow through the Military Justice System.

[drm604]

34. Interesting oaths.

It looks like the enlistees swear allegiance to the Constitution and also swear that they will obey the orders of the President. An oath shouldn't contain such potentially contradictory promises. What do they do when the two are in conflict? What do they do when the President becomes the domestic enemy they have sworn to defend the constitution against?

And it looks like the officers only swear allegiance to the Constitution. There's no mention of the President for them.

[Sneaky Sailor]

35. We, as officers, swear to obey

"the lawful orders of those appointed over me"
Including the president.
Our only loyalty is to the Constitution.

[drm604]

48. I don't know how accurate berni_mccoy's post is

but I don't see anything like that in the oath he posted. Are his quotes incorrect?

[berni_mccoy]

60. The oaths come directly from the Military

Here is a link:

http://www.army.mil/CMH/faq/oaths.htm

[drm604]

65. Thanks.

I didn't mean to question you, I was just trying to figure out who was correct.

I notice that your link is for the Army. Sneaky Sailor is, presumably, a sailor and therefore in the Navy. Maybe that explains the discrepancy.

[berni_mccoy]

69. No problem. I don't want people to think I'm making stuff up either.

I know what risk these guys are taking. I took those oaths as well and the Military Justice system is not lenient when it comes to sedition. If the judges think it smells like sedition, your chances of being found not guilty in a court martial are slim. If the Judge finds himself unsympathetic in any way or tests his own actions through projection, it is unlikely he would draw the same conclusion these brave soldiers are drawing and would likely convict. Not an outcome I'd like to see for any soldier.

[Sneaky Sailor]

98. Nahh Same Oath

All Officers take the same oath and get the same certification.

[drm604]

108. Then what explains the discrepancy?

:shrug:

[AntiFascist]

66. Besides Bush is not the rightful Commander in Chief....

he stole two elections. Certain members of the Supreme Court should be impeached. Congress, for whatever reasons, (with the exception of Kucinich and a few others) is not representing the citizens of the United States. The system is BROKEN and it may take nothing short of activism to restore it. Lawyers and legal arguments may be useless in such an environment.

[bagrman]

45. The Constitution comes first. Without it everthing else is pointless.

[drm604]

49. That would make sense

but I don't see that in those oaths.

[bagrman]

95. Re-read the oath, the Constitution comes first to protect. Following orders 2nd.

[Raksha]

64. Where in the petition have they said they will refuse to obey orders?

Notice that they swear allegiance to the Constitution FIRST, and then they swear to obey the orders of the President. The Constitution guarantees them the right to "petition the government for redress of grievances," which is why they worded their petition the way they did. Is that right suspended while they are on active duty in the military? I don't see anything in the oath that even implies that.

It isn't sedition. Unless I'm missing something, NOWHERE have they said or implied they would refuse to obey a lawful order.

[Shipwack]

78. pfft. That oath references the Constitution twice...

... and the President once. Guess which I gave a higher deference to.

That's not to say that the gutless fascist-enabling toady officers won't try to stick it to them anyway....

[dickbearton]

86. Berni_mccoy, They swore literally to the law not the man...

The first clause is precedent, everything that follows is
subordinate. The oath is precedent to the law, not the man.
You are confused, the president is a traitor and a war
criminal; the president is a domestic enemy, who failed his
oath to defend the supreme law of the land. The president is a
traitor to the constitution and the people.

[berni_mccoy]

87. The assumption the oath makes is that the President swears an oath to protect the Constitution

We all see that Bush wipes his ass with the Constitution. While your interpretation might be valid, what they are doing could still be classified as sedition and a Military Court Martial would likely find them guilty according to the MCoJ. I'm not saying it's right, but it's why SO MANY in the military wait until they LEAVE the military before commenting on the Military or it's Administration. What they are doing is extremely risky to themselves as active duty soldiers. At best, they are destroying their military careers. At worst, they could face the penalties of sedition. They are truly brave soldiers for doing so.

I'm not confused that they oath says they must obey the command of the President (and their superiors). It is what keeps order in the military. In a time of war, you do not want every foot soldier questioning the legality of going to war. They are trained to act and follow orders, not consider the big picture. The ones who have the most power to question the President are the higher-ups. And they do it following well established protocols, not publicly questioning command decisions.

[johnnie]

18. Some people have conviction

They have more guts than anyone hiding behind a computer screen name. These are modern day heroes.

[Richard Steele]

19. I'm certain they know the risks they are running. Kinda the POINT, y'know?

nm

[bagrman]

46. Big Balls. The last I had heard 6 involved in moving the the B52 nukes are dead.

[drm604]

67. Do you have a cite for that?

This is the first I've heard it.

[bagrman]

94. The one I found deals with Mr Blue. The one I wanted of course can't be found.

http://www.rense.com/general78/strange.htm

http://www.rense.com/general78/death.htm

http://www.rense.com/general78/kene.htm

[drm604]

109. Rense?

Rense usually isn't considered to be the best of sources. And to be honest, those pages seem to be short on facts and long on speculation. And they only mention Airman Blue, you said there were 6.

I know that this sounds like I'm attacking you for posting it, but that's sincerely not what I'm doing. I'm just curious about what the facts are.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. It's called "courage"

I wish more people had it.

[bdamomma]

105. ..................

:thumbsup:

[Spazito]

23. They have the right to do what they are doing under the law

as they are asking Congress for an "Appeal for Redress." To call them stupid is......interesting, most would call them courageous and patriotic as well as following the law.

Edited to correct spelling error.

[Sneaky Sailor]

25. I didnt say they were stupid or cowardly or anything that has been implied

I did say that they will be charged and they are really not following the law if they are speaking in thier capacity as Active Duty service members, quite the opposite really.

[Spazito]

29. Active duty service members have the right to ask for redress

it is as simple as that and that is what these members are doing.

THE RIGHT OF SERVICE MEMBERS TO COMPLAIN AND REQUEST REDRESS

Article 3.5.7 DoD Directive 1325.6 provides the right of service members to complain and request redress of grievances against actions of their commanders. (IMPORTANT NOTE: A redress is not to be confused with a petition. The action taken here by individual service members is an Appeal for Redress to End the War in Iraq.)


As to using the word "stupid", you did use it in your original post, to quote:

"Perticularly if they are stupid enough to do it in uniform"

[berni_mccoy]

30. Unfortunately, it goes beyond redress when they make it public and take it to Congress instead

of appealing to another officer, particularly, their commander's superior.

[Spazito]

31. My understanding is they have the right to appeal to their Congress representatives as well

The Appeal for Redress provides a way in which individual service members can appeal to their Congressional Representative and US Senators to urge an end to the U.S. military occupation. The first Appeal signatures were delivered to members of Congress on January 16, to coincide with at the time of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in January 2007. Appeal for Redress will continue to collect signatures until all active duty, Guard, and active reserve soldiers are out of Iraq.

The wording of the Appeal for Redress is short and simple. It is patriotic and respectful in tone.

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 . Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.

[berni_mccoy]

40. That would be the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, not the MCoJ

This is not technically whistleblowing, though, I could be persuaded it is, a Military Judge would probably find that it isn't.

The MCoJ right to redress is covered under "Complaints of Wrongs" Article 138 and specifically describes how it is to be done (within the Military):

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-138.htm

[Occulus]

89. I read this thread earlier today

and just reread it... and I can't help but notice you are going out of your way to point out how bad a vat of trouble they may be in over and over again.

To me, at least, you're coming across as seeming to feel they should face some form of disciplinary procedure, almost as if you want to see such occur.

Is my perception of your position on this whole thing correct, or am I simply misreading your posts as a whole?

[berni_mccoy]

93. PLEASE. Have you ever served in the military? No? Then you know nothing about the risk

these soldiers are taking. There is no such thing as a right to free speech in the military. From the time you enlist and until you are discharged, you give that up.

I simply pointed out that they are taking a big risk and I was attacked for it. I'm a long time member of DU, read my effing journal before you go accusing me of crap like this.

For those DUers who want to understand how these soldiers are going beyond the bounds of the USMCJ, read this: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/07autumn/kiel.htm

[Le Taz Hot]

74. Their commander's superior

(as in Commander-in-Chief) are US. They ARE appealing to the highest authority. Bush is OUR employee. They are taking the message to US. Am I missing something here?

[Sneaky Sailor]

32. Exactly

There is a procedure, they may submit for redress in a letter to THEIR congressperson, or to their chain of command. Once they start making speeches in public and broadcasting their intentions, they cross the line.

Also note my use of the adjective "stupid" was part of a conditional statement "IF they are STUPID ENOUGH TO DO IT IN UNIFORM"

[Spazito]

33. Using "if they are stupid enough" infers they are stupid but

how stupid is the only question. I am sure you didn't intend to infer that and are very supportive of their intent as are most here.

They filed their Congressional appeal for redress in January of this year as is their right. The filing itself brings it into the public perview.

[dickbearton]

88. The procedure is to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies..

Don't try to confuse and conflagrate the issue. The
constitution is straightforward, defend it, the law, against
enemies, domestic and foreign. Unless you are a RW stooge of
the Criminal Bush, you should be able to understand this.

[proud2BlibKansan]

54. Actually they are more brave than stupid

The ones who blindly follow orders, knowing this is an illegal war, are the stupid ones.

[Sneaky Sailor]

55. I am Stoopid, I always ferget dat

:freak:

[Breeze54]

92. er...my son is NOT stupid for being stop lossed and going ANYWAY to be with his friends!

:grr:

[kdpeters]

75. It's called civil disobedience

And it's not stupidity, but courage and principles. If only more people had convictions and courage.

[dickbearton]

84. Stupid enough to defend the constitution...

Stupid enough to be charged by traitors and war criminals. You
sound like you are a stupid RW stooge. Stupid to be brave. No!
Stupid to be a RW coward, traitor, and war criminal. Yes.
Sneaky sailor, I hope you will not be a stupid stooge when the
time comes for you to defend the constitution. As for oaths,
the one I took in '81 was to the constitution, plain and
simple. The law not the man.

[Sneaky Sailor]

97. Not much to say to that...

But this...

"Stupid enough to be charged by traitors and war criminals."
The military has such regulations for a reason, I will not make the determination that my bosses are traitors or war criminals, I am not convinced of that and will not cross that bridge.

"You sound like you are a stupid RW stooge."
Not much to say to that but" Go to hell.

"Stupid to be a RW coward, traitor, and war criminal."
See above

"Yes. Sneaky sailor, I hope you will not be a stupid stooge when the time comes for you to defend the constitution."
I have defended the Constitution every day of my career, I have a family, I will do things my way you do things yours and I will not call you an ignorant, disrespectful sumbitch.

"As for oaths, the one I took in '81 was to the constitution, plain and simple. The law not the man."
See my other posts, I have been saying that the whole time.

[wicket]

20. K & R

:kick:

[Gregorian]

22. Stand up!

This is what it's going to take to end this invasion. I've said it all along. The war will end when the military stands up.

[tekisui]

52. Bingo! When those in uniform refuse to be a part of this it will end.

[bdamomma]

106. and we should be next to those soldiers who want this illegal

occupation to stop.

[pacalo]

24. Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. in the Rayburn Building, 2456 RHOB

[Sneaky Sailor]

27. K&R

:)

[Ganja Ninja]

41. Michele Malkin has her work cut out for her

Trying to stalk 2000 soldiers is a tall order.

[lovuian]

42. Its about time the Military sttod up for themselves and spoke out

I support our troops Anything you guys and gals want I'm there for you

I have relatives in armed forces and they work these people 12 hour days 7 days a week over there

[T.Ruth2power]

43. Very necessary

thanks for the info

[Catherine Vincent]

44. This is a cry for help.

:kick:

[Uncle Joe]

47. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, babylonsister.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

51. Here, read

this.


Also, work on your math skills.

[proud2BlibKansan]

56. Enjoy your brief stay here

:hi:

[lpbk2713]

58. Gee. Just like OxyRush says.

Funny how you and him have the same opinions. :shrug:

[BlackVelvet04]

62. How ridiculous.......

the whole world under Shariah law? Get hysterical often, do you?

[DWilliamsamh]

57. ANOTHER 2000 Phony Soldiers

I guess Rush was more right than he knew.... the Military seems to be full of Phony Soldiers!

[Imagevision]

59. No freeedon no democracy, it's all about oil and occupation of their land...

[Disturbed]

61. I hope that some of the retired Generals will show up.

These Troops need all the support that can be generated. People say support the troops. This is the best way to support them Get them out of the Fiasco.

[progressoid]

70. CNN??? C-Span??? Anybody out there???

[babylonsister]

90. Nope. I haven't heard one word about this. nt

[progressoid]

91. Well it is a "press conference" so maybe somebody will show up.

Doesn't mean they'll air it though. x(

[annabanana]

71. Wow! That is just breath-taking.

Their great courage is making me teary-eyed....

[TheDebbieDee]

73. The article states that a petition with 2,000 signatures......

will be presented at this press conference - not the signers themselves.

This means that the soldiers themselves may not be at the press conference. So, all the military needs to do is get a list of the petition signers and take steps to detain them wherever they are. We, the public, may never know what happens to these soldiers.

[Island Blue]

77. K & R.

:patriot: I salute these fine Patriots!

[spanone]

80. if congress can't end it, maybe the soldiers can

i'll be curious to see if the media has any interest

[Frisbee]

85. I'm sure they'll be interested..

for about 30 seconds, unless Britney or Paris do something "newsworthy" sooner than that. At least KO may have something to say on it. I'm sure EVERYONE at Fixed News will chime in.

[UGADUer]

96. I'm sure the media will be all over this

/SARCASM

[Sneaky Sailor]

99. It's all about who has the right to judge the

Lawfulness of orders, I, personally am not prepared to make my case in Court Martial.

[TheDebbieDee]

100. What happened with this press conference?

I didn't hear anything about it........

Did chimpy give his press conference at the exact same time as this group of soldiers? How long ago did the WH announce that chimpy was having a presser?

[progressoid]

101. Nope, me either.

I just did a quick search on the internets and couldn't find a thing.

[w8liftinglady]

102. well,I've seen lots about Killer Staph and Ellen's dog.Nothing about this.

How typical.

[bdamomma]

103. their voices must not be silenced and they should be heard

they need to get out, and stop sacrificing their lives for these monsters, esp. Cheney.