Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Army Targets Truthout.org for Subpoenas in Watada Case

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-13-06 10:00 AM
Original message
Army Targets Truthout.org for Subpoenas in Watada Case
Edited on Wed Dec-13-06 10:01 AM by Hissyspit
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/121306J.shtml

Army Targets Truthout for Subpoenas in Watada Case
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Wednesday 13 December 2006

In a case that cuts right at the heart of the First Amendment, a US Army prosecutor has indicated he intends to subpoena Truthout Executive Director Marc Ash, a Truthout reporter, and two of the nonprofit news organization's regular contributors, to authenticate news reports they produced and edited earlier this year that quoted an Army officer criticizing President Bush and the White House's rationale for the Iraq War.

Captain Dan Kuecker, the Fort Lewis, Washington-based Army prosecutor, has stated his intent to compel Ash, Truthout reporter Sari Gelzer, and contributors Dahr Jamail and Sarah Olson to testify at the court-martial of First Lieutenant Ehren Watada. Kuecker is actively seeking the journalists' testimony so he can prove that Watada engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer, directly related to disparaging statements the Army claims Watada made about the legality of the Iraq War during interviews with Truthout and his hometown newspaper, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, in June.

At a hearing earlier this year, a military court determined there was sufficient evidence to charge Watada with intentionally missing his deployment, contemptuous speech toward officials, and conduct unbecoming an officer, and to proceed with a general court-martial. In September, those charges were amended to include an additional count of conduct unbecoming an officer. The contempt charges were dropped in November. Watada faces a maximum six-year prison sentence if he is convicted. The trial is expected to begin in February.

- snip -

In his aggressive attempt to haul members of Truthout's editorial staff into court, Kuecker bypassed corresponding with the organization's attorney and sent Ash a series of emails - one of which was sent late Sunday evening, December 10 - insisting that Ash provide him with information about the reporters so Kuecker can prepare his case against Watada.

- snip -

"What I consider beyond idiotic is that the military is now turning to these reporters and saying we want you to help lock this man up and throw away the key," Simpich said. "It's precisely why you should not be calling reporters in civil or criminal proceedings."

MORE AT LINK

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Annces Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-13-06 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. All is fair in love and war except government is at war with
the citizens. Intimidation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-13-06 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. I'd refuse to answer.
If I had to go to court, I'd sit there, unresponsive to their tactics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
5X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-13-06 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
3. Doesn't sound like first amendment case to me,
just testimony about the facts would be enough to
bolster the governments case. Truthout has already
published the names so there is no protection of sources
involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-13-06 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
4. This is harassment of both Lt. Watada and Truthout. Since when does a
member of the army give up his rights as a citizen, to speak out against the army and the president, on his own time, in public debate? The army cannot take these rights away. They are prosecuting Watada for refusing to participate in this unjust, illegal and heinous war--a questionable proceeding already, in view of the massive war crimes that have been committed in Iraq--and in order to bolster their shaky case, they are attacking his free speech rights as an American citizen under the First Amendment to the Constitution! They are indicting him for his opinions! And they are using that indictment to chill free speech among members of the army and members of the press corps. It is more than reprehensible. It is is Bushism!

Under the Geneva Conventions, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and all military commanders who obeyed their orders to torture prisoners of war and innocent bystanders, to detain prisoners of war and innocent bystanders for an indefinite period with no recourse, to bomb tens of thousands of civilians with no justification and no UN mandate, and to invade and occupy their country, destroy civil order, set up permanent military bases, and foment civil war, are guilty of massive war crimes that are no different from the war crimes prosecuted at Nuremberg. For military commanders, "just following orders" is no excuse. Lt. Watada is on the right side of the law on this matter, on the main charge against him, and that is why they are attacking his opinions. Because they're all guilty!

ANYONE who joins the army, or other military service, and objects to an order that they consider illegal should be given alternative service, or mustered out. That is the only way to protect our soldiers, our government and our country from committing war crimes! Desertion under fire is one thing. Refusal to commit war crimes in quite another. And the war crimes in this situation are huge. This is the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, which were ratified by Congress and constitute the law of our land. And this, of course, is why Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have violated this law, and have done everything they can to undermine it. They WANT to torture. They WANT to slaughter tens of thousands of innocent people to get their oil. And they don't want any law standing in their way. They oppose the "rule of law."

Lt. Watada is UPHOLDING the law, and they all know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-13-06 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I suggest you read up on the UCMJ, it might surprise you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Squatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-13-06 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Hey, Solo, why don't you educate us as to the pertinent parts
of the UCMJ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Basically, you lose a LOT of rights once the Amry owns you
or the Navy,Marines, etc. And "free speech" is definitely one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-13-06 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. My question is this
Edited on Wed Dec-13-06 11:40 AM by windbreeze
I was always told that when YOU enlist...YOU become a GI...in other words government issue....AND...that you are theirs, 24/7, 365 days a year, until the day you muster out, right???...If you so much as get a bad sunburn, even accidentally, you can be courts martialed for damaging government property...there is no HIS OWN TIME, once he has joined the military...all time is THEIR time...and everything HE/his WIFE/his KIDS do, can cause him problems, as he IS responsible for HIS OWN, and also THEIR actions...IF Watada did NOT want to go to Iraq, why did he join? Even though I may sympathize with him, basically...he may not stand much of a chance...he missed deployment date/time...he, at that moment, became AWOL....

It makes no difference what we perceive Bush, Cheney and gang did in Iraq, or whether it was against the law, Geneva conventions, whatever...Watada is NOT on trial for what they did...HE IS on trial for what HE did..or didn't do...

When you are in the military, you have NO individual opinion...you are told what to think, when to eat, what to do, you are expected to do as you are told, and keep your mouth shut...and IF you don't...you are gonna have problems...it might not be nice, but that's just the way it is...and IF you didn't want this kind/type of life...then you shouldn't have volunteered...

Now having said all of that...please understand, I am NOT against this man, I feel for him, and I hope he gets off...but don't be surprised if he doesn't...The military tribunal is NOT going to care what we think the CIC has done, or whether it's against any laws...they are only concerned with what one of their Jr. Officers has done, AND the example he set for his men(you know, those ones who ended up still going but w/o him) by doing so...
windbreeze
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-13-06 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I've tried before to explain this to people on this board,
but as you can see from the above post, many people just don't understand how it works.

You are 100% correct in what you say about the UCMJ and that a soldier is "government issue" and basically has no rights of a citizen at any time. And yes, you can be charged with an article 15 if you get sunburned severely enough that it deters you from performing your duties at 100%. This happened to some people in Iraq because the military didn't have enough sunscreen to go around. I shipped 2 big boxes of SPF 45+ and chapstick to my husband's unit when he was over there because some people were trying to work with blisters on their skin and fevers from the severe burns after working hours and hours in the desert sun.

LT. Watada has a battle on his hands because from what I remember he joined AFTER the "war" in Iraq had already started and when they said he was going to be deployed, he decided it was illegal. I have sympathy for him, but his situation is certainly not like my husband's who had "re-upped" for 6 yrs. in 2000 so he could retire with 20 yrs. in this year. He went to basic when he was 17 on the summer break between his jr. and sr. years of high school. "Raygun" was the president back then so he had no idea that we would get the current admin running the military (not that Raygun was something to be happy about, but compared to now, he looks acceptable). Even in 2000, you would have never believed we had this f*ck up coming.

The military cannot legally touch me as a spouse. I signed no contract with the military/government. They can harass my husband and make his life a living hell because of my actions (and that has happened), but they don't have a legal leg to stand on. The funny thing is that the most harassment and threats have come from freeper type civilians because most of the people in the military would tell you as the spouse of a soldier that I've earned my right to say exactly what I think, even if they don't agree. It's the civilian chicken-hawks that are the most violent and threatening.

The Marines tried to intimidate the guy who was in the documentary "Control Room" when his wife spoke up. I believe his name was Josh Rushing or something like that and when the film came out he was in a lot of it because he sort of became the American spokesman. He was a Marine for 14 yrs. His wife started giving interviews because the Marines wouldn't allow him to and the higher-ups started getting on his case for what his wife was saying. They were trying to intimidate and threaten him. He wound up leaving the Marines and has gone to work for the english Al-Jazeera network that is suppose to debut soon.

I think the only thing they could do to me, if it got bad enough, they might be able to take away my base/post privileges and the little bit of dependent pay he gets, but I'm a civilian. I'm not sure they could actually do that unless they were able to say that I was a security risk or something. About the only thing I use is the health care and I only have the basic on that because I refuse to use any military facility or Dr. because of all the horrible care and treatment I've received from them. Most of the time I wind up paying most things out-of-pocket because I don't use it enough to cover the deductible each year.

I could continue this post forever with stories of my experiences with the military as a spouse. The waste is shocking and the treatment of those that serve (and their dependents)by the machine that is the military is horrible.

I'm sure the founding fathers would be ashamed at what we have done to those that serve. I'm sure it wasn't their intent to take away all of their rights as a citizen. George Washington once said: "When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen." But that is no longer true and hasn't been for many, many years.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-13-06 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I know....
because I was a military wife during the Vietnam "conflict"....
windbreeze
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-13-06 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. as i understand it...
...miltary personnel have the OBLIGATION to refuse an illegal order. i'm sure there would always be a lot of debate about what is and isn't an illegal order, but the obligation remains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 02:34 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Yes, but...
IF the Lt. volunteered after we were already in Iraq...I believe that shoots down such a defense....not only that...When considering how many men have gone over there, (counting the ones that have gone 3and4 times) there is, at the very least, a couple hundred thousand two or three times over in the last 3 + years who have gone...so, why haven't any others tried the it's an illegal order to send me because it's against the law, stance?

We can sit here and call this an illegal war all we want...but some higher authority might have to legally determine its' merits before a service person can refuse to go, and use that as justification...and after refusing to go, trying to win his case in, of all places, a military court, where he could end up be judged by those who did...

When a person joins the military, especially voluntarily, he is making a decision on his own...no one is holding a gun to his/her head...and once he/she joins...they agree to follow orders...individuals do NOT get to decide or choose what order they will or will not follow...and they understand that when they refuse, they face consequences for their actions..

This guy is an Officer...he's not a grunt...it IS up to him to set an example for the men under him...and the one he set, is NOT what the Army is looking for, or wants...they can't allow him to get away with this, and as a result, I figure they are going to make an example out of him...don't misunderstand me, I am not saying what he did, or what the military will do to him now, is either right or wrong...I'm just saying, what goes in the outside world, does not necessarily go in the military...he made his choice...and he will face the consequences...

I am against this war, and have been since before it even started...I knew there would be all kinds of problems, I knew we would lose men/women...I thought it was a fiasco, a folly, illegal and total bullshit..I still feel the same...unfortunately....what you and I think, matters not to the military court who will try this case...The soldier received an order, that he refused to follow...and that's just about an end to it..
windbreeze

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Many a good man & woman believed the propaganda @ the beginning of the war
So you sign up thinking that you are serving your country. Then the DSM comes out as well as copious amounts of other info that tells you that you and your fellow countrymen were lied to. What then? Do you engage in what you now believe to be criminal behavior, or do you follow the rule of law which tells you to refuse an illegal order?

As an officer Watada has an obligation to do what is right given the information that he has. He is not a coward who is afraid to die, he is a man of conscience doing his best to live by the rule of law in a horrible situation created by those (whom have never served) abusing the military.

I am saddened by "progressives" whom diminish the courage & conviction of LT Watada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. I tried to keep
from taking sides and just stated what I know from having been a military wife and seeing how things worked first hand, so IF someone is taking what I post as against Lt.Watada....then you will just have to take it that way, not much I can do about it...

I plain out stated I thought the whole "war" was bullshit, right from the get go...but something I really don't understand, is how so many people find they can go with the "we were lied to" mantra..how much more obvious could they have been??Certainly I wasn't the only person in the country paying attention? or refusing to swallow all the propaganda we were being fed...???so I find it strange, indeed, that everyone apparently was being "lied to"...Someone surely can try to lie to me, but IF I don't believe what they said, then I wasn't lied too...

We have no excuse, obviously we all have computers, information was available all over the web about how Saddam was cooperating, and how he was willing to agree to just about anything to avoid a war, how we had destroyed his weapons in 91...and on the other hand, how the "rebuild Iraq after the war" no bid contracts had been awarded a month before the "war" even started...while at exactly the same time, * was saying he would exhaust all avenues of diplomacy, because the last thing we wanted was "war"....yet how can you be using diplomacy when you refuse to talk to the other side??...and yet, we believed everything * said??? Come on now...I don't buy it...It shouldn't have taken the DSM to convince us....hell, all he did was preach Iraq/9/11 in the same sentence until it became sickening...but then I guess maybe all those many years ago during the Vietnam "conflict" the lies were not forgotten...so I can and I will admit...I was NOT lied too, in regards to Iraq, NOR was I lied to or misled about *'s intentions....I understood exactly what he was up too...

Speaking in generalities and of NO ONE in particular.....if you decide to join the military....then I suggest you make damn sure you understand what you are doing...BEFORE...you sign on the dotted line...because AFTER..is TOO LATE to lodge objections about anything...you sacrificed your individuality, and the right to make choices....once YOU made a conscious and (with your signature) a legal decision, to forego those rights......

I wish Lt. Watada the best of luck...but I am not so sure that is going to do him any good, under the circumstances, and that is all I am saying...no one is undermining his "courage" or "conviction"...
windbreeze
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. You should read your employment contract when you sign up for the Armed Services
Edited on Thu Dec-14-06 07:49 AM by Selatius
They pretty much own your ass.

If you were given an order to drop white phosphorus on Fallujah and disobeyed the direct order, you will likely see the inside of a military prison for some period of time even if the use of chemical weapons is illegal under international law, and they did use WP on Fallujah. Hopefully, you will be exonerated in the end for disobeying an illegal order, but that's likely after the fact that you can't get back the time you lost when you were in prison instead of being a free man.

The wheels of justice can move slowly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-13-06 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
10. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 05:05 AM
Response to Original message
14. A friend of mine went AWOL from FT Lewis...
...and stayed out for 2 years. He eventually contacted a lawyer and was urged to turn himself in where he was mustered out with a less than honorable discharge. I do not know which of the less than honorables he got, (likely a Bad Conduct), but there was no jail-time associated. This all took place before bushco's fiasco over in Iraq...

I am not sure how my freind would have faired had he tried that these days, is there a real "declared war" going on or just the generic "war on terrorism"? I seem to recall that desertion during war is a more serious crime than desertion during peacetime which is what my friend did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
15. The UCMJ incorporates the Geneva Conventions, and the Geneva Conventions
and the US Constitution are the fundamental law governing war in this DEMOCRACY. Lt. Watada's commanders--Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and all upper commanders who have obeyed their orders to break the laws on illegal mass murder, invasion, torture and occupation--are the ones who should be prosecuted and in jail.

We had a similar situation with Vietnam. The Vietnam War--though it, too, was illegal, and though upwards of 2 million had been killed by the end of it--was never declared "illegal" by anybody in this country, yet amnesty was eventually granted to those who refused to be Drafted (and those who went AWOL were not pursued--an informal amnesty). The American people are the ultimate arbiter of what our government has done, and we punished two presidents and drove them from office, for that illegal war. (LBJ directly, and Nixon indirectly with the Watergate scandal, which was related to the war--the Watergate burglars were trying to stop antiwar candidate George McGovern from winning the presidency, and also burglarized Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office.)

Times change. The American people will ultimately decide this one as well. 70% of the American people want this war ended. Lt. Watada is expressing OUR view of this war, that it shouldn't have happened, and that it should be ended. The military likes to have robot soldiers who do whatever they're told, no matter how illegal those orders may be. We all know that. But that doesn't mean what the military is right. And it may be that we, the American people, have lost our democracy, and no longer have the power to enforce the will of the people. But that isn't right either. George Bush is currently planning to send MORE troops to Iraq, not less, and spending MORE billions and billions of dollars of our FUTURE money on this war, not less--just like Vietnam--and there doesn't seem to be any way to stop him. We vote out his vile, lapdog Congress, and nothing changes. With the Diebold/ES&S electronic voting machines--run on "trade secret," proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by Bushite corporations--we don't know but that all the seats in the House changed hands. It's very suspicious that a lot of the Iraq vets running for Congress didn't win. So we can't even put in a Congress that can stop this war. But it is still up to us. Not to the military. It is up to we, the people, to decide what our government--including our military--should and shouldn't be doing. That's the right order of things. In prosecuting Lt. Watada, this military court is colluding with war criminals, just as the commanders in Guantanamo Bay have been colluding with war criminals to violate the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution--and the Supreme Court!

I do understand what people are saying, upthread, about how the military behaves, and what it does to its "grunts" and especially to its officers, but they nevertheless have the right, the duty, and the OBLIGATION to refuse illegal orders. "Just following orders" is no excuse for war crimes. THAT IS THE LAW OF OUR LAND. It doesn't matter, under the Geneva Conventions, or the Constitution, what "the military" thinks about it. It may matter materially to Lt. Watada, who hasn't run away--he's facing the "real world" consequences of his beliefs and his action. But it doesn't matter in the law that has governed us for over 200 years, and by which we, as a people, WROTE and signed the Geneva Conventions, and enacted the UCMJ. Soldiers are OBLIGED to disobey illegal orders.

It also doesn't matter that Lt. Watada joined after the Iraq War started. Most people didn't know that one hundred thousand innocent Iraqis had been slaughtered by George Bush's bombs in the initial invasion alone, nor that the US military and god knows who in the US military contractor and intelligence "undergrounds" were systematically and routinely TORTURING PRISONERS--and not even just war prisoners, were systematically TORTURING INNOCENT BYSTANDERS--civilians, even children. There are reports of people hearing the screams of children as they were raped in Abu Ghraib! All under Donald Rumsfeld's orders! These vile people! It is unbelievable what they have done! --to their victims, AND to the US military and to all of us, by extension of guilt.

But when Lt. Watada DID find all this out--as these horrors were exposed--he then incurred an OBLIGATION not to participate in it. And he is one of the few who RECOGNIZED his obligation. I don't blame the rest. Most of them are just very poor, ignorant "grunts," who signed up because they couldn't find a job. And I don't even blame most of the officers. It takes extraordinary moral courage to defy your superiors in the military, and to throw your career and your reputation and often your friends away, and do what is right--it's harder in the military than in any other field. The military JAG lawyers did it. They fought tooth and nail against torture. General Shinseki did it. But those types are few and far between.

If they were all doing what is right, then the US military would stand up, as one, and say, "NO MORE!" They would defy Bush and Cheney. These illegitimate leaders are DESTROYING THE US MILITARY. They are also destroying our country--which everyone in the US military takes an oath to defend. It could start with the governors of our states refusing to permit Bush/Cheney to deploy National Guard to Iraq. Then it could spread to the Joint Chiefs of Staff could simply say, "NO MORE! We can't do it. We don't have the troops and we are out of money." (And the Army IS out of money!). Then they could evacuate US soldiers from Iraq and tell George Bush and Dick Cheney to go to hell.

Then we get rid of the secretly programmed Diebold/ES&S voting machines, and elect Lt. Watada president! He would be quite good at it. He has stood up against the Powers and said, "No!" He has represented us--in a way that no one else has, at great peril to himself. I'd vote for him! I'd join a movement to draft him for President, and work to elect him from the brig!

I know it seems wild and utopian. But we shouldn't be trapped by what we think has "always been true." Our view of things is generally limited to the present and the immediate past. We think we are living in an "eternal moment" where nothing can change. But things DO change. Armies have revolted against unjust and mad rulers quite often in history. Unjust and mad rulers quite often have misused and abused their armies. And the armies reach a point where they WON'T TAKE IT ANY MORE. So do civilian populations. It happened in Tsarist Russia. It happened in the Roman Empire. It happened to Napoleon. It happened to Hitler (whose own generals plotted to kill him). And it has most often happened in imperialist wars--where the king or leader at one time had legitimacy, but so ABUSED his armies or his people with out-of-control totalitarian orders that any legitimacy they had DOESN'T MATTER ANY MORE. And we are there, with Bush and Cheney, who never had much legitimacy in the first place. Their rule is based on two stolen elections--provably stolen elections. And the American people are beginning to realize this. If they HAD legitimacy, they wouldn't be behaving this way. Back before their invasion of Iraq, 56% of the American people opposed it. 56%! That would be a landslide in a presidential election. But they ignored majority opinion and proceeded anyway, to shove this war down the throats of the American people AND the US military (whose highest professionals considered it a dubious plan). Now 70% (!) oppose it, and STILL they pursue it. THEY are the defiant ones. Not Lt. Watada. He's following the law. They are not. They are acting as if they are ABOVE THE LAW. And the rest of the military is caught in a vise between what they know to be right, and "business as usual" (it has "always been true") obedience to so-called civilian "authority."

Recently, this Thanksgiving, Dick Cheney was summoned by the King of Saudi Arabia, and was told that, if the US withdraws from Iraq, Saudi Arabia would pour its forces into Iraq in support of the Sunnis, and would furthermore punish US oil giants through OPEC. Summoned. Told. What the hell IS THIS--Saudi Arabia SUMMONING the acting President of the United States, and TELLING him what to do. And next we hear: no drawdown in Iraq, no withdrawal, Bush wants to "win" the war, and is sending MORE troops.

This situation is OUT OF CONTROL. We do not have a president. We have Saudi Arabia's lapdogs in the White House!

And Lt. Watada is being prosecuted, and facing years in the brig, for refusing to obey the orders of the King of Saudi Arabia? How wrong is that?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Excellent Post. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. I agree with a lot of what you say in your post, but
that's a very idealistic view and not reality to those that serve. This war is not considered illegal to those that will decide LT. Watada's fate or anyone else who refused to deploy.

You should also edit your post because the comment about enlisted that serve in the military being "poor, ignorant grunts" is very insulting to DU enlisted vets and their family members. My husband isn't ignorant and we are certainly not rich on a SFC's pay, but we aren't poor either. There is a great deal of honor in serving in the military as well. My husband has rescued people during floods and after tornadoes, etc. He helped rescue and provide supplies in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. He's done many humanitarian missions as have many others that serve this country in the military. He was out helping other people while I tried to take care of our own problems on the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Ivan in 2004 (he had just gotten back from more than a year in Iraq at this time)and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. There have been many times that he has sacrificed his and our families best interests to serve others. Our family has had to spend many times alone because he was called to training or duty in service to this country.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. I am so sorry, Peacebaby3! I did not mean to insult you or your husband.
I was just referring to a lot of 18-20 years olds--truly "poor, ignorant" kids--who know nothing of the government or foreign policy, and really do enlist because they can't find a job, or do it for advancement (the only way to get an education), or sometimes to avoid jail time for youthful offenses (pressured by a judge). I've read a lot about military recruitment tactics in poor neighborhoods. I did not mean to say that there are not well-informed, and sometimes highly educated, people serving in the military--officers or not. I know there are!

I also know there is political activism in the military, and in military families, and a lot of disgust about the war and the rotten leadership in the White House--from top to bottom in the military.

By "poor, ignorant grunts," I meant the youth described above, and also lower level military like those at Ab Ghraib, who got prosecuted for torturing prisoners, while the real perps go free and are making lots and lots of money in war profits--the order-givers, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, the collusive upper officers and including the private contractors who have been involved in torture. I'd say these "grunts" are relatively poor, and also ignorant. They were completely out of their depth at Abu Ghraib. They were given assignments they had no training for. They no doubt felt confusion--the UCMJ says one thing, your commander (or some military contractor) says another. By "ignorant," I don't mean stupid. I mean unfamiliar with the law, with politics, with treaties, with what's really going on with policy, and so forth. I doubt that the "grunts" who were targeted as the supposed "bad apples" at Abu Ghraib had any idea of the international political implications of what they were doing, or the legal implications for themselves. They were truly "just following orders." It doesn't excuse what they did--but it tells us a lot about the decision-makers on the war. And, from everything I've read, we have a whole lot of people in Iraq in very similar positions, with no concept of the illegality of the invasion and occupation, standing on ever-shifting legal ground, having to take orders from war criminals (our Pres, VP and others). They have been put in untenable circumstances, with an impossible job, in a policy contrived by psychos and greedbags. And some probably remain deliberately ignorant because they can't face that reality--it would drive them berserk--they just want to survive.

Some people join the military because they can't find a job, and can't afford an education--but nobody joins it to get rich. That's what I mean by "poor." Only the private contractors, and the Bushites, are getting rich. I would consider anyone in the middle class to be poor, these days. Everyone is struggling. By "poor" I mean they're not bankers and CEOs. They're poor people like you and me. And there are also some truly poor people, who don't have other options in life except to join the military (--no property, no advantages, sometimes in flight from bad circumstances).

I also meant "poor" as in pitiable. I pity our troops in Iraq. I don't look down on them. But I pity the position they've been put in. I feel sorry for someone who has to take orders from Bush and Cheney. I feel compassion for them. They are stuck. Either they do what Lt. Watada is doing, or they stay there, in Iraq, in peril of their lives, trying to do an impossible job.

Once again, I did not mean these statements at all to refer to you. Please know that. You and your husband sound like wonderful people. And I know there are many others like you in the military--people who are drawn to service, and on whom we all rely for protection in many different circumstances. I applaud your husband's service, and the great help he has provided to people in need. And I applaud you as well--for keeping us informed and in reality, and for your activism. You are filling a great need--both as to connecting we civilian political activists and thinkers with people in the military, and also in advocating on behalf of those who are stuck and in danger, and who are paying the price for our miserable leaders, and for our civilian failure to bring these leaders to account and to stop their dreadful policies. We have never had a regime in the White House before that seems intent upon destroying the US military, nor one with such utter callousness toward the impacts of their decisions on US soldiers. Our soldiers need advocates. And I am very glad that you are speaking up for them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. I appreciate the post, Peace Patriot.
I do understand the point you are making as well about some of the young men and women that join the military. I would have probably used the word desperate instead of ignorant because I think many of them don't want to sign up, but have no choice. And nobody can know the realities of war until they live it so in that sense, they are definitely ignorant (as am I since I didn't actually go).

I also agree with you about the Abu Ghraib soldiers and believe while they certainly deserved punishment so did their superiors all the way up the chain of command.

I work in the legal system on criminal cases. I have noticed (even further back than 2003)that there has been a change in the people that are recruited. About 70% of my clients that are charged with violent crimes (many of them murder) have been involved in the military. I'm always so surprised when I get their records at how they could have possibly gotten in. I had one client that had a severe mental health record since he was a child, but he was in the military and had made it through most of his training and would have been on his way to Iraq in a few months. He was finally put out because of "antisocial personality disorder" which is the military "catch-all" term for those that they can't handle. If I could find this information out about him in a matter of days, the military should have been able to find it and he should have never been signed up. When I see the number of people that almost made it though, I always wonder how many actually did (i.e. Stephen Green, possibly)? They are recruiting mentally ill people. Some are even borderline or mildly mentally retarded. I have great sympathy for these people, but they should not be in the military. Our society uses prison and now the military to house and deal with our mentally ill population instead of offering them real help before something terrible happens.

I think we mostly agree and I do really appreciate the time and effort you put into responding to my post.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #15
25. Great post. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
22. kick (there's a dupe thread just started)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
23. morning kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
24. Welcome to the Protofascist Military State.....
Never thought I'd be saying that about my own country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC