Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Fed Up Soldiers Finding New Ways to Protest the War

By Jeanine Plant, AlterNet. Posted January 24, 2007.


How some soldiers are using a little-known shield law to protect their right to dissent.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Jeanine Plant

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

There is a strict protocol for military dissent. A service member can exercise free speech, for example, but she should be off-duty. She can protest the war, but not in uniform.

In an unprecedented move, 1,171 service members signed the Appeal for Redress -- a three-sentence statement that beseeches Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of troops from Iraq -- amid a flurry of anti-war activity happening around the country and a vigorous public debate about escalation in Iraq.

According to its creators and their lawyer, J.E. McNeil, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Center on Conscience and War, the appeal is perfectly legal and stays within the bounds of respectful discourse.

The appeal's message is not groundbreaking; anti-war sentiment in the military is well-known. The oft-cited February 2006 Le Moyne College/Zogby poll showed that 72 percent of active-duty troops wanted out of Iraq by the end of last year. And the GI Rights Hotline, affiliated with the Center on Conscience and War, gets roughly 4,000 calls a month, 40 percent of which, McNeil estimates, are questions about going AWOL.

And dissent in the ranks is not exceptional either. But the way in which these service members expressed their objection to U.S. policy in Iraq is. Their employment of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, which shields military members from reprisals for communicating with Congress, is relatively novel.

Last week, the creators, Navy Seaman Jonathan Hutto and Marine Corps Sgt. Liam Madden, announced the appeal to Congress at a press conference held on the steps of the Cannon House Office Building in Capitol Hill. Supporters from the anti-war groups Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace, and Military Families Speak Out attended and spoke. Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., who introduced the End the War in Iraq Act in the last session to curb spending on the war, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, also came out in support. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., issued letters of support.

Hutto and Madden, joined by others from the military, like Army National Guard Sgt. Jabbar Macgruder, wore civilian clothing, and were careful not to disparage the president or speak on behalf of the military. These reflect the rules under the Department of Defense's Directive "1325.6" or "Guidelines for Handling Dissident and Protest Activities Among Members of the Armed Forces." The guideline forbids petitioning Congress, which is why Hutto and Madden made it explicitly clear that their statement is a "redress." Service members have the right to "complain and request redress," it reads.

"Those directives are what constrain what they can and can't do," said McNeil. "I encourage them to be very careful."

"Generally [when you join the military], you don't give up your right to be a citizen," she explained. "You have a right to vote or talk to members of Congress, but not in your official capacity. And you could talk to reporters, but not say anything that would tend to subvert the mission of the military."

While there have been no complaints of overt retaliation yet, these service members can be reprimanded in insidious, indirect ways such as being passed up for a promotion or feeling alienated from their unit.

Kucinich promised to rebuke any such overt threats or actions.

"These are amazing men and women who say that this war is abhorrent to them, and still follow orders," said McNeil. "I hope that Congress understands that they are making a double sacrifice: They are risking their careers," she says, "and their lives."

In fact, according to Hutto, 60 percent of the signatories already served in Iraq.

Macgruder, who served in Iraq in 2004 and joined the military in 2000, says he has heard rumors about his unit's redeployment at his base. And though few of his unit's soldiers lost their lives, he felt the personal impact of the war.

"I was engaged to get married," Macgruder said. "And that whole thing fell apart because of the deployment."

The people most angered by the war, he says, are "the people who get called up after they got out of the military." The service members listed I.R.R., or Independent Ready Reserves, "these are the people most against the war; those guys are more willing to speak their mind."

The Pentagon has statistics about how many service members were deployed to Iraq more than once, but such statistics are not readily available to the public.

The Army Times did publish such numbers in its December 2006 article "Deployment data underscore the strain of combat operations." But a senior editor at Army Times told AlterNet that obtaining the information is atypical; the Pentagon is usually cagey about releasing it for public relations reasons, and their journalist got an anomalous tip.

According to the data obtained by Army Times, out of the 1.4 million soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly one-third of them, roughly 420,800 service members, deployed more than once.

And since September 2001, 683,380 soldiers deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq, 163,949 of them at least twice, according to Army Times.

Recruitment statistics are also hard to come by, but the National Priorities Project, a Northampton, Mass.-based advocacy organization, was able to obtain it through the Freedom of Information Act.

"We do get the data through FOIA, but it does require some followup," said Anita Dancs, research director of the National Priorities Project.

"If you are dealing with the Pentagon, you are dealing with FOIA," Dancs said. She also mentioned that the reason National Priorities received so much media attention is that it is too time consuming for independent journalists to access information through FOIA.

"Who is bearing the burden of war? It certainly is not the wealthy; it is the low-and-middle-income families, the people who are most likely to be attracted to the economic incentives," Dancs said, confirming the stereotypes.

Macgruder was one such recruit who joined for the financial benefits.

"I really wanted to earn my spot to go to school," Macgruder said.

Macgruder, like the others who signed the appeal, is not a pacifist, but says he became disenchanted with the war when it no longer seemed to make sense. "This is what changed my mind," Macgruder said, citing a lack of justification for the war. "To me it wasn't deployment, it was the reason behind the deployment."

The Appeal for Redress started out as a kind of book club. Hutto read David Cortright's Soldiers in Revolt, which chronicles GI resistance during Vietnam. Hutto was so taken with the book that he invited Cortright to speak near his base in Norfolk, Va. Cortright, a key figure in military resistance during Vietnam and now a research fellow at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame, inspired Hutto, along with Liam Madden, to start their own movement.

In his first-person essay, "Reminiscences of Resistance," Cortright describes feeling utterly satisfied by his anti-war activities that started to consume him in 1968.

"The commitment to speak out, once I had finally made it, was incredibly fulfilling. Suddenly my life had meaning and purpose -- I was a committed anti-war activist, spending every waking moment agitating and organizing against the war."

Cortright's anti-war activities as a service member include a full-page ad of a petition signed by 35 members in his unit in the New York Times and his role in Cortright v. Resor, a class-action lawsuit against the army.

"My experience as a GI protestor was a small part of the large-scale resistance movement that shook the foundations of the U.S. military during Vietnam," Cortright writes.

"The rebellion in the ranks spread to all the services and reached every base where U.S. troops were stationed, including and most especially in Vietnam, where fraggings [which means an assassination of an officer by his own troops by grenade] and combat refusals sapped the military of its fighting capacity."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: war, iraq

Jeanine Plant is a New York-based freelance writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Now THOSE are guys fighting for our rights.
Posted by: brotherjonah on Jan 24, 2007 2:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The military as a group has never fought for American rights, but you wouldn't know it to hear the propaganda. VVAW and now IVAW stood up to the dogs, tear gas and rapidly deployed batons used to beat down other protesters who hadn't been to the war, yet.

These guys are doing something even more, they are risking their lives in what might be seen as Mutiny.

Even though they have the letter of the law to protect them, the ones who enforce the law think of themselves as actually Being THE LAW in their own persons.
Don't think so?
here's a clue, ever hear a cop ask you "you ever been in trouble with THE LAW?"

It is defiance of the government, not service to the government, that holds out our last lonely hope at actually being free.

I learned a lot from the Air Force, it was delivered more subtly than the same lesson taught by the police, as in, when you are handcuffed in the back of the car, and they pull off onto a side road, pull out the clubs and say, "we're gonna teach you a lesson". More subtly delivered, but what isn't more subtle than being hit with a club or two?

These men and women face that threat daily. Hourly.

I pray for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» www.soldiervoices.net Posted by: S2_369
» RE: Why is it? Posted by: Gregor
I think its ashame that our military service people must do what we....
Posted by: Prophit on Jan 24, 2007 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... should be doing. I am proud of them and wish them well and I support them all the way.

I have been saying "What if someone started a war and no one showed up". Given the weakness of this dem congress, I believe we are back to that. I would support, shield, hide and otherwise take care of anyone who decided to forgo serving in Iraq.

Its the only way right now as I see it. Nothing else is working. Can not have a war if no one is willing to fight it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GI Rights Hotline
Posted by: rwa on Jan 24, 2007 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.girights.org

1-800-394-9544

Germany: 06223-47791

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I feel sorry...
Posted by: jack alexander on Jan 24, 2007 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for those who are in the service today. As in my day, they were suckered into fighting an imaginary and wrong war to make the military industrial complex wealthier.

Viet Nam was wrong. The Middle East conflicts are wrong. All war is wrong. War is what uncivilized power hungry, greedy people do to cull out the best of the herd and see to their reduction in numbers. 58,000 of my generation were murdered by sick politicians for a war supposedly over politics.

The truth of the matter was the greedy wanted the oil in Cam Rahn Bay. The Russians got it. Did our nation stop because of that loss?

And neither will it stop when this current travesty, a war of blood for oil ends.

I was an order following front-liner in Viet Nam and am proud to say I was a Viet Nam Veteran against the war. Those of this war who risk speaking out under the current nazi/unitary government are true heros and I salute them! And I pray that they survive the war and the unconstitutional influence of the sick people now in the Administration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These are the only soldiers
Posted by: badkitty on Jan 24, 2007 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These are the only soldiers I can support. They are the only members of our armed forces making our country safer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Never forget the meaning of the oath....
Posted by: common intelligence on Jan 24, 2007 5:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...to serve and to protect... from ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC."

Pirates have taken the White House. DO NOT be fooled into thinking they are thinking of your best interests or the "National Interests".

"We're not in Kansas any more Toto".
Fascist pirates are still lieing and have the momnetum to keep it going as long as we participate in the charade. They have unlimited financial resources at their disposal. But we have each other. With out our participating in the illusion they lose control.
The media is the Brain washing tool of choice. The television perpetuates the mind set of the enemy is else where. Instilling violence among the mass is the plan to where the masses eat each other like rats.
We my friends are the hero soldiers, we are our nations insurgence.
"Teach your brothers well."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement