Breaking News: Active duty troops demand

[malaise]

that Congress end Iraq War - MSNBC. This is HUGE

65 of them demand whistle blower status.

Add, Sp.

[babylonsister]

1. Holy mackeral! This IS HUGE! and will get someone's attention.

It got mine.

[malaise]

7. They will have a conference call later

will we hear about the ammo dump?

[babylonsister]

Conference call organized by moveon.org So what, Whora?

I'm just glad someone is organizing it!

[flyarm]

58. whora said there will be a press conference on WEDNESDAY!

but she made sure to reference it to "Liberal" move-on organization

fly

[liberalhistorian]

101. Wonder how long it will take Noron Whora

(I can't decide which derisive nickname I like better, so I'm just gonna use them both since they both fit her perfectly, anyway!) to ask them to promise they won't cause any trouble for her poor, neglected, abused, noble pretzeldent!

[Neecy]

2. wow...

Please, please, let this be the beginning of the end for this sick, immoral war.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

3. Thank God.

[Kagemusha]

4. Here come the treason trials.

Joy to the world.

[joeunderdog]

103. What if these men are really Enemy Combatants?

They should be ordered by Dah Big Bad Feurah to be locked up in secret detention for the rest of their lives. They're screweing up a good war.

[butterfly77]

5. Any links ...

[malaise]

10. Lvie on MSNBC

says Move On. Org. is organizing a conference call with them.

[babylonsister]

6. Recommend for all of us! nt

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. Oh, wow

Just ...wow! Tuned in to see if this post was a joke. It's not, folks! WOW!!!!

[malaise]

13. Would I joke about anything

this serious? No way.

[Norquist Nemesis]

20. LOL! No...but my eyes could have been playing tricks

[malaise]

22. LOL

Bush is fugged. Will these soldiers be tried for treason?

[leftchick]

9. who in the hell is the idiot that Moron is talking to

"we aren't winning but we aren't losing either" wtf?

[Submariner]

11. October Surprise for KKKarl

End that bogus war NOW!!!!!

[goforit]

19. Well put!!! A dream come true!

[Peace Patriot]

12. Please, what is the source? n/t

[babylonsister]

15. Breaking news on MSNBC. nt

[Norquist Nemesis]

16. MSNBC Live n/t

[Norquist Nemesis]

14. And good ole' Nora smears them all in one line

'It's all being organized by Moveon.org, a LIBERAL organization.'

[babylonsister]

17. Heard that and beat ya to it. Leave it to Whora/Noron. nt

[Hugin]

21. So Nora is *for* death and destruction?

Hell, only this morning Bush was 'cut and running' from that position.

Nora is really earning that pink-slip.

[H2O Man]

26. I respectfully disagree.

I saw what she said, and how she said it. I do not think that it in any way qualifies as a "smear." She has the ability to be rather obnoxious, but this wasn't one of those instances. Rather, she was reporting -- accurately -- that MoveOn.Org is helping these soldiers' voice be heard.

[jmowreader]

44. Explain the "liberal" comment, then

I read it as "those traitorous lib'ruls want Our Great President to cut and run from Iraq and keep all those precious Iraqi children from tasting the fruits of freedom that only America can provide."

Or something like that.

[H2O Man]

70. What would you

think "liberal" would mean if it were, say, Rev Al Sharpton saying, word for word, the exact same thing? Would you be offended by his calling MoveOn.Org "liberal"? What if Michael Moore called MoveOn.Org "liberal"?

The truth is, very simply, that MoveOn.Org is a liberal organization. And that's a good thing. There are advantages to having the media report that a liberal group advocating for soldiers in Iraq. There is, as far as I can see, no advantages accrued from being offended because Norah said something accurate. While she is frequently obnoxious, her reporting has been more anti-war in the past two months. I'm not concerned that she was wrong in the past; it is more important that she is right now.

[jmowreader]

87. Could she have called them just "moveon.org"

and not "moveon.org, a Liberal Organization"?

They wouldn't report something like Focus on the Family or the American Center for Law and Justice as a "neoconservative organization."

There are way too many people in America who translate "liberal" as "bad."

[H2O Man]

92. Considering that

MoveOn.Org is liberal, I think it's fine to call it that. You certainly have a valid point about the tendency for many people to react to the word "liberal." But because it was used correctly, and because it might open people's eyes, I think it's okay she described it in the way she did. It's accurate -- where calling Focus on the Family "neoconservative" is not accurate. Calling it "Christian fundamentalist" would be accurate, as would "social conservative." But it in no way is "neoconservative," and calling it such would either be a simple error, or an attempt to stick an emotional reaction to it.

[Critters2]

96. Focus on the Family isn't Neocon

They're just good ol' fashioned paleo-cons, you know, the social conservatives the neo-cons laugh about behind their collective back.

[liberalhistorian]

102. Very good points, and I agree.

"Liberal" has an often negative connotation, thanks to decades of puke propaganda. And I can't remember the last time a conservative organization was called "conservative" after being mentioned on the news. You almost never hear that word, even when the group is, most assuredly, conservative.

[malaise]

52. Nora just corrected the Move On part

It's not Move On. Didn't hear the name of the communications company.

[Norquist Nemesis]

53. Missed it!

Darn it! I muted to listen to Feingold on Steph's show then forgot to go back. LOL!

Did she actually say it was a correction? (Hope they're red-lining Karl's WHTruthFax for the next anchor.)

[malaise]

56. Fenton Communications

That's it. Discussion on now on MsNBC.

Add.

[Norquist Nemesis]

59. Watching! Thanks!

Gergen: Iraq is just Katrina over there, far away.

[democrank]

18. Please let this be true.

Any more info?

[malaise]

24. Searching n/t

[H2O Man]

23. I just saw this

on MSNBC. I think it speaks loudly. We need to amplify the message on their behalf.

[democrank]

25. malaise....anyone....

Can active duty troops get whistle blower status?

[malaise]

27. I'll leave that to the experts

in this area

[babylonsister]

28. I think they're jeopardizing their jobs, but are trying to save their

skins.

[madokie]

31. They are hero's

[atreides1]

45. Here's what the DOD Directive 7050.6 says

4. POLICY

It is DoD policy that:

4.1. Members of the Armed Forces shall be free to make
a protected communication to:

4.1.1. A Member of Congress.

4.1.2. An IG.

4.1.3. A member of a DoD audit, inspection, investigation,
or law enforcement organization; or

4.1.4. Any other person or organization (including
any person or organization in the chain of command)
designated under Component regulations or other established
administrative procedures to receive such communications.

4.2. No person shall restrict a member of the Armed
Forces from making a protected communication.

4.3. Members of the Armed Forces shall be free from
reprisal for making or preparing a protected communication.

4.4. No person may take or threaten to take an unfavorable
personnel action, or withhold or threaten to withhold
a favorable personnel action, in reprisal against any
member of the Armed Forces for making or preparing a
protected communication.

4.5. Any violation of paragraph 4.4., above, by a person
subject to Chapter 47 of 10 U.S.C. (the Uniform Code
of Military Justice, reference (b)), is punishable as
a violation of Section 892 of 10 U.S.C. (Article 92
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, "Failure to
obey order or regulation"). Civilian employees of
the Department of Defense who violate paragraph 4.4.,
above, shall be subject to disciplinary or adverse action
for misconduct pursuant to Chapter 75 of 5 U.S.C. (reference
(d)).

4.5.1. The Secretaries of the Military Departments
shall issue regulations making punishable any violation
of the provision set forth in paragraph 4.4., above,
by a person subject to Chapter 47 of 10 U.S.C. (reference
(b)).

4.5.2. The Secretaries of the Military Departments
shall ensure that any violation of the provision set
forth in paragraph 4.4., above, by civilian employees
under their respective jurisdictions are punishable
under regulations governing civilian employee disciplinary
or adverse actions.

Anyone trying to retaliate against these troops, either military or civilian can be charged with misconduct.

These troops just have to make sure that their congressman are not Repukes or Dems who have a history of agreeing with this administration!

[babylonsister]

49. Thanks for looking that up; it gives me hope these soldiers

will get a fair shake.

[Shipwack]

105. Alas, atreides1, I'm betting th UCMJ will trump that...

I see them being prosecuted under UCMJ articles:

81 (conspiracy),
82 (solicitation),
88 (Contempt Toward Officials),
89 (Contempt Toward a Superior Commissioned Officer),
90 (Willfully Disobeying a Superior Commissioned Officer),
91 (Insubordinate Conduct),
92 (failure to obey a lawful order or regulation),
94 (mutiny or sedition),
99 (misbehavior before the enemy),
104 (Aiding the enemy),
107 (False Statements),
116 (Riot or breach of the Peace),
117 (Provoking speech or gestures),
131 (perjury),
and for any officers,
133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman).

Last, but not least, is Article 134, "The General Article", Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

Not saying these were valid, but this is the kind of pressure they could apply. In my 20 years of service, the gulf between what is right, and what is done by vindictive officers is vast, and the house holds the hole cards.

[Norquist Nemesis]

29. Excellent question

Old age is creeping in at a faster pace these days, but IIRC, there was some stuff recently about court decisions on whistleblowers that they no longer have protection. How (and whether) this would applicable to active duty soldiers could be another matter, though.

BUT, there are things in the USMCJ which others could speak to with more knowledge and authority than me.

[Norquist Nemesis]

33. Possible answer

from the newsrelease on the LBN thread:

"Under the Military Whistle-Blower Protection Act (DOD directive 7050.6), active-duty military, National Guard and Reservists can file and send a protected communication to a Member of Congress regarding any subject without reprisal."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[malaise]

39. Very good news n/t

[democrank]

46. Thanks, NN

Maybe these courageous troops have some cover.

[TahitiNut]

64. Just what kind of recourse exists in the event of (alleged) reprisals?

I'm VERY suspicious of such 'acts' ... since they often turn out to be hypocritical facades. Anyone who'd take retaliatory actions would claim other reasons. Has ANYONE ever been 'protected' (on the record) under this Act? Going merely on the precis, communication with NGOs (e.g. MoveOn.org) is not a protected activity. Nor is collaboration among members of the military in opposition to senior command levels (e.g. the commander-in-chief) - which MIGHT be called 'mutiny' by some.

[TahitiNut]

43. I'm not aware of any law that would offer protection.

There is no overall 'protection' for whistle-blowers. None. Indeed, what statutory protections exist are very thin and spotty. What an average person might think exists just doesn't. For example, an individual isn't 'protected' from retaliation (loss of job, demotion, etc.) but, instead, merely has a "cause of action" in a civil suit if and only if they can prove some very narrow elements - including 'standing' as someone who reported wrong-doing to a properly constituted law enforcement or regulatory entity. Newspapers don't qualify. Neither do internal management personnel. Thus, what the vast majority of (what we might call) whistle-blowers must resort to is a "wrongful termination" suit - punitive treatment against the public interest. People are terminated and black-balled all the time ... and very, very, very few obtain any kind of justice. Indeed, even co-workers and peers tend to avoid them for fear of becoming 'collateral damage.'

[warrens]

30. Huge?

Hardly. It's not a secret that some of the troops oppose the war. Demanding Congress end it is just a publicity stunt.

[Lex]

34. I have more faith in the sincerity and honor of the troops than that.

I don't think its merely a publicity stunt.

[eppur_se_muova]

76. Thanks. Some anti-cynism was called for. nt

[H2O Man]

38. We need "publicity stunts."

Martin Luther King, Jr. conducted "publicity stunts," too. Thank goodness for calls to Conscience.

[malaise]

41. Agree 100% n/t

[Sydnie]

62. Absolutely agree with you

ANYTHING that sheds light on this, and this is one of those actions from a "volunteer" that will shed some light, is a great thing. You are spot on when you say that we need to support them!

[H2O Man]

74. As I'm sure you know,

in 2004 Michael Moore published a book, "Will They Ever Trust Us Again?" It's letters from the war zone, as well as from the families of soldiers, who explain to Moore why they are against the war.

For a variety of reasons, the book did not gain the attention that it deserved. Perhaps some thought it was merely another of Moore's "stunts." I don't. It's one of the most powerful books I've read.

We have a tragic clown abusing the office of the presidency, who says that we must "honor" the soldiers who died in Iraq by sending more to their death. Bullshit. We don't "honor" the victims of 9-11 by allowing others to die a similar death.

If MoveOn.Org is giving voice to those who the administration has turned a deaf ear to, then they have my support.

[democrank]

42. I`m sorry, warrens.....

but your comment is disgusting. Some "publicity stunt." If I was a target in a war I`d been lied into by an AWOL Commander in Chief and his five-deferment sidekick, I`d be pissed too. Some of our soldiers have been in Iraq for three, four and five tours with no end in sight. Many of them are experiencing dire financial problems because of "stop loss." Thousands have been killed and maimed. Their families are suffering. Many have PTSD. A "publicity stunt" you say? How outrageous.

We heard a lot of this same crap during the Vietnam War.... SHOOT THE MESSENGER.

[AngryOldDem]

68. It's not a stunt

They're putting a lot on the line here.

I call it courageous.

[Norquist Nemesis]

32. Link from LBN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[BuyingThyme]

36. Thank you.

[malaise]

37. Great n/t

[demwing]

35. Never mind, just saw the link above. THANKS!

nt

[AndyA]

40. Bush's first enemy combatants under the new detainee bill?

They will be wisked away, never to be heard from again.

Bush has ways of dealing with people who cause trouble, brought to us by the kind folks of our GOP-led Do-Nothing Congress.

[Justice Is Comin]

47. This isn't just one or two,

this is sixty five!!

What are they going to do, shoot em? Boy, I hope this blows the lid off.

[Norquist Nemesis]

54. Three are going 'public' on the conference call

Sixty-five have taken action.

[malaise]

63. McCaffrey responding on MSNBC

He's trying to play this down using the number of active duty servicemen calling for the end of the occupation in relation to the number of troops.

[myrna minx]

48. Wow. We need to have their backs, folks. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

50. Fantastic!

I wonder if there are any officers in this group?

And what will the commanders on the ground do about this?

The repercussions of this will be enormous, whether they're successful or not.

[marions ghost]

51. maybe someone in the military

can tell us what this means.

It seems historic. Did this occur during the Vietnam war?

I want to but I'm not sure what impact this can have. Will these objectors or whistle blowers be court-martialed?

[babylonsister]

57. See post #45. Seems the soldiers won't suffer consequences

if they go about it the right way.

[marions ghost]

75. thanks I see that now

I didn't realize that soldiers had any way to object to wars when they don't agree with the leadership.

[mmonk]

55. They should. They are being used and putting their lives

on the line and they know it even if people at home don't.

[Quixote1818]

60. I wonder if Tillman's letter helped bring them to this decision?

nt

[malaise]

61. Who knows?

Maybe - one more nail in Bushco's coffin. I'll take it.

[spanone]

65. KICK AND RECOMMEND

[SouthernBelle82]

66. Oh wow!

This is big news! Is there any more information on this?

[spanone]

67. Nothing on MSNBC website. ANY LINKS, ANYWHERE???

[Lars39]

69. Here:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=74796

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

71. thanks for the link!

excerpt~
Sixty-five active-duty members have sent Appeals for Redress to Members of Congress. Three of these people (including two who served in Iraq) and their attorney will speak about this on Wednesday, Oct. 25 at 11 a.m. EDT.

Under the Military Whistle-Blower Protection Act (DOD directive 7050.6), active-duty military, National Guard and Reservists can file and send a protected communication to a Member of Congress regarding any subject without reprisal.

What: Three active-duty members of the military and their lawyer, a retired U.S. Marine Corps JAG, make comments and take questions from the media.

When: Wednesday, Oct. 25, 11 a.m. EDT

[elehhhhna]

109. MUTINY, I say! It is MUTINY! And better late than never.

[spanone]

73. Thanks and another hefty KICK.

[Jack Rabbit]

72. Hopefully, they will not be declared enemy combatants

. . . and then have this heresy washed out them.

[Generator]

77. What?

It sounds like they don't support the troops.

[malaise]

78. Yah think?

I suspect that they really care for the troops.

[TayTay]

79. Who will be at this press conference from Congress

to receive these brave patriots? Anyone know?

[earth mom]

80. WTF?! Is this for real?!

I don't have cable so I don't know what you're all seeing.

[malaise]

81. For real

Interesting that they haven't put the link on their website.

[earth mom]

88. Thanks for the reply. So they're gonna clamp down the info?

Why am I not surprised?

[malaise]

89. They won't be able to

after the conference call on Wednesday.

[steve2470]

82. kicked

I'm sure the RW slimeballs will call these soldiers traitors, etc. I can't wait for all the slimy details about Bushco to come public so these RW idiots can look foolish.

[BlueEyedSon]

83. link?

[malaise]

85. Check #32

MSNBC has had several discussions since morning.

[BlueEyedSon]

86. thx, would be nice to see something other that the press release

[malaise]

90. Here you go

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/...

[mdmc]

84. GITMO

`will have some new folk soon,,,,

[Bouncy Ball]

91. I just want to take this chance

for anyone reading this, to emphasize that THIS is exactly why it is SO important that US civilians speak up about wars or potential wars and do NOT get sucked into the whole "support the troops, no matter what the president decides to do with them!" hoo-rah bullshit.

As members of the military, they do not have the same voice that private citizens have. (Or used to have???) It is very difficult for them to pull off something like this, and I would imagine it's extremely rare to happen at all while the war is still going on or before it gets started.

I don't care if the commander in chief is republican, Democrat, or none of the above, anytime the government decides to use our troops in any manner, I am going to critically analyze whether it is necessary.

If I decide they are using OUR troops in an illegal, immoral manner, I will raise up my voice about it, despite what anyone has to say about yellow ribbons. WE are their voice. When we just say "ok good by me!" and slap a sticker on our car, then the government can do whatever they want to with our military.

That is not right and that is not American. I argue that it doesn't get any more American than to yell loud and long when you think the government is fucking up.

Thank goodness these particular troops are finally getting a rare chance to use their voice while still in the field. I'm amazed by it, and fearful for them.

[BeHereNow]

93. "Stay the course..." Yeah, YOU and WHAT army, cow-shit boy?

This is the best news I have heard in years.
BHN

[Imagevision]

94. Bush's "noble cause" scenario has come home to roost!!

[nam78_two]

95. Oh wow! No link yet eh?

[ProSense]

97. Link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[proud patriot]

98. we must support our soldiers

[BeHereNow]

99. Their official web site- PASS IT ON!

I just posted a thread in GD with this link-

http://www.appealforredress.org/index.php
An Appeal for Redress from the War in Iraq
Many active duty, reserve, and guard service members are concerned about the war in Iraq and support the withdrawal of U.S. troops. 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 Appeal messages will be delivered to members of Congress at the time of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in January 2007.
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.

If you agree with this message, click here.
The Appeal for Redress is sponsored by active duty service members based in the Norfolk area and by a sponsoring committee of veterans and military family members. The Sponsoring committee consists of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans For Peace, and Military Families Speak Out.
Members of the military have a legal right to communicate with their member of Congress. To learn more about the rights and restrictions that apply to service members click here.
Attorneys and counselors experienced in military law are available to help service members who need assistance in countering any attempts to suppress this communication with members of Congress.
Several members of Congress have expressed interest in receiving the Appeal for Redress and have issued the following statement:
"We respect and welcome this initiative from our brave men and women in uniform. We look forward to receiving the Appeals and sharing your important perspectives with colleagues in the Congress."

Click here to send the Appeal to your elected representatives.

You KNOW what to DU!
BHN

[BeHereNow]

100. Link to GD thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
BHN

[rucky]

104. Now that's courage! n/t

[BelgianMadCow]

106. And more active duty troops can join easily! See this thread ->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[BeHereNow]

107. Hey BMC...

BHN

[BelgianMadCow]

108. mebbe

by tying into this thread, to which it is THE LOGICAL followup, ...

[Toots]

110. Whistle blower status under Bush* means they are criminals that need to be jailed

[bdamomma]

111. here we go, once these soldiers start speaking up things will

really get heated up.