118 active duty military members petition congress ...




 
--
Boots
 
October 27th, 2006  
Chief Bones
 
 

Topic: 118 active duty military members petition congress ...


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

Appeal of Redress:
"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".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My commentary:
So much for the troop's unreserved troop support of GW Bush's war. A Detroit Free Press article brings home the very real disconnect between what the administration has been saying active duty personnel are saying in public ... and ... what the active service members themselves have really been saying in private. So far 118 active duty members have signed an Appeal for Redress, that 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.

Even though An Appeal of Redress is legal, this is a petition that I CAN NOT support (active military or civilian). I consider this to be a clear violation of the oath they took at the time of their induction, and a clear break in the faith placed in them by all Americans. Even though I have spoken out AGAINST GW and his administration as a retired military man (and a civilian), these 118 individuals are wrong to take this action.

All of them are still on active duty under military discipline, and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). An Appeal of Redress is supposed to be used to seek Redress for the actions of a Commander against an individual ... that is NOT the case here ... this is a petition against the government of the United States pure and simple, and is ill advised in my opinion. This is a military matter, NOT a civilian political excercise of political dissent.

HOWEVER -
For active duty military personnel to take this action (even though it is only 118 personnel at this time), it defines exactly what many of the people that are at the pointed end of the sword really think about GW's policies (or lack thereof).

GW lives in his own little world, and doesn't seem to want to listen to anyone who rocks his rowboat of state ... but ... this latest article isn't just a little ripple on GW's pond. For very junior military people to put their necks on the chopping block by signing a petition, points out the very real chasm that has opened up between military members and the administration over the Iraq policy. When the very people that must carry out the implementation of your policies oppose you ... just maybe you are holding a 'busted flush' and it's time for a new deck.

Even though I can NOT support these members with their petition, I can very easily understand the very real soul searching they must have gone through to have signed it ... and ... readily understand the (WHY? of it).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
INFORMATION:
Free Press article:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061025/NEWS07/610250340/1009

Petition site:
http://www.appealforredress.org/

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.)
October 27th, 2006  
Senior Chief
 
 
The fact that much of the article is located in the Free Press tends to make me believe that a liberal press might be urging military members to ask for redress. If a member asks for redress on his own volition I feel it is OK, but when pressured to do so by someone with an agenda it is wrong and both parties should be hammered for doing so, the military member and the outside person that influenced him or her to do it.
October 27th, 2006  
Chief Bones
 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senior Chief
The fact that much of the article is located in the Free Press tends to make me believe that a liberal press might be urging military members to ask for redress. If a member asks for redress on his own volition I feel it is OK, but when pressured to do so by someone with an agenda it is wrong and both parties should be hammered for doing so, the military member and the outside person that influenced him or her to do it.
Senior Chief
As far as I can tell, the Detroit Free Press is only reporting about this group - as far as I can tell, they have absolutely nothing to do with the group itself.

I first heard about this on PBR during the Nightly News recap - one of the signers was interviewed, and a short clip was aired.

The group has their own internet site ... you might want to visit it -
http://www.appealforredress.org/
--
Boots
October 27th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
The US military is not a democracy. You follow orders and obey them as you swore to in the oath. All 118 members should be hammered, this crap needs to be nipped in the bud ASAP.
October 27th, 2006  
Senior Chief
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
The US military is not a democracy. You follow orders and obey them as you swore to in the oath. All 118 members should be hammered, this crap needs to be nipped in the bud ASAP.
I totally agree. Most people tend to understand their position while under oath. I honestly think these people are using the ability to redress in an inappropriate manner.
October 27th, 2006  
Team Infidel
 
 
If you joined after 9/11 and are part of this petition, then they need to be kicked in the butt. Come on folks, wake the up
October 27th, 2006  
Senior Chief
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Infidel
If you joined after 9/11 and are part of this petition, then they need to be kicked in the butt. Come on folks, wake the up
I agree with the exception of I think if you signed up at any time after the U.S. military became an all volunteer force you need to be kicked in the butt.

When I was recalled to active duty for Desert Storm I heard the first round of "I joined to go to college, I didn't join to go to war." Round two came when there was a recall after 9/11. Different people but the exact same reaction.

The only people that I think should be offended are those with no common sense. We all took the same oath when we joined.
October 27th, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Have any of you Military members considered the possibility of judicial punishment under the UCMJ. Something about jumping the chain of command? I doubt they have talked with their chain of command. If they had talked with their chain of command then they would have been counseled on what actions they can and can not take and where this particular directive would apply.

I have scanned the particular part of the DOD Directive and I did not see anywhere, in word or spirit, where this directive would apply in this situation.

Therefore it is my opinion that these "servicemembers" - yes, I use that term very loosely as they are not serving anyone but themselves - should be punished to the full extent of the law for jumping the chain of command.(EDIT: After further consideration I can not see where they violated any particular law. I do hope to see them laughed at and ridiculed for their actions).


EDIT: This applies to the active duty personnel that signed the petition for redress. Also if you notice it only highlights what they are able to do. It does not go into detail and state that only under certain circumstances are they free to do the things they "have the right to do". As was stated before. The military is NOT a democracy. All servicemembers have certain inalienable rights. Unfortunately some people interpret those rights to include the same rights as if they were a civilian.
October 27th, 2006  
Team Infidel
 
 
I have had many opportunities to get out to include job opportunities. The only way I will get out before 22 or 24 years is 1) I die, or 2) the Army throws me out. That's the bottom line.
October 27th, 2006  
Senior Chief
 
 
In 1970 I received a letter from the President, Richard M. Nixon. In that letter I was invited to participate in the military. I grew up in an Army town so I was not inclined to go into the Army. I chose the Navy's AEF program. The program was a four year enlistement with a manditory 2 year extension for the Electronics Training I would receive. Tagged on to that requirement was something called a Variable Re-enlistment Bonus (VRB). After I had been my four years I was notified that the VRB had been superceded by the Selective Re-enlistment Bonus (SRB) but it required an additional year of service. This affected many of the people in the Electronics ratings in the Navy. I wrote a letter to the Chief of Naval Personnel, VIA the Chain of Command requesting to be released from my obligation as the Navy had reneged on it's "promise".

The reply form NavPers was one of a shocking nature, basically it told me to shut up and serve my time. (Just for the record, I did not expect to be discharged.) I was counseled by the division Master Chief, the Department Head, the CMC as well as the XO. Later I was informed that due to my letter that I was included in a class action suit against the Navy/Government regarding the VRB/SRB program. Again I was counseled, but was given a clear record as I did not actively initiate adding my name to the list. Eventually all sailors that were affected by the change in policy were added to the class action suit.

Two years after I was honorably discharged from active duty I received a check for almost $5,000. It was my VRB with interest.

If you stay within the system you can do many things. As Marinerhodes said, you have to play by the UCMJ and the U.S. Code when objecting to your situation.

The more I think of it I think these guys need to be packed off to a nice place for a long period of time. Someplace like the USDB at Ft. Leavenworth, or any other Army or Air Force Regional Confinment Center, or any Naval Brig or Marine Corps Brig.

It's not nice to mess with Uncle Sam!
 


Similar Topics
Next US President
US Military Members
Question about deceased military members abroad.
Veteran sues after he receives duty order
Hope this truth gets out