Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Media: The Associated Press
Byline: ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY
Date: 24 October 2006
WASHINGTON_Anti-war groups are trying to rally active troops to speak out
against the war in Iraq, a political tactic they hope will sway voters on
Nov. 7.
A small group of active-duty members opposed to the war created a Web site
last month intended to collect thousands of signatures of other service
members. A service member can submit his or her name, rank and duty station
if they support statements denouncing the U.S. invasion.
The electronic grievances are then passed along to members of Congress,
according to the Web site.
"Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for
U.S. troops to come home," the Web site says.
Jonathan Hutto, a Navy seaman based in Virginia, who set up the Web site a
month ago, said the group has collected 118 names and is trying to verify
that they are legitimate service members.
There are 1.4 million troops on active duty, including members of the
National Guard and Reserve.
Retired veterans long have waded into politics, including the 2004
presidential campaign challenges of the war record of Sen. John Kerry, the
Democratic candidate who lost to President George W. Bush. More recently,
several retired military generals have urged Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld to resign, contending he botched the Iraq war and put troops
unnecessarily at risk.
Hearing publicly from active-duty troops is rare. Military law bars officers
from denouncing the president and other U.S. leaders, and regulations
typically prevent service members from lobbying for a particular cause while
on duty or wearing the uniform.
Legal experts who reviewed the Web site said the effort probably would not
violate any rules because the site is not a personal attack on members of
the administration and allows service members to quietly pass their
grievance to Congress in their free time.
Backers of the Web site also cite a "whistle-blower protection" law as added
cover. Under the law, service members can file complaints to Congress
without reprisal.
At least two senators, both critical of the administration's handling of the
war in Iraq, said they fear that service members speaking out against the
president could undermine the military's apolitical status.
"We expect our soldiers to follow ... the legitimate orders of their
commanders," said Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who is helping lead
Democratic opposition to the war this election season.
"And if you feel a course of action is inappropriate, your choice is just
getting out of the service, basically, if you can and making your comments
as a civilian," said Reed, a U.S. Military Academy graduate and former Army
Ranger and paratrooper.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a former reserve judge for the Air Force, said vocal
complaints by active-duty members represent a "disturbing trend" that
threatened to erode the cohesiveness of the military.
"We've had a long tradition making sure the military doesn't engage in
political debate," said Graham, a Republican. "We don't need a Democratic
Army and a Republican Army."
Hutto and supporters of his Web site said they see no problem with
active-duty military personnel weighing into politics.
"We're doing this on our own time," Hutto said. Also, "We're speaking as
American citizens" rather than service members.
Scott Silliman, director of Duke University's Center on Law, Ethics and
National Security, said he sees the increasing political noise being made
from active and retired military members as a relatively new phenomenon that
results from an increasingly unpopular war.
"Fifteen, 20 years ago you wouldn't have seen it happen," Silliman said.
Still, Silliman said, he sees little wrong with troops speaking out on their
own time so long as they are not senior-ranking officers needed to carry out
the president's orders. "It depends certainly on who it is" ramping up
opposition to the executive branch, he said.
A Pentagon press officer did not respond to requests for comment left by
telephone and e-mail.
Byline: ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY
Date: 24 October 2006
WASHINGTON_Anti-war groups are trying to rally active troops to speak out
against the war in Iraq, a political tactic they hope will sway voters on
Nov. 7.
A small group of active-duty members opposed to the war created a Web site
last month intended to collect thousands of signatures of other service
members. A service member can submit his or her name, rank and duty station
if they support statements denouncing the U.S. invasion.
The electronic grievances are then passed along to members of Congress,
according to the Web site.
"Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for
U.S. troops to come home," the Web site says.
Jonathan Hutto, a Navy seaman based in Virginia, who set up the Web site a
month ago, said the group has collected 118 names and is trying to verify
that they are legitimate service members.
There are 1.4 million troops on active duty, including members of the
National Guard and Reserve.
Retired veterans long have waded into politics, including the 2004
presidential campaign challenges of the war record of Sen. John Kerry, the
Democratic candidate who lost to President George W. Bush. More recently,
several retired military generals have urged Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld to resign, contending he botched the Iraq war and put troops
unnecessarily at risk.
Hearing publicly from active-duty troops is rare. Military law bars officers
from denouncing the president and other U.S. leaders, and regulations
typically prevent service members from lobbying for a particular cause while
on duty or wearing the uniform.
Legal experts who reviewed the Web site said the effort probably would not
violate any rules because the site is not a personal attack on members of
the administration and allows service members to quietly pass their
grievance to Congress in their free time.
Backers of the Web site also cite a "whistle-blower protection" law as added
cover. Under the law, service members can file complaints to Congress
without reprisal.
At least two senators, both critical of the administration's handling of the
war in Iraq, said they fear that service members speaking out against the
president could undermine the military's apolitical status.
"We expect our soldiers to follow ... the legitimate orders of their
commanders," said Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who is helping lead
Democratic opposition to the war this election season.
"And if you feel a course of action is inappropriate, your choice is just
getting out of the service, basically, if you can and making your comments
as a civilian," said Reed, a U.S. Military Academy graduate and former Army
Ranger and paratrooper.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a former reserve judge for the Air Force, said vocal
complaints by active-duty members represent a "disturbing trend" that
threatened to erode the cohesiveness of the military.
"We've had a long tradition making sure the military doesn't engage in
political debate," said Graham, a Republican. "We don't need a Democratic
Army and a Republican Army."
Hutto and supporters of his Web site said they see no problem with
active-duty military personnel weighing into politics.
"We're doing this on our own time," Hutto said. Also, "We're speaking as
American citizens" rather than service members.
Scott Silliman, director of Duke University's Center on Law, Ethics and
National Security, said he sees the increasing political noise being made
from active and retired military members as a relatively new phenomenon that
results from an increasingly unpopular war.
"Fifteen, 20 years ago you wouldn't have seen it happen," Silliman said.
Still, Silliman said, he sees little wrong with troops speaking out on their
own time so long as they are not senior-ranking officers needed to carry out
the president's orders. "It depends certainly on who it is" ramping up
opposition to the executive branch, he said.
A Pentagon press officer did not respond to requests for comment left by
telephone and e-mail.
