Free Dating Site    

Subject:Kill HR 63

I have heard enough of the bleeding heart Democrats. Now I'm seeing Republicans on the wrong side.

My name is................... I served 18 years in the U.S. Army. I was a SFC when I got out. I served in Vietnam. My oldest son served in Desert Storm.

I'm hearing some congressmen stand on the floor; by watching C-SPAN, say they are supporting this bill because they are supporting our troops. That they have heard America's call.

You better check there call again, if you hope to stay in office.

Those of you who think your actions do not affect a soldiers morale need to hear this, because you are wrong.

You have forgotten why a soldier enlist in the military.

He or she enlists for the same reason a
person joins Law Enforcement.

He or she hopes their services may never be needed, but they train for it, in the event they are ever called upon.

They have aspirations of contributing to a common good.

And what you are doing is undermining that. And it will undo what they have done so far.

I suggest you do not know the meaning of the word morale.

When you lower a soldiers morale you shake his or her confidence. His or her confidence in their chain of command.

When you hurt their confidence it weaken the strength of a unit. It creates doubt.
Doubt leads to distraction.

Distraction leads to poor decision making.
Distraction leads to daydreaming. Trying to figure out who is right or wrong.
( Which I hope our commanders are constantly telling our troops not to let this distract them from the work at hand )

Daydreaming can get a soldier killed because he needs to be alert to his surroundings.

As in Vietnam, if you were driving an APC and got off of the tracks (in the dirt) left by the vehicle in front of you by as much as 3 inches, it was enough weight to detonate a mine.

Our soldiers are human just as you are I.

How many times have you drove to work and wondered how you got there, because your mind was some where else.

How many times were you on a phone and forgot to pay attention to your driving.
How many times have you lit the wrong end of a cigarette because your mind was some where else.

You are blind to what your actions is contributing to our soldiers.

I would suggest, if you must debate you keep it behind closed doors, off of the TV, out of the newspapers.

You do not realize the picture you are painting of yourself to the world.

Albert Einstein once said:
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.

Your are not only undermining the troops, you are also undermining the progress we have made in Foreign Relations with Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar.

And our position with our allies like England, Canada, and Australia.
Have we forgotten how hard it was to get the other countries to pitch in.

Your actions do not help future enlistments.

I think President Bush and our men and women have done a superb job.

I think the Democrats are just mad because President Bush is going to make it into the history books as one that made a difference and it wasn't one of theirs.

The major difference with this one is that there is a civil war in Iraq.

Iraq can not clean it up by themselves.
They don't even have banks. So the Iraqi soldiers leave there units (for several days at a time) come payday so they can take their money home to their families.

How can you expect them to clean it up like that.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

Use some common sense and get off of your own personal agenda's and get behind our troops. PERIOD

All because you are seeking your own agenda.

See if you make it in office again.

Thank you for your time.

Your's Truly,

I think the Democrats are just mad because President Bush is going to make it into the history books as one that made a difference and it wasn't one of theirs.

The major difference with this one is that there is a civil war in Iraq.

Iraq can not clean it up by themselves.
They don't even have banks. So the Iraqi soldiers leave there units (for several days at a time) come payday so they can take their money home to their families.

How can you expect them to clean it up like that.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

Use some common sense and get off of your own personal agenda's and get behind our troops. PERIOD

All because you are seeking your own agenda.

See if you make it in office again.

Thank you for your time.

Your's Truly,


Remember Our Soldiers in Your Prayers

I firmly believe our Military and the Troops who have stood with us (whether people want to admit it or not...are THE reason ALL of North America is free and are here openly discussing it on forums)...will be the ones to eventually get fed up with the Democrats and Media hype back here while they're over there and other places...doing the work... and start their own chain of talk which won't be silenced.

And our position with our allies like England, Canada, and Australia.
Have we forgotten how hard it was to get the other countries to pitch in.

(Msg. 453) starzeyez (aka redheadgidget)wrote:
The Posters from other Countries.... logic dictates...don't have anywhere near the REAL contact with our Troops; therefore, when they speak for our Troops, it's a moot point.

Again, I have no problem with Lt Watada's stance on the war...he is allowed to have his own opinions and say what he wishes.

I do have a problem in that Watada and his supporters do no believe he should be punished...I'm sorry, but the LT did break an article of the UCMJ...with which he agreed to abide. He did miss movement and did disobey an lawful order.

1) Does not complying with the deployment in the fashion he did constitute "breaking the law."

2) What exactly is the UCMJ and what exactly does a violation constitute?

3) Do other clauses in the UCMJ, Oaths of service or Domestic and International Law allow for Watada's action?

That all depends on your interpretation of such things as "defend the Constitution", "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land", the Nuremburg Protocols and the Geneva and Hague Conventions. There seems to be some difference of opinion on what these mean and how they apply to the US.

" In 1944, in this same building, on this same floor, Congress approved war that sent the 82nd Airborne and others to Normandy.
Today we have members of the 82nd Airborne in Bagdad. I can see one of those soldiers take a can of spray paint and write these words." "I was standing right here when Congress rejected my mission."

WATADA FOLLOWS MILITARY RULES ON DISSENT: Mistrial Declared as Army’s Case Flounders
Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2007-02-12 06:10. Nonviolent Resistance

BY COLONEL (RETIRED) ANN WRIGHT

Courage on the battlefield is not the only place where that quality is shown by military personnel. It takes guts and courage for a soldier to refuse to deploy to Iraq with one’s unit because he believes the war is illegal. Very few in our country resign from their careers, much less risk imprisonment, on a point of principle and conscience.

First Lieutenant Ehren Watada is the latest in a series of war resisters who has been in front of a military court-martial for his belief that the war in Iraq is a war of aggression based on untruths told to the American public and Congress. As a war of aggression, Watada has characterized the war as a crime against peace, hence, according to international law, a war crime. Going to Iraq would make him complicit in a war crime. Two other US Army soldiers will be court-martialed within the next month for their opposition to the Iraq war, making seventeen who have faced jail rather than compromise their conscience.

I attended Lieutenant Watada’s general court-martial February 5, 6 and 7, 2007 at Fort Lewis, Washington. The military law judge, Lieutenant Colonel John Head declared a mistrial on the third day of the trial before the defense presented its case. While Watada stipulated to the fact that he missed his unit’s deployment to Iraq, he pled not guilty to the charge, as he maintained he did not have criminal intent in refusing to deploy, but instead his refusal was to prevent his complicity in a war crime. To the stipulation of fact that he had spoken in a public forum in June and August, he would argue that his statements about the illegality of the war were based on facts provided by international law experts, Congressional testimony and comments by retired General officers.

The defense was to consist of only two witnesses, one of whom was to be Watada himself. Eight witnesses, including leading international war experts and analysts, had been struck from the defense witness list by the judge in a January, 2007 pre-trial hearing. The judge ruled that evidence concerning the legality of the war on Iraq was off-limits during the trial. As one can imagine, the courtroom dance of not mentioning the “ultimate question,” whether a soldier can question the legality of a war, proved to be an incredible obstacle to justice in the case of a military officer facing prison time for his beliefs.

The US Army prosecution called only three witnesses to meet its burden of providing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Lieutenant Watada had failed to deploy to Iraq and had committed conduct “unbecoming an officer” for public statements about the war on Iraq he made in June and August, 2006.

Ironically, in my opinion, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses underscored Lieutenant Watada’s professionalism, dedication to duty and respect for the chain of command as he attempted to resolve his ethical and moral concerns about the war. In effect, prosecution witnesses undercut the prosecution’s own case against Watada before the jury panel of seven US Army officers

Prosecution witness Richard Swain, a retired US Army Colonel and currently professor of “Officership” at the US Military Academy, West Point, said that an officer is under no obligation to obey unlawful orders. An officer is charged with the responsibility of making a determination whether an order is lawful or unlawful. According to Swain, when an officer believes that an order conflicts with his responsibility as an officer, he must do what his conscience tells him. But, the officer must be willing to be held accountable if he is wrong in his analysis of the order. Swain said that the military teaches officers to be “creative and critical thinkers.” He also said that an officer takes an oath to defend the constitution of the United States, not a particular person or policy.

Swain said in one’s career, an officer may come to different conclusions on an issue than his/her commander. Swain said that military tradition requires that the officer attempt first to work out the difference with his commander. Swain added that an officer may get advice from his peers, officers he respects, mentors and military lawyers on the issue under debate. He may also go to the next higher commander for resolution of the differences or to the Inspector General. If none of those attempts to resolve the differences are successful, Swain said the officer may “appeal for redress” or submit his resignation. If an officer offers to resign on principle on a particular issue and the resignation is not accepted, then Swain noted that the oath continues.

It appears to me that Lieutenant Watada explicitly followed the principles of “officership” as described by Colonel Swain, the prosecution expert witness.

In the autumn of 2005, upon learning of his unit’s scheduled deployment to Iraq in June, 2006, Watada, on the advice of his commander, began reading about Iraq and the war. As more and more information emerged in late 2005 on the history of the Bush administration’s decision to wage war on Iraq, Watada became convinced that the war was illegal. He talked with his battalion and brigade commanders about his concerns in January, 2006 and sent them a formal letter of his views on January 25, 2006, six months before the unit’s scheduled deployment to Iraq. His commanders advised him, that despite his concern on the illegality of the war, that the unit’s deployment orders were lawful. Watada respectfully disagreed with his superiors’ assessment and twice submitted requests for resignation. Because of the strength of his concerns about the war, his commanders reassigned him from his platoon in anticipation that really would refuse to deploy with the unit. After his second request to resign was denied by his commanders and his request to be assigned to a unit in Afghanistan was denied, he decided he must make his concerns public.

His commanders told him they would rather he not make public statements, but if he did, he could not make statements in uniform, or on-base and that he must be respectful of the chain of command. Additionally they told him he must talk with the public affairs officer at Fort Lewis. After the conversation with his commanders, Watada went directly to that office for further guidance.

In his testimony for the prosecution, Watada’s battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel Antonia, said that “a soldier has an obligation to determine if an order is unlawful, a criminally illegal order.” He added that “the chain of command looks at an order and makes a decision on whether it is legal or not. If the chain of command says the order is legal, then the officer must obey.” Antonia said when Watada went public, he, Antonia, was “angry and felt betrayed by Watada’s opinions and his statement that he would rather go to jail than serve in an illegal war.” Antonia questioned how a Lieutenant in the Army would know whether the President made a decision to go to war based on lies. When defense attorney Eric Seitz asked Antonia if Watada was citing the same evidence about the war that was being publicly discussed by retired Generals, Congressmen and women, the judge told Seitz to “move on,” that he was bringing up an issue too close to the “ultimate question.”

Despite his concerns about the war from July 2005 to June 2006, his battalion and brigade commanders said he performed his duties in a professional manner, including participating in his unit’s pre-deployment training at the National Training Center (NTC) in March, 2006. He had followed the instructions and advice provided by his command. He was speaking publicly, but under the guidance of the Fort Lewis public affairs officer.

After returning from training at NTC, the Army recognized that Watada was serious and sincere in his decision not to go to Iraq. This unit commander had him reassigned from a platoon leader position to a staff job so that Watada’s platoon would have time to bond with its new leader.

Watada’s battalion and deputy brigade commander said that Watada’s actions did not negatively affect the unit, although there was much discussion in the unit about Watada’s decision not to deploy and his public statements. No other soldier in the unit followed Watada’s example and decided not to deploy with the unit to Iraq. No other soldier went public with their concerns about the war. As happens in every war, for most soldiers, bonds among friends going to war overcome whatever political discussions and debates rage about the war itself. Only seventeen military personnel will have been court-martialed for refusing to deploy to Iraq. Hundreds have been administratively discharged and over 300 soldiers are in Canada in protest of the war in Iraq.

The Army’s case against Lieutenant Watada is a mess. The testimony of the prosecution’s own witnesses made a strong case for Lieutenant Watada’s professionalism and respect for military customs, courtesy and traditions when one dissents from a policy.

As an old soldier with nearly three decades of service, I suggest that the “good order and discipline” of the Army has not been negatively affected by Lieutenant Watada’s actions. Until his unit deployed to Iraq on June 22, Watada had not disobeyed an order from his command. He did not go AWOL. After he was charged, he worked professionally and diligently everyday while awaiting his court martial.

I urge the Army to let the Lieutenant, who has acted in good faith, with courtesy and respect for the military and responsibility for his oath to the military and to the country, resign.

About the author:

US Army Reserves (Retired) Colonel Ann Wright served 13 years on active duty and 16 years in the reserves. She was a US diplomat who served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Micronesia, Sierra Leone and Mongolia. She helped reopen the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan in December, 2001. She resigned from the US diplomatic corps in March, 2003 in opposition to the Bush administration’s war on Iraq. Her letter of resignation can be read at www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0303/032103wright.htm

So hopefully we may get some response from a spouse, girlfriend/boyfriend, family member or servicemember.

I would suspect the following because of his actions.

1. We have already seen this one. The base commander had to beef up base security because of the demonstrators at the gates.

2. That would mean these guys ended up pulling extra time on duty away from their families.

3. That may be the case, on why there are so few guards or supervisors at Abu'Grave.

4. Did any bases go into lock-down? For those that have not served that means no one is allowed off base. Even if you and your family live off base. That really helped our poor soldiers when they are preparing for war and are not allowed to go home and see their families.

5. Did any bases the city put off limits due to all the protesters?
That would really help our soldiers when they are trying to go downtown and blow off some steam.

6. Due to the demonstrations that means Police, Sheriffs Departments, State Troopers, pulled over time, an extra cost to the local and federal community.

7. That meant less officers in the neighborhoods they were initially scheduled for.

8. Any property damage during this means an increase to property insurance.

9. Overtime for the city sanitation department.

10. How many military kids were picked on or beat up at school because they over heard their mom and dad bragging about participating in an anti-war demonstration?

11. Or the witnesses for the prosecution, unit Commanders in Iraq and we have to fly them back for trial of this Lt?

12. How much time are commanders are tied up on him vs training time, or prep for deployment time with their soldiers?

13. How many small business's closed because the troops were not allowed to spent their money downtown?

14. How many street signs, street lights, mailboxes had to be fixed or replaced. At tax payers expense?

15. How many family cars were damaged and the family doesn't have the money to fix or replace it?

16. How many soldiers have their mind else where instead of the job at hand?

Do you now see why I say this soldier should pay dearly?

And You want to call this a good thing?

Soldier pleads guilty to dodging 2nd Iraq tour
POSTED: 2:02 p.m. EST, February 22, 2007
Story Highlights· Soldier who dodged 2nd Iraq deployment pleads guilty
to desertion
· Spc. Mark Wilkerson will spend 10 months in military prison under
plea deal
· He wouldn't say where he was while AWOL


FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) -- A soldier who fled before his second
deployment to Iraq pleaded guilty Thursday to desertion under a plea
deal that will send him to military prison for less than a year.

"I quit the Army, I quit my unit, and I did not show up when I needed
to," Spc. Mark Wilkerson told a military judge during his sentencing
hearing.

Wilkerson, 23, surrendered at Fort Hood in August -- about a year and
a half after failing to return from an approved two-week leave --
saying he was tired of running and wanted to move forward with his
life.

He told the judge Thursday that he packed his belongings at Fort Hood
and put some in storage, then went home to Colorado Springs, Colorado,
for part of his leave. He didn't say where he spent his time while he
was absent without leave.

Before surrendering, he sought help from Cindy Sheehan's protest camp
in nearby Crawford, which helps educate soldiers about their rights as
war resisters.

As part of his plea bargain, the judge will sentence Wilkerson to no
more than 10 months in prison for desertion and missing troop
movement, Wilkerson's lawyer Michael J. Duncan said.

Relatives of Wilkerson testified on his behalf Thursday, and more
witnesses were expected later in the afternoon at the sentencing. The
prosecution didn't call any witnesses.

Since his return, Wilkerson has worked in an office at the Central
Texas Army post and has been allowed to leave after initially being
confined to the post, although he was never in a cell, he said.

Wilkerson said he decided to go AWOL because his conscientious
objector status was denied a month before his unit was to return to
Iraq in early 2005. Wilkerson, who was 17 when he enlisted, has said
his views on the war changed after he served in Iraq for a year
beginning with the March 2003 invasion.

Two weeks ago at Fort Lewis, Wash., a judge declared a mistrial in the
court-martial of an Army lieutenant who refused to deploy to Iraq. A
new trial is set for next month for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada of Honolulu,
who has said he refused to go because he believes the war is illegal.

Army medic Agustin Aguayo, who turned himself in last fall after
fleeing before his second deployment to Iraq, is scheduled for trial
next month in Germany.

Army Files New Charges in Watada Court-Martial
By Christian Hill
The Olympian

Saturday 24 February 2007

The Army has filed a new round of charges against a Fort Lewis officer who refused to deploy to Iraq and spoke out publicly against the war, resurrecting a high-profile case aborted by a mistrial two weeks ago.

In a widely expected move, the Army on Friday filed the same charges against Lt. Ehren Watada that were brought against him in the wake of his refusal to board a plane bound for the Middle East on June 22.

Watada is charged with missing troop movement and conduct unbecoming an officer for statements critical of the Bush administration and the war that he made in speeches and to journalists.

Two of the four original specifications, or counts, for conduct unbecoming were dropped as part of a pretrial agreement with Army prosecutors before his court-martial began Feb. 5.

The judge declared a mistrial on the third day of proceedings after determining Watada didn't understand the agreement he had signed.

The judge determined Watada had inadvertently confessed guilt to an offense despite telling the judge otherwise.

If convicted on all counts, Watada faces up to six years in prison and dismissal, the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge from the military.

A new trial date hasn't been scheduled.

Watada's civilian attorney, Eric Seitz, maintained after the mistrial that his client couldn't be retried due to "double jeopardy," a constitutional protection that bars someone from being tried for the same offense twice.

He blasted the Army's decision to refile charges, telling The Associated Press he'd seek to have them dismissed.

"When it's not going well for you, you can't just call a mistrial and start over again," Seitz told the wire service. "No matter how much lip service they give to wanting to protect my client's rights, that just doesn't exist in the military courts."

Double jeopardy doesn't apply in this case because the court-martial didn't reach a "point of finality," said Leslie Kaye, a Fort Lewis spokeswoman. As a result, "The Army, or the government, has the authority to bring the case anew, which it did today," she said.

The refiled charges mean journalists could be subpoenaed to testify in Watada's second court-martial.

The Army and defense team had subpoenaed two journalists to verify the accuracy of the statements they attributed to Watada during interviews. But their testimony wasn't needed because in the pretrial agreement, Watada admitted to making those and other statements that served as the basis for the misconduct charge.

Without another agreement, which was the source of the mistrial, "it is a possibility that the reporters will be called," Kaye said. She reiterated that the Army would not ask for notes, tapes or the identity of anonymous sources.

Still, one of the subpoenaed journalists, Sarah Olson, a radio producer and independent journalist based in Oakland, Calif., has raised public concerns about her ability to gain the trust of sources if she participates in the prosecution of one of them.

Watada says he has a duty to not serve in a war he maintains is illegal and immoral, a stance that has won him accolades from anti-war groups and scorn from many military veterans who brand him a traitor. He attempted to resign his commission and serve in Afghanistan, but the Army refused those requests.



Go to Original

Army, Watada "Back at Square One"
By Gregg K. Kakesako
The Star Bulletin

Saturday 24 February 2007

The military charges the officer again after his first court-martial ended in a mistrial.

The Army has reinstated its entire case against 1st. Lt. Ehren Watada, whose first court-martial for refusing to deploy to Iraq ended in a mistrial this month.

"We're back to square one," Leslie Kaye, spokeswoman for Fort Lewis, Wash., where Watada is being court-martialed, said yesterday.

Watada, born and raised in Honolulu, faces a maximum jail term of six years and a dishonorable discharge. The Army has not set a date for a second court-martial.

The charges include two that had been dropped as part of a pretrial agreement in the first court-martial. It was that pretrial agreement that derailed the first military trial on Feb. 7.

The judge, Lt. Col. John Head, said he did not believe Watada fully understood the agreement he signed admitting elements of the charges. As part of that agreement, the Army dropped two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer, lowering his potential sentence to four years.

Eric Seitz, Watada's attorney, said yesterday he was upset that the Army had not informed him of its latest actions.

"I don't know anything," said Seitz. "I haven't seen it so I don't know."

After the mistrial Seitz contended that Watada, 28, cannot be tried again because it would be a case of double jeopardy and that he would file a motion to dismiss the case.

"When it's not going well for you, you can't just call a mistrial and start over again," Seitz told the Associated Press. "No matter how much lip service they give to wanting to protect my client's rights, that just doesn't exist in the military courts."

Fort Lewis spokesman Joseph Piek said double jeopardy did not apply in this case because the first trial was never completed.

A news release from Fort Lewis, where Watada was assigned to the 2nd Infantry Division's 3rd Brigade before it shipped out to Iraq on June 22, said the next step is for a military judge to pick a new court-martial date after talking with Seitz and other lawyers involved in the case.

Seitz has said the earliest a second court-martial could take place is this summer because he and Watada's military-appointed lawyer are busy with other cases. Watada is believed to be the first Army officer to be court-martialed for refusing to deploy to Iraq.

Watada, a 1996 Kalani High School graduate, is again charged with missing movement, and one charge of conduct unbecoming an officer. The latter charge accuses him in four instances of making public statements criticizing the war or President Bush.

Watada's Stryker Brigade Combat Team is expected to return to Fort Lewis this summer.

"When it's not going well for you, you can't just call a mistrial and start over again,"

"Why are these trials happening in Germany?"

I could give you a long story about convening authorities and officers exercising general court martial jurisdiction -- but the short version is -- a court martial is generally held where the soldier's unit happens to be. In this case, probably Germany.